Hello DG, Monday, November 11, 2002, 9:51:10 PM, you wrote:
DRS> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- DRS> Hash: SHA1 DRS> Monday, November 11, 2002 DRS> 9:37:21 PM DRS> RE: "AVG plug in after re-installing?" DRS> Greetings rick, DRS> On Saturday, November 9, 2002, 1:37:44 PM, you wrote: r>> If you read the url I posted to thomas, r>> http://www.virusbtn.com/magazine/archives/pdf/2002/200206.pdf on page r>> 19 (pdf document) virus bulletin review explains clearly why they used r>> a older version of grisoft for the tests. There appeared to be r>> technical difficulties with grisoft. The AVG product caused blue r>> screens, and failed to update properly. DRS> Hmmmm. Been using AVG Pro in conjunction with Fprot Antivirus for a DRS> long time. I would question the results of these claims of failure, on DRS> the behalf of Grisoft, based simply on the fact that the testers were DRS> unable to run the current version of the AV without BSoD's (haven't run DRS> into that on ANY of the workstations here running Win95 through WinXP DRS> and there are 200+) which inclines me to believe that the testing DRS> company is having some serious problems with their OS's. DRS> As a network engineer and lead IS/IT I can say that no AV solution is DRS> 100% however Grisoft's AVG has yet to show any type of failure rate DRS> that is claimed above. DRS> Thanks. Bias is a wonderful thing in this world and so is belief. Vendors submit their products to virus bulletin for testing. The results speak for themselves. AVG is horrible. The one test you quote when AVG had BSOD problems is only one time. What about the other 17 failures? What is grisofts excuse? There is also a society called the 'flat earth society' who believe the earth is flat. There is also a group of people who do not believe that humans landed on the moon. I am not going to argue you the merits of the moon/flat earth societies but i will debate the validity of AVG. If you would research AVG via virus bulletin then perhaps you would learn and not be so biased. AVG is a poor performer and the testing clearly shows this. Here is quote from virus bulletin test of AVG nov, 2001 "It managed to produce a smattering of false positives in the clean test set which, akin to the previous product, scuppered AVG's attempt at gaining a VB100% award. AVG was also notable in this test for missing files in all of the test sets rather than the more limited selection which characterized detection rates over all products. Particularly surprising was the repeated missing of the .HTA sample of JS/Kak.A which has bee in the wild for a number of years." ON-DEMAND test results for AVG #of viruses missed during this test by AVG: in-the-wild : 1 macro : 20 polymorphic : an outstanding 167 standard : 66 total viruses missed : 254 test machine november 2001 was WindowsNT also there were numerous false positives. Why don't you investigate their testing methods. You put a virus on the computer and see if the product can detect it in default setting. Therefore if I had sent you the JS/KaK.A virus then you would have become infected with it probably unless you took other precautions because AVG would not have detected it even after this virus had been out for more than 2 years. And you defend this product? -- Best regards, rick ________________________________________________ Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
