I don't know that the avast F/P problem is inherent to the build (2013)... more likely, it was dependent on the virusdatabase then under testing/consideration. [For what it's worth, the current avast 2014 build is 2018.]
F/P's are the main reason I choose to have avast ASK me what to do when it finds a "problem". Of course, not everyone is in a position to investigate such issues and make the appropriate decision --- most users rely on their anti-virus to proceed automatically... and as such, findings of many F/Ps is very problematic :emotion-6:
As Joe noted, Win32:Evo-gen [Susp] is a generic/heuristic detection used by Avast Antivirus products for a file that appears to havesuspicious behavior. By its very nature, any generic/heuristic/behavioral detection is more prone to a F/P than a signature-based detection... so users need take extra care whenever such generic detection is asserted.
Suffice it to say, I'm disappointed by avast's showing in this test... and pleased by Panda's.
I don't worry too much about tests of FPs from on-demand scans, when choosing an AV, for several reasons:
- I don't run too many on-demand scans, and certainly not deep or whole system scans. - The FP files AV-C detects in this test I have mostly never heard of. - Like ky331, I always configure my AV to notify only, not delete or quarantine anything.
Avast Free has no reputation for detecting lots of FPs- I too suspect the latest AV-C test was an aberration due to the database, as ky suggested. Six months ago, when AV-C last ran this test, the tables were turned, with Panda Coud Free having 20 FPs, and Avast Free only 10. (Again, most were generic heuristic detections). I was using both of these free AVs at the time, but recall no FP detections by either.
The undisputed king of low FP detections for some years now is MSE (Defender in Win8). Balanced against this is its consistently lower protection rates in the Real-World tests. Despite the test results, none of these 3 free AVs has allowed any malware on any of my systems. Depending on your safe-surfing habits, and additional layers of security, YMMV.
ky331
3 Apprentice
•
15.6K Posts
0
April 26th, 2014 06:00
I don't know that the avast F/P problem is inherent to the build (2013)... more likely, it was dependent on the virus database then under testing/consideration. [For what it's worth, the current avast 2014 build is 2018.]
F/P's are the main reason I choose to have avast ASK me what to do when it finds a "problem". Of course, not everyone is in a position to investigate such issues and make the appropriate decision --- most users rely on their anti-virus to proceed automatically... and as such, findings of many F/Ps is very problematic :emotion-6:
As Joe noted, Win32:Evo-gen [Susp] is a generic/heuristic detection used by Avast Antivirus products for a file that appears to have suspicious behavior. By its very nature, any generic/heuristic/behavioral detection is more prone to a F/P than a signature-based detection... so users need take extra care whenever such generic detection is asserted.
Suffice it to say, I'm disappointed by avast's showing in this test... and pleased by Panda's.
joe53
2 Intern
•
5.8K Posts
0
April 26th, 2014 21:00
I don't worry too much about tests of FPs from on-demand scans, when choosing an AV, for several reasons:
- I don't run too many on-demand scans, and certainly not deep or whole system scans.
- The FP files AV-C detects in this test I have mostly never heard of.
- Like ky331, I always configure my AV to notify only, not delete or quarantine anything.
Avast Free has no reputation for detecting lots of FPs- I too suspect the latest AV-C test was an aberration due to the database, as ky suggested. Six months ago, when AV-C last ran this test, the tables were turned, with Panda Coud Free having 20 FPs, and Avast Free only 10. (Again, most were generic heuristic detections). I was using both of these free AVs at the time, but recall no FP detections by either.
The undisputed king of low FP detections for some years now is MSE (Defender in Win8). Balanced against this is its consistently lower protection rates in the Real-World tests. Despite the test results, none of these 3 free AVs has allowed any malware on any of my systems. Depending on your safe-surfing habits, and additional layers of security, YMMV.