Don't get us wrong; we are AVG business users and will continue doing that. But there is always that application where it does not fit and you deviate from the path that has been implemented.

In our XEN server we have a virtual desktop that is required to interface with some dedicated hardware. This machine is the only possible method to make this work. But it also requires some low-end and low-impact protection and we planned to skip AVG for this machine so it could remain as compact and low maintenance as it is. We ran across Outpost and Comodo for this machine. To verify which packages are secure we stumbled into the website Matousec where a list of test where conducted also on AVG version 2013. Because AVG got really bad results we thought it may be wise to feed this information back to AVG to get an initial response and also to see how their products may be improved to harden against the test that they conducted.

The link to their page with tests and test reports:
http://www.matousec.com/projects/proactive-security-challenge-64/results.php

In the end we may still use AVG on that dedicated machine but that website seemed to have conducted test in a reasonable professional manner and got us worried that when we move over to AVG 2013 that we may not be optimal protected.

Hi GJZeil,

AVG does not agree with the testing methods used to evaluate the product, particularly relating to the Firewall testing. AVG 2012 also received the same low score so nothing has changed to make AVG 2013 a worse product than before.

I know its an old post, please find our vendor comments here:

http://www.matousec.com/projects/proactive-security-challenge/results.php#vendors-responses

Thanks,

Michael Allen

AVG Customer Services

http://www.avg.com



Join the AVG community!

http://www.facebook.com/AVGFree

http://www.twitter.com/avgfree

http://www.youtube.com/officialavg