OK, so you got the ntldr missing thing.
But you mentioned avast sandboxes…
I tested Avast with defaults & PUP enabled. With defaults Avast doesn’t sandboxes anything, right?
It just analyzes in sandbox & if malware found quarantines it & malware not found gives the option to continue or close.
I didn’t get you how the sandbox caused this prob?
I tested with defaults & to run anything sandbox is not available with defaults & the system was unbootable.
yes its a sandbox issue happening with the sandboxing of legit installers or somehow the driver is doing that…read previous replies and apply the fix and tell me how it goes.
I tested with some other pieces of old samples [mainly adware/non-malicious] and it did that again although sandbox didnt react with your samples.
Do you mean even though with defaults Avast doesn’t sandboxes anything, there was a prob due to which Avast was sandboxing in some case?
no it was a issue caused by old driver version apply the fix…that worked for me
did avast sandbox these MT samples in your tests??
How do I know Avast sandboxed or not the samples?
Whatever it analyzed in autosandbox, either found malware or gave the option to continue or close & I chose continue.
I think no need to test again as you mentioned it was coz of driver issue.
Yes And applying that fix should fix it…issue is only on XP thats why ryne’s test on youtube ended with the machine being unbootable it was the avast driver and not malware 
the issue arises in cases where installers or installer type apps are launched and avast sandboxes them…and avast already has a emergency update released for XP machines today so it should be fixed automatically by the emergency update schedular.
that pic was from 07 not 2013
???
That is MS Virtual PC 2007 as title bar stated
What do you mean by “not 2013”? What is the relevance?
??? ??? ???
Another great results from Avast :
what’s the test ? 22 undetected fresh samples (from 2 days old for the older one to ~30 min old for the fresh samples).
As usual, execution of each of the samples to see wether Avast is able to protect us vs new unknown malwares. Only 2 things out of 22 passed. Don’t quite understand why autosandbox did not appear for these 2 but still, impressive results.
Any questions ?
spwr
I dont really see how these results are relevant in a COMODO forum…Comodo would sooner users used their av rather than another.Its not good PR is it. >:-D >:-D
This is the correct area of the forum to discuss other vendors products. Just because it’s not about a Comodo product does not mean it’s now allowed to be posted in this forum.
Unlike many other forums Comodo does not censor others opinions of products other than its own. spywar is absolutely allowed to post reviews, and opinions, about Avast in this section of the forum. It’s up to each user to make up their own mind about what to use. Comodo does not force anyone to use their own product.
In my opinion, if someone believes another product will protect them better it’s up to them to decide which product to use. Personally, although the detection has obviously improved dramatically, I’m not willing to take the risk of even a few pieces of malware getting onto my system. That’s why I use default deny via CIS.
However, in terms of detection, it’s obvious that Avast is making great leaps, and I’m very interested to see how it continues in the long run.
I have seen a recent you tube test as well from Malwaredoctor and he also commented on the fact that a couple of malware got past Avast! but had not been caught by the sandbox. Maybe the sandbox in Avast! is not so good afterall and needs more work…good job i use Cis full sute as i have tested this god knows how many times on default and higher settings and whilst it has been confirmed the odd malware seems to get past it i have not personally experienced a bypass…
Regards
Dave1234.
Yes i must admit i feel more secure under comodo with its multi layered shield.Avast does have good detection of malware but the sandbox seems to be non-existent.
Totally wrong this is the kind of useless comment why ? You saw a useless test with useless samples …
I’m currently uplauding another one avast did even better with 5 autosandbox detections …
MalwareDoctor does not know how to test an AV belive it or not he thinks that a PUP is a malware
peace
spywar
:-TU
Good quality please ! ;D
spywar
Mrarnold,do you seriously believe that avast doesnt have good detection rate well,thepcsecurity just proved it:
and about malwaredoctor,the test was flawed you will notice if you have watched and observed it carefully and a lot of malware like botdd.exe,z.exe and plugin.exe that avast already blocked and quarantined with evo-gen were found in program files folder in some weird way even though it shouldnt land there but even if it was in that folder it cannot harm the machine because evo-gen would just block it from executing any way and what really came through were 2 suspicious files in system32/config folder…and about rynesandbergfan23 video there are bugs with avast sandbox and network shield right now on win xp and he had some bad samples that were just crashing and werent malicious at all and both the tests involved PUP’s and false positive files in question.
Here is a brief idea about the ahead plans for the sandbox,and the current sandbox skeptic will fall when this new technology will come into action (soon):