Quick Heal is bull$hit

[blackpearl]

vimal, my friend I have tried other AV's also like Norton, PC-Cillin, AVG, Avast, Avira, McAfee. But didn't find someone like qh which have suck great features. Even I have Norton Full version CD came with my PC but I didn't use it because it didn't have features like qh.

I don't know with what great features of QH you fell in love, that is not found on other AVs. You are emphasising more on the interface rather than on its function. Judging an AV on its looks is the dumbest thing you can do. Read reviews, go look at websites that test AVs (not the official website of the AVs, by the way), visit tech forums, take advice (if that word means anything to you) and then decide which AV to choose. Ask yourself, what do you need? A good looking AV or an AV that does great job. Don't tell me that since you did not get a virus, it must be good. Read others replies and how they got virus inspite of using QH. That other person could well have been you. Why take risk? Why not use a virus that can protect your PC better?

And finally please stop advicing others to use QH. This is my request.

 

[thunderbird.117]

I don't know with what great features of QH you fell in love, that is not found on other AVs. You are emphasising more on the interface rather than on its function. Judging an AV on its looks is the dumbest thing you can do. Read reviews, go look at websites that test AVs (not the official website of the AVs, by the way), visit tech forums, take advice (if that word means anything to you) and then decide which AV to choose. Ask yourself, what do you need? A good looking AV or an AV that does great job. Don't tell me that since you did not get a virus, it must be good. Read others replies and how they got virus inspite of using QH. That other person could well have been you. Why take risk? Why not use a virus that can protect your PC better?

And finally please stop advicing others to use QH. This is my request.

I fully agree with you.

 

[abhijangda]

I don't know with what great features of QH you fell in love, that is not found on other AVs. You are emphasising more on the interface rather than on its function. Judging an AV on its looks is the dumbest thing you can do. Read reviews, go look at websites that test AVs (not the official website of the AVs, by the way), visit tech forums, take advice (if that word means anything to you) and then decide which AV to choose. Ask yourself, what do you need? A good looking AV or an AV that does great job. Don't tell me that since you did not get a virus, it must be good. Read others replies and how they got virus inspite of using QH. That other person could well have been you. Why take risk? Why not use a virus that can protect your PC better?

And finally please stop advicing others to use QH. This is my request.

Blackpearl, the threats you are saying that are viruses will not be viruses but instead they will spyware or adware. Even I have spyware on my computer so to protect I have Windows Defender, Ad-Aware and Spybot. Finally, I haven't advice any other to use qh. You haven't understand my posts. I am not advicing any one to use qh but just saying that I like it and my experience proves it.

 

[wilderness]

Ok guys,

I came to this page about a week ago because I was having a problem with QuickHeal updates(and google directed me here). I was sceptical of QuickHeal. It did not detect stuff that even a free AV like Avira Personal edition would.

My office here has QuickHeal installed on all PCs. I found it very unreliable and ineffective. It let go of stuff that was easily detected by free AVs like Avira Personal Edition.

Since the problem did not resolve, the admin installed QH 2007 Plus on my pc yesterday. Well, I admit that it sure has improved. I am running a full system scan now and it has already detected 3 trojans (which were missed by Avira. I installed avira too on my office pc, without telling my admin, since I did not trust QuickHeal. I turned off the avira av guard and used it to manually scan files).

AT home, I use bitdefender free, avira free and clamwin free on my laptop. IMHO, the best of the lot is bitdefender free, because it has good file type support and speed. It lacks an automatic online scanner though. For that I have avira, which is just about OK for my needs. (No email scanner, etc but I dont use outlook etc on my laptop so its just fine).

I too not had a good opinion of QuickHeal, but QuickHeal 2007 plus has improved. Try it out if you feel like. It even has a firewall bundled. I am not saying that QuickHeal is the bestest AV out there or anything like that. It still leaves a lot to be desired. It does not beat bigshot AVs like KAV, pc-cillin. All I want to convey is that the 2007 version is much improved and effective. I am trying to give a true opinion, as a fellow Digit reader.

I am not forcing anyone to use QH (I dont work for Quickheal ) , this is just my experience.

 

[s18000rpm]

Ok guys,



AT home, I use bitdefender free, avira free and clamwin free on my laptop. IMHO, the best of the lot is bitdefender free, because it has good file type support and speed. It lacks an automatic online scanner though. For that I have avira, which is just about OK for my needs. (No email scanner, etc but I dont use outlook etc on my laptop so its just fine).

ohh maan
why THREE AV in a PC

just install AVG Free & ZoneAlarm Free & be free of Trojans & virus

for Anti-spyware- Windows Defender / AVG AntiSpyware / spybot...

your Laptop will be cursing you for installing & using three AV's

btw whats in you Laptop (sooo much of security actions taken), just dont click suspicous links & visit warez sites, with this habit, you wont even need a AV solution.

 

[djmykey]

See if you scan ur pc with diff av's u will always find some virii in ur system. That is my exp. So what I suggest is get a good one no matter which on. Trust it fully and dont use anything else.

 

[nileshgr]

@s18 in tamil it wud b something like this- "Onglod pc la virus aa quickheal?" i m nilesh.3892's brother. so i knw tamil.

 

[wilderness]

ohh maan
why THREE AV in a PC

just install AVG Free & ZoneAlarm Free & be free of Trojans & virus

for Anti-spyware- Windows Defender / AVG AntiSpyware / spybot...

your Laptop will be cursing you for installing & using three AV's

btw whats in you Laptop (sooo much of security actions taken), just dont click suspicous links & visit warez sites, with this habit, you wont even need a AV solution.

Yeah, three AV but two of them are just on demand scanners. They dont run in the background. I disable the services too. I enable only when I need the on demand scanner. In effect, it is only avira free that is continuously monitoring.

Well, the laptop is a dual core , it is pretty fast.

I dont prefer AVG. It doesnt have good detection rates. Maybe it has improved since I last used it when in college, but I dont like its UI either. It isnt easy to configure etc...

See if you scan ur pc with diff av's u will always find some virii in ur system. That is my exp. So what I suggest is get a good one no matter which on. Trust it fully and dont use anything else.

Yes, exactly thats my experience. Bitdefender sometimes detects stuff that avira misses out, and avira finds something that bd misses out.

The truth is - No AV is perfect as of today, not a single one. They overlap. One AV will not be a single solution. Yeah, but two automatic scanners installed means they interfere with each other. So better have one automatic scanner, and then add a few offline / on-demand scanners (Disable all their services and remove from startup etc. if the scanner has online scanning feature )

 

[vish786]

I think you all are mad and even kiran tech mania. How can you say any thing to Quick Heal without using it. Anyone of you know how to use Quick Heal (qh). I am using it for more than one year and haven't gotten a virus. It is having features like daily update, weekly update and monthly update. And only he knows who uses it for more than one year like me not that one who uses it not even a hour. You have done daily update not monthly update. For "scan all files" question run qh then go to options. Then go to scan options there you will find what items to scan and select all files ok beginner. One who uses a thing for more than 1 year like me and is expert of that can tell whether it is good or bad but not a new born child like you can tell about it. I have to use this type of language becuase of you only. Now see inside you and find why. Ok mad people.

yes buddy i completely agree with u their is no point in judgin a software without usin it completely....... so guys THINK BEFORE YOU INK.... quick heal has the best healing method than any other software in the market.... i am tellin this becoz i hav tested a numerous times..... norton is heavy it slows down the system and does not detect all viruses especially worms and trojans so it lacks their and cannot heal a file it either deletes the complete file.... so its not so efficient.... and avg is better than norton, small and stable it also lacks to detect major viruses.... avast is waste.... the only best antivirus i hav found till date is Quick heal its the best in detectin virus, i am tellin this becoz of my own experience i dont hav a single virus in my com even if i access the most dangerous site on net in terms of viruses and worms, infact i hav a cd of viruses, worms and trojans and i hav tested quick heal on it, it has the best healin power... let me give an example now imagine u hav an setup.exe file a virus which injects into the setup.exe file so the setup.exe is corrupted i mean the virus is in setup file their is no separate file other than setup.exe file(this is possible when the virus has strong codin ) when i used quick heal it removed the virus from setup.exe file and brought back the original setup.exe this operation is an example and this method is not implemented in norton or any other antivirus..... guys i hav tested it..... so i am tellin my experience.... it completely depends on ur choice which antivirus u use...... for me quick heal is the master in antivirus i dont care what people tell about it until the antivirus is serving my purpose....... the end

 

[kumarmohit]

^^

Avast is Waste

Now which is a bigger joke, this one, or that QH is a great AV.

 

[djmykey]

Oh so now vish786 also thinks. See there is no problem about telling this. But please do not get ballistic abt it. I also lost my cool over this av just because the qh guys used to bill me like hell and didnt give me proper service. vish786 and abhijangda just a tip. If you can some how please test this av for W95.Spaces virus. The one that makes a desktop.ini and folder.htt in each and every folder you create. Qh never detected this virus. And u can take it from me this virus pi$$e$ me off. I had to format my whole cafe 4-5 times coz of this. Just give it a check coz this virus is too old and the av just thot that it was much a threat. Its even known by the name Redlof I guess.

 

[wilderness]

yes buddy i completely agree with u their is no point in judgin a software without usin it completely....... so guys THINK BEFORE YOU INK.... quick heal has the best healing method than any other software in the market.... i am tellin this becoz i hav tested a numerous times..... norton is heavy it slows down the system and does not detect all viruses especially worms and trojans so it lacks their and cannot heal a file it either deletes the complete file.... so its not so efficient.... and avg is better than norton, small and stable it also lacks to detect major viruses.... avast is waste.... the only best antivirus i hav found till date is Quick heal its the best in detectin virus, i am tellin this becoz of my own experience i dont hav a single virus in my com even if i access the most dangerous site on net in terms of viruses and worms, infact i hav a cd of viruses, worms and trojans and i hav tested quick heal on it, it has the best healin power... let me give an example now imagine u hav an setup.exe file a virus which injects into the setup.exe file so the setup.exe is corrupted i mean the virus is in setup file their is no separate file other than setup.exe file(this is possible when the virus has strong codin ) when i used quick heal it removed the virus from setup.exe file and brought back the original setup.exe this operation is an example and this method is not implemented in norton or any other antivirus..... guys i hav tested it..... so i am tellin my experience.... it completely depends on ur choice which antivirus u use...... for me quick heal is the master in antivirus i dont care what people tell about it until the antivirus is serving my purpose....... the end

Ok vish, Quick Heal has improved now, but dont think that if you have antivirus A or B, you wont have viruses. No AV is perfect as of now. I prefer multiple AVs on my PC (with only one running in the background, others for leaving the scan on overnight). For example, just a week ago, trojan.zapchast was not found by QH, but bitdefender free detected it.

 

[vish786]

Ok vish, Quick Heal has improved now, but dont think that if you have antivirus A or B, you wont have viruses. No AV is perfect as of now. I prefer multiple AVs on my PC (with only one running in the background, others for leaving the scan on overnight). For example, just a week ago, trojan.zapchast was not found by QH, but bitdefender free detected it.

yes its correct no antivirus is perfect but wat i meant was QUICK HEAL IS BEST AMONG THE REST

Oh so now vish786 also thinks. See there is no problem about telling this. But please do not get ballistic abt it. I also lost my cool over this av just because the qh guys used to bill me like hell and didnt give me proper service. vish786 and abhijangda just a tip. If you can some how please test this av for W95.Spaces virus. The one that makes a desktop.ini and folder.htt in each and every folder you create. Qh never detected this virus. And u can take it from me this virus pi$$e$ me off. I had to format my whole cafe 4-5 times coz of this. Just give it a check coz this virus is too old and the av just thot that it was much a threat. Its even known by the name Redlof I guess.

buddy just send a report(if u hav time) about the virus to quick heal people... they would appreciate it..... guys their is no point in arguing.... just use AV which u like....

 

[wilderness]

yes its correct no antivirus is perfect but wat i meant was QUICK HEAL IS BEST AMONG THE REST

Well, that is subjective . Depends on what you look for in an AV.

 

[AcceleratorX]

Okay, I came back after more than a year specifically to post in this thread. If you know of any AV experts working for a vendor outside QuickHeal, then you will get from them that QuickHeal is utter rubbish as an AV. The 2007 version has improved somewhat, but QH has a very long way to go if Cat means to be one of the world leaders. Why?

Because being an international vendor requires commitment, support and hard work. Quick Heal does not even offer 24x7 phone support. Their engineers of course never show up when called, and honestly, the company is more interested in making money than honouring its customers. Indian companies often like to rape their customers, and QH is no different.

Quickheal's so-called "DNAScan" is nothing but a cleverly disguised and somewhat edited file packer detector. So if a file is clean and not infected with any malware at all, but still this file is runtime compressed with for example the Armadillo packer, then you can expect a DNAScan detection from QuickHeal. QuickHeal has even threatened a user on another forum with legal action in the past if he published the information of QuickHeal's so-called "heuristic" engine. IMO Cat computer systems is an unethical and lying idiotic Indian company whom I'll never have any respect for. MicroWorld, which produces eScan, is far better.

Now, the main drawbacks with QuickHeal are:

- Extremely poor unpack engine, leading to many useless DNAScan detections, and hence a somewhat high number of false positives
- Poor detection of old malware, newer malware detection is OK, but not the best
- Joke of a heuristic engine
- No 24x7 support (not required for home users, but essential for businesses)
- A perceived lack of commitment and responsibility from CAT.

Honestly, even the worst AV of China is slightly better than Quick Heal. I have tested many products myself, and I find Quick Heal to be fundamentally flawed. If you are really interested in securing your computer, I recommend you to use Avast, AVG, AVIRA, BitDefender, Kaspersky or NOD32. If you want to see a reliable AV-test, I suggest you see *www.av-comparatives.org

QuickHeal does not even qualify to be in ths test, and that by itself shows a lot about it. I'm not here to rant and rave about QH, and if someone likes it, they are free to use it, but QuickHeal is hardly the best AV and anyone who uses it has already lost the fight against malware.

 

[s18000rpm]

Because being an international vendor requires commitment, support and hard work. Quick Heal does not even offer 24x7 phone support. Their engineers of course never show up when called, and honestly, the company is more interested in making money than honouring its customers. Indian companies often like to rape their customers, and QH is no different.

ohhh man

 

[blackpearl]

I welcome AcceletorX's valuable input. This thread was created to spread awareness among the AV users, because QuickHeal is very bad indeed, and anybody using it has already lost the fight against malware as AcceletorX has says.

 

[AcceleratorX]

I welcome AcceletorX's valuable input. This thread was created to spread awareness among the AV users, because QuickHeal is very bad indeed, and anybody using it has already lost the fight against malware as AcceletorX has says.

Well, I have more to add. QuickHeal winds Virus Bulletin and Check Mark awards due to these reasons:

1) Check Mark is a paid test. You can keep paying again and again till your product passes the test. So undoubtedly QuickHeal has unlimited chances to "optimize" itself for this particular test.

2) Virus Bulletin award is granted to those who get 100% detection of "in-the-wild" malware. This usually includes those malware which make the news. Unfortunately, many, and I mean many, users are infected with "zoo" malware, which are not highly spreading but infect many PCs anyway. An example of a "zoo" malware is a trojan that infects your PC when you browse a cracks or porn website. Believe me when I say it, QuickHeal's detection of zoo malware is absolute crap.

Now, AV-comparatives and AV-test.org test both zoo and ITW samples, and hence these two tests provide a much broader view of the detection rate of various AVs. Other less reliable tests are virus.gr and malware-test.com, as these two tests often contain many corrupted samples which alters the detection rates of many AVs somewhat.

Anyhow, QuickHeal's performance in all the four tests mentioned above has been consistently bad. QuickHeal's team refused to let AV-comparatives test their product (i.e. they did not reply to the request), as they knew their product was BS.

Now, let me show you the bad performance of QuickHeal in other tests. First of all is AV-test.org's test back in December where QuickHeal scores a very bad 57.48% (see below)

*www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=155906

And again, a second test which shows how bad this AV is...(In the below link, it is written in German language. The test analyses the detection performance of various AVs against a newly detected exploit and its various variants. 144 samples were used in this particular test.)

*www.pcwelt.de/news/sicherheit/76097/index.html

And again....(see the beautiful 37.29% detection rate of QuickHeal)

*www.malware-test.com/antivirus.html

And yet again....Note the 33% detection.

*www.virus.gr/english/fullxml/default.asp?id=82&mnu=82

Also, I want anyone remotely interested in this product to read these 2 threads:

*www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=92212
*www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=97609

As you can see, QuickHeal consistently performs like total bullshit when faced with malware that is not of the so-called "in-the-wild" malware. Both Virus Bulletin and Check Mark test only for detection of ITW malware. Also, as you have read in those threads above, QuickHeal has even threatened someone with legal action when he tried to test it.

I rest my case here, and hope that this is enough proof to show that QuickHeal is total BS as an AV. No matter how good or how bad the testing methodology, QuickHeal's results remain near the bottom. The product sucks, the company sucks, the technology sucks and the people working there suck.

 

[thunderbird.117]

I agree QH is BS. The only thing is how can we shut the media for promoting this dangerous company and their products like QH.

I hear them on radio everyday.

 

[djmykey]

Virus Bulletin award is granted to those who get 100% detection of "in-the-wild" malware. This usually includes those malware which make the news. Unfortunately, many, and I mean many, users are infected with "zoo" malware, which are not highly spreading but infect many PCs anyway. An example of a "zoo" malware is a trojan that infects your PC when you browse a cracks or porn website. Believe me when I say it, QuickHeal's detection of zoo malware is absolute crap.

Why dont we ban these tests then ? I mean a lay man user would be driven to think that this AV is pretty good at what it does. Lemme tell you I also dint know that these both tests were so lame till AcceleratorX clarified this point. I mean if its such a incomplete test why have it. We should have something that is complete and whole.