# Quick Heal is bull$hit



## blackpearl (Sep 24, 2006)

After reading the reviews on different anti virus programs in Fast Track this month, I decided to try out some of them and do my own review. I was using Avast and though it has good detection, I was not happy because of its lack of heuristic scanning. One of the AV programs I tried was Quick Heal, and I tell you its worthless.

I have a couple of trojans and malicious programs on my computer (safely locked inside a folder) that I used to test the AV programs. Quick Heal failed to detect most of it!! It failed to detect even the famous backdoor trojan _Back Orifice_. There is another program which when run resets the BIOS; all AV I tested detected the program as either "malicious" or "trojan" except Quick Heal. It even failed to detect a few trojan binders that I have on my computer. The detection is very poor. If you are using Quick Heal, you might not be protected, specially from trojans. Another dumb feature in Quick Heal is that the resident program can scan only EXE files or user defined files. There is no option like "scan all files".

I haven't seen a worse AV like this. My advice is not to use Quick Heal.


----------



## ~Phenom~ (Sep 24, 2006)

I agree quick heal is useless.
BTW, can u tell me how u have kept viruses safely on ur system for testing AV????


----------



## blackpearl (Sep 24, 2006)

~Phenom~ said:
			
		

> BTW, can u tell me how u have kept viruses safely on ur system for testing AV????



No viruses, only trojans. Downloaded from the net, zipped them and stored them inside a folder and then locked the folder using Folder Lock. Its safe as long as you don't execute (double-click) on the trojans, have to be careful though. It also helps to test how well an AV can detect viruses/trojans inside an archive file. Only Bit Defender detected the trojans without opening the zip file, pretty smart. All others were able to detect them only after extracting the files from the archive. As for Quick Heal, it detected none.

Bit Defender is the best but is very heavy on resources and it slows down activities like opening programs and folders noticeably. Antivir is good too and light on resources and is fast.


----------



## rakeshishere (Sep 24, 2006)

blackpearl said:
			
		

> No viruses, only trojans. Downloaded from the net, zipped them and stored them inside a folder and then locked the folder using Folder Lock. Its safe as long as you don't execute (double-click) on the trojans, have to be careful though. It also helps to test how well an AV can detect viruses/trojans inside an archive file. Only Bit Defender detected the trojans without opening the zip file, pretty smart. All others were able to detect them only after extracting the files from the archive. As for Quick Heal, it detected none.
> 
> Bit Defender is the best but is very heavy on resources and it slows down activities like opening programs and folders noticeably. Antivir is good too and light on resources and is fast.



Well did u try NOD32..Suppose the resident program is ON and u try dwdnlng any stuff like virus,trojan...It nvr allows u ...The dwnld goes up till 99.9 % and on 100% the file just disappears[meaning gets deleted]...I have experienced this stuff


----------



## jz2linkinpark (Sep 24, 2006)

quick heal is $hit, so how were you able to collect the trojans?


----------



## soham (Sep 24, 2006)

PC-Cillin Internet Security 2007 is good too but is a bit heavy on resources. I suppose NOD 32 is the lightest amongst Antiviruses. Now only if it had a complete security suite.


----------



## rakeshishere (Sep 24, 2006)

soham said:
			
		

> PC-Cillin Internet Security 2007 is good too but is a bit heavy on resources. I suppose NOD 32 is the lightest amongst Antiviruses. Now only if it had a complete security suite.



I agree with u but i dnt think its incomplete ..Only stuff it doesnt boast like others and very less ad for the product but like others who sound hi-fi


----------



## anandk (Sep 24, 2006)

i agree , quickheal may not be considered as being a great av, but u really cant judge an av just bcox it misd a file. i usually have kav, avast, bitdfndr on my lappie, and many a times one misses, and the other detects it as malware. why just last week kav did not detect a trijan donloader as one, whereas avast identified it as one. was surprised !

kav, bitdefender, nod32 can be considered as the finest av, imo


----------



## blackpearl (Sep 24, 2006)

jz2linkinpark said:
			
		

> quick heal is $hit, so how were you able to collect the trojans?



I downloaded the trojans by temporarily disabling the resident program. By the way, I had downloaded these trojans a long time ago, maybe a year or so. At that time I was using Norton.



			
				anandk said:
			
		

> i agree , quickheal may not be considered as being a great av, but u really cant judge an av just bcox it misd a file. i usually have kav, avast, bitdfndr on my lappie, and many a times one misses, and the other detects it as malware. why just last week kav did not detect a trijan donloader as one, whereas avast identified it as one. was surprised !



Agreed. That happens.

From my personal experience, Norton has the best detection. Its script blocking utility is a great help when browsing the net. It detects even password breaking programs like _Cain & Abel_ and I have seen it detecting exploits written in Perl and C. Awesome!! I have never seen such good detection with any other AV. Maybe Bit Defender is a lot like Norton, but I have not tested those exploits with it.

And yes, avast is good.


----------



## djmykey (Sep 24, 2006)

Ok that now u have known that, u missed the most found virus and the most seemingly harmless one. Redlof. Yeah the same one that creates a folder.htt and desktop.htt in each and every folder of your computer. Now who would b so dumb to exclude that virus frm the database, ur right Quickheal.

Now their hq is here in Pune, Mayfair Towers. I used to have a premium liscence of Quick Heal for 5 pcs of my Cafe. Those buggers used to showup only when the liscence used to expire and had to be renewed. The last time they came to me I said "You mofos get the hell outta my place, u ppl cant even detect a simple virus and u want me to buy it. Shame on you." That guy was red faced. Next day the office ppl called me to ask why I wasnt renewing the liscence. I said when free av's r better than urs y the hell shud I waste 2.5k on ur product. That guy also shut his mouth and no one called ever.

Since then its just KAV, KAV and KIS.


----------



## blackpearl (Sep 24, 2006)

^^^ LOL
I can't believe it, QH is so dumb!! Its an Indian company right?
Digit should stop providing it on their DVDs.


----------



## mkmkmk (Sep 25, 2006)

quick heal is totally waste of money.......


----------



## 7monk (Oct 8, 2006)

FOR ME quick heal IS WORKING FINE.quick heal DETECTS WORMS WHICH AVG FREE CAN NOT.


----------



## shaunak (Oct 16, 2006)

soham said:
			
		

> PC-Cillin Internet Security 2007 is good too but is a bit heavy on resources. I suppose NOD 32 is the lightest amongst Antiviruses. Now only if it had a complete security suite.


Think avast or avg is the lightest AV


----------



## blackpearl (Oct 16, 2006)

NOD32 is good. The only problem is its virus definations cannot be downloaded seperately.


----------



## Zeeshan Quireshi (Oct 19, 2006)

yeah , but nod32 definitions r really small . but i don't think there's a need to use AV progs , i don't .


----------



## mediator (Oct 19, 2006)

blackpearl said:
			
		

> It failed to detect even the famous backdoor trojan Back Orifice.


 BUt back orifice is one the oldest trojan creators! Failed to detect that? Hmmmmm, neways I can sense u do a lotta negetive activities ! Keep it up


----------



## sysfilez (Oct 19, 2006)

i have all the de antivrius s/ws IMO kaspersky is the best. quick heal is de last option.


----------



## Kiran.dks (Oct 19, 2006)

anandk said:
			
		

> i agree , quickheal may not be considered as being a great av, but u really cant judge an av just bcox it misd a file. i usually have kav, avast, bitdfndr on my lappie, and many a times one misses, and the other detects it as malware. why just last week kav did not detect a trijan donloader as one, whereas avast identified it as one. was surprised !
> 
> kav, bitdefender, nod32 can be considered as the finest av, imo



Are you serious? KAV, avast! and Bitdefender on ur laptop? It's too many resource swallowers! Bit defender itself is great resource hug....


----------



## 7monk (Oct 20, 2006)

i am goimg back to avg.QH deleted my some feb flash files(jokes).i will never install QH again.


----------



## Kiran.dks (Oct 21, 2006)

7monk said:
			
		

> i am goimg back to avg.QH deleted my some feb flash files(jokes).i will never install QH again.



Very true. Quick Heal and Antivir are very ineffective. I jus don't know why on earth they are made for?


----------



## abhijangda (Mar 15, 2007)

blackpearl said:
			
		

> After reading the reviews on different anti virus programs in Fast Track this month, I decided to try out some of them and do my own review. I was using Avast and though it has good detection, I was not happy because of its lack of heuristic scanning. One of the AV programs I tried was Quick Heal, and I tell you its worthless.
> 
> I have a couple of trojans and malicious programs on my computer (safely locked inside a folder) that I used to test the AV programs. Quick Heal failed to detect most of it!! It failed to detect even the famous backdoor trojan _Back Orifice_. There is another program which when run resets the BIOS; all AV I tested detected the program as either "malicious" or "trojan" except Quick Heal. It even failed to detect a few trojan binders that I have on my computer. The detection is very poor. If you are using Quick Heal, you might not be protected, specially from trojans. Another dumb feature in Quick Heal is that the resident program can scan only EXE files or user defined files. There is no option like "scan all files".
> 
> I haven't seen a worse AV like this. My advice is not to use Quick Heal.


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.


----------



## djmykey (Mar 16, 2007)

Ok mr so called expert you want someone's opinion who has used it for a long time then its me. I have used that av since 2000 till 2003. Ok I have to agree with you that the av is light i mean it runs good even on a 500 MHz machine but that doesnt mean that it shud not detect viruses. Now u say that we didnt update and didnt scan regularly blah blah blah. Hey I did that all ok for 2 years, I updated the antivirus and scanned all of my 5 pc's every morning. And still after a month or so I wud have to format all my pc's. U say we dont update, the d@mn av cudnt detect the oldest and well know spaces virus. Now that virus is known for like ages. But still qh never detected it, now do u wanna give me and explaination. And yes qh was always online and I never used to shut it down anytime. I had paid for the liscences but still this thing used to happen in my cafe. Now I have no av nothing just deep freeze and im without any probs tho this is a lil bit off topic. Anyways last bit after paying for the av also the qh guys neva came to see my problems. Even their online help sucked. I had taken a hdd to their office and told them to scan it but they cudnt detect anything. whereas at my friends house we cleaned it using norton (yeah that time norton was the big boss) even if we called the qh guys they never turned up. But they used to turn up whenever the contract was supposed to be renewed. So the last time they called or turned up i told them to their face ur product is a piece of $hit and u can keep it for ur self im not gonna pay for something i dun like and u can support.


----------



## abhijangda (Mar 16, 2007)

Hey djmykey, I want to tell you that no av detect all the viruses. Someone detects one which others donot. For your question about qh vs. norton. I want to tell you that it will not be a virus but it will be a spyware. Quick Heal is not the good antispyware but is very good av. One more thing you have used older versions I think 7.02 or 6.0 around it. Use latest version 9.00 or 2007. It is much stronger than previous version. Only updating will not solve your problem. If you remember then it also do version update. But for your old version the version update is not available. So it downloaded the definition currently availaible for your version. This will only do daily update. Not weekly or monthly update.


----------



## blackpearl (Mar 16, 2007)

Somebody please give him the link where Anti virus test results are. Show him that Quick Heal is at the bottom of the list at around 50-60% detection rate.
__________


			
				abhijangda said:
			
		

> How can you say any thing to Quick Heal without using it.



If you have read carefully, I wrote that after using and testing it. Also read what djmykey has to say.



			
				abhijangda said:
			
		

> I am using it for more than one year and haven't gotten a virus.



That doesn't prove anything. You may be just damn lucky or you may have plenty of viri under your hood not even knowing it. Some people don't even use any anti virus softawre and still manage to survive; you just have to use a litle common sense. But does it mean that Windows alone with no AV is enough? And most likely is that you _have_ got lots of virus but QH can't detect it. Thats why I said that its worthless. It can't detect even simple common viruses. QH didn't detect any virus for you for the past 1 yr does not necessarily mean you don't have viruses. QH is famous for _not detecting_ viruses.


----------



## djmykey (Mar 16, 2007)

Dude I have paid the qh ppl lumpsome money man and you think that they will release an update and if i dont get it I will keep quiet. I had updates from 5 - 6 and 6 - 7. When even 7 was useless then I decided to stop using it. See I am somewhat good at windows and stuff and you think that I'm flaming some antivirus because I dint have a good exp. Na I am just warning ppl against it because its useless in my opinion.


----------



## thunderbird.117 (Mar 16, 2007)

Quick Heal is made in india and made by indians so you guessed it right . It is full of BS.


----------



## nileshgr (Mar 16, 2007)

Quick Heal is worst. Inspite of updates, virus invaded in my frnd's comp. XP original+destroyed all files.


----------



## Shasanka_Gogoi (Mar 16, 2007)

I knew that one. Its just not good. I dumped it and am using avast instead.


----------



## nileshgr (Mar 16, 2007)

Shasanka_Gogoi said:
			
		

> I knew that one. Its just not good. I dumped it and am using avast instead.


u can see too many gud ads in the news paper. but for tech prods. we shud visit a tech forum!-- Thinkdigit.


----------



## abhijangda (Mar 16, 2007)

Hey mad ones if you aren't specified by my ans then go to quickheal.com and count how many vb100% award it gets ok. It gets 17 vb100%. Only decent and strong avs get this award and 17 times it's huge. For blackpearl you have use it I didn't hink beacause if you has used it then you should whether scan all files option is present or not. You ans no but you are wrong it is present this shows that you have used it but not even for 1 hour. There are many things that you don't know about quick heal and you say you used it. You are wrong you haven't used it. You people can't fool me. Ok mad one.


----------



## blackpearl (Mar 16, 2007)

abhijangda said:
			
		

> You are wrong you haven't used it. You people can't fool me. Ok mad one.



LOL!! Why would anybody want to fool you? We are giving you good advice. Its upto you whether you take it or not. You have decided not to, fine!! 

I find your stance quite amusing actually.


----------



## Arsenal_Gunners (Mar 16, 2007)

abhijangda said:
			
		

> *Hey mad ones* if you aren't specified by my ans then go to quickheal.com and count how many vb100% award it gets ok. It gets 17 vb100%. Only decent and strong avs get this award and 17 times it's huge. For blackpearl you have use it I didn't hink beacause if you has used it then you should whether scan all files option is present or not. You ans no but you are wrong it is present this shows that you have used it but not even for 1 hour. There are many things that you don't know about quick heal and you say you used it. You are wrong you haven't used it. *You people can't fool me. Ok mad one*.


 You are right quick heal leads on the "Peace" front.It will not notify even if you have a nuke inside.I switched to Avast after finding QH inefficient,and it found quite a lot of sh1t which QH left unnoticed.
So get yourself nod32 or avast,and see for yourself *the Great one.*
Now I am using KIS,Spybot and Windows defender.
(maybe now I have also become *A MAD ONE*)


----------



## abhijangda (Mar 16, 2007)

vimal malhotra you may have become mad one. But remember someone who has uses it for more than a year know about the product not the one who has uses it for some time like blackpearl and others. You may be experienced it may not satisfied you and your security. But has satisfied me greatly. Threats which qh unnoticed will be spyware and adware and was detected by others. Even I have also found some threats in my computer which qh unnoticed. But these were spyware/adware not virus. As i have earlier told qh is good av not good anti-spyware or anti-adware.


----------



## Arsenal_Gunners (Mar 16, 2007)

Yeah no one is stopping you,keep using it.


----------



## s18000rpm (Mar 16, 2007)

vimal_mehrotra said:
			
		

> You are right quick heal leads on the "Peace" front.It will not notify even if you have a nuke inside.I switched to Avast after finding QH inefficient,and it found quite a lot of sh1t which QH left unnoticed.
> So get yourself nod32 or avast,and see for yourself *the Great one.*
> Now I am using KIS,Spybot and Windows defender.
> (maybe now I have also become *A MAD ONE*)


 why the heck do you have Spybot & Windows Defender @ same time???

KIS also comes with its own Anti-Spyware.

use any one of those , even if you have 1GB RAM it doesnt mean you can have 2 or more of them at same time.

so either Uninstall/disable KIS's Anti Spyware or the other two


----------



## Arsenal_Gunners (Mar 16, 2007)

^^No,Windows defender has a real time scanner,while spybot is a must to manually scan.If you are not using this combination,I will even recommend you to use this.


----------



## s18000rpm (Mar 16, 2007)

for me if KIS misses something, then ZAP's (ZoneAlarm Pro) Antispyware catches it


----------



## thunderbird.117 (Mar 17, 2007)

abhijangda said:
			
		

> Hey mad ones if you aren't specified by my ans then go to quickheal.com and count how many vb100% award it gets ok. It gets 17 vb100%. Only decent and strong avs get this award and 17 times it's huge. For blackpearl you have use it I didn't hink beacause if you has used it then you should whether scan all files option is present or not. You ans no but you are wrong it is present this shows that you have used it but not even for 1 hour. There are many things that you don't know about quick heal and you say you used it. You are wrong you haven't used it. You people can't fool me. Ok mad one.



Hey mad. Even if they get 2000 awards. It does not even matter. Even i can put a link like that and say i got this much awards. OK mad one?. If you like QH you can use it. . See you soon mad.


----------



## thunderbird.117 (Mar 17, 2007)

Indyan said:
			
		

> With so many avs getting the vb100% awards so many times, I dont believe its of any good. They probably test very common virii.
> *www.virus.gr/english/fullxml/default.asp?id=82&mnu=82
> 
> *49. Quick Heal version 8.00 - 33.66%*
> Yeah, sure its the best AV around. Even antispywares like Asquared had greater detection rate.



Even the open source AV defeated QH.


----------



## Arsenal_Gunners (Mar 17, 2007)

They must be mad ones


----------



## thunderbird.117 (Mar 17, 2007)

Indyan said:
			
		

> And oh yeah, i forgot to point out this bit.
> 
> *Heuristics-only detection   *
> 1 Nod32 2.51.30 - 41503
> ...



Yea, And they got many awards. Hmm. I wonder which stupid people give that the reward to them. They  not ever deserve it.


----------



## djmykey (Mar 17, 2007)

I'm tempted to write something way outta the rules but jaane do. See abhijangda we are not trying to impose our opinion on you we are just trying to tell others what we think about the av. So why do we need to fight about it. See if you think it is a good av and you use it then fine. See I also had the same opinion like yours for a long time 2.5 yrs back. Then something happened and that opinion failed. See some of us regularly visit warez sites and some really bad sites and therefore we do need protection from such stuff. (That you can come to know from the fact that I didnt format my machine from Aug 2005). So its just a matter of time. Wait and see if it a good av. See tomorrow if something better comes up than KIS then I wud use it and also give it good ratings. So thats the point.

No flamings and fightings. Peace !!


----------



## blackpearl (Mar 17, 2007)

@abhijangda: You just have to try out another AV to know how good(?) or bad QH is. Tell me, did you try anything else than QH?

And yes vb awards are suspicious. Everybody seems to get them nowdays.

More *mad people* here 
*www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=161341&highlight=quick+heal
*www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=95290&highlight=quick+heal


----------



## phreak0ut (Mar 17, 2007)

I saw one guy ranting away on Orkut to someone telling that QH was the best. It seems he works there. Programmer you see  Wish I could show this to him, but I don't find him. Damn!! Wait a sec, is *the mad one* the same guy!??


----------



## Arsenal_Gunners (Mar 17, 2007)

But our guy is just 14,
DO 14 years make qh.It must be a record


----------



## abhijangda (Mar 17, 2007)

I think you all are mad ones specially vimal. I am impresses with the opinion of dimjkey that why we have to fight about it. You think I am 14 and will do not know anything about computers. Ok then I bet I know more than you about computers Ok mad ones. For blackpearl I have tried all of the popular av's but didn't find a good av like qh. thunderbird go to virus bulliten site and you will find there how many awards it gets.


----------



## Arsenal_Gunners (Mar 17, 2007)

abhijangda said:
			
		

> I think you all are mad ones specially vimal. I am impresses with the opinion of dimjkey that why we have to fight about it. *You think I am 14 and will do not know anything about computers*. Ok then I bet I know more than you about computers Ok mad ones. For blackpearl I have tried all of the popular av's but didn't find a good av like qh. thunderbird go to virus bulliten site and you will find there how many awards it gets.


 If you read my post again,I was just saying you cant be a quick heal engineer(I am mad one if you really are),

And why are you relating age with ability and knowledge ?


----------



## thunderbird.117 (Mar 17, 2007)

abhijangda said:
			
		

> I think you all are mad ones specially vimal. I am impresses with the opinion of dimjkey that why we have to fight about it. You think I am 14 and will do not know anything about computers. Ok then I bet I know more than you about computers Ok mad ones. For blackpearl I have tried all of the popular av's but didn't find a good av like qh.* thunderbird go to virus bulliten site and you will find there how many awards it gets.*




What do you suppose me to do if they have how many awards?. It is least my concern. It seems like you work for QH.


----------



## q3_abhi (Mar 18, 2007)

Ahh.....such an absurd discussion going on here......I have been using Quickheal for past 3 years. It has worked great for me at times , ya but i do agree , it fails in certain parts , and just saying that it is useless and blah blah doesnt make sense. It will take time to improve and it is improving , the new 9 version works nice. And it is comparitively low on resources. The fact that its an Indian product and is named among the AV giants is a great thing. They should improve there scan engine and hope that is done in the near future.


----------



## djmykey (Mar 18, 2007)

Indyan said:
			
		

> You cant argue with fanboys.
> So no point in arguing with him.



Very true. Point taken. Mouth sewed up


----------



## abhijangda (Mar 18, 2007)

Ok vimal malhotra I am agree that I can't be a qh engineer but you should also be agree that qh is the best and most avs like norton, kaspersky, symantec, mcafee etc are also good ones and sorry for relating age with knowlegde. thunderbird.117 I don't work for qh I am just a user. I am only saying that most of you haven't used qh so deeply. Even in one month you use qh deeply you can know how good it is. There are some functions in qh which others do not have. q3 abhi it will be failed on some parts where spyware/adware come into your computer.


----------



## phreak0ut (Mar 21, 2007)

abhijangda said:
			
		

> Ok vimal malhotra I am agree that I can't be a qh engineer but you should also be agree that qh is the best and most avs like norton, kaspersky, symantec, mcafee etc are also good ones and sorry for relating age with knowlegde. thunderbird.117 I don't work for qh I am just a user. I am only saying that most of you haven't used qh so deeply. Even in one month you use qh deeply you can know how good it is. There are some functions in qh which others do not have. q3 abhi it will be failed on some parts where spyware/adware come into your computer.



yadayadayadayada.......  Ok, you can happily use it until some virus will crash your system. Its just a matter of time.


----------



## s18000rpm (Mar 21, 2007)

lol QH dudes are advertising their AV in Radio too

it goes something like this

"if you dont have Quick Heal AntiVirus, then you have Virus in your PC"


(in some Chennai radiostation)


----------



## Arsenal_Gunners (Mar 21, 2007)

abhijangda said:
			
		

> you should also be agree that *qh is the best*


No I dont agree because it is not the best.
Could I ask if you have used any other AV?


----------



## djmykey (Mar 21, 2007)

s18000rpm said:
			
		

> lol QH dudes are advertising their AV in Radio too
> 
> it goes something like this
> 
> ...



Our radio station goes like "Aapke PC mein kya hain virus ya Quickheal." I mean wtf is this


----------



## s18000rpm (Mar 21, 2007)

djmykey said:
			
		

> Our radio station goes like "Aapke PC mein kya hain virus ya Quickheal." I mean wtf is this


 oh yeah same thing in Tamil.

(heard it  & forgot the exact words )


----------



## Arsenal_Gunners (Mar 21, 2007)




----------



## abhijangda (Mar 21, 2007)

vimal_mehrotra said:
			
		

> No I dont agree because it is not the best.
> Could I ask if you have used any other AV?


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.


----------



## phreak0ut (Mar 22, 2007)

abhijangda said:
			
		

> 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.



OK, I think the line in your case goes something like this for the ad on radios "Mere PC main Quick Heal or virus, dono rehte hain" 'coz of the 'great' features


----------



## blackpearl (Mar 22, 2007)

abhijangda said:
			
		

> 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 (Mar 22, 2007)

blackpearl said:
			
		

> 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 (Mar 22, 2007)

blackpearl said:
			
		

> 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 (Apr 3, 2007)

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 (Apr 3, 2007)

wilderness said:
			
		

> 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 (Apr 3, 2007)

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 (Apr 3, 2007)

@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 (Apr 3, 2007)

s18000rpm said:
			
		

> ohh maan
> why THREE AV in a PC
> 
> just install AVG Free & ZoneAlarm Free & be free of Trojans & virus
> ...


 
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...



			
				djmykey said:
			
		

> 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 (Apr 3, 2007)

abhijangda said:
			
		

> 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 (Apr 3, 2007)

^^





> Avast is Waste



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


----------



## djmykey (Apr 4, 2007)

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 (Apr 4, 2007)

vish786 said:
			
		

> 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 (Apr 4, 2007)

wilderness said:
			
		

> 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  



			
				djmykey said:
			
		

> 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 (Apr 9, 2007)

vish786 said:
			
		

> 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 (Apr 10, 2007)

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 (Apr 10, 2007)

AcceleratorX said:
			
		

> 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 (Apr 10, 2007)

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 (Apr 11, 2007)

blackpearl said:
			
		

> 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 (Apr 11, 2007)

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 (Apr 11, 2007)

AcceleratorX said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## AcceleratorX (Apr 11, 2007)

djmykey said:
			
		

> 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.



The reason for this is that Virus Bulletin is still useful to e.g. corporate businesses, whose employees are not likely to surf around unknown websites and hence catch zoo malware. The main sources of virus infection for corporates are mass-spammed emails. This also qualifies into "In-the-wild" malware, and since corporates are more likely to get infected with such malware than for example regular home users, choosing an AV that gets a VB100 is of higher importance for corporates and businesses. Also, for a business, having zero false positives is of high importance because an incorrectly detected file can cause some disruption in the working of the business. Those products which receive a VB100 award are certified to detect all in-the-wild malware with no incorrect detections. If an AV gets VB100 and is cheap, but does not have good zoo malware detection, many businesses will still choose that AV to protect their computers because it will still serve their purpose well.

But for small businesses and home users, a VB100 will absolutely not suffice. I will even go as far to say that for a home user, just because a product does not win a VB100 does not mean that it sucks. For a home user, it is very important to see all the available AV-tests before going to purchase an AV of your choice. VB100 and Check Mark should be given lower importance solely because of the number of samples used, the relative irrelevance of the scenario to home users, as well as the fact that zoo malware is equally prevalent for home users.

Actually Virus Bulletin also tests zoo malware detection, but the results of the zoo malware detection test are not counted for giving the VB100 award. The VB100 award is given if a product detects 100% of all in-the-wild tests. Even in Virus Bulletin, QuickHeal is pretty bad in detection of zoo malware.

Hence, if you want to choose an AV product, you need to look at all the tests and also the GUI, performance, resource use etc. QuickHeal fails horribly in the detection rates department.


----------



## Levi (Nov 12, 2007)

blackpearl you better stop to threat people with your opinion.

i use QH since 1 and half year, and i am also one of the user who is satisfied with this product.

If you know or not, many AV vendors use QH's engine as OEM.


a u probably from K or from N company ?


----------



## narangz (Nov 12, 2007)

^^ Whenever I tried to install it something goes wrong with OS   And I guess you are from QH


----------



## Akshay (Nov 13, 2007)

My recent experience with Quickheal was awful.. It is very incompetent. Even free AV like Avast, AVG are better then it in terms of detection  and removal of viruses/trojans. 

But help center of quick heal is prompt & well acquainted with the product and its features n this makes troubleshooting easier.


----------



## ray|raven (Nov 13, 2007)

So, i guess that means they know their bugs.
They jus cant fix em 

Regards,
ray


----------



## blackpearl (Nov 13, 2007)

I almost forgot this thread existed!


----------



## Tech_Wiz (Nov 13, 2007)

k Quick Advice Needed.

Installing Free AV on my XP system. Config is in my sig.

Which Free AV I should go for? [I am fine with Complex interface and stuff. Detection is most important thing for me]

AVG, Antivir? or anythihg else?


----------



## ray|raven (Nov 13, 2007)

AntiVir.Best Free AV IMO.
Or go for linux and avoid AV totally 

Regards,
ray


----------



## Akshay (Nov 14, 2007)

@tech wiz

I wud suggest Avast or Antivir.


----------



## arunhalo (Nov 14, 2007)

i trust nod32 both amd 3000 and 4400 boot same speed i test it is awesome test speed
at 10-14 sec


----------



## RCuber (Nov 14, 2007)

Forget detecting virus and trojans.. Bloody Norton AV 2007 reduces the system performance to a crawl  im removing this piece or cr@p from my system now.


----------



## bibjee (Nov 14, 2007)

Nice thread, i had a lot of fun reading it. 



			
				Tech_Wiz said:
			
		

> k Quick Advice Needed.
> 
> Installing Free AV on my XP system. Config is in my sig.
> 
> ...


I would go for avast .


----------

