woodrowbone

Level 8
Hi guys, I saw this router mentioned in another thread, I saw it worthy of it´s own thread.

Avira SafeThings

Lets discuss what we can find out about it.
I like the fact that it has a lifetime subscription like ASUS AiProtection for example.
The looks of it is horrible, let´s hope this is not the final design...Avira, let´s get in to the new century please :p

/W
 

Windows_Security

Level 22
Content Creator
Trusted
Verified
With Windows10 becoming stronger and the freeware enabling advanced features of WindowsDefender (e.g. ConfigureDefender) and/or adding additional security layers to OS (e.g. OSarmor) the market share of paid AV's is dropping slowly as is the upgrade conversion rate of free versions to paid premium versions).

Luckily for the AV-vendors most Android mobile phone makers lack in patch management (monthly Chrome Android updates are at best pushed to mobile phones in a three month interval for at most two years) and Internet Of Things device makers do not comply to the basic securiy features (no patches, no secured connections, no easy/forced admin password change, etc). With only a handfull of smart devices in our household, my bad luck statistics hit the 100% percent mark, because all had (some still have) unpatched security flaws.

This opens up a whole new market for AV-vendors: AV & UTM integrated devices to provide a layer of protection for all the connected smart devices in our homes. So in future I will buy a router with monthly subscription for AV-blacklist and AI-monitoring, but I will with wait until MIMO & MESH become mainstream.
 
Last edited:
I was looking into this as a potential solution for me as a secure router (much better than my ISP one lol) but they don't have a release date as of yet, no testing, no reviews so who knows. Hopefully like other AV companies routers they don't release it to a tiny number of countries.
 

Slyguy

Level 40
Every home will have a UTM appliance within 10 years, it's almost a requirement. Avira's hardware looks solid, just a bit less than Gryphon but close enough. Avira Safe Things doesn't appear to offer any advanced IPS or Malware Protection, but rather looks like a more secured router with additional features and control.

However on the plus side, it has no subscription and doesn't require you to use Avira's own stand alone stuff after the first free year. Whereas other solutions tend to have a yearly fee because they offer traditional AV protection and advanced IPS features that require updating.
 

woodrowbone

Level 8
I am not sure how to compare the hardware in these thing, Avira run a quad-core lower MHz (717), similar for Gryphon right?
ASUS AC86U for example is running a dual-core with a much higher MHz (1.8)
I know the cpus have different architecture, but what does that translate in to in real life?
Is core count or MHz boss here?

/W
 
  • Like
Reactions: Handsome Recluse

Windows_Security

Level 22
Content Creator
Trusted
Verified
Cores versus clock frequency.

I swapped the motherboard of my old Windows 7 desktop Pentium dual core (with 5GHz mobo throughput) with an old I7 920 (with 4.8 GHz mobo throughput) having nearly same Passmark CPU benchmark. . It was faster swapping mobo than installing Windows 7 completely for an older relative who had problems getting used to Windows 10.

Because I have a silent PC-case (isolated) and old i7-920 uses a lot more energy and produces a lot more heat, I reduced the clock frequency a little and added a 120mm fan (my PC case was fan less except for the fan which was build in the power unit) to reduce the heat of CPU.

To my surprise the startup of Chrome felt faster. Testing it with AppTimer indeed showed the old i7 is faster in practice. The i7 was 15% faster than the Pentium (CPU benchmark), but with reduced clock frequency it should be nearly the same.

The benefit of being able to process tasks in parallel with low to CPU load has more practical advantage because 90% of the time we are not using 100% of CPU capacity. So my guess is that more cores/threads is beneficial when CPU capacity is not utilized to the max (compared to CPU with less cores and simular CPU benchmark).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: woodrowbone

Handsome Recluse

Level 19
Verified
Cores versus clock frequency.

I swapped the motherboard of my old Windows 7 desktop Pentium dual core (with 5GHz mobo throughput) with an old I7 920 (with 4.8 GHz mobo throughput) having nearly same Passmark CPU benchmark. . It was faster swapping mobo than installing Windows 7 completely for an older relative who had problems getting used to Windows 10.

Because I have a silent PC-case (isolated) and old i7-920 uses a lot more energy and produces a lot more heat, I reduced the clock frequency a little and added a 120mm fan (my PC case was fan less except for the fan which was build in the power unit) to reduce the heat of CPU.

To my surprise the startup of Chrome felt faster. Testing it with AppTimer indeed showed the old i7 is faster in practice. The i7 was 15% faster than the Pentium (CPU benchmark), but with reduced clock frequency it should be nearly the same.

The benefit of being able to process tasks in parallel with low to CPU load has more practical advantage because 90% of the time we are not using 100% of CPU capacity. So my guess is that more cores/threads is beneficial when CPU capacity is not utilized to the max (compared to CPU with less cores and simular CPU benchmark).