dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
11
share rss forum feed

Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:5
reply to Sportsfan

Re: What AV are you running?

Avast has been notorious for extremely high number of FPs. TWICE in the past few years they have totally wrecked many computers all over the world. I don't understand why anyone would use it. It is far better to use an AV with low FP rate even if that means they don't detect everything. You should be using layered security anyway, and first and foremost always practicing safe hex and thus you do not need to take the tremendous risks that an AV with a high number of FP's presents.
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson



MarkAW
Barry White
Premium
join:2001-08-27
Canada
kudos:16

said by Mele20:

Avast has been notorious for extremely high number of FPs. TWICE in the past few years they have totally wrecked many computers all over the world. I don't understand why anyone would use it. It is far better to use an AV with low FP rate even if that means they don't detect everything. You should be using layered security anyway, and first and foremost always practicing safe hex and thus you do not need to take the tremendous risks that an AV with a high number of FP's presents.

What you should say is, in your opinion Avast has been notorious for extremely high number of FPs. With all the people here and around world as you put it that use Avast we all can't be wrong about it.
--
We never really grow up, we only learn how to act in public.
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience. (Hmm)
I have enemies? Good. That means I've stood up for something, sometime in my life.

Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:5

It has been proven over and over by Avast themselves. They have had to apologize repeatedly to their users for all the damage they have done on several occasions where many computers were wrecked by their crappy definitions. I experienced all three incidents. Only because I was on the computer when the new definitions were downloaded and installed, and then the havoc immediately began, was I able to keep (through a lot of scary, hard work) Avast from bricking my computer which is what happened to a lot of computers. It would be awful enough if that had happened only one time but even after public, profuse apologies from Avast CEO and the forum mods that it would never happen again...it did about a year later. Avast had not followed through on any of their promises.

Besides the major incidents, I had Avast constantly finding FPs. Just recently, I wanted to trial GData. Before I could even get it updated, after installing it, the Avast engine found an FP...not the Bit Defender engine...the Avast one and the FP was complained about in Avast forums. Avira also was guilty of lots of FPs. When I first got Avira, there were 40 detections ALL FP's. I couldn't run full scans and I never could run full scans with Avast either because of all the FP's.

I like Windows Defender because of very few FPs and no history of serious wrecking of many computers world wide because of FPs (Avira fairly recently wrecked computers world wide with FPs on critical system files so it is not just Avast with a serious FP problem). The trade off, of course, being that Avast can boast high detection rates (but you pay for that with the severe problems caused by a lot of FP's which are necessary to achieve the high detection rates). Windows Defender doesn't have hardly any FP's but the consequence of that is lower detection rates. Apparently, the vendors are unable to have high detection rates and almost no FPs (especially no FP's on critical system files).
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson



MarkAW
Barry White
Premium
join:2001-08-27
Canada
kudos:16

2 recommendations

said by Mele20:

It has been proven over and over by Avast themselves. They have had to apologize repeatedly to their users for all the damage they have done on several occasions where many computers were wrecked by their crappy definitions.

Name one AV that hasn't done the same thing with a def update over the years they have been around. If this is your reasoning then i'd have to say it's weak since Avast isn't the only AV out there that has done what you say with def updates.
--
We never really grow up, we only learn how to act in public.
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience. (Hmm)
I have enemies? Good. That means I've stood up for something, sometime in my life.


Sportsfan

join:2012-03-26
Reviews:
·CenturyLink

I have experienced about 1-2 FP's/year with Avast, and 1 FP with MSE in 1 year's use. None of the FP's I had were serious.

I had more trouble with Norton (paid) in 2002-4 than with all of the free AV's combined. Although I have heard that Norton has improved its product and my ISP makes it available free to its customers, I have not been eager to try it again.



Dustyn
Premium
join:2003-02-26
Ontario, CAN
kudos:11
reply to MarkAW

said by MarkAW:

said by Mele20:

It has been proven over and over by Avast themselves. They have had to apologize repeatedly to their users for all the damage they have done on several occasions where many computers were wrecked by their crappy definitions.

Name one AV that hasn't done the same thing with a def update over the years they have been around. If this is your reasoning then i'd have to say it's weak since Avast isn't the only AV out there that has done what you say with def updates.

Exactly. It happens.
Shouldn't be a problem if you've configured your anti virus correctly to handle a potential false positive.
--
Remember that cool hidden "Graffiti Wall" here on BBR? After the name change I became the "owner", so to speak as it became: Dustyn's Wall »[Serious] RIP

Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:5

1 recommendation

That is incorrect. Not all AV have FP's in regards to CRITICAL SYSTEM FILES. Avast has repeatedly had this problem. The ONLY other AV that has this sort of history is Symantec. Some AV have no history of FPs on critical system files. Others (like Avira) have had one or two or so system files detected wrongly in the past 10 years and while those incidents made the news they did not wreck the sort of havoc that detecting 1000s of system files did with Avast. Avast holds the record for disastrous erroneous detection on system files of all AV and not just once but a second time after they promised it would never happen again.

People in this forum are blind fools since they have always been in love with either Symantec or Avast and have historically had very harsh criticism of anyone who tries to get them to see the truth about both.

Just wait until your computer is completely trashed by one of these two AV and then try and say "Shouldn't be a problem if you've configured your anti virus correctly to handle a potential false positive." You didn't bother to read my posts obviously because I had Avast correctly configured. IT DID NOT MATTER. Instead of doubting me, all of you should go to Avast forums and read the history of these incidents. There was almost NOTHING anyone could do to stop the widespread havoc and severe damage wrought more than once by Avast's detection of THOUSANDS OF FPs on CRITICAL SYSTEM FILES caused by tainted definitions.

Most folks have their AV set to quarantine detections. Avast quarantine is not large. There was NO way it could hold anywhere near 2000 or so files! So, quarantine filled up while the user was asleep, away from their computer (I guess you guys have your computers glued to your body and have an alarm set to go off if you dare sleep and your AV goes crazy then?) and once quarantine was full what did Avast do? It deleted ALL infected files thus rendering the computer unbootable and unfixable.

For those of us like myself, who had Avast set to IGNORE all detections but notify the user there was a detection, Avast ONLY DID THAT FOR A FEW FILES AND THEN IT BEGAN DELETING ALL THESE CRITICAL SYSTEM FILES. That seems fine to you guys? The user is not at the computer when the tainted definitions are automatically downloaded and installed (I guess Avast should not allow automatic download and installation?) so it is ok that Avast REFUSES to honor the user's settings? Why does Avast allow the user to adjust the settings if Avast is going to ignore them after the first few detections? I was lucky as I was sitting at the computer both times this fuck-up occurred so I started getting popups about the detections. I knew from the very first detection that it was a FP on a critical system file. I confirmed "ignore" to face another detection and then the detections came so fast that I was frantic. I will NEVER FORGET THAT HORRIBLE EXPERIENCE AND FEAR THAT AVAST WAS WRECKING MY COMPUTER. I was barely able to tread water as I tried to deal with each popup (over 200 detections rapid fire, one on top of another, before I had even one moment in which I was caught up and thus could disable Avast - you cannot disable while a detection popup is still sitting on your screen).

I was able to disable Avast only because I am not the naive fool that many are here and I did not allow Avast to protect itself against termination because I knew the time might come when I would need to have full and immediate control over Avast. I protected Avast on XP Pro in a much more sensible, safe way. I had Process Guard protect it. But most folks are too lazy to use a classic HIPS or they have Win 7/8 where Microsoft foolishly has made the OS more vulnerable, not less, because they made it difficult to have classic HIPS on these OSes. (Folks would rather accuse me of not having Avast set up correctly).

It was a disaster for Avast and rather telling that they had just gotten a new CEO from where....SYMANTEC. Yep, from the other AV that loves to attack critical system files. I forgave Avast and I actually believed that it wouldn't happen again after all the apologies (Avast had even been so remiss as to never have given forum moderators an emergency contact number. I went to the forum as soon as I had Avast finally disabled and already the reports of disaster were pouring in from all over the world. But with no way to contact Avast (it was middle of the night in Europe), Avast slept for five more hours before they learned what had happened.

After all the apologies and reassurances that Avast had completely revamped its policies, etc. it happened again. I forgave once, but only a fool would do so again as it showed many of their promises of radical reform were empty. (Yet I did try GData very briefly recently - it uses Avast as one of its engines). Avast never ever revamped their settings so you guys should stop being critical of anyone who had settings that Avast approves of. EVERYONE who got the tainted definitions, on two separate occasions, were seriously affected. Stop trying to equate ONE FP (even if on a critical system file) with 1000's of FP's on the majority of critical system files. They are not in the same ballpark and you guys should know this.

--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson



La Luna
RIP Lisa
Premium
join:2001-07-12
Warwick, NY
kudos:3

I remember that incident Mele. I had a similar experience with all those FP pop ups. Honestly, I can't remember what I did, but somehow, my computer escaped being trashed at least. Then I think they put out an update that fixed the issue, if I remember correctly.

I do remember being very scared as it was happening, had no clue what was wrong.



Trooper
Premium
join:2005-05-18
USA
reply to Mele20

That is really unfortunate. Something like that would leave a bad taste in my mouth as well. Just curious, how long ago did this happen?
--
This space for rent.



MarkAW
Barry White
Premium
join:2001-08-27
Canada
kudos:16

3 edits

said by Trooper:

Just curious, how long ago did this happen?

December 2nd 2009
»False positive in Avast! or is it real?
and then again
April 11th 2011.
»Avast thinks dslr is trojan/malware ridden.....


Trooper
Premium
join:2005-05-18
USA

Geez. Well hopefully something of this caliber does not happen again. Especially since I am currently running AIS lol.

Can anyone speak to its firewall capabilities?
--
This space for rent.


cmexx

join:2012-11-02

1 recommendation

I do not use AV at all, prefer to set up all patches for OS, browser and plugins, and some other programs.
Never turn off the UAC-control - it's enough to be in safety.
For alarms about insecure bowsers or plugins use surfpatrol or qualys browsercheck - that is all.



Sportsfan

join:2012-03-26
Reviews:
·CenturyLink
reply to Trooper

December, 2009. I had powered up the computer and updated it about an hour after the bad definitions had been fixed, then found out that I had dodged a bullet: »blog.avast.com/2009/12/10/bad-de···-update/

There seems to be a more-recent problem with serious FP's on XP SP3, reported at »forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=110828.0

I have been fortunate with Avast so far, but under no illusions.