|reply to MarkAW |
Re: What AV are you running?
said by MarkAW:Exactly. It happens. 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.
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
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 LunaSurvived AshrafulPremium
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.
|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.
said by Trooper:December 2nd 2009
Just curious, how long ago did this happen?
»False positive in Avast! or is it real?
and then again
April 11th 2011.
»Avast thinks dslr is trojan/malware ridden.....
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.
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.
|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.