I use v7, it used to be 7.0.1466. I’m writing here because I know the devs read these forums.
This evening it decided (despite my Update Setting {PROGRAM>Manual}) to give me v9.0.2021. It was uninstalled exactly 30 seconds after reboot.
I use v7 for a reason: it is the latest version of Avast that least offends me. It is the latest version that can be described as “The virus-killer, the whole virus-killer, and NOTHING BUT the virus-killer”.
I am not happy that despite using the installer for .1466 I now have .1506. However, I am going to be more than unhappy if ever I am lumbered with a v9 as a program update again. I do not want anything that looks like Symantec/Norton or MacAfee on my computer. I have never seen any multi-function center that works as advertised, but I have lots of single/mono-function apps which not only work as advertised but also exceed all claimed performance benchmarks–and most of those are 32-bit legacy apps.
Devs, please listen. I used to be an Opera fan… Until Opera tried to be a multi-function center, and then decided to ditch their very pleasing Presto engine. I used to use Adobe Reader until… I used to use Windows Media Player/Center until… I even tried MS Office until… (I now use Lotus SmartSuite.)
Look, I have nothing against current builds. But I am a minimalist. I like lean, fat-free performance-oriented programs. You develop a Lite version that does NOTHING except find and kill viruses, worms and trojans*, and I’ll install it. The moment you add adware or PUPs or Kittens or Chickens, I uninstall. Simple, yes?
Rootkits are specialised types of Trojans. They have the same delivery method, and the same activation method.
Looks like nearly the same thing that happened a few minutes ago to me, with the exception that you received a newer version. I bet that was the Emergency Updater that did that. I just finished by complaint about that damn thing here.
Version 7 is way outdated and not supported anymore.
No more vps updates, obsolete detection methods and such.
That is why the update to version 2014 takes place.
If you don’t want your system to be protected in the best way possible, feel free to use something else.
You are wrong about Opera.
They still offer Version 12.17 Build 1863 and are supporting it.
And Opera has been a multi-function center as you call it right from the beginning.
Browser, Mail, IRC client etc.
avast hasn’t added adware, or pups.
It detects and blocks them.
You are totally wrong about what a rootkit is.
Root refers to the all-powerful, “Administrator” account on Unix and Linux systems
Kit refers to a set of programs or utilities that allow someone to maintain root-level access to a computer.
The goal of a rootkit is that it tries to be undetectable.
A rootkit allows someone, either legitimate or malicious, to maintain command and control over a computer system,
without the the computer system user knowing about it.
We (sort of) support* only last builds of any major release, currently it’s 1474 for v7, 1497 for v8 and obviously 2021 for v9. Any other builds are subject to be banned (which happened this week). We are still deciding what to do about remaining v5 (677, exceptionally not the last one) and v6 (1367). The updates set to manual are respected for these builds (and some other conditions apply) and you should be safe with them (as far as I can influence the decision).
Hi drake127 - thank you for your thoughtful and sympathetic reply. As I say, if youse can come up with a Lite build, I’ll be interested. Ummm… Due to what we can call “anomalous results” (like pinging Lotus modules) I now routinely switch off heuristics, they generate 'way too many false positives. One of the good things about v7 is that when I tell it to exclude something, it obeys, like with my hosts file.
@Eddy. I actually am very familiar with root-kits. Please tell me how you think they get onto machines. And then tell me how they are not trojans.
And Opera was not always a multi-function center. I’ve used it since v4. The bloat happened much later.
[b]Rootkit installation can be automated, or an attacker can install it once they've obtained root or Administrator access. Obtaining this access is a result of direct attack on a system (i.e., exploiting a known vulnerability (such as privilege escalation) or a password (obtained by cracking or social engineering).[/b] Once installed, it becomes possible to hide the intrusion as well as to maintain privileged access. The key is the root or Administrator access. Full control over a system means that existing software can be modified, including software that might otherwise be used to detect or circumvent it.
Malicious programs are classified as Trojans if they do not attempt to inject themselves into other files (computer virus) or otherwise propagate themselves (worm).[7] A computer may host a Trojan via a malicious program a user is duped into executing (often an e-mail attachment disguised to be unsuspicious, e.g., a routine form to be filled in) or by drive-by download.
To say it real simple:
A trojan is trying to disguise itself as something that it is not.
A rootkit is itself and yes it canbe harmful, but doesn’t have to be.
I totally agree with gordon451. I also was using V7 as it is the last version I liked as well. I was totally horrified to see that my update setting were completely ignored. Really bad form! A pop-up or other message informing me that this version was not supported any longer and ASKING me if I would like to upgraded would be appropriate.
V9 was uninstalled, and I think I will be using another AV program, one from a company that I can trust, one that does not ignore settings that I specifically set.
PS When my business subscription expires I will not be renewing with Avast
I agree with you that there should have been a pop-up, email (or whatever),
telling the user about the update and why it needs to take place.
With security software it doesn’t really matter if you like it or not.
More important is if it does the job well.
Let’s face it, you are not opening the user interface everyday just to look at it.
Let it run in the background and let it take care of things.
Don’t be naive, other av vendors are doing the same.
If you don’t trust avast, you should not trust any av vendor.
And to the parrots who keep saying v7 doesn’t detect as well as the newest version, that’s bull. Any difference would be marginal at best, as they both use the same db so the only diff would be tweaked algorithms and tools designed more for marketing than anything else. The updated AVAST is mostly UI Win8 cr*p and bloat. If a consumer is to be concerned about any perceived, alleged marginal difference, and they want the best protection they can possibly get, then they should not be using AVAST at all, as it is far from top of the heap at this point.
But we all know that in the real world it’s the user who acts as his or her own strongest protection against infection by using common sense. So an AV is simply a safety net, and no AV is perfect. So if v7 of AVAST is ‘good enough for me’ and I like the UI and the ability to opt-out of info gathering and all the extra ‘features’ I don’t want or use, then AVAST should be happy such customers are sticking with an old version of their program rather than going to a much higher scoring AV like BD or Kaspersky. (Which I might be doing since AVAST is now causing extended boot times after updating to SP1.)
Are you high? You DO realize if people don’t like the UI or features of a program they will go to a competitor. Regardless of how well a program does its job. (And AVAST is NOT currently one of the top rated AVs anyway!) Usability and configuration are key elements, ESPECIALLY in security software. It matters VERY MUCH if someone likes their AV or not, and it should matter most to AVAST.
Thanks for taking the time to provide this information.
However, I’m confused in that those builds you’ve referenced above do not appear to be the “last builds” for the “major” Avast versions you’ve mentioned above.
Here are two examples of what I’m saying; I am aware of build 1466 which would be later than build 1367 for major version 6 that you mentioned above and I’m aware of build 1506 which would be later than build 1497 for major version 8 that you mentioned above.
Is it more accurate to say that the builds that Avast respects when set to manual are not necessarily the “last” builds?
I clicked on this link and found nothing that says AVAST v7 is a poor AV compared to the newest version. Maybe scripts were blocking some relevant content. But FTR any company will always claim its newest product is better and improved. That’s how marketing works. Whether it’s improved or not. And maybe it is, and maybe it’s not.
Guys, I understand you, respect your opinion and I share it with you. It is kinda rude to update software on your own computer and I would not like it either. There are even some compatibility risks involved no matter how hard we try to mitigate them (those are the other conditions I mentioned).
However, Avast is not one of those software that works on their own. It needs constant updates and our VPS is far from being a simple database. We have many users and even some obscure builds hit over 1 million of users. That’s around three dozens builds which are not tested regularly or at all summing up to many millions of users. And there is ever increasing chance that one day one of those builds just break perhaps taking the Windows with it.
Considering that, there are always people on the scales. I am very well aware that some of you are rightfully upset, some of you don’t care and most of you don’t have any comments. Still, I believe that this policy is for good. You still have option to keep major version you want but helps us to test only one build for each major version. That’s become a big deal for us and helps us a lot.
I agree that we should have give you some sort of advance notice but our options are limited. “Banning” is hardcoded feature without any UI and EmUpdate related to it served rather different purpose of switching whole file repository because there actually are major differences between v5-v8 and v9-v10 VPS.
As for the protection, we continuously improve (self-)protection of the Avast and underlying system making it harder for unknown malware to get in or disable Avast before its detection and this is becoming increasingly important. This cannot be done by just updating VPS and these updates are not usually backported.
I’m not convinced that this web page tells us whether the actual db itself is actually different for those various stipulated version groups or not, it’s still possible that the db itself is not different at all. It very well could be that the application methods used to update the db are what is different for those designated versions that may actually by grouped because those versions require a different update process for purposes of application compatibility as opposed to whether or not any differences may exist in the db itself for each of those version groups hence the db may actually be the same in each case. It would seem to me that we can’t know either way if the db varies between versions that are grouped for db updates based on this website.
What Asyn’s link points to is the different vps updates used for 2014 as opposed to 5-8 so your statement about them all using the same database is wrong, companies claim their latest software to be better mainly on the fact that new versions are built with the latest features and technology to combat the latest attack strategies.
