I did not say anything like that and I mean the clear opposite of what you wrote.
I have a question on clarifying heuristics (see the below). Thanks!
@kubecj
It seems to me like you are saying that the heuristics are active and adjusting the sensitivity level will impact how likely it is for avast’s engine to report a file as malware when that file has similar, but not identical, characteristics to a previously known malware signature/sample.
Is this correct, more or less?
If this is more or less correct, why not change the detection name to “Heur-malware” for all “malware” sample that would NOT be detected if the sensitivity bar were set to “off”? → Doing this will reassure users that the product is working as intended (many of us were concerned because we had not seen a “heuristic” detection yet) and will enable better FP management, as users are more likely to report false positives they believe are clean files when the detection is heuristic (“educated guess” in layman’s terms) than one based on a complete signature. Better FP reporting to avast enables cleaner signatures, improves the revision process to the heuristic engine(s_ by eliminating heuristic rules that generate excessive FP’s, and improves the user experience as fewer FP are generated overtime due to more accurate feedback of FP.