Avast is becoming the biggest bloody shit on the net. It is all the time taking decisions that BELONG TO ME ONLY, and now it spoiled my Filezilla. It offers a choice to add it to the exclusions, but does not take the command, and I do NOT want to add it every time I get an update because every update has a different number on the name. I do NOT WANT and I do NOT NEED any program taking decisions on my behalf. For now I am just disabling that stupid shield, but I will very soon uninstall this whole shit from my computer and replace it with a version that does not take the command from me and does not turn against the user.
Don’t blame avast, blame yourself for not knowing/doing things not in the right way.
It still is your choice.
You don’t have to add it each time there is a update.
Just use wildcards when excluding it.
Or simply exclude the entire FileZilla folder.
You’re right, it’s oriented to the “for dummies” crowd, and the authors clearly believe that it would be far less effective at malware protection if it allowed you to just push through an override whenever it detected something wrong. That makes some sense when you consider things like the ill-advised decision some kid who’s trying to run a game might make in the heat of the moment.
At first blush it seems a bit arrogant on Avast’s part because the product IS capable of false positive detections, but as Eddy pointed out there are ways - if you exercise a bit of thought and configuration finesse - to bend it to be more to the liking of someone who knows what they’re doing.
You are absolutely right Noel, but when a window appears on the lower right corner of the screen and we click on add to exceptions it does not do it, and for updating files with different names for each new update it does not work.
I believe someone wants to exchange quality for the number os new subscriptions.
I opted by adding Surceforge site to the global exclusions. Now I’ll have to wait for the next update to see how it works. For this time I downloaded the file from the site and reinstalled Filezilla. Fortunately the settings were kept.
So many users so many preferences. Go and learn from some of the postings of Lifehacker on tweaking avast! av solution more to your personal liking, e.g. http://lifehacker.com/how-to-disable-avasts-annoying-sounds-and-popups-1530732542
Some of these tweaking tips are not officially supported by avast (understandably so) and I for instance could not go without shields protection and the software updater. I would personally refuse to opt in for Grimefighter and also not always agree with some of the browser clean-up decisions, while I was glad some insecure chrome add-ons were pointed out so I could uninstall.
One thing and good advice and not only for avast! dummies is to - always choose the custom installation.
Agree with NoelC it seems the marketing guys and gals came to decide more and more where avast! was set out to be going, but they should not ignore the user experience feedback on the product completely. That would not be a wise decision, not even for avast! fanboys like we.
I have Filezilla 3.9.0.1 installed on this Win 7 Pro machine, and it works fine. I’ve never had to add an exclusion to AIS to get it to work. I just verified it by downloading Firefox and Thunderbird from the Mozilla FTP site. I’m basically using the default Avast settings.
and for updating files with different names for each new update it does not work.
Yes it does if you set the correct exclusion(s) for it.
I believe someone wants to exchange quality for the number os new subscriptions.
No, it is about protection. Give me $1 for each time avast detects something harmful and a user decides to put it back from the chest because the user thinks it is not harmful at all (while it is) and I will be a multi-millionaire in a couple of hours.
Fortunately the settings were kept.
Ofcourse they are kept. It wouldn't make any sense at all if you set something and the setting is not kept.
I opted by adding Surceforge site to the global exclusions.
Why adding a complete website if you only have a (user) problem with just one application? It will not fix pebkac.
Well Eddy has a very sound point there in reaction to the second quote.
Whenever there is detection the majority of users go into denial or do not check to make a decision what to do,
I would not doubt an alert because I checked on detection so many times (thousands and thousands of times over a decade or more),
that I know from experience what to expect and also why I should expect a detection there and then.
Or find out whether I was confronted with a false positive.
When I would not know what is being flagged I would come out here to the support forums and ask around.
We have enough expertise aboard here.
For many without that insight the denial mode is followed by the ignore mode and then they have crossed some sort of border
and out on their own.
Best policy is also to do a full C:/users folder scan once in a while, I often find that very rewarding.
Best policy is also to do a full C:/users folder scan once in a while, I often find that very rewarding.
Agree. And in the vein of some of the advice above to become more adept at configuring Avast to do just what you want, I suggest increasing the efficacy of the scan. There are options in there that are not selected by default that actually can give you slightly more peace of mind - at the expense of a bit more computer time.
Go and learn from some of the postings of Lifehacker on tweaking avast! av solution more to your personal liking, e.g. 