Avast is shooting itself in the foot

Avast Free Antivirus / Premium Security
1

I work for a consulting firm and we’ve been in a dilemma for awhile now. We really want to recommend Avast Antivirus, but the absence of an “IGNORE” or “ADD FILE TO EXCLUSION LIST” has been an issue with Avast for some time now. We are, also, (given that the rest of the review sites have seemingly sold out) launching a new review site with real and honest reviews by certified technicians that have actually tracked the spotlighted software (that includes… is it doing what it claims and what’s it doing in the background, unknown to the user).

Although it’s not perfect and we would like to see some minor changes, we still really wanted Avast to be “our #1 choice” for security… but, their refusal to acknowledge a very serious problem with their software (in our attempts to contact Avast, it does not appear that the developers even hear about such things and instead, follow blindly forward oblivious to what would otherwise be valuable data for future choices). If you check the other more popular general forums (Google, Yahoo, etc), you can see that users have been requesting that this be addressed for a fairly long time now and we can only determine from this and our own experiences with Avast staff that this issue will continue to be ignored, wholeheartedly.

As such, we will not even be able to list Avast as a recommended security package, let alone the best… the refusal to acknowledge the possibility of false positives, whether through miss-interpretation of installation advertisements on quality freeware, miss-fires via the heuristics engines on technical software, and etc., is a deal-breaker in our opinions and we will be continuing our search for the best security package.

We do believe that once it becomes common knowledge that Avast has such a serious limitation, their current user base will dwindle dramatically and quickly… we’re sorry to see this happen to what is otherwise a seemingly quality product, but if only their employees had just passed the information along and let development decide what’s important, rather than assuming they, themselves, know best.

Forcing us to remove software that we trust, because you have no contingency for when your software makes a mistake (like all AVs do) is a profit-killer and how you cannot see or understand this, even from non-technical employees, is certainly beyond our understanding.

2
the refusal to acknowledge the possibility of false positives,
False positives should be reported to avast lab so it can be corrected and benefit [b]all[/b] avast users
3

That’s ironic, I was actually just hopping in here one last time to try and head you off at the past. But, you were too quick.

As I am well aware of some forum watchers, let me try to square some arguments ahead of time, before those who love to show their prowess by arguing points they either have no working experience in or have used no common sense, before posting…

Being the ONLY quality AV scanner that does not allow users to handle their own files is not justified by proclaiming that every user of Avast, no matter their schedule or workload, should have to take the time to contact Avast and report such false positives, when if that were such an issue, Avast can and probably already does tally this information via the community participation option within the Avast program.

Second, I know some will interject that this is not issue, as it can be circumvented by simply sending the false detected file/app to the Chest… then, opening the Chest and recovering it… then, adding the file manually to the exclusion list. Even for those of us who have the technical capability to do so, find this process to be needlessly cumbersome and annoying… but, is as yet, being short-sighted as to the typical computer user, who does not have the technical know-how to do this.

This post was to Avast as a last ditch attempt for them to realize a glaring hole in the software, which ALL of their competition have accounted for and it is not intended as a vehicle to argue non-sense with forum jockeys that simply want to argue to demonstrate their own perceived knowledge about a subject in which they are ignorant.

4

It isn’t the refusal to acknowledge the possibility of false positives, but to prevent harm to a users computer through accidental use.

The issue is not having a single click option to ignore and allow to run as accidental click could leave the user at risk of infection, when not an FP.

There is nothing to stop the user manually adding the file name and location to the exclusions, so it is a deliberate act (not an accident) to exclude and allow it to run.

5
no matter their schedule or workload, should have to take the time to contact Avast and report such false positives,
if no one takes the time....how will avast lab know, and correct?

if file is moved to chest it is just a right click and send to avast lab … should take less then a minute

avast! 2014: Using the Virus Chest http://www.avast.com/en-eu/faq.php?article=AVKB21#artTitle

or you can report it here http://www.avast.com/contact-form.php

6

I’m done, you’re an idiot… far too stuck on proving you’re not. Why don’t you check the competition Avast and the other forums that have users requesting this be addressed for a very long time? If you listen to forum jockeys, who only argue on forums, rather than working the field, because they want to “feel smart”, you really will shoot yourselves in the foot.

7
I'm done, you're an idiot... far too stuck on proving you're not.
Thanks ... i love you to :-*
8

@herschk

This post was to Avast as a last ditch attempt for them to realize a glaring hole in the software
I consider Avast the only company with enough brains to realize that users aren't competent to make that decision. Not allowing direct decision making as to safe or infected to the user, keeps the system safe. Avast is very fast with updating their data base should they have made a mistake which doesn't happen very often. The process to report a program to the virus lab is fairly simple. Even a novice should be able to figure it out. :)
9

??? Really no cause for flaming. As we don’t work for avast! but volunteer our help to all. No insults, get free help. I think an apology is in order. :o

10

Wow, now Avast’s customers are stupid ?..Avast is now protecting us from our own ignorance. This sounds like the US Government (Obama)…“don’t worry we are taking your rights but it is for your own good”…what a bunch of who-ey. ;D

Seriously, it is a good argument on both sides…Avast needs to ensure the feedback, they think they are protecting users.
It really comes down to the files/types it falsely flags…what if those files are critical to a program or worse the O/S ?..it happens. Perhaps the take-away here is not to change Avast’s philosophy (since clearly they have thought this thru and are in different camp than others) but how to implement a more streamlined approach to the average (in Bob’s words “in-competant”) user ?

Anyway, very interesting topic for sure.

11
(in Bob's words "in-competant") user ?
Nice job of twisting my words. You should have been a politician.... ;)
12

All in fun…just ribbing ya. :slight_smile:

Interesting topic…never really thought about it much but I can see both sides of argument.
My only true comment is that Avast should come up with a cleaner…easier…way to allow the use to handle.
Since quarantine is forced perhaps a review (opening) of this section automatically before proceeding.
Not 100% sure…would have to think on it some…

13

Then perhaps Avast can add a clickable “report false positive to Avast” right in the software would be good, with an immediately activated update in the local installation so a user stops having unnecessary issues.

I am getting tired of having Avast display repeated warnings because it doesn’t have the software that we use in it’s database and keeps blaring that it is harmful. It isn’t. We’ve used it safely for years and previous versions of Avast never flagged it. Just the last few months have been an issue.

14

This may be true for an average fiddles around on the internet and does some minimal home record keeping sorts of things type users, but some of us do more extensive and specialized applications.

When programs install they offer the options to install with the most common settings or to do a custom install picking features to install and which to ignore. There is no reason why Avast couldn’t have that same option in the settings to allow advanced users more liberty in how and what the software does with results. It would ultimately make it safer for all because it is akin to having a secondary tech team with vast experience helping to pave the way safely for the novices that follow.

15

An additional button could be for those who think something is safe, but are unsure and then Avast can look into it further. There are many who fall somewhere between novice and advanced, then again between advanced and expert.

16
It would ultimately make it safer for all because it is akin to having a secondary tech team with vast experience helping to pave the way safely for the novices that follow.
This is the action you institute by submitting what you presume to be a false positive to the guys in the virus lab. Once confirmed, that item will then no longer be tagged as an unsafe item. The ultimate decision still rests with those you've hired to keep you safe.
17

A link to report false positive is right in the detection popup, isn’t it?
Most solved false positive are distributed (also) via reputation services… i.e. basically instantly. So once the false positive is solved avast! stops detecting the file.

18

It’s by design so people don’t go and exclude every thing avast! pops up about. I’ve seen that so (too) many times…

19

I have been seeing way too many Win32: Evo:gen [Susp] reports - all false positives - lately.

Yep, I’ve submitted them all.

Yep, they’re still happening after the latest update/reboot.

They happen on trusted tools that have been on my system for YEARS, and which have been passing Avast’s own scans every day.

It’s a “[Susp]” report! Not an “OMG, it’s the instant-death-parasite virus in all it’s glory” report!

I would appreciate being given the opportunity to ponder a “[Susp]” report on a file I recognize and make the final decision to “push through” anyway, instead of being FORCED to blow up whatever job is running, however complex or important. And also to be able to directly configure the sensitivity of the heuristic that’s clearly broken, so I can fix the root cause until the fix comes out.

How about an “ignore rule until next update” capability with regard to “[Susp]” reports?

How about a secret “user is in charge” registry tweak that’s geeky to apply and which at least makes it possible for an expert user to take control?

Thing is, Avast really doesn’t know better than I do about every single file on my computer. I’ve been a software engineer for a few years shy of 4 decades. I actually do know a thing or two about what I’m doing and the files on my computer. I don’t appreciate a product so dumbed down that I can’t override its bad decisions with better ones, resulting in lost time and lost work.

EITHER Avast needs to work out their false-positives and get it right 100% of the time, or they need to provide the user the opportunity to recover from Avast’s mistakes. I don’t think the first is possible. It’s arrogant to think the second is not needed.

-Noel

20

@ NoelC,
I guess you didn’t like Avast"s answer which was posted by igor.
In ten years of use, I haven’t yet run into a situation were the current policy of Avast made use of my computer impossible. :slight_smile: