Hi
When i download a modded .APK file from the internet, Avast detect it as a malware and delete the file. the notification message did appear, i click on more details and it just say that Avast shield had protect my computer and asked me to buy full version. it is annoying that i can’t ignore the file directly from notification message.
I had added D:/ and E:/ in exclusions list but Avast still scanning my files.
More specific information including a screenshot would have been helpful. 
You hire a body guard to keep you safe. Then you go into another room which is just as dangerous but decide to fire the body guard.
??? Doesn’t make sense to me ??? But I’m not the one that fired my body guard.
[b]I had added D:/ and E:/ in exclusions list[/b] but Avast still scanning my files.did you reboot after adding ....
What’s this about quote:
i click on more details and it just say that Avast shield had protect my computer and asked me to buy full version… has it now come down to pushing users to “buy” to provide users with totally necessary options for an AV program to do a proper job?
I don’t want to even consider the possibility that some “exclusions” options are only available in the paid version, PLEASE NOT THAT TOO!!! (the ads are enough)… Someone tell me this is not so for Avast2015 and that there IS a way for evildog1 to exclude drives .
Is it necessary to reboot?
Of course you added the exclusion to the “File System Shield”.
Can you post the image showing your “exclusion” setting?
If that is all that you have added I’m not surprised that the exclusion doesn’t work - first you need to use the backslash '' not the forward slash ‘/’
You would also need to use a wildcard for multiple files, minimum requirement to exclude a drive would be D:* and E:* the ‘*’ wildcard is required to exclude all files in the drive
Whilst I would have to disagree with excluding whole drives as it puts a massive hole in your security - it’s your system and your choice.
Whilst reboot may not be entirely required (but it certainly doesn’t hurt) some find that the if exclusion hasn’t worked a reboot seems to cure that, assuming that the exclusion has been entered correctly. Depending on where the exclusion is placed, stopping and restarting the shield that the exclusion applies to may be enough.
So can’t evildog1 enter the exclusion to include the file name in combination with the necessary wildcards to get to the file location in order to resolve the security issue?
Like for instance if the download is at the D drive level enter the exclusion “D:/*.APK” so that only that file name will be excluded? (and of course any other path qualifiers can be added to reach the location if the download is not at that specific D drive path).
Btw, it didn’t occur to me that the quote:
I had added D:/ and E:/ in exclusions list but Avast still scanning my files.… was the format used, good catch if that was the format. I had thought it was for illustrative purposes only. That’s why I had asked for a post of an image of the exclusion setting.
I just did a quick read of the topic, when I noticed the paths in relation to his reported exclusions. So my response was based on what he did or wanted to do (at that point was exclude the drives) - but when using wildcards care has to be taken to restrict the wildcard so everything isn’t excluded or you drive a coach and horses through your security. You can exclude by file type as mentioned in your post.
Given that these .apk files are being downloaded, then the web shield is going to come into play before any file system shield scan as those files are scanned during download. Now you are looking at a greater range of URL exclusions (not just external drives) if the .apk files aren’t downloaded from a single web site.
There have been several cases where users complain about exlucions not working have worked after a reboot
You or somone else may search the forum and find those topic, i am on a phone now so a bit complicated
Maybe I’m wrong and not understanding the situation, but it was my impression that Avast was blocking the resident file itself once on the computer after the file had already been downloaded off the net. So there was no issue regarding the web shield or concern of a threat coming off the web so in that case presumably the exclusion entry was only necessary for the “File System” Shield based on what evildog1 stated quote: “… Avast detect it [the file] as a malware and delete the file”, at which time the file is being accessed on the computer presumably.
If this is correct then evildog1 is downloading the file onto his computer and it would only reside in one specific location, that is where evildog1 directs the file to go. Which is why I posted quote that evildog1 could “include the file name in combination with the necessary wildcards to get to the file location in order to resolve the security issue…”. Meaning that if the location of the downloaded file is known of which I’m presuming is the case then the exclusion path could be also narrowed down to that specific location. That said, if it is the only incident of that file on the computer then it isn’t really that necessary to include the full path other than for security assurances of course.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding the situation however so any advise where I’m missing something is welcomed. Of course it seems evildog1 is not a part of the conversation so perhaps we can’t really know.
Presumably they had previously been downloaded and would then be detected in the location they now reside.
There would only be a detection by the File System Shield (FSS), if he or another function accessed them, causing avast to scan them - otherwise it could be an on-demand scan detecting.
Also since the .apk files are Android Package Files, I just wonder if there isn’t some development going on, which could certainly be pinged by the FSS.
We also don’t know what the detection is (malware name given), I believe there is now a malware name related to .apk and reputation. A little like some of the other low reputation detections, when checked against the avast cloud database.
All of which is speculation if we aren’t getting any feedback from the OP as you mentioned.
So then if in fact we are talking about a file resident on the computer hence we are dealing with an established file path that can be entered as an “exclusion” in the “File System” then the security concerns you’ve mentioned regarding the “Web Shield” would not be an issue as I understand it, which was sort of the point I was trying to make in a roundabout way. That is as long as all that is needed is a specific file name with it’s relevant path that can be added to the “exclusion” file within the “File System” Shield in order to do the job of excluding the file which would then resolve the concerns brought up by evildog1 being discussed in this thread topic. That said, as you’ve mentioned as well this is all speculation absent any further input from the OP.
There is a bit of crossover/leeway as far as exclusions are concerned, you have the avastUI > Settings > General > Exclusions - this is the global exclusions, which would also apply to the File Shields, if placed in the correct area (File paths; URLs; DeepScreen or Hardened Mode).
Placing it only in the FSS exclusions it wouldn’t apply to on-demand scans.
I simply can’t answer the speculation that an exclusion isn’t needed in the web shield as we don’t know what the OP does. Any downloads would have to be covered if that is what he is ‘also’ doing, either in the web shield exclusions or the global exclusions URLs.