Avast Scanning Range = Scans lots of stuff that doesn't carry malware.

Avast Business Avast Business for Linux
1

Hmmmmmmm Hello mere mortals it is I God speaking.

Um…Ok With the Avast for Linux Ubu Application (Ubu is clever techno speak for Ubuntu); When I set it to do a FULL scan (or any other scan) it spends DAYS scanning AVI files, MP3 files, and a whole heap of other stuff that is not infectable…

It annoys me because my system is very old, and while it works just fine, it really annoys me to have the hard drive thrashing it’s guts out - for about 2 days non stop, mostly for no good reason - other than the programmers were really lazy and decided that a piss poor job was good enough.

And I am thinking… setting up Avast to search through EVERY file type -like the AVI’s and MP3’s and the JPG’s; that is like looking for the dog in the fridge, under the bed, on top of the TV, in the draws, behind the curtains etc., etc., etc… when in fact that dog is chained to it’s kennel outside…

So why deliberately FAIL to look exactly where the malware IS, and the file types they come in, instead of sending it to spend DAYS searching where it isn’t?

The Avast spiel about all of this is that Avast for Linux shares the same scanning date / modules / program core as the WINDOZE version; and yet it spends days searching through all the dumb shit, instead of looking for the malware, where the malware actually IS, and what it is actually linked into.

It doesn’t actually search for system breaches, keyloggers, or defiencies in administration either…

What annoys me worsera; is that after doing an incredibly slack job of programming it - there is no way to stop this incredibly wasteful and stupid process from doing what is has been set up to do…

I can’t go settings, "Do NOT search AVI’s, MP3’s, JPG’s etc., etc., etc., etc… and I can’t set it to search INFECTABLE files only…

Like whoever decided to dump this program onto the market, needs their heads baked some more in the hot sun.

Or are their managers, who has allowed this incredibly slack piece of software to be dumped onto the market, 8th grade dropouts too?

This reminds me of a huge fight in an aircraft passenger terminal in Western Australia…

The plane broke and needed fixing. Ok - so the idiots on the staff, gave the passengers an announcement;

“The plane is being repaired - and will be ready for boarding in one hour…”

One hour came and went… another announcement.

“The plane is being repaired - and will be ready for boarding in one hour…”

The second hour came and went… another announcement.

“The plane is being repaired - and will be ready for boarding in one hour…”

And this went on all night.

After 12 hours of being fed the same line with no end insight - the passengers rioted…

So what came out of this was that it took over 18 hours for the repairs to be completed;

And the passengers were saying things to the media, “If they had of told us it was going to take 18 hours we could have gone home and come back instead of being stuck here in the terminal all night…”

“We could have canceled our ticket and taken another company or flight…”

“Thanks to these idiots, we have missed out children’s wedding etc… etc., etc…”

But because the stupids at the desk kept of feeding the passengers this kind of bullshit instead of being straight with them from the outset - they rioted…

This being the case; what in the hell are you people in Avast doing, dumping such poorly configured software onto the market?

Don’t you people “get it”?

2

Summing up, you did a Thorough Scan in which:
Since Thorough = executed without negligence or omissions
.:. Thorough scan = Scan all files :wink:

By the way, if you want to speed it up, use quick scan.

3

Naaaaaa not on.

IF there is no malware to be found in a very large and substantial amount of file types, why is Avast been programed to search through them?

And I was always of the opinion that “Thorough” meant deeper and longer taking analysis of the actual files that are possibly infected or infectable…

Kind of like searching through a car for drugs… looking in the passengers pockets, under the seats and in the glove box - is very different to cavity searchs, blood tests, and stripping the car into parts and swabbing every square inch.

Which is different to swabbing down all of the footpaths in the entire city… like cause while the driver and the passenger may be running drugs in the car - there is no drugs in the cement; so why search the cement foot paths?

Or don’t you forum fanbois grasp this concept either?

4

Hey, grasp this!

5
And I was always of the opinion that "Thorough" meant deeper and longer taking analysis of the actual files that are possibly infected or infectable...

Kind of like searching through a car for drugs… looking in the passengers pockets, under the seats and in the glove box - is very different to cavity searchs, blood tests, and stripping the car into parts and swabbing every square inch.

Which is different to swabbing down all of the footpaths in the entire city… like cause while the driver and the passenger may be running drugs in the car - there is no drugs in the cement; so why search the cement foot paths?

from what is posted before thorough scan is meant to check every single file, therefore, no doubt why it was called thorough. Well it would be unwise to make it exclude what you’ve mentioned as it should have been named “not-so-thorough scan” .

NOTE: Aside from thoroug scan, quick scan and standard scan exists. I believe it was quick scan you are looking for.

NOTE: Nothing is permanent but change. Sooner or later, Linux will be having new viruses termed as “file infectors”. It already happened to what was once called “invulnerable Mac” yet, now pandemically virus-ed.

6

But, for linux viruses to become common, more people must use it… as hackers do not create viruses for fun… they are usually after money… right?

7

Hallo,
it was pretty hard to find the real question in your novel, but I tried, at least:

  1. full scan is really full scan. in this mode, virus is expected everywhere, even at the end of your rar-ed image od DVD, containing movies only. And this of course takes time - well, approximately 6 CPU-ticks for one byte, in the best case. That’s how things work, and honestly - majority of other AVs isn’t faster in this mode.

  2. scan can be stopped, of course at any time - but, when for example, some big archive is just in the depcakiong process, there might be some latency.

Regards,
pc

8

I know its out of subject, but y do u sign as pc? Just curious…

9

those are initial letter of my name/surname - incidentally resembling that damn “personal computer” shortcut :).

10

Ohhhh you poor forum fanbois… your all just so un-gay… :-X

I don’t know that the minimum denomination (value of currency) that your Banking Auto Tellers spit out; but here in Straya, it’s $20…

So to put this in it’s simplest terms… so even the retards can understand this:

If you have LESS that $20 in your bank account, you cannot make a withdrawl from the Auto-Teller…

So if you KNOW you only have $5 in your bank account, what are you doing going to the autoteller for, trying to make a withdrawl?

Sure the Forum Fanbois might go do that - so they can pose for their simple minded girlfriends with statements like “OH I can’t make a withdrawl, I have TOO much money in my account - can you pay for the McDonalds cheese burger, small fries and small coke?”

But the average person knowing that the Autotellers only spits out a minimum value note of $20, would not bother going to the Autoteller and trying to make the withdrawl…

ARE YOU LISTENING TO THIS AVAST PEOPLE?

So IF the majority of file types are not vectors for malware, WHY:

a) Include them in the scan - proportion wise - if only say 1% of the file types are infected / infectable - and the other 99% of the file types are not vectors of malware - that means that 99% of the scaning time is for NO VALID REASON…

AND

b) WHEN are you going to bring out a scanner function that ONLY scans the infectable file types as a selectable choice; OR

c) Enables one to select the file types that do not need scanning?

Only an IDIOT would go to the Autoteller the ONE day a month that their account actually has more than $20 in it, and then keep going back 3 X a day every day for the rest of the month, trying to make a withdrawl, when there is less than $20 in the account.

But YOU people in the company “don’t seem to get it” and the forum fanbois, only get outraged and make silly comments when they get an idea that challenges their sense of self importance - because it has big words or is beyond their comprehension - which disrupts their brain cells - so they have to stop camming with themselves and say lots of stupid things to sound intelligent.

But try as I may, I can only put things so simply - but after that, 3 letter words don’t express the issues very well.

11

Dummy, if you don’t change your language, next time I simply remove your account, together with all your posts, without any warning.

12

Again. For the third time.

Quick Scan exists

If you don’t like everything to be scanned thoroughly, use quick scan.

PS: I love the way you construct metaphors. :wink:

13

@ blackeagle

haha. His metaphors seemed to make things a bit complicated. Well by the way, Dummy want to know how to make thorough scan into a quick scan.

Summing up all he said, it just get into one point of his: “Why does avast have to scan all files including the uninfectble ones?”