For the Standard Shield provider (on-access scanning):
Left click the ‘a’ blue icon, click on the provider icon at left and then Customize.
Go to Advanced tab and click on Add button…
For the other providers (on-demmand scanning such as the screen-saver or the Simple User Interface):
Right click the ‘a’ blue icon, click Program Settings.
Go to Exclusions tab and click on Add button…
You can use wildcards like * and ?.
But be carefull, you should ‘exclude’ that many files that let your system in danger.
Yes, this is on-demand scanning. The opposite, on-access scanning, is done by Standard Shield provider, the resident guard of avast.
That is on-demand, you initiated the scan as opposed to on-access, when something access a file avast scans it automatically (depending on standard shield settings).
Key loggers can be used for evil and good, it is difficult for an AV to determine which. You may want to consider proactive action rather than find out after they have done it by using a key logger. There are many parental controls out there this is just one. Naomi Parental Control software (freeware) http://www.radiance.m6.net/
Thanks for all the replies. I’m running the scan as I write so too early to say if that’s the only scanning problem I have (I’ll report back). If the work around works, then fine, but I’m curious as to why the hang occurs. Bear in mind that when I scan the offending file directly, by using the context menu scan or by selecting the folder specifically in the scan interface, the hang does not occur, so why does it only happen when it ‘reaches’ that file after scanning the rest of the machine? I can’t help feeling that this is a more general scanning ‘issue’, perhaps related to other ‘hang scenarios’ that others have reported in this forum, and not specifically to do with the Keylogger app itself…??..let me know your thoughts on that.
Other than that, I have some questions which I’d appreciate some views on to help me decide whether I should use this free product rather than renew my NOD32 licence for another year:
Why is there no scanning available for Azureus in P2P?
What level of risk would you associate with script scanning? As far as I can see that is the only significant difference between the free version and the paid version. As yet I’m not convinced that is worth paying the licence fee for - on it’s own. Am I missing something?
I am a home user, 3 machines on a very secure wireless network with the principal machine (this one) hard wired to the router (firewalled). I run a fast (8Mbps) broadband connection and all machines use XP / SP2 with IE7. I additionally use Javacools SpywareBlaster and Spybot S&D for browser ‘innoculation’ against downloadable ‘nasties’ and I clean the machine of all applets, temp files, cookies etc etc on startup using CCleaner. Using the default IE7 security settings, is script blocking (or the lack of it) a significant risk? I should add that the users here are me (savvy), my wife (never goes anywhere she shouldn’t!!), my teenage daughter (clicks on any link that anyone sends her…!!) and my 11 year old daughter who just sends her mates emails and plays simple games.
BTW, thanks for the link above relating to parental controls - I’ll check that out.
It is strange indeed… the Windows Explorer extension scanner will scan in deepest mode… :
I’m not sure, but maybe Azureus use a different transference protocol that cannot be handled by avast.
Anyway, the Standard Shield will scan the downloaded files.
Other differences are the scheduling and the automated actions features, Enhanced Interface, push updates, etc.
I think yes… Script blocker of Firefox will give you more control and safety.
That’s your main concern… for these situations, script scanning could be very good.
Hi all the world!, I’m a new member of this community, i’m writing from Italy and i’m not very expert to use of !avast; My version is 4.7, Home Edition -free- VPS file just to 3 january (file 0701-0). I bought my first pc in june 2005, now I have xp home edition (licensed) SP2. Last year my antivirus was McAfee, but i spent 50 Euro for it… and i think it is not very good for international community that must use pc for to go their ideas in all world. You think i’m preparate to use this new beta version? My !Avast was downloaded in 15 december 2006…What do you think? I’m terrorised to make very confusion in my programms and in my mind… ???geminilion@gmail.com
The beta is very stable. It’s working fine.
But you’ll need to install the last stable version and then update to beta.
There is not a beta ‘setup’ file to install it from the beggining.
Use the downloaded file to install, then download the file Vlk posted in the first post of this thread and update to beta.
Oh, remove your email from forum if you don’t like spam in your mailbox!
geminilion,
Welcome to the forum.
Unless you like a lot of SPAM, I suggest that you remove your scannable e-mail address from your post.
Just a bit of friendly advice.
Standart scan + archives: 18.8 GB; 32 minutes. Not bad, as it 10 minutes faster than with older version PS. I should add that this BETA is very stable, I can’t find anything bad ;D ;D ;D
Hmmm… The beta is working fine, yes, and a tad bit faster too…
but the bad news is, i think there’s something wrong with the password protection coz i cant seem to get it to work! a red message box would appear telling me that
“avast!: The process cannot access the file because it is being used by another process”
one more thing that bothers me, is i think there’s something wrong with the Web Shield as well… it’s got to do with the way its handling packers… before, in 4.7.892, it always caught the baddies while i was testing it in the web… now, it couldn’t detect the double-packed eicar test file… but it caught the single-packed eicar test file…
any comments? have you also experienced these? or have i installed it incorrectly?
the other providers seem to be working as well as before, only faster…
Windows can protect some files that are in use, you don’t say what the file name or locations is ?
The eicar test has certain constraints on how it is used, I don’t know if multi packers falls into that category. You also don’t say what packers have been used ?
Is that from the eicar test site or something cobbled up elsewhere ?
However, something that has used multi packers also has to unpack it before it would effectively be harmful (in the case of a real virus), so the risk element is low files that are unpacked become newly created and as such would be scanned by standard shield, if it got past the web shield.
It would also depend on your web shield settings as it may not scan all files.
its the eicar test from their site, itself… i was testing if Web Shield would block the download, but apparently it did not… :-\
its a double-packed ZIP archive, according to eicar’s site… my Web shield is set to High setting already, with All Packers checked… the weird thing is that the Explorer extension could detect it, that is if i downloaded it and scanned it… :-\
how about the password problem? do you experience it too?
I don’t see anywhere in the web shield that you can tick for all packers ?
However, what was the URL path, if it began with https: then avast doesn’t monitor secure encrypted traffic, it can’t.
Password, sorry I don’t know what your problem is
but the bad news is, i think there's something wrong with the password protection coz i cant seem to get it to work! a red message box would appear telling me that
“avast!: The process cannot access the file because it is being used by another process”
avast doesn’t use passwords in updating I assume this is what you are talking about (?) and your error message mentions nothing about passwords but a file in use by another process. I doubt this is beta bug related issue or all or many of us who are using the beta would be experiencing it.
hey! i got it working now david! ;D the “packers” problem i mean… tweaked some rules in my firewall and the web scanner’s behavior and its working perfectly now!
thanks
now my only problem with the beta is the password thing…
and with the tick with the "All packers", i could access it coz i'm using the pro version
Ahh that would be why I can't see it I assumed you were using Home since you didn't mention what version you had.
I don’t use the password protection of settings as 1) I’m the only user, 2) if I have a problem like that I would just install my last hard disk image.
The only thing I’ve heard about a problem was someone forgetting it and having to uninstall, boot, run the uninstall utility, boot and reinstall so they could reset it. This would appear to be different to your problem, which you could expand on.
Since the Red box doesn’t relate to password protection of settings, do you still have a problem with updates or this red box ?
Both of the above issues I doubt are directly related to the beta version, so it would probably be better to create a new topic for it so as not to clutter up the beta topic.