Avast 10.x has this problem on my XP-SP3 machine:
Reading the filelist with SUMo takes hours, every entry is scanned (rotating “a” symbol).
Did not happen not previous versions. Does not happen on Win7 machines.
Bug or misconfiguration?
What do you mean with Sumo?
The wrestlers
Simulation of Urban MObility
The paint application
or…?
That’s kind of up to you.
If Avast is scanning more things than it once did, it would be hard to call that a problem.
You have invited the software into your computer to protect you. The software is fully configurable to, for example, exclude certain kinds of checks of certain files / folder trees - it all depends on you to set that up. You can, for example, choose to be slightly less well-protected in order to gain back performance simply by excluding certain folder structures from certain kinds of File Shield operations.
Like Eddy, I have no idea what SUMo is. My note above, however, applies to pretty much anything you do. I recently chose to exclude certain files/folders I use heavily during software development, as I’m not developing virus software and I don’t need my own build products, etc. scanned repeatedly while I’m waiting for a build to complete. Thus, I chose performance over the (small) possibility that a file I’m accessing during such operations could become infected. But I did keep Execute checking turned on, and of course I kept Avast’s Web Shield turned on.
-Noel
It’s KC softwares, excellent utility and excellent support from the author
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/sumo-keep-your-software-up-to-date.314623/
I suspect Avast just needs to learn about its existence in the cloud DB.
http://www.kcsoftwares.com/?sumo
For every program when you request to check versions, SUMo goes out to their servers to be able able to fill the current version number, so then you can tell what needs updating/or not.
In my system - see sig - I never noticed any slowdown.
I also have this problem.
I can reproduce it on three different PCs, all with Windows XP 32 bit.
However, I can’t reproduce it on a Windows Vista 32 bit.
The culprit is “Scan programs when executing” of “File System Shield”.
Disabling that fixes the problem, but of course I don’t want to disable it.
Note SUMo doesn’t execute any program, and I have SUMo in my exclusion list.
Therefore, Avast! shouldn’t slow it down.
Maybe if SUMo runs as a service there’ll be some slowdown as it continuously checks file properties and therefore makes Avast work harder ???
I have no issues on XP-32 bit but I don’t have it starting at bootup. Just on demand.
hmmm, I’m on v9 of avast, not v10
I never found sumo to be of much use.
The installer now comes with a bunch of junk/malware/adware that unless you are careful gets installed on your computer.
KC offers another installer without all the junk but it is somewhat hidden as there is just an icon that represents that download.
You can see in the attached pic which one has junk and which one does not.
If you were a new user to the site which one would you click on to download Sumo?
I don’t run it as a service. I just run it as a normal program.
It may be that. But SUMo just checks programs, doesn’t run them (otherwise, COMODO Firewall would warn me).
Therefore, “Scan programs when executing” shouldn’t slow it down.
Me too.
I didn’t have the problem on Avast! 9 neither. Or at least on most 9.x versions, not sure the last one.
True. I always download the portable (Zip) version, which doesn’t have that junk.
That is, http://www.kcsoftwares.com/files/sumo.zip.
SUMo checks program updates in three phases. During the first and the second ones, it checks if the programs are still there, gets their version, etc. During the third phase, SUMo connects to the server to know if there are updates.
I have measured the impact of enabling Avast!:
[tr]
[td]Phase[/td]
[td]|[/td]
[td]Avast! disabled[/td]
[td]|[/td]
[td]Avast! enabled[/td]
[td]|[/td]
[td]Impact[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]File check 1 (81 programs)[/td]
[td]|[/td]
[td]6 s[/td]
[td]|[/td]
[td]2 min 9 s[/td]
[td]|[/td]
[td]+2050%[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]File check 2 (80 programs)[/td]
[td]|[/td]
[td]6 s[/td]
[td]|[/td]
[td]2 min 5 s[/td]
[td]|[/td]
[td]+1983%[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Online check (80 programs)[/td]
[td]|[/td]
[td]10 s[/td]
[td]|[/td]
[td]10 s[/td]
[td]|[/td]
[td]+0%[/td]
[/tr]
That seems too much. Please fix it.
Avast should scan any process over the executable files. I suppose this is the price to pay for getting protection.
OK, but the feature is called “Scan programs when executing”, and here SUMo doesn’t execute any executable.
If there can be such impact, please consider separating that feature into the scan of execution and the scan of other processes over executables.
I don’t want to disable the first one, but I don’t mind the second one very much.
But anyway, this seems a bug, because it only seems to happen with Avast! 10 on Windows XP.
I can’t reproduce it on Windows 7 64 bit neither.
The executable is being read and touched by SUMO to get the information.
I’m not sure, but I think it won’t be that simple. Malware could also “touch” the executables and made changes. The security program - maybe - can’t separate the good from the evil.
OK, thanks for the explanation. Maybe separating reading executables from executing or writing them would be more feasible?
Will there be any investigation to know if the slowdown is a bug or if it’s a normal cost of the protection?
SUMo “Lite” (with NO sponsors) is even flagged by AVAST (sole A/V to do that).
See : https://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=163929
Regarding the slowdown, AVAST is the only A/V generating this performance issue.
It is not the normal cost of the protection : No other AV induce such poor overall performances
@SUMo_User, are you the creator of SUMo?
It would be great if you could investigate what exactly SUMo is doing when Avast! slows it down.
This way it would be easier for Avast! to fix the bug, or maybe you could avoid the problem changing SUMo’s behavior slightly.
Yes and i would be glad to investigate this issue with Avast technical staff.
I contacted them using the “Support Ticket” I’m now waiting for an answer from them.
You’re mixing, or, at least, saying I’m mixing, the “cost” of protection that is reducing (a bit, we wish) the performance with a false positive detection. The false positive is always an error, a bug, that should be addressed. It’s not a cost.
If we think about technology, the “detection” technology (blacklist) (in opposite of whitelisting or deny all) will always pay the cost of false positives though, as any error - done with good will - will led to a false detection.
Well, technology philosophy 8)
OK 
By the way, thanks for SUMo. Great piece of software, I use it.