Will you keep the avast! for Linux died?

Avast Business Avast Business for Linux
1

I use it in my Ubuntu installation. Believe me, much faster than any situation of Windows 7 if I’m just browsing.

  1. The icon is the old “a” blue…
  2. The update error was never solved with the installation process…
  3. The registration continues to be manual…
  4. The virus database update is not incremental…
  5. The device cannot be registered at my.avast.com…
  6. The interface is the old fashioned one…
  7. The preferences were gone…
  8. The languages aren’t available anymore…

Final grade >:( :frowning:

2

You’re right - the product does have ‘forgotten’ feel about it.

I gave up when I got the non compliant deb installer warning for avast on ubuntu 12.04.

3

+1 avast needs to give Avast for linux a update. It seems forgotten.

4

As I’m running a Linux Distro I’m not expecting any Viruses, only Windows Type.

When I run Avast! for Linux, every few weeks it does the job fine. I’ve no complaints, I run it from the commandline, it’s quick, dilligent, and works fine.
It’s just an AV “Scanner” it isn’t a resident, ‘Bells and whistles’, ferry go round. :wink:

What does need changing ?

As I posted here:http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=105711.0

It is just as easy to use the program from the commandline.

Open a Terminal, and type: “avast --help”

AVAST

avast - command-line virus scanner

avast [OPTIONS] areaname

DESCRIPTION
The program provides on-demand antivirus protection by scanning files for virus infections in a given location. If no directory is specified, the current one is used. All inserted paths are scanned recursively. The scanner allows virus detection and further actions to be taken on infected files. It features archive/packed file scanning, infected file deletion or repair. Scanner output can be written to a report file. It also supports a special stdin/stdout mode which makes it work as a filter (pipe).

To call up all these commands: -h, --help
display help and exits

OPTIONS
Mandatory arguments to long options are mandatory for short options too.
-_, --console
work in stdin/stdout (filter) mode
-a, --testall
test all files, regardless of extension or content (default)
-b, --blockdevices
scan block devices
-c, --testfull
scan entire files (may be slow)
-d, --directory
scan only directory content, don’t scan subdirectories
-i, --ignoretype
ignore virus targeting
-n, --nostats
do not report statistics in the scanner output
-p, --continue=NUMBER
allows setting of an action to be automatically performed: delete file - 1, repair file - 3, user input - 4
-r, --report=

FILE

write output to a report file, ‘*’ for OK results
-t, --archivetype[=ARCHIVE_LIST]
scan inside archives. ARCHIVE_LIST may be Z(zip)', G(gzip)‘, B(bzip2), T(tar)', I(mime)’, J(arj)', R(rar)‘, X(exec)', O(zoo)’, Q(arc)', H(lha)‘, F(tnef)', V(cpio)’, K(chm)', P(rpm)‘, Y(iso)', D(dbx)’, 6(sis)', U(ole)‘, C(cab)', E(ace)’, 1(install)', W(winexec)‘, A(all)' or N(none)’
-v, --viruslist[=PATTERN]
show list of virus/worm names matching PATTERN string, and quit
-h, --help
display help and exits
–usage
display program usage, and quit
-V, --version
output current version information and exit

By default, avast! scans all files matching the given mask. Also, scanning inside zip, gzip, bzip2, tar, exec and winexec archives is set by default.
EXIT CODES
The program returns one of the following codes:
0
normal exit, nothing was found
1
at last one infected file was found
2
at last one infected file was found and was repaired
3
at last one infected file was found and cannot be repaired
4
at last one infected file was found and was deleted
5
at last one infected file was found and cannot be deleted
22
can’t run virus scanner, avast! engine failed
23
at last one object wasn’t scanned, an error has been detected
24
at last one object wasn’t scanned, file(s) has been encrypted
25
stopped, scan wasn’t completed
31
syntax error in input parameters
33
nothing to scan, input data error
41
help output
42
version output
43
virus list output

BUGS
If you find any bugs in avast!, please report them to support@avast.com.
AUTHOR
ALWIL Software - http://www.avast.com/


[b]

I’m not using any Ubuntu offshoot, so things may play out differently on my System.[/b]

5

Any news from the crew?

6

DEFINITELY!!!

7

allow me to revant the topic. installed fine first time. for some reason it add an error on finnishing the signatures update. now it keeps complainnig on a argument error and doesn’t show the simple gui… remove and reinstalled using the deb installer provided with linux mint, rebooted and still no luck…

any ideia?

8

→ http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=57775.0

9

thanks for the reply. ill check the tip :slight_smile:

PS; problem seems to be solved! thanks

10

You’re welcome.

11

That’s because Avast for Linux is still the OLD 4.8 Version, I too usually prefer running Linux (Ubuntu 12.10) over Windows 8, especially right now due to the fact that I am occasionally having problems with the good old Blue Screen Of Death, and other problems with 7.0.1474 with Windows 8, and am wondering (just like the rest of you guys) if Avast is going to Release a NEW Avast for Linux before the 4.8 products get Discontinued at the End of the Year.

12

I only use Linux, and aren’t at risk of infection so a program I run rarely doesn’t have the emotional dynamic you guy’s are talking of.
As long as you don’t Login to Linux as / (root) or use sudo, rather than ‘su’, you really should be safe. They are two major ways of being targeted by a Hacker when using Linux, as you are leaving all doors open.

Is Ubuntu susceptible to Viruses ? Most complaints seem to come from x’Buntu users ?

Also I note what I will call “The Dual Boot factor.”
I run Windows XP SP3 very occassionally, but on it’s own Computer, so I have all my Windows Anti-malware Software updated and active.

It is possible to run Linux in a program like Virtual box with Windows as your main System.
Maybe wiser than a Dual Boot setup ?

13

I know PCLOS doesn’t recommend use of sudo (or even put it in the default install), but personally I think it is probably safer to have the root account password locked (the ubuntu approach) and use sudo rather than su, but with sudo timeout set to zero (ie ask for password every time).

This seems to be a source of endless debate though, so each to his own.

14

It’s not sudo that PCLinux doesn’t like: it’s the way Ubuntu uses it.

Sudo is supposed to give users a carefully selected subset of administrator permissions, but in Ubuntu it gives users the full set.

http://www.pclinuxos.com/forum/index.php?topic=90479.0

PCLinux is cool with Sudo when used properly.

PCLinux is not saying that Sudo as used by Ubuntu opens a door to attack, let alone when used as intended. It simply lets normal users fcuk up their systems, including by installing malicious software if they want to. In the case of a home user, it makes no difference as they have the root password and can fcuk up their system with Sudo or Root if they choose, but it’s a bad idea in other situations.

15

I’m sure that’s all true.

But it still doesn’t change my view that the safest set-up is probably root password locked and password prompt for every use of elevated privileges.

Seasons greetings to all linuxers and avasters!

16

One set up provides the desktop user with full root privileges, the other provides the desktop user with full root privileges. You are free to choose with you think is the safest.

:wink:

17
It's not sudo that PCLinux doesn't like: it's the way Ubuntu uses it.
Good to hear from you FreewheelinFrank ! I remember you helped me get started "online", with a Dual boot setup of PCLinuxOS years ago, have tried others but it's a close commuity were I can pick peoples brains.

I use PCLinuxOS KDE ‘MiniMe’ not the full Monty, so as I can build my system how I like it.

As you quoted from that blurb by Old-Polack - Well yep, that’s why I say not to use ‘Sudo’, cos Old-Polack says not to, In The Manner Of The Buntus = ITMOTB

We have always supported the proper use of sudo as a limiting resource, when root privileges are needed for a specific repeatable purpose, such as when needed for the proper functioning of an application, within a script, or when a specific user on a multi user system is assigned limited administrative duties, but is not allowed access to the root password or full root privileges. This is the purpose for which sudo was intended.

I’ve never used 'Buntu, so,… heck do as you please guys. I may be wrong, go use ‘sudo’ if you have to.

Personally, I’ve never needed to use ‘sudo’. But, I’m using PCLinuxOS, so just consider that, and the rave in the link FreewheelinFrank posted from PCLinuxos Forums.

mag, your on the same page as the rest of us, don’t use “elevated privileges” longer than needed is how i take it.

Merry Christmas to you all, it’s officially Christmas (2.15 am) on the 25/12/2012 here in Australia. Plus my bedtime.

18

Hi Abraxas,

My point is that the link does not say don’t use Sudo, it says use it for what it was intended for, if you really need it.

That is to give users a strictly limited subset of root privileges.

To use Sudo by itself does not open up a security hole, especially if used as intended and desired by PCLinuxOS. Even as used by Ubuntu it is secure if used according to the Ubuntu rational.

I use Debian with no Sudo myself, but I used Ubuntu for a couple of years with no security issues.

Merry Christmas to you and all for the morrow.

FwF.

19

Can you please teach me how I can set up my Linux Mint maya 32-bit mate this way?