VRDB and Vista

[sunrisecc]

I can confirm that the VRDB does not get established/updated if one selects 'update while in screen save mode' under Vista. I too had to change the selection to either manual or idle mode. My two XP computers do not have this problem and update using screen saver mode.

My question is as follows. I still allow use of the UAC. Is the VRDB really required under Vista?

The purpose in asking is to generate a discussion. This is not a complaint.

[Lisandro]

This is a well-known problem on Vista (i.e., VRDB is not generated on screen save mode) that was already acknowledged by Alwil. You could set idle mode and it'll be generated, or manually generate it.

[sunrisecc]

I was aware of the work-around and indicated such above.

My question remains - Is it really needed in Vista with the UAC on?

[Lisandro]

Is it really needed in Vista with the UAC on?

It does not have anything related to UAC... I see no relationship.

VRDB stores the necessary info to restore executables (*.exe, *.com) files.
VRDB is not a backup system, the stored information is very small (not the whole files).
Besides, only Win32 executables are processed.
The VRDB data are stored in <avast>\Data\Integ\avast.int
So it's not a bakcup utility, but a restore feature of avast.

UAC is an elevation (user rights) feature of Windows Vista.
They don't conflict, they're not related each other.

[sunrisecc]

I agree with what you have stated. But since the .exe files can only be altered if I approve under Vista, it seems that the value of the VRDB is diminished under Vista as compared to XP for example.

Another way of stating my question is - with the extra layers of security that Vista brings in, the value of the VRDB is not as great as before and hence I was asking if other Vista users feel the same as me.

[Lisandro]

I agree with what you have stated. But since the .exe files can only be altered if I approve under Vista, it seems that the value of the VRDB is diminished under Vista as compared to XP for example.

The file is read, not changed (altered). The info is stored into VRDB and not another .exe.

Another way of stating my question is - with the extra layers of security that Vista brings in, the value of the VRDB is not as great as before and hence I was asking if other Vista users feel the same as me.

The value of VRDB is lesser than it used to be due to less file infectors (specially execute infectors) are in the wild. The value of VRDB has nothing to due with security, but with the recovery of infection that occured. UAC does not limit VRDB and Vista does not offer the layer of cleaning (restoring) of VRDB.

[sunrisecc]

The file is read, not changed (altered). The info is stored into VRDB and not another .exe.

I am aware of that. I was referring to the original exe file.

The value of VRDB is lesser than it used to be due to less file infectors (specially execute infectors) are in the wild.

I agree.

The value of VRDB has nothing to due with security, but with the recovery of infection that occured. UAC does not limit VRDB and Vista does not offer the layer of cleaning (restoring) of VRDB.

I somewhat agree. I prefer to restore an exe file from a clean backup - although I have never had to as yet. LOL

I was hoping someone could tell me how effective it is in restoration of an executable in Vista.

[Lisandro]

I am aware of that. I was referring to the original exe file.

Me too. The original file is only read, not executed or changed.

I was hoping someone could tell me how effective it is in restoration of an executable in Vista.

Using System Restore, perfect.
Better if you use Mozy (see my signature)

[sunrisecc]

I still would like to know if anyone has had an occasion to use the VRDB for restoration under Vista. In other words, how does Avast do in cleaning exe files under Vista?