Avast WEBforum
Consumer Products => Avast Free Antivirus / Premium Security (legacy Pro Antivirus, Internet Security, Premier) => Topic started by: hake on December 18, 2013, 06:55:51 PM
-
Was this contrived in order to annoy the hell out of users of HIPS and similar security software? Isn't it possible to design a more elegant solution?
>:(
-
It doesn't bother me at all, just set it to allow all in the application settings of your firewall ( Outpost ), you can also add the exe file to the Applications Guard exclusions.
-
Doesn't bother my system either with Outpost Firewall Pro. But haven't we had this conversation before http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=142451.0 (http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=142451.0) and your settings in Outpost are bordering on the paranoid as far as sensitivity goes.
So none of the answers given in that topic have changed.
-
Sorry David. My friends on the Outpost forum agree that there is no way to block an executable the name of which is unknown until it rattles Outpost's cage. Also there is no way by which the contents of folders can be excluded from action by Outpost. I am requesting that Agnitum considers this issue.
Outpost appears to be programmed to take an extremely conservative view, i.e. not implicitly trusting digital signatures of executables, however worthy their provenance. The net result is Outpost crying 'Wolf!'
I appreciate that Outpost user woes are not the concern of Avast. However, the problem of the emergency executables could have been anticipated and is disruptive for those who are not using Avast firewall which presumably is programmed with consideration of the emergency executables.
-
Then why aren't all avast/outpost users having the same problem as you, which was also discussed in your previous topic. And this particular point 'Automatically create rules for applications signed by trusted vendors'.
So I have no intention of recovering ground already covered.
-
'Automatically create rules for applications signed by trusted vendors' is checked, i.e. ON. This has always been so. The behaviour with Outpost 8.1.2 has now ceased but why did Outpost cry out in the first place? Were the earlier emergency update files properly signed I wonder? Something must account for the change of Outpost behaviour.
Whither streaming updates?
-
The issue has now ceased. There have been no user changes made with with Outpost. That's that as far as I am concerned. Back to the normal standard which is excellent.