Avast WEBforum
Consumer Products => Avast Free Antivirus / Premium Security (legacy Pro Antivirus, Internet Security, Premier) => Topic started by: loungehake on June 19, 2020, 04:00:29 PM
-
Why does the Unconnected Devices list not show device names? They must have had names when they were connected. The lack of a name is most unhelpful for quick assimilation of important information. If a device name is displayed then the user can much more readily recognise the previous presence of a rogue device. Sure a MAC address is displayed but who instantly recognises a hard to remember 12 digit hex number? The IP address shown is likely allocated by a DHCP server and so says nothing about the ID of a trespasser on the network A bit more thought is required by the developer.
The previous WiFi Inspector output was spot-on. It seems like change for change's sake.
-
I have also thought that the Device name should logically be listed.
Attention to detail always pays off! :-\
-
There must be some brilliant software behind WiFi Inspector but that has been wasted by the lack of thought about the information, or lack of it, which is displayed. If devices on the network cannot be quickly and easily identified then WiFi Inspector has been rendered useless.
I could also ask the question "Why wasn't WiFi Inspector left as it was?" since the 'improved' version has in my opinion been made unfit for purpose. The old WiFi Inpector was excellent and a fabulous feature. I guess it should be a simple matter to restore the omitted device names to make it useful again. Doesn't Avast review its software before release? I'm not the brightest cookie in the jar and I spotted it. :o
-
Avast warns me that "New device (intel) has joined your network".
I have no device called 'intel' but there is one called 'Windows_XP_SP3' which has the same MAC address.
Why does Avast so flaunt its lack of quality? That is what it is doing. The network warnings issued by WiFi Inspector are transparently useless, ignoring as they do the device name which would mean something to most users. Instead it actually withholds the device name as if to make it harder to identify a rogue trespasser on a network. It's not as if the device name was secret. Avast's WiFi Inspector ignores it. How crass is that? Where is common sense at Avast?
-
Does your Windows XP machine have Intel NIC?
I believe it because all Avast knows at that moment is MAC address and IPs, and if no IP-hostname relationship was found, Avast shows MAC vendor code as device name.
Grabbing user-configured device name requires more connection between target devices and your own device, and I suppose you would not like every device automatically got connected and scanned by Wi-fi inspector.
-
If WiFi Inspector cannot provide the user with clear information then it is not worth installing.
I would like it if every device automatically got connected and scanned by Wi-fi Inspector. Software doing the job Avast is supposed to be doing has to be trustworthy.
WiFi Inspector used to recognise device names for Windows computers. Does WiFi Inspector have much point on a simple network of client computers with only one connection to the outside Internet through a WiFi device using WPA2, AES and a very long random passphrase?
This kind of thing shakes my confidence in Avast.
-
WiFi Inspector used to recognise device names for Windows computers.
After scanning of course.
It's your choice, anyway...
-
Does WiFi Inspector display device names in paid-for versions of Avast?
Although I am a user of the free Avast, I don't think that objection should be taken to my complaints since I am effectively an unpaid Beta user and am simply attempting to provide such feedback in the hope that product improvements might take place. It is a bit rich though that WiFi Inspector used not to have the deficiency that I have been describing in this thread. Doesn't Avast review 'feature updates' to ensure that quality is not reduced?
The same malaise applies to Microsoft and the appalling Windows 10 Feature Update 2004. The MS CEO ditched his team of software testers and boy doesn't it show! Has a culture of casting pearls before swine come into fashion in software firms? Never mind the quality, feel the number of features. :)
-
It's a bit less bad than I thought. Shame that trusted software like Avast cannot get into the other devices on the network and report their given names. I will have to pin a paper name list to my man-cave wall.
-
It's a bit less bad than I thought. Shame that trusted software like Avast cannot get into the other devices on the network and report their given names. I will have to pin a paper name list to my man-cave wall.
Or stop using the WiFi inspector, I very rarely run it, having run it once and essentially it found nothing untoward and nothing has changed. My Network router is protected, so unauthorised access is very limited and not allowed to public connections.
I have just run the WiFi inspector and it is as slow as watching paint dry. Aside from that nothing was found untoward though it didn't exactly give names as such the little icons help, one being a monitor (PC) and the other a Mobile icon (so probably my mobile phone or possibly my Android Tablet). But it doesn't find any vulnerabilities, which for me is the purpose of this scan.
Notably the second scan was a little quicker.
-
What really threw me was the active element recently introduced to WI. This is switched off on 'er indoors' laptop. I was also confused that the 'forget' commend did not banish forgotten 'unconnected' network components from the list in WI. Now I am aware of the shortcomings in WI, it is certainly better than nothing, just in case a new and serious weakness in WPA2/AES is suddenly exposed. With the old WI, I felt that I had some certainty about the affirmation of security of my network. Maybe I was kidding myself but I am not so certain now.