Avast WEBforum
Consumer Products => Avast Free Antivirus / Premium Security (legacy Pro Antivirus, Internet Security, Premier) => Topic started by: Rednose on April 05, 2011, 02:29:22 AM
-
On the Avast! blog there is a link to an interesting video interview with Ondrej Vlcek, the CTO of Avast!, about Avast! 6, malware analysis and more :)
Avast! blog : https://blog.avast.com/2011/04/04/about-avast-6-0-video-interview-with-ondrej-vlcek-cto-at-avast-software/
Interview : http://storage2.dobreprogramy.pl/video/WywiadAvast6-720p.mp4
Thnx to Julia for publishing it :)
Greetz, Red.
-
Downloading to listen… Let’s listen, for the first time, the voice of Vlk :)
-
Great video and Interview!! ;D
-
Interesting, thanks for sharing! :)
-
Wow glad that I have fast broadband now 440.80MB for the mp4 downloading at around 4MBps.
-
Thanks, Red.
Most appreciated. :)
-
Well done Vlk! Thanks Red.
-
Hey... just version 6... I'm disappointed... What about version 7? ;D
-
Anyone having any difficulty viewing video in this .mp4 file, as I'm only getting audio using winamp.
-
On the Avast! blog there is a link to an interesting interview with Ondrej Vlcek, the CTO of Avast!, about Avast! 6, malware analysis and more :)
Avast! blog : https://blog.avast.com/2011/04/04/about-avast-6-0-video-interview-with-ondrej-vlcek-cto-at-avast-software/
Interview : http://storage2.dobreprogramy.pl/video/WywiadAvast6-720p.mp4
Thnx to Julia for publishing it :)
Greetz, Red.
Very cool!!! Are both links the same interview? Thanks Vlk and Red for uploading this!
Jack
-
Downloading the 360p version but only getting it at 170KB/sec. on my connection that is capable of over 1mbps.
-
Anyone having any difficulty viewing video in this .mp4 file, as I'm only getting audio using winamp.
maybe use vlc player instead?
Link plays fine in chrome.
-
I just found out that to play video .mp4 (not just audio) you have to have the Winamp Pro version. I have used it for years off and on so I have done the deed and upgraded ;D
I have had nothing but problems every time I tried VLC, I never managed to get it to work once. WMP is a bloated hog, used one that Bob recommended long ago but that too started to get bloated.
-
Really though? you had to pay to view the interview? Doesn't that seem sort of odd to you?
I think this is more of a firefox issue than anything else, because chrome (haven't tried IE yet) works just fine.
I click the link and it just starts playing. I don't have anything crazy installed, just windows, chrome, and vlc player (that and xvid codecs). Might just be a sign that firefox doesn't support it.
-
No I was downloading the .mp4 file to view off-line at a later time.
-
I was able to view it in WMP11 but only because I have the ffdshow codec installed from Format Factory. It also plays in Media Player Classic Home Cinema using it's built in decoder which shows the video codec of the file to be H264 which is very common. You shouldn't have to pay to view these types of files.
-
Thanks so much for the links Rednose. Nice interview. Great seeing and listening to Vlk.
-
Wow what a good video, tks VLK...rm
-
Thanks for great interview! 8)
-
Nice to share Eric.....
-
Thanks Red..! :)
Btw, the video plays well in VLC.
-
I was download this interview via Facebook. Thank you ;)
-
I have downloaded the video already and am watching it in VLC ...I didn't know the safezone browser was using an Avast secure DNS server 8) (not that cool that I didn't know it, must have been mentioned on the forums somewhere... could have seen this with fiddler)
(...too bad he didn't speak about the behavior shield...)
ps: where are the aquariums with worms and viruses ??? did you guys see that when you went to Prague ??? ;D
-
Works fine on my Windows 7 system and will send it to my Windows 7 phone with Zune.
-
Another point: did I understand correctly that WebRep takes into account: 1st the avast team opinion and only after that the votes of the users?
-
Another point: did I understand correctly that WebRep takes into account: 1st the avast team opinion and only after that the votes of the users?
Yep, he said that.
-
I didn't know the safezone browser was using an Avast secure DNS server 8)
Another good new... Not that even mentioned before...
But it would be good to know how the DNS of the main connection are "by passed".
-
Another point: did I understand correctly that WebRep takes into account: 1st the avast team opinion and only after that the votes of the users?
no he's just saying that webrep being userbase oriented, they don't rely on users concerning infections in web sites. Meaning that when webrep reports that a site is infected, it gets the info in priority from Avast labs and not the users, which I find normal. User base ratings are reported and taken into account for web content only.
-
Meaning that when webrep reports that a site is infected, it gets the info in priority from Avast labs and not the users, which I find normal.
Not only normal, but necessary... Is WebRep showing a site as red in this condition or not? Are you sure?
-
Meaning that when webrep reports that a site is infected, it gets the info in priority from Avast labs and not the users, which I find normal.
Not only normal, but necessary... Is WebRep showing a site as red in this condition or not? Are you sure?
tech I don't use WebRep, so I can't check... I just told you what Vlk said in the video ;) ... this said hopefully when a site is infected there's a warning... no idea how it shows... probably in red like you say.
-
Hope Vlk drop some light over these points (WebRep and DNS).
-
Meaning that when webrep reports that a site is infected, it gets the info in priority from Avast labs and not the users, which I find normal.
Yes, he said they get the info from two sources.
- virus-lab
- users
And I guess the lab has the last word. ;)
-
ps: where are the aquariums with worms and viruses ??? did you guys see that when you went to Prague ??? ;D
We have seen the aquariums ;D
Here a picture of Ondrej standing in one of them.
Greetz, Red.
-
To be honest, I don't think that webrep reports any infections?
It sends info only when you push the button... and there is nowhere you can select "infected", or am I wrong with this?
-
I don't see any way for WebRep to report a site as infected. Red just means a lot of users didn't like it, hopefully with the content icons indicating why. Any infection reports I have seen were from Network Shield, since you are blocked from going to the infected site to see what WebRep might think of it anyway. See http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=75453.msg624461#msg624461 for example.
-
@Rednose cheers ;D
-
Red just means a lot of users didn't like it, hopefully with the content icons indicating why.
That was my point: is WebRep using avast infection information of just users votes?
-
Maybe he unintentionally spoke about the future of WR... ;)
-
I don't see any way for WebRep to report a site as infected. Red just means a lot of users didn't like it, hopefully with the content icons indicating why. Any infection reports I have seen were from Network Shield, since you are blocked from going to the infected site to see what WebRep might think of it anyway. See http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=75453.msg624461#msg624461 for example.
+1 (you might see the webrep symbols within the results list if you google for the specific site, maybe)
-
Where is he?
On a plane or on avast headquarters?
-
Where is he?
On a plane or on avast headquarters?
No idea, where he is right now, but he was on the forum today.
-
Where is he?
On a plane or on avast headquarters?
On Sunday when he emailed me he was just at home from the USA.
Greetz, Red.
-
As far as I understood Vlk, it uses only user votes plus information that comes from virus lab which in turn of course gets information from avast community.
But the webrep addon itself (on the client side, transmitting) only uses user votes.
-
plus information that comes from virus lab
That is the point...
But the webrep addon itself (on the client side, transmitting) only uses user votes.
Why? If you have the virus lab information... Why isn't it took into account in the search webpages?
-
That was my point: is WebRep using avast infection information of just users votes?
It seems WebRep does not use infection information.
I googled some infected webpages but WebRep says "this site has no rating".
It would be good if WebRep took them into account but I also think Web/Network shield are good enough to protect users from infected websites...
-
I have emailed Ondrej if he can shine a light on this :)
Greetz, Red.
-
plus information that comes from virus lab
That is the point...
But the webrep addon itself (on the client side, transmitting) only uses user votes.
Why? If you have the virus lab information... Why isn't it took into account in the search webpages?
I was refering only to the transmitting function of the webrep addon client - if there are infection infos for a certain web site, I am sure that these will override all reputational votings and you will probably receive a red webrep symbol.
Besides that, I think the development of the webrep is still on it's way, so we're not seeing all of it's functionality ATM, and I think I can recall Vlk writing here somewhere that the virus lab input is planned - not yet done.
-
...and I think I can recall Vlk writing here somewhere that the virus lab input is planned - not yet done.
True, but maybe it is already done, we're just guessing here...
Let's just wait for his reply. ;)
-
How about a guess on how to make WebRep useful? The WebRep results can be used to trigger an investigation by the Avast! Virus Lab people. If the site is found malicious, Avast! can add it to the Network Shield blocked sites list. All this without the masses having to decide legality, degree of malice, etc. but leaving it up to the Avast! expertise? If the site is malicious, the Network shield blocks you from getting to it to see what WebRep thinks anyway.
-
If WebRep does not indicate "red" when a site is malicious or infected, it worths nothing.
This is a job for technical people.
If not, it's another WOT of nothing...
-
Well I would say the it actually need another icon in the left hand section of the WebRep display to indicate malicious/infected and that should be highlighted if the site is malicious/infected. Other wise how would anyone differentiate between a site that is simply considered bad to one that is malicious/infected.
-
If WebRep does not indicate "red" when a site is malicious or infected, it worths nothing.
This is a job for technical people.
If not, it's another WOT of nothing...
I have always found WOT to do a very good job in conjunction with Avast and certainly would not call it nothing. It has helped my family and I working in conjunction with Avast to keep us safe on-line. In fact, for five years ago or more, I was hoping for some kind of early warning detection system for on-line sites to help protect users from malicious content before they interact with the site.
The potentials of both Avast's Web Rep and WOT are strong. I agree with Tech, Web Rep should have some sort of blocking system for Red sites as WOT currently offers. However, Web Rep will have an advantage that WOT does not have, which is the direct imput from Virus Lab data, which will aid in rating reliability.
The problem with both is that people may downgrade sites, not so much because of a bad experience with a site, but because of a problem with a site owner or administrator, where appraisals might be based more on emotion than factual data. As a WOT user, based on what I have seen in using the software, I find their ratings to be about 75%-80% accurate. But if any users are not happy with a rating, they can over-ride it and comment.
I think both WOT and Web Rep are better than McAfee Site Adviser, which forces you to install Yahoo's tool-bar, who's ratings are rarely updated, and who's information does not give specifics as to why a site may be bad.
The interview with Vlk was great! And it will be most interesting to see how both WOT and Web Rep will work to define and re-define user protection standards, working alongside their virus protection and any other security software.
I enjoyed the presentation very much! Thank you!
Jack
-
based more on emotion than factual data
This is WOT for me... This is WebRep in actual conditions for me.
I find their ratings to be about 75%-80% accurate
Sorry WOT, not enough for me. There are also too much "false positives".
-
If WebRep does not indicate "red" when a site is malicious or infected, it worths nothing.
This is a job for technical people.
If not, it's another WOT of nothing...
It is supposed to do so, Tech. At least that's my understanding, when Vlk talks about the linking of WebRep to the virus labs.
-
based more on emotion than factual data
This is WOT for me... This is WebRep in actual conditions for me.
WOT is run by emotional people that do not have an understanding of system security.
I find their ratings to be about 75%-80% accurate
Sorry WOT, not enough for me. There are also too much "false positives".
+1