Avast WEBforum
Consumer Products => Avast Free Antivirus / Premium Security (legacy Pro Antivirus, Internet Security, Premier) => Topic started by: JohnnyBob on April 24, 2011, 05:48:20 PM
-
I can't disable avast for purposes of downloading a file from the internet.
I've tried two methods:
(1) disable all of the avast shields temporarily
(2) make exclusions for that particular website, or for that particular file extension
Avast still insists upon scanning the file after it is downloaded. So how do I turn off avast completely, for purposes of downloading files from the internet?
-
Well, (IMHO) that is the time when you want avast to be on, but...
If you turn off all the shields, how does avast scan it?
If you exclude the website/filetype this is for one particular shield, so will be caught by the File System Shield and scanned, as created.
-
Well, (IMHO) that is the time when you want avast to be on, but...
I don't want avast to be on because it interferes with the download speed and some of my other computer operations and software. I'm in process of downloading over 1,000 files totalling over 1 TB from a trusted website, and I don't want any interference!
If you turn off all the shields, how does avast scan it?
That's essentially my original OP question! I don't know how, but it does... After the file has been downloaded with Firefox, it then says that it's scanning for viruses, then shows a graphic while that scanning process is taking place. It takes at least several seconds, uusually. Some of the files are over 1 GB in size so it takes longer.
If you exclude the website/filetype this is for one particular shield, so will be caught by the File System Shield and scanned, as created.
I made the exclusions in two of the shields, the Web shield and the File System shield. That's the only places to make exceptions that I could find.
-
You have FF configured to do automatic scanning for each download, not Avast! if you have the Shields disabled. Depending on your FF version you should be able to find how to disable it by searching. Or download using a different client, especially if using .ftp.
-
I don't want avast to be on because it interferes with the download speed and some of my other computer operations and software. I'm in process of downloading over 1,000 files totalling over 1 TB from a trusted website, and I don't want any interference!
That was why the IMHO was included, your choice, i imagine I may be the same if it was me, with the amount you are downloading ;)
That's essentially my original OP question! I don't know how, but it does... After the file has been downloaded with Firefox, it then says that it's scanning for viruses, then shows a graphic while that scanning process is taking place. It takes at least several seconds, uusually. Some of the files are over 1 GB in size so it takes longer.
Ahh...This firefox thing...I have always wondered about that as well, never really thought too much about it though.
Interestingly, it seems to be a feature of Firefox itself, rather than avast. If we are talking about the same thing ;)
Are you referring to this scanning: http://www.askvg.com/how-to-disable-automatic-virus-scanning-in-built-in-download-manager-of-new-mozilla-firefox-30/
-
You have FF configured to do automatic scanning for each download, not Avast! if you have the Shields disabled. Depending on your FF version you should be able to find how to disable it by searching. Or download using a different client, especially if using .ftp.
Previously this auto AV scan of downloads incorporated into firefox 3.6.x wasn't able to get avast to scan the files. I don't know if in FF4 it subsequently knows how to call ashQuick to do the scan now. Though I don't see anything like that in the FF4 options.
-
You have FF configured to do automatic scanning for each download, not Avast! if you have the Shields disabled. Depending on your FF version you should be able to find how to disable it by searching. Or download using a different client, especially if using .ftp.
Previously this auto AV scan of downloads incorporated into firefox 3.6.x wasn't able to get avast to scan the files. I don't know if in FF4 it subsequently knows how to call ashQuick to do the scan now. Though I don't see anything like that in the FF4 options.
you've said it once already, and I already replied that it did work with 3.* as well ::) ... I discovered the feature (up and running) long before Firefox 4 even existed so... I have no idea if a present AV is actually being used (in FF3/4) but the download window in both cases displays a supposed to be AV scan activity. Whether it really happens is another question.
edit: just thinking the amount of time of that scan varies considerably, depending on the size of a downloaded file, so it must work. I'll launch task manager next time it happens to see what Avast process is involved when the scan runs.
-
ok doesn't seem to work with Avast, but it definitely does with MSE.
-
I never got it to work 'automatically' in firefox and that is what they were touting the download function would 'automatically' scan the download with your existing AV. It didn't work with all AVs and for me it certainly didn't work and I didn't see anything saying it was being scanned. But then again I didn't display the download window when downloading, so that may be why.
-
yeah okay you never saw it ::)
-
Yeah, it's in the downloads window. After the download completes, a bunch of little wavy lines (graphics) run across it, and it says "scanning for viruses". I've now disabled that in my about:config for Firefox 3.6.16, and hopefully won't see it again. I'll report back here if I do.
I've been monitoring my avast processes, with all of the avast Shields disabled, and don't see any activity there during the download process itself. Even when enabled they weren't sucking off much processor time, but something was, and I thought it could be related. That other something is my ZoneAlarm 6.1.744.001 vsmon.exe process which is sucking off 15% or so of processor time during downloads. It seemed to be worse if I'm running avast at the same time, which is why I turned avast off. But I can't seem to get away from it... I tried putting the IP of the download website into my ZA trusted zone, but that didn't do anything. I also tried turning off ZoneAlarm and substituted the windows firewall, but then the same thing happens with my System process. So maybe I just have an old, slowpoke XP system on a 7 year old computer...no cure possible(?)...but I need to milk it for whatever it's worth.
-
Doesn't seem to work with FF4 and Avast! Found the configuration setting per http://www.nirmaltv.com/2009/07/05/how-to-disable-automatic-virus-scan-after-download-in-firefox-3-5/ . It was set to "true", but there was no virus scan after a download.
-
I saw it working in FF4 a few days ago with MSE ;) ... but yeah, FF must be programmed to detect MSE flawlessly :D
ps: just to mention that the whole thing about FF integration of an AV doesn't make sense at all anyway, as that same downloaded stuff will be scanned by any AV whatever the AV is. So yeah, if FF/Av scan happens, it's redundant.
ps:watch out "PIS" (potentially incoming spammer ;D ) registered earlier tonight >>> "#Petekm[PXPXHHHPPPHU]"
http://forum.avast.com/index.php?action=profile;u=254744
-
Nice catch, he and two of his other similarly constructed email addresses, based on the IP have been banned. He had an even weirder email address, which strangely was on a StopForumSpam .... black list.
-
his profile still exists ???
-
his profile still exists ???
Yes it does, but I don't know if you can see that he is banned.
On the previous smf process if you wanted to ban an IP (which in this case it would also block the two other spammer accounts) you had to ban the person. If you subsequently you deleted that account it also removed the banning listing on that user name.
-
oh okay, I thought you deleted accounts in such cases.
-
Unfortunately deletion wouldn't stop him creating other accounts (which the other plainly were) with a different email on the same IP.
-
Unfortunately deletion wouldn't stop him creating other accounts (which the other plainly were) with a different email on the same IP.
lol I can imagine that ;D , I meant that I thought that after banning you deleted such accounts (while keeping enough tracks of it internally to keep it banned).
-
Unfortunately deletion wouldn't stop him creating other accounts (which the other plainly were) with a different email on the same IP.
lol I can imagine that ;D , I meant that I thought that after banning you deleted such accounts.
As I said with the old smf version if you deleted the account you lost the banning listing, I don't know if that (what I consider a flaw) still exists in the current smf version.
-
I trust you guys aren't talking about me. I'll just note that there are lots of recycled IPs. I get a new one everytime I restart my modem, then somebody else will get my old one eventually. So IP doesn't seem sufficient to ID anyone.
-
So IP doesn't seem sufficient to ID anyone.
it is for a court, as no one else but you used such IP at such time ;) ... so they just have to ask your ISP, but again, just a court order can get that.
-
I really don't know what you're saying, or implying, nor why you've tagged it onto the end this thread. Are you saying that I've had multiple IDs here in order to spam in some fashion? If so, that would be incorrect. If that's what your IP evidence is telling you, then it's dead wrong. Can you speak and read good English?
-
I trust you guys aren't talking about me. I'll just note that there are lots of recycled IPs. I get a new one everytime I restart my modem, then somebody else will get my old one eventually. So IP doesn't seem sufficient to ID anyone.
No the topic took a detour off-topic some way back when reporting a potential spammer account.
Other factors are considered when opting to ban an IP, three very new forum accounts all with the same IP address and very similar and obvious spamming style email addresses. Given that the IP would also be blocked after also checking where that IP is located. Broadband IPs don't change that frequently as old style dial-up dynamic IP with a much smaller range.
Enough said on this otherwise it will be dragged further off topic.
-
I really don't know what you're saying, or implying, nor why you've tagged it onto the end this thread. Are you saying that I've had multiple IDs here in order to spam in some fashion? If so, that would be incorrect. If that's what your IP evidence is telling you, then it's dead wrong. Can you speak and read good English?
lol no that wasn't about you at all :D ... just an off topic drift ;)