Hello polonus,
NoelC has already given a clear example why the current situation disrupts
legit workflow and you keep on restricting
the message to cracks and other illegal stuff even though it has never been a subject in this thread nor in the other threads
I've linked as examples? Way to talk about prejudices!
As if that wasn't enough, you even picture anyone who is for an "exclude in dialog" feature as people who have
some issues? If you're going on like that, I'll stop taking you seriously, however I'll still give you a chance to behave more respectfully
(and no, greetings alone without direct assaults don't necessarily mean respectful behavior), so let's go on with the main topic:
I've already moved to another AV, so there is no reason for a rant in the first place, which you've suspected. Instead, I've only wanted to
share my opinion as to why I've decided to leave Avast to help the developers improve with the feedback I've been giving as a small thank you for doing a good job in the past and because I feel that I'm not alone with that point of view.
There is also a difference between a permanent and a temporary whitelistening. In my opinion, a permanent whitelistening should only
be the last means of effect in case a program or system file is detected and it should only be done if nothing else helps while a temporary whitelistening should be the first thing to do to prevent the program or the system from breaking, because it allows you to check for yourself (for example on VT and/or with other on-demand scanners) before a crisis begins. A temporary whitelistening also doesn't interrupt the current workflow and guarantees that the files and/or the system is safe in case of false positives.
With the current way, people need to know beforehand which files are triggered and it is absolutely impossible to evaluate that, because in the next hour some file could get detected in a streaming update while you've already made a full scan with no detection.
Your biggest argument was that leaving this option out would increase security, however that is a very wrong assumption. Let's go back to the example NoelC made. Any user working in the productive sector would need to exclude whole folders in their work, but what if a malware would spread to the excluded folder without any fear of being detected forever? Wouldn't it be better to have alerts every time to double check the suspicious files first and then to exclude them file by file if they're harmless?
Of course, you could also exclude them in advanced settings, but that's not the same as excluding them on demand and it wastes time and therefore money, even in the best case, that the chest would be working without any issues and that the programs/and or the system wouldn't get affected which would mean more time spent to fix a potential mess an anti-virus caused.
Reporting false positives might be nice for the developers, but not everyone has the time and inclination to do so, especially when we've been talking about an extreme increase of the FP rate since the last couple of months.
So far, I hope you and others might understand the quintessence of this topic.
Best regards,
Randissimo
edit:
There is no way that even a complete nitwit is going to send a "vital" OS file to the chest.
avast will always ask before sending a vital file to the chest.
The problem is, there is no option to exclude this vital file or to postpone the decision even when you're asked.
