7.0.1466 updated to 9.0.2021

[REDACTED]

the ability to turn Emergency Update off

Nice so that if there was a reason to reverse something that might be causing a problem, this function wouldn't work.

Gee, bob... didn't you say you were leaving this thread several posts back?

As to the above, since there is no tinkering being done with the old versions, this isn't really a concern.

[bob3160]

the ability to turn Emergency Update off

Nice so that if there was a reason to reverse something that might be causing a problem, this function wouldn't work.

Gee, bob... didn't you say you were leaving this thread several posts back?

As to the above, since there is no tinkering being done with the old versions, this isn't really a concern.

Considering you've changed the topic, this required a reply.

[REDACTED]

As to Task Scheduler, do you mean you disabled the entire TS service, or just the AVAST task?

I'm using Windows XP. In Windows XP the Task Scheduler service is not critical and can be disabled -- which I have had disabled for years.

Doing a cursory search for the Task Scheduler in Windows 7, I'm under the impression that Windows 7 depends greatly on the Task Scheduler set to automatic for "system-critical tasks". Funky!

Thanks, Duran. Wouldntyaknowit! A quick check seems to concur... it does run too many necessary Win services and it's not recommended to disable it. But I have some ideas... will try them out first.

[REDACTED]

I'm using my ZoneAlarm firewall to prevent the updates. I believe thare are two types:

Avast EmergencyUpdate ; this does not seem to be the direct problem, I suspect it is downloading new detection methods, and is a new type of activity.

AvastUpd ; This seems to be the exe responsible for updating the program version.

It would certainly be handy to know exactly which file/process is responsible for what kind of update. Maybe if DavidR is still reading, he'll be able to shed some light on this.

I have mine setup to prompt every time Avast wants to do something other than definition updates. I can then decide on each occasion if I want the firewall to allow the traffic (My naming might not be precise above). This approach prevents auto updates and restores the control that we thought we had through the Avast config options.

A reasonable approach... only problem I see is still not knowing what it is they are asking to update (when ZA alerts you). A bug? OK. A definition? OK. A newer version??? In my case since AVAST doesn't provide that info, I'd just click NO every time... so I just as soon disable it, period, and continue getting def updates.

That said, I would like to know if EMUpd is the culprit or not. It will do no good to block the wrong process.

[REDACTED]

the ability to turn Emergency Update off

Nice so that if there was a reason to reverse something that might be causing a problem, this function wouldn't work.

Gee, bob... didn't you say you were leaving this thread several posts back?

As to the above, since there is no tinkering being done with the old versions, this isn't really a concern.

Considering you've changed the topic, this required a reply.

I see. So you left but were lurking. And your "required reply" did not happen to apply to old versions. OK, thanks for clarifying.   

[DavidR]

I'm using my ZoneAlarm firewall to prevent the updates. I believe thare are two types:

Avast EmergencyUpdate ; this does not seem to be the direct problem, I suspect it is downloading new detection methods, and is a new type of activity.

AvastUpd ; This seems to be the exe responsible for updating the program version.

It would certainly be handy to know exactly which file/process is responsible for what kind of update. Maybe if DavidR is still reading, he'll be able to shed some light on this.
<snip>

Updates are handled by C:\Program Files\AVAST Software\Avast\Setup\instup.exe, but it handles all updates not just this initial VPS one - messing with that could cause more issues than it is likely to resolve. The mod to the .ini file is relatively easy and shouldn't come in for any integrity checking as files do.

[REDACTED]

Updates are handled by C:\Program Files\AVAST Software\Avast\Setup\instup.exe, but it handles all updates not just this initial VPS one - messing with that could cause more issues than it is likely to resolve. The mod to the .ini file is relatively easy and shouldn't come in for any integrity checking as files do.

Thanks for that insight, David. I don't think anyone wants to mess with the instup file. But then what is the EmUpdate used for, if you know? Is it responsible for updating machines running retired versions (maybe among other things)?

[DavidR]

Well as an avast user not employee I'm not privy to exactly what the emergency update function does now; it has changed a couple of times in avast program version updates. There have been occasions in the past after a VPS update that it cause some grief, not being able to get updates and the manual updates didn't/weren't able to resolve it. There was an impasse, catch 22 as such.

Its very name indicates that it shouldn't be that frequent, that an emergency update happens - but it checks for the presence of an emergency update on the avast servers to resolve anything like that.

That is why the emergency update check was initially introduced - I believe it could also be possible for it to resolve a program bug without the necessity to do a full program update.

[REDACTED]

Well as an avast user not employee I'm not privy to exactly what the emergency update function does now; it has changed a couple of times in avast program version updates. There have been occasions in the past after a VPS update that it cause some grief, not being able to get updates and the manual updates didn't/weren't able to resolve it. There was an impasse, catch 22 as such.

Its very name indicates that it shouldn't be that frequent, that an emergency update happens - but it checks for the presence of an emergency update on the avast servers to resolve anything like that.

That is why the emergency update check was initially introduced - I believe it could also be possible for it to resolve a program bug without the necessity to do a full program update.

Now see, that's why we want to know because none of those things are what people are trying to avoid. That said, the ESU service does seem to create problems in some cases that end up manifesting as slowdowns / bottlenecks. And we'd still like to know [from an AVAST rep] if it wasn't also responsible for the involuntary version updates. There would be a whole lot more trust with regard to these services with more transparency. I know AVAST might think users don't care what all this stuff does, but yes, we do... especially when one of these update services overrode user settings for people using older versions. Those of us using v7.0.1474 (and v6/v5) don't want to find ourselves in the same boat a few klicks down the road. And for those using v5 it might be sooner rather than later. Possibly v6 too.

As a complete aside, I hate to play devil's advocate but I am not that crazy about a software model that has an emergency update service call at every boot. It sounds to me like a bad direction to go in, as it could potentially encourage sloppy coding by providing a safety net for it.

Yes, if used rarely as a true fallback position for when every precaution was taken but a mistake or oversight slipped through, that's one thing, but I would rather have to update to a new build on those rare occasions than have an Emergency Update service running at every boot. JMO. And all to say I myself don't mind disabling it at this point. If AVAST did without it before, it can do without it now AFAIC. (Of course I am using an old version no longer in development so the chances of needing an emergency update for any of the above is close to nil.)

[REDACTED]

... I am not that crazy about a software model that has an emergency update service call at every boot.

I agree, and was surprised when they added a scheduled task by default.

Perhaps instead of having a scheduled task, Avast could have a Start Menu shortcut called 'Fix Avast'.  If for some reason Avast is so messed up that it cannot heal itself, the user could click on that shortcut to fix any major problems.

[REDACTED]

... I am not that crazy about a software model that has an emergency update service call at every boot.

I agree, and was surprised when they added a scheduled task by default.

Perhaps instead of having a scheduled task, Avast could have a Start Menu shortcut called 'Fix Avast'.  If for some reason Avast is so messed up that it cannot heal itself, the user could click on that shortcut to fix any major problems.

I really like the idea of a user-initiated action rather than a task, but unfortunately I can't see AVAST writing a diagnostic tool for each different [active] version/build... that would be costly on their end even for paid versions, and I would imagine most of their market or a good portion of it uses the free product.

However (while this will never happen) I like the idea of having the existing Emergency Update service (no rewrite necessary) as a button in the UI (ok, small rewrite), and if AVAST has determined an emergency update is necessary to fix a bad VPS update or the like, a popup could inform the user of the problem being fixed, and request they run the Emergency Update (button could be on the popup too - whatever is cheaper to code). Then we would know what is being updated before initiating it, and if it was an end-of-life update, we could just manually install whatever next supported version we choose to, instead of clicking the button.

But AVAST would see this as having to ask user-permission to maintain its own program which is unreasonable (and from their POV I agree), and using EmUpd without user knowledge or intervention is the most efficient and streamlined (read cost-effective) way to do it. 

It's just that their move to update sftw against the user's config settings has decreased the level of trust in the company, and that has the effect of compelling people to want to monitor everything they do to their PC because they didn't use common sense, and you have to ask yourself, when will they lapse in judgement again? So short of allowing the user to initiate any emergency update (armed with the knowledge of what's being updated), it would be nice if they admitted they were wrong to do what they did, promise to never do it again, and allow us to go back to trusting them.

But, uh... in the meantime I am disabling Emergency Update. 

[Pondus]

If for some reason Avast is so messed up that it cannot heal itself, the user could click on that shortcut to fix any major problems.

that option already exist

ad/remove programs > avast > uninstall/change > repair option......

[RejZoR]

Emergency Update is when broken update takes down entire user access. So you can't really click through to the repair function... But emergency update can.

[REDACTED]

Emergency Update is when broken update takes down entire user access. So you can't really click through to the repair function... But emergency update can.

Do you happen to know, RejZoR, if the Emergency Update is also the process used to force a program update, even when set to manual, when a build or version reaches end-of-life?

[REDACTED]

Do you happen to know [...] if the Emergency Update is also the process used to force a program update, even when set to manual, when a build or version reaches end-of-life?

I believe AvastEmUpdate is responsible for the forced update. Moments after allowing AvastEmUpdate Internet access, my v7 install was forcibly updated to v8, not v9. About a day later AvastEmUpdate asked again for Internet access, that's when I permanently firewall blocked it, which resulted in many blocked entries in the log to various servers. And I mentioned above how I fixed that. Which, BTW, is still sticking.