AVAST 2015 Release Candidate 1 (10.0.2202)

[RejZoR]

I'd rather see detection getting improved than some "Karma" thing being added...

+1 completely agree

Come on guys... I'm sure you know how it is. The few people who worked on Avast Rewards had nothing to do with the virus lab -- and vice versa.

Now, I think we can handle both (and actually are in Avast 2015):
- I think you will like Avast Rewards after all. It's like the forum ranks, just better. Not a huge deal though -- it's very low key. The corresponding portal with go live in just a few days.
- And regarding detection capabilities, we still have a few things that need to be activated before Avast 2015 is released. But it general, these are some very good improvements.

Thanks,
Vlk

The  main issue is that in a long history of me following avast! (i think it has been 10 years this year) there were too many instances where i got very enthusiastic about new protection "capabilities" and then got very little actual results. I know you guys said so many times that you get great results from your backend systems and all. But sorry, most users don't care about the amazing results you see and then they (maybe) get a protection 3 days later. Users want protection now, this very moment. And as much as i hate it to say, while i like Evo-Gen as some sort of quick reactive method, avast! seriously lacks proactive capabilities. Behavior Shield was a huge flop in my eyes, Auto Sandbox in theory offered a lot but delivered very little. DeepScreen to me as an end user really only brought a more transparent scan-execution and that was it. I haven't ever actually seen it detect anything. NG on paper promises a lot, but knowing the history, i'm not that sure anymore. If you just push out a technology for something and not build on top of it, you'll get zero results. And that has sort of been happening for years with avast!. And while i don't entirely trust test results, it kinda shows there.

I'm not trying to bash your product or the hard work you do, but i just also want to show you our perspective as supporters and as those who spread the word. It's hard to do so when users are disappointed, when avast! is mostly at the bottom quarter of pretty much all protection tests, when we get bunch of new cool technologies that then don't really deliver anything visible to the end users. It's hard when actual facts tell very little to prove your enthusiasm about a product. And that's the reality avast! is currently facing whether you like it or not.

[DavidR]

Hi Guys,
haven't heard many comments about the HTTPs scanning feature from WebShield. Did you notice we also scan SPDY protocol? Do you have issues accessing web sites over https:// with RC1?

As a side note, scanning HTTPs traffic is one of the features we were a little hesitant to implement (through out the years) but definitely something that adds to the detection capabilities.

Thanks for your feedback.
Lukas.

Now the Exclusions > URLs needs to be updated to cater for the entry of https URLs as we still can't enter an https Exclusion it tags an http in front of the https URL you enter.

[schmidthouse]

Snip>
"I'm not trying to bash your product or the hard work you do, but i just also want to show you our perspective as supporters and as those who spread the word. It's hard to do so when users are disappointed, when avast! is mostly at the bottom quarter of pretty much all protection tests, when we get bunch of new cool technologies that then don't really deliver anything visible to the end users. It's hard when actual facts tell very little to prove your enthusiasm about a product. And that's the reality avast! is currently facing whether you like it or not."

Yes, I think this is an honest and accurate point RejZor is making.

[TerraX]

Snip>
"I'm not trying to bash your product or the hard work you do, but i just also want to show you our perspective as supporters and as those who spread the word. It's hard to do so when users are disappointed, when avast! is mostly at the bottom quarter of pretty much all protection tests, when we get bunch of new cool technologies that then don't really deliver anything visible to the end users. It's hard when actual facts tell very little to prove your enthusiasm about a product. And that's the reality avast! is currently facing whether you like it or not."

Yes, I think this is an honest and accurate point RejZor is making.

+1
You're (and RejZoR) absolutely right ... sorry avast thats my opinion.
The test results the last few months speak for themselves...are not the best.
It is actually not easy to get avast to the man.

TerraX

[RejZoR]

Hi Guys,
haven't heard many comments about the HTTPs scanning feature from WebShield. Did you notice we also scan SPDY protocol? Do you have issues accessing web sites over https:// with RC1?

As a side note, scanning HTTPs traffic is one of the features we were a little hesitant to implement (through out the years) but definitely something that adds to the detection capabilities.

Thanks for your feedback.
Lukas.

I don't want to sound all negative again, but scanning HTTPS is not helping much if your core detection is not up there where it should be. I mean, HTTPS scanning by itself doesn't provide any enhanced detection capability, it just gives the existing detection capability to extend its effect. But if you don't have the detection, doing a HTTPS scan doesn't really help you much because you'll be scanning the data, but not detecting much in it. That's why i'm so critical about the core protection. Because if you have that setup top notch, the rest of the features will follow well when you'll add them. But if you don't, why bother? That's like integrating 20 airbags in a cardboard car. You'll be the first to ever offer 20 airbags, but they'll offer no real benefit, since they won't matter at all.

[lukor]

Now the Exclusions > URLs needs to be updated to cater for the entry of https URLs as we still can't enter an https Exclusion it tags an http in front of the https URL you enter.

If you type https:// at the begining of the URL it stays there and works. At least here. Could you, please confirm? That's our inteded behavior, add http:// for most, and let those users who need "*" or https:// to do it themselves.

Thanks

[RejZoR]

Why is "*" always added at the end even when it's unnecessary?

For example, if i add:
*.test.com

It still adds * at the end even though there is no need to and will only cause it to look further for additional characters and potentially slow things down when there is a larger number of them on the list.

Casual users don't really use this feature and those who do will just have to learn it all like so many other things. So why not just give us total freedom to write the filters on our own without the avast! adding stuff by itself?

EDIT:
It seems site blocking is not the only location with such behavior, ALL exclusions behave like this by adding * at the end regardless of everything. I just don't like such behavior. Period. What if i don't want it to look forward and i want an exact match. I just can't have that because avast! by itself adds * at the end. Not cool.

[vojtech]

Hi lukor,
I have an issue uploading files to an portal which is encripted by HTTPS.
It is a kind of data base query where I upload a text file with the data I am searching for and receive the result after the upload.
The upload functionality fails every time if HTTPS-scanning is activated. If this is deactivated it works fine.

By the way it seems that there is a bug when the web shield is turned off, it is not turning itself on after the desired time and neither
can it be reactivated manually.

Best Regards
Achim

Hello,
could you please provide us a log of this problem?
Put the attached StreamFilter.ini (discard the .txt extension) to 'C:\ProgramData\AVAST Software\Avast' folder, restart the Web Shield, run the upload and you will find the StreamFilter.log file in the 'log' subfolder. You can send it to me by email.
Thanks.

[Vlk]

The  main issue is that in a long history of me following avast! (i think it has been 10 years this year) there were too many instances where i got very enthusiastic about new protection "capabilities" and then got very little actual results. I know you guys said so many times that you get great results from your backend systems and all. But sorry, most users don't care about the amazing results you see and then they (maybe) get a protection 3 days later. Users want protection now, this very moment. And as much as i hate it to say, while i like Evo-Gen as some sort of quick reactive method, avast! seriously lacks proactive capabilities. Behavior Shield was a huge flop in my eyes, Auto Sandbox in theory offered a lot but delivered very little. DeepScreen to me as an end user really only brought a more transparent scan-execution and that was it. I haven't ever actually seen it detect anything. NG on paper promises a lot, but knowing the history, i'm not that sure anymore. If you just push out a technology for something and not build on top of it, you'll get zero results. And that has sort of been happening for years with avast!. And while i don't entirely trust test results, it kinda shows there.

I'm not trying to bash your product or the hard work you do, but i just also want to show you our perspective as supporters and as those who spread the word. It's hard to do so when users are disappointed, when avast! is mostly at the bottom quarter of pretty much all protection tests, when we get bunch of new cool technologies that then don't really deliver anything visible to the end users. It's hard when actual facts tell very little to prove your enthusiasm about a product. And that's the reality avast! is currently facing whether you like it or not.

Snip>
"I'm not trying to bash your product or the hard work you do, but i just also want to show you our perspective as supporters and as those who spread the word. It's hard to do so when users are disappointed, when avast! is mostly at the bottom quarter of pretty much all protection tests, when we get bunch of new cool technologies that then don't really deliver anything visible to the end users. It's hard when actual facts tell very little to prove your enthusiasm about a product. And that's the reality avast! is currently facing whether you like it or not."

Yes, I think this is an honest and accurate point RejZor is making.

Thanks guys. Understood and point taken.

Vlk

[RejZoR]

Are the features you mentioned above that need enabling before the launch of v2015 already designed far enough to provide already visible (new)protection capabilities on the launch day or do you plan to roll them out in the upcoming weeks or months? Are any of them Dyna-Gen related since you'll have a proper sandbox this time around with NG tech? Just wondering to get a rough picture on what's realyl going on in your labs since the launch of v2014...

[lukor]

Why is "*" always added at the end even when it's unnecessary?

For example, if i add:
*.test.com

It still adds * at the end even though there is no need to and will only cause it to look further for additional characters and potentially slow things down when there is a larger number of them on the list.

Casual users don't really use this feature and those who do will just have to learn it all like so many other things. So why not just give us total freedom to write the filters on our own without the avast! adding stuff by itself?

EDIT:
It seems site blocking is not the only location with such behavior, ALL exclusions behave like this by adding * at the end regardless of everything. I just don't like such behavior. Period. What if i don't want it to look forward and i want an exact match. I just can't have that because avast! by itself adds * at the end. Not cool.

Rejzor, while I understand your point, there were others, who entered www.facebook.com and then were suprised that facebook is still accessible. Didn't realized the actual document/URL is something on the facebook.com domain, and was hard for them to see the need for "*". I guess we might improve the algorithm, such as when the URL seems to contain the document part, we should add any "*" to the string. Similar to the http:// stuff being added at the begining (unless https:// or http:// is already there).

What would you think about that?
Thanks. Lukas.

[REDACTED]

Hi all,

Thank you Avast Team for Avast 2015 BETA RC1 10.0.2202 .

I have issues with this Beta RC 1which are as follows:

1.Avast Boot-Time scan, the problem is Avast itself.
After two minutes of scanning the following is shown on my screen:

C:/PROGRAM FILES/AVAST SOFTWARE/AVAST/RESOURCES/RESOURCES.PAK ERROR 42125 (ZIP ARCHIVE IS CORRUPTED)

I still have the same above problem in Beta 3, when this be sorted out?

2 I have NG installed, but it does not work at all (for me anyway).

Above also still not working for me, how will I know if it is working or not?

3. My AVAST account shows the following:

LAST UPDATE N/A

LAST KNOWN IP ADDRESS: N/A (NA)

REAL TIME SHIELDS: RED X OFF

VIRUS DEFINITIONS UPDATES: RED X OFF

AVAST FREE ANTIVIRUS  PROGRAM VERSION GREEN CHECK MARK N/A

DEFINITIONS VERSION: GREEN CHECK MARK N/A

SECURITY STATUS: GREEN CHECK MARK SECURED

I hope the issues / problems I have mentioned in Beta 2 and now Beta 3 will be looked into and resolved before RC or final release of AVAST 2015.
I have had the above listed problems with AVAST 2015 SINCE AVAST BETA 2, BETA 3 AND I STILL ALL THE ABOVE PROBLEMS WITH AVAST 2015 RELEASE CANDIDATE 1 10.0.2001 WHY???

I have reported these problems in BETA 2 and BETA 3 and also filled in the feedback form twice and I have HAD NO feedback or response with regards to the problems I have had with AVAST 2015 WHY AVAST TEAM?
None of the issues I have with AVAST 2015  that I have REPORTED AND FED BACK have been fixed. (FOR ME)
MY OS IS WINDOWS 7 HOME PREMIUM 64 BIT.

I hope these problems and issues I have reported will be FIXED AND RESOLVED BEFORE THE FINAL RELEASE OF AVAST 2015


Thank you in advance.

 happy avast user

[NON]

Hi Guys,
haven't heard many comments about the HTTPs scanning feature from WebShield. Did you notice we also scan SPDY protocol? Do you have issues accessing web sites over https:// with RC1?

As a side note, scanning HTTPs traffic is one of the features we were a little hesitant to implement (through out the years) but definitely something that adds to the detection capabilities.

Thanks for your feedback.
Lukas.

With beta1 I had some problems with HTTPS scanning, but now, with RC1, I have no problem.

[DavidR]

Now the Exclusions > URLs needs to be updated to cater for the entry of https URLs as we still can't enter an https Exclusion it tags an http in front of the https URL you enter.

If you type https:// at the begining of the URL it stays there and works. At least here. Could you, please confirm? That's our inteded behavior, add http:// for most, and let those users who need "*" or https:// to do it themselves.

Thanks

I copied and pasted a full https URL into the exceptions and it placed http in front of this URL when I last tested it.

However testing it again I placed a forum topic (this one) with full https URL and this time all it did was place the * at the end of the URL, no http:// was placed in front. Not sure why it isn't happening today.

[REDACTED]

I did install this release over my excisting version, that did not work properly. Example: in the main menu there was twice a button "quick scan".
I removed totally avast premier and installed again, now I have a "normal" main menu.

My problem that no report was generated after a scan (since 13 july at the free and paid version!) is solved.

But I notice with this release a performance issue. My pc (windows 7) is much slower, especially at startup of windows.