AVAST needs an IGNORE option when set to ASK

[REDACTED]

You won't find a better A/V than Avast but if you decide to switch good look finding a better one.

Thank you. As it happens there are several AVs that currently test far better in the slew of independent lab tests, and most AVs include an IGNORE function. AVAST was top-rated when I switched to it some 4yrs back, but that hasn't been the case for quite awhile, and the lack of an IGNORE option has been an annoyance from day one... then other issues have cropped up recently, so we'll see. Finding another acceptable AV is not a problem, however.

@ Staticguy (AND Lisandro!): There is no security reason for not including the option to IGNORE. Leaving this option out is saying every single user is an idiot. I don't need my AV to be my daddy or mommy. I know when I DL Adwcleaner from the author's site, and compare the hash, I'm fine. But instead of easily clicking IGNORE I have to CLOSE AVAST... get the file, run it, then re-open AVAST... OR... close AVAST, get the file, add the file to the File Shield exclusion list, then run it. Instead of a SINGLE CLICK to IGNORE.

IOW, not having an IGNORE function puts me MORE at risk b/c I have to close the AV (albeit temporarily) to continue to work.

If AVAST's opinion of their user base is so low that they believe people who know nothing of viruses will bother to search out and choose the IGNORE option willy nilly (rather than the default DELETE which requires no action or config changes), as if they don't understand simple English, then that certainly encourages me to look elsewhere, especially since AVAST is no longer top-rated anyway. I'll see what happens though. Posts from people like Drake127 and DavidR are the reason I am hanging on to see what AVAST does. Not everyone on this forum is a clown. They (the clowns) just keep running around, acting like a crowd.

[Lisandro]

@ Staticguy (AND Lisandro!): There is no security reason for not including the option to IGNORE.

If you say so, whom are we to argue...?

Leaving this option out is saying every single user is an idiot.

No, just the majority of the users are common users. And the others, the ones who consider themselves tech educated, oh, they the ones who commit the bigger mistakes

Not everyone on this forum is a clown. They just keep running around, acting like a crowd.

Clown? Well, I feel like one after 13 years discussing this

[REDACTED]

@ Staticguy (AND Lisandro!): There is no security reason for not including the option to IGNORE.

If you say so, whom are we to argue...?

Thank you for responding. Now please DO make your point. If you have a salient argument against including a CHOICE to ignore, please make it. 

Leaving this option out is saying every single user is an idiot.

No, just the majority of the users are common users. And the others, the ones who consider themselves tech educated, oh, they the ones who commit the bigger mistakes

And know how to get out of them when they do. We don't need our AV to be a nanny. The tech-educated users should have a choice that doesn't involve having to CLOSE AVAST. When software is highly recommended from reputable sites, and you get it from the author's site or a reputable mirror and compare hash values, the chance of getting an infected file is small (they'd have to hack the site to replace the hash too) and I'm happy to take that chance on those occasions, b/c the chance of it coming back to bite me is a near-virtual zero, while the hassle of dealing with AVAST's lack of an IGNORE option is a certainty. 

Not everyone on this forum is a clown. They just keep running around, acting like a crowd.

Clown? Well, I feel like one after 13 years discussing this

Then maybe that's a clue it's time to change your mind? 

[bob3160]

IOW, not having an IGNORE function puts me MORE at risk b/c I have to close the AV (albeit temporarily) to continue to work.

That, IMHO, makes you a bigger fool than I originally gave you credit for.

[REDACTED]

Lisandro, please do address the legitimate points I made:

AVAST's concern is mainly with "common users" (you claim) ... what common user who doesn't know anything about viruses, is going to dig into the deep AVAST UI to tweak configuration settings, seeking out the actions, and switching the default action from DELETE to ASK??? never mind an Ignore option? What user is going to have AVAST ASK every time it finds something, as if they know what to do about it? That is illogical for a user who knows nothing of viruses... they will not even venture into the UI of AVAST, but will most likely use its default settings which are always to automatically delete the virus/pup/sus file... (or maybe for the latter the default is to Move To Chest, but you get my point). No "common user" who knows nothing of viruses, will have the AV **ASK** them for advice. In fact it would be amazing if they even FOUND the action settings, buried as they are.

So the chances of them even WANTING to tweak the config settings are small and not logical, except maybe for some basic settings like program updating, if that.

But let's assume some intrepid users DID find the action settings... they STILL would not choose ASK. It makes no sense. And if they DID, (for argument's sake) maybe because they simply want to KNOW when AVAST finds something (rather than it working unseen in the background), they certainly would not pick IGNORE for the action, once asked. Ignore is a basic English word without any double-meanings or ambiguity about it. Only an idiot would choose that if they didn't know what they were doing. Which again brings me back to, how stupid does AVAST think its users are???

It's only common sense that people with experience would be the ones who want to set actions to ASK... and if an alert is generated, they will likely NOT choose the option to IGNORE unless they are positive it's a FP... as in my example of downloading well known softw and comparing hash values.

So on one hand we have the common users who will likely never tweak their default settings and can be left with the auto-action of delete... and on the other we have experienced users who might want the ASK option along with the ease of using the IGNORE option on those perhaps rarer but nonetheless not uncommon cases in which they need it.

Now giving the advanced users an IGNORE option does not impact or hurt the common users at all. 

So your explanation that it is because of "security concerns" doesn't fly unless, as I said earlier, you assume the common users will dig into the UI to tweak settings AND choose ASK **and then** then choose IGNORE... for no reason whatsoever except that apparently these common users are uncommonly stupid.

So please explain how this IGNORE option would wreak havoc.

[CraigB]

bootsy@ avast have stated many times before that it will not add this option so you're wasting your time in asking, if you don't like it then please feel free to move to another product.

[bob3160]

At what point is it going to get through your thick scull, this is a request that will not fly.
If you can't wait for the short amount of time it takes avast! to rectify a false positive then
please, continue to turn of your protection. It is your computer and your option to make a foolish move any time you so desire.
It is also your option if you aren't happy the way this program works to keep you safe, to find an alternative.
We will miss you.

[REDACTED]

bootsy@ avast have stated many times before that it will not add this option so you're wasting your time in asking,

Thanks, but it's my time to waste.

if you don't like it then please feel free to move to another product.

I do feel free to do so. I am also free to post here unless the mods want to ban me... for ...making a valid argument and asking for a response?
If this is out of line, that's pretty ridiculous.

Lisandro said there are security concerns regarding an IGNORE option but did not say what they were, though I understand he feels this has been covered in the past. But regardless of what the policies were before, policies are always changing, often (if not most of the time) in response to user feedback.

If AVAST really doesn't want to know what its users think, then a team member can say so.

[REDACTED]

At what point is it going to get through your thick scull, this is a request that will not fly.

I wasn't asking Lisandro to change policy. I was asking how an IGNORE function is a "security concern" (his words) given the logical way users -- common and advanced -- use an AV. I was responding to his post. I assume this is allowed.

[bob3160]

At what point is it going to get through your thick scull, this is a request that will not fly.

I wasn't asking Lisandro to change policy. I was asking how an IGNORE function is a "security concern" (his words) given the logical way users -- common and advanced -- use an AV. I was responding to his post. I assume this is allowed.

You've asked and received an answer. It may not be to your liking but, your question was answered. End of story.

[mchain]

At what point is it going to get through your thick scull, this is a request that will not fly.

I wasn't asking Lisandro to change policy. I was asking how an IGNORE function is a "security concern" (his words) given the logical way users -- common and advanced -- use an AV. I was responding to his post. I assume this is allowed.

Of course, you can ask.  But you may not get the answer you want to hear.  An AV is supposed to seamlessly protect you.  Turning it off will remove all protection. 

I know you are not asking me about the IGNORE function, but IMHO, choosing to ignore an alert is unwise without any further investigation on the internet, and offering such a function to avast! users without requiring some effort on the part of users to submit the file to avast! engineers to look at and fix a possible false positive would be more than foolish.  Kind of defeats the necessary reason to have an real-time antivirus program running on your system in the first place. 

As a significant number of users likely would automatically bypass that safety feature and just choose IGNORE and be done with it.  And then who would blame avast! for something they did, if indeed, they got infected?

With millions upon millions of virii, and more discovered every day, it is not possible to [stay] ahead of the latest threats, at least for most folks.  Can you choose wisely?

Russian roulette, is what it is, to turn off your AV protection.  Sooner or later, you'll have shot your computer system dead.  [But] I hope that never happens to you.

[Eddy]

Clown? Well, I feel like one after 13 years discussing this

Lisandro, speaking about that. Give me back my red nose!

[bob3160]

As already explained many times and by many people, your "workaround" is unsafe.
If you want to do that to your own computer, be my guest. It's your computer
It is not recommended and not a safe practice.

I would also suggest that you lose your attitude. It has no business on this support forum.

[REDACTED]

At what point is it going to get through your thick scull, this is a request that will not fly.

I wasn't asking Lisandro to change policy. I was asking how an IGNORE function is a "security concern" (his words) given the logical way users -- common and advanced -- use an AV. I was responding to his post. I assume this is allowed.

You've asked and received an answer. It may not be to your liking but, your question was answered. [...]

Actually it wasn't. Please point to where Lisandro or any AVAST team answered post #20 in this thread? Lisandro only dismissed the question early on, ignoring the argument that challenged him. 

[REDACTED]

I wasn't asking Lisandro to change policy. I was asking how an IGNORE function is a "security concern" (his words) given the logical way users -- common and advanced -- use an AV. I was responding to his post. I assume this is allowed.

Of course, you can ask.  But you may not get the answer you want to hear.  An AV is supposed to seamlessly protect you.  Turning it off will remove all protection. 

I know you are not asking me about the IGNORE function, but IMHO, choosing to ignore an alert is unwise without any further investigation on the internet [...]

I appreciate your reply, mchain, but it doesn't appear you are familiar with hash values. Hashes are published for purposes of file verification, to ensure the downloaded file is not an imposter or has been tinkered with in any way. A kind of digital fingerprint. A small program incorporated into the Windows shell allows you to check the hash values of any file from the Properties window. You generate the hash, then paste the value from the author. If the hashes match, the file is an exact, unchanged copy of the original.

So when downloading reputable software, recommended by reputable sites, from the author's own site or a reputable mirror, and you check the hash value, you know the file is clean.

The problem is, people here think they know better than others, when they clearly don't (even those well-intended).  And the logic AVAST uses to justify not including an IGNORE option is clearly flawed, as I laid out. But apparently AVAST is happy using flawed logic, which would explain why they updated machines against user settings without warning, and would also explain why AVAST has fallen so far from the top in it's AV standing.

It appears it is time to find a new AV, when the company behind the AV you are using, can't be trusted (by their own actions) to make sound decisions or to use common sense... even on this forum. Drake127 excepted. But I am getting the feeling Drake is the exception and not the rule, sadly.