Avast Support is *very* bad

[Pondus]

please consider reporting this class of detection as warnings instead of threats

well in a way it is  Win32:WrongInf-D [Susp]  =  suspicious

Now for my education why Virus Total still detect the issue as today, do they run avast in high heuristic sensitivity ?

VT FAQ  https://www.virustotal.com/en/faq/
About https://www.virustotal.com/en/about/

[Maxx_original]

yes, VT runs avast engine with highest heuristics..

WrongInf (= wrongly infected) [Susp] (= suspicious) says it all, it's self-describing, so you don't have to worry about it even though it's a regular threat warning

sorry for the support lag

[REDACTED]

yes, VT runs avast engine with highest heuristics..

WrongInf (= wrongly infected) [Susp] (= suspicious) says it all, it's self-describing, so you don't have to worry about it even though it's a regular threat warning

sorry for the support lag

Allrite thanks for the info.
But frankly now you say it I understand the output, but without your insight it is not so clear .

For instance I find quite frustrating that when there is a threat detected there is no way to have more information about why avast detected it (even in the report file there is no more information).
It is especially important for the generic stuff (where there is a good chance to have false positives ...)
BTW is there a place where all the different threat types are described ?

sorry for the support lag

Now the ticket has moved to the [Private] status whatever that means ... Oh well

[1234ava]

Maxx: "It's not dangerous, but it is not clean."

I think that is "self-describing"

On the contrary, "WrongInf (= wrongly infected) [Susp] (= suspicious)"
might be confusing for average PC users.

[Maxx_original]

I have to admit that things obvious to me can be confusing for others, because I'm an insider.

It's not a complete list, but an insight to our naming convention https://blog.avast.com/2009/07/29/what-to-imagine-behind-win32malob-cryp/