Feature request - option to add detected files to the ignore list

[REDACTED]

If it is a case of PUPs or samples - why not keep them in one location and exclude the contents of that location.

It's not that simple.  I often install PUAs, and even if I exclude the folder where the installer is located then I may still get files blocked when I go to install the PUA.  Currently, I just disable Avast's shields when downloading and installing PUAs so that nothing gets blocked.

[REDACTED]

I've just uninstalled Avast, and since it seems that the ignore feature won't ever be added, I will never use Avast again, as it a huge annoyance, not having the ignore feature.

It's s shame Avast won't add that feature, and that in general developers of security software want to dumb down their software these days to cater for the average user, while ignoring features for power users.

For the moment, I'll stay antivirus free, as I'd rather have my computer unprotected than have antivirus software slowing it down.  I install many different antiviruses every year, and just about all of them cause unacceptable slowdowns for me - even the so called really light antiviruses.  Even Windows Defender has serious issues with slowdowns on my computers.  I was very impressed by how light Avast was, and if it was not for the lack of the ignore feature, I would have kept using it for the foreseeable future.

I should add that Avast uninstalled cleanly, and IObit Uninstaller found no traces.

[bob3160]

I've just uninstalled Avast, and since it seems that the ignore feature won't ever be added, I will never use Avast again, as it a huge annoyance, not having the ignore feature.

It's s shame Avast won't add that feature, and that in general developers of security software want to dumb down their software these days to cater for the average user, while ignoring features for power users.

For the moment, I'll stay antivirus free, as I'd rather have my computer unprotected than have antivirus software slowing it down.  I install many different antiviruses every year, and just about all of them cause unacceptable slowdowns for me - even the so called really light antiviruses.  Even Windows Defender has serious issues with slowdowns on my computers.  I was very impressed by how light Avast was, and if it was not for the lack of the ignore feature, I would have kept using it for the foreseeable future.

I should add that Avast uninstalled cleanly, and IObit Uninstaller found no traces.

Just as a rebuttal, I'd like to mention that it is because Avast does not have such a bypass feature, many of Avast's users are kept safe. (Probably from themselves.)
Most users depend on their Antivirus program to keep them safe. They aren't "experts". Even experts have been fooled more times then they will
ever admit. Putting the decision of what's safe and what's not directly in the hands of the experts at Avast is the right thing to do.
I will admit that in the case of the false positive this decision at times can be a bit frustrating. It is still the right decision to keep the customer safe.
As an Avast user since 2003, I've seen both false positives and brand new viruses blocked by Avast. The false positives have always been rectified
in a reasonable time frame. The blockages of brand new infections of all types have kept my system well protected.

[Be Secure]

I've just uninstalled Avast, and since it seems that the ignore feature won't ever be added, I will never use Avast again, as it a huge annoyance, not having the ignore feature.

It's s shame Avast won't add that feature, and that in general developers of security software want to dumb down their software these days to cater for the average user, while ignoring features for power users.

For the moment, I'll stay antivirus free, as I'd rather have my computer unprotected than have antivirus software slowing it down.  I install many different antiviruses every year, and just about all of them cause unacceptable slowdowns for me - even the so called really light antiviruses.  Even Windows Defender has serious issues with slowdowns on my computers.  I was very impressed by how light Avast was, and if it was not for the lack of the ignore feature, I would have kept using it for the foreseeable future.

I should add that Avast uninstalled cleanly, and IObit Uninstaller found no traces.

Just as a rebuttal, I'd like to mention that it is because Avast does not have such a bypass feature, many of Avast's users are kept safe. (Probably from themselves.)
Most users depend on their Antivirus program to keep them safe. They aren't "experts". Even experts have been fooled more times then they will
ever admit. Putting the decision of what's safe and what's not directly in the hands of the experts at Avast is the right thing to do.
I will admit that in the case of the false positive this decision at times can be a bit frustrating. It is still the right decision to keep the customer safe.
As an Avast user since 2003, I've seen both false positives and brand new viruses blocked by Avast. The false positives have always been rectified
in a reasonable time frame. The blockages of brand new infections of all types have kept my system well protected.

+1 I agree with@bob3160

[REDACTED]

Just as a rebuttal, I'd like to mention that it is because Avast does not have such a bypass feature, many of Avast's users are kept safe. (Probably from themselves.)

I feel the need to point out, that I suggest that such a feature be an optional that was disabled by default.  You would need to manually enable it via the settings if you wanted the ignore option.  I'm sure that average user, for which this option could lead to their system becoming infected, would not enable this option.  Most likely, they just run Avast with the default settings, and never even look at configuration options.

Putting the decision of what's safe and what's not directly in the hands of the experts at Avast is the right thing to do.

Perhaps for the majority of users, but most definitely not for people such as myself.  If Avast detects something I want to use, then I'll let Avast quarantine it, and then restore it and add it to the list of exclusions, or disable Avast's shields while I install it.

It is still the right decision to keep the customer safe.

It's not the right decision for all users.  Maybe it is for the majority of users, maybe even for 99% of users, but not everyone.  With my idea, the average user would be protected just as before, only a minority of power users would manually enable the ignore function, and it would keep everyone happy.

As an Avast user since 2003, I've seen both false positives and brand new viruses blocked by Avast. The false positives have always been rectified
in a reasonable time frame. The blockages of brand new infections of all types have kept my system well protected.

I first used Avast in the mid nineties, when there was both a DOS and Windows 3 app.  But, I have used plenty of other antiviruses as well as Avast since then.  Not only do I have 25 years of experience in PC virus removal, I know how to avoid getting infected.  The only time I ever get infected is when I run an infected file I've downloaded, which I do from time to time.  If I was a little bit more careful about what I let run on my computers, I would never get infected.  I don't need antivirus software to tell me if a file is safe or not, I'm quite capable of doing that myself.

[bob3160]

If you don't need an AV then why complain about the lack of a feature designed for those that expect their AV to have their backs.
If the feature is made available, it will be used and in most instances abused.
It makes no sense to put 99% of the users at a possible risk to satisfy less than 1% of those that use the product. (IMHO)

[REDACTED]

If you don't need an AV then why complain about the lack of a feature designed for those that expect their AV to have their backs.
If the feature is made available, it will be used and in most instances abused.
It makes no sense to put 99% of the users at a possible risk to satisfy less than 1% of those that use the product. (IMHO)

You are missing the point entirely.  I don't know why, as I've made myself clear.  The ignore feature would need to be manually enabled.  I don't know where on earth you get that idea that 99% of users would actually bother to go into the settings and manually enable it.  I would assume that the majority of users just run Avast with the default settings.

Sure, I don't "need" an antivirus, but, I prefer to use one than not.  However, the majority of antiviruses make my computer run slowly, or don't have the ignore option.  Avast doesn't make my computer run slowly.

Also you statement "If the feature is made available, it will be used and in most instances abused" is simply ridiculous.  You don't know that, it's nothing more than speculation.  I get that you don't need the ignore function and think it's a bad idea.  But, just because that is your opinion, does not make it true for everyone.  If the feature was added, then unless you manually enabled it, Avast would work exactly the same as it does now, so I really don't know why it is such a big deal to you that you think it shouldn't be added.

[RejZoR]

You can do this more conveniently through Virus Chest since it has been added to the avast! tray icon menu...

Thanks for tip, I had not noticed that.

As for adding it directly to the detection menu, it is a logical option to have for power users in my opinion.  I absolutely hate how antivirus companies "dump down" their products for inexperienced users, and in doing so exclude features that can would be useful to advanced users.

As I suggested, such a feature could be an option one that would have to be manually enabled, so the average user would not be shown the ignore option.  At least there are some antivirus such at Qihoo's products that have the ignore option.

Lets face it, advanced users aren't the majority and vendors have to assume person in front of a computer is a Regular Joe who has no clue about computers. It's how it is. Quick access to Virus Chest through tray icon is a goo trade off if you ask me. It's two clicks now which take 2 seconds at most and you can control what is excluded and what isn't.

[REDACTED]

Lets face it, advanced users aren't the majority and vendors have to assume person in front of a computer is a Regular Joe who has no clue about computers.

Yes I agree with you there.  However, while it certainly is good business sense to make a product for the masses, that should not have to mean that they don't add functionality for advanced users too, too keep everyone happy

[RejZoR]

Well, it's exactly hwere I've explained it to you. That's where you have to use it. And the regular users don't. That's how it is. There used to be simple and advanced interface but frankly, having them split up just doesn't work.

[Just_a_User]

If Avast deems a file as an infection, you can't bypass that detection.

I know, and that the big issue I have with Avast, and why most likely I will be uninstalling it soon, and leaving my Windows 10 laptop free of antivirus software (I uninstalled Windows Defender).

Your computer, your choice. Certainly not mine.

Exactly our computer our choice....more experience user will know if its need or can be in the exception list or not....not experience user will not even look for that section or think about to put a file in that list.
So if it asked my let the users decidited whether or not using that option....and im one of them that using it many times av will drop a file that is not need to be removed. And also avast is not having the all time nolitce or wisdom to make decisions let the user in control lot of them know what to do and it doesnt mean if you hear them they are not excist in low numbers just my 2 cents.
Any way thank for the free stuff on a side note of above im as well grateful to have something like avast on my pc though.