CyberCapture

[REDACTED]

BRAND NEW VERSION: 12.1.2272

I am happy to announce new version of AVAST Antivirus (build number 12.1.2272), called NITRO Update.
It's for these products: Free Antivirus, Pro Antivirus, Internet Security and Premier.
This update is focused on improving the performance and detection capabilities. We also stopped using the year in product name, as we will be releasing new versions in monthly cycles from now.

I am really happy to see the progress at Avast in the direction of making their product fast & effective....and listening to the folks on this Forum.
It is exciting to see....I know some items like CC has some development to make but love the direction.
Been in this tech world 30+ years and funny things I spot that show the "attitude" of a company.
See the excerpt above.....no more CY in product name.....seems like small thing ? ......it's not, trust me. 
This means they are less focused on the "marketereers" in their company and more features/functions.
Wasn't that long ago the push was to release to call it "NEW 20xx" only to have it a bug ridden release and fixes took 6 months to finally make it usable.
Nice work Avast.....looking forward to the future !!!!

[RejZoR]

Any news as to why that file was classified as safe?! That is 100% bad...something is definately wrong on the backend 

Do you expect 100% detection from CyberCapture? I don't think it happen or exist, 100% is just an illusion IMHO.
"Improved" detection rate at most is, still, a good advance.

Of course I expect CC to be improved, but now, let's wait and see.

So far its detection rate has been 0% because the malware isn't even being picked up by CC. And when it is, it gives it a clean pass when it's clearly not "clean". I've been critical at NG because I couldn't ever see any real results from it as an end user. Same applies to CyberCapture. I'm not going to blindly defend it while it's producing no results. Why would you do that? Why not just be realistic and admit it's not doing well at all at the moment? Because it sure ain't.

[Lisandro]

Love the direction.
Been in this tech world 30+ years and funny things I spot that show the "attitude" of a company.

Well said

[Asyn]

Hi guys,

out of interest, did anyone ever get a detection with CC..!?
If yes, a screenshot would be appreciated. Thanks.

[bob3160]

Hi guys,

out of interest, did anyone ever get a detection with CC..!?
If yes, a screenshot would be appreciated. Thanks.

https://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=187679.msg1323559#msg1323559

[Asyn]

Hi guys,

out of interest, did anyone ever get a detection with CC..!?
If yes, a screenshot would be appreciated. Thanks.

https://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=187679.msg1323559#msg1323559

Hi Bob, sorry, if my request wasn't clear.
I meant an actual detection, not an "everything is ok" message.

[NON]

Any news as to why that file was classified as safe?! That is 100% bad...something is definately wrong on the backend 

Do you expect 100% detection from CyberCapture? I don't think it happen or exist, 100% is just an illusion IMHO.
"Improved" detection rate at most is, still, a good advance.

Of course I expect CC to be improved, but now, let's wait and see.

So far its detection rate has been 0% because the malware isn't even being picked up by CC. And when it is, it gives it a clean pass when it's clearly not "clean". I've been critical at NG because I couldn't ever see any real results from it as an end user. Same applies to CyberCapture. I'm not going to blindly defend it while it's producing no results. Why would you do that? Why not just be realistic and admit it's not doing well at all at the moment? Because it sure ain't.

Well, I think you tend to want a result too quickly.
If CC checks 100 malwares and fails for all, then, I also consider CC is a fail and needs some improve.
But if one of them get caught by CC, then, it certainly has some effects to improve avast detection, even though I expect more than 1/100.

And I consider "isn't picked up by CC" is another issue.
It does not measure the ability of CC, it just fails at its frontend. This means frontend seems to have some bugs and need to be fixed (or extended to other vectors), and after that we can finally see the results from CC.
I'm waiting for this fixes / extensions, decision will be made after that for me.

[DavidR]

We don't know just how many files have been uploaded for analysis by CC and of those were considered malicious and or clean/suspect.

Now in early testing those considered clean may need to be manually analysed, to see that it hasn't got passed CC and if so, fine tuning of CC would be required.

One thing for sure is that these figures would at the very least be commercially sensitive so I can't see them being released publicly.

The only thing might be if we start to see some changes/improvements in the various AV test results. Can it be attributable to CC or even if said AV tests are even going to be able to have the CC functionality and can they wait to get results back if files are uploaded.

[RejZoR]

Yeah, well, what good is a heavy fortified 1m thick wall to prevent invaders if it's not going all the way around? Mean stuff will just go around it. Again, as an end user, do you think I care if it's "just an issue with frontend"? This is giving false hope or expectations.

Imagine car manufacturer stating the car you just bought has 20 airbags. But would you feel safe knowing there is a 95% chance none of them would go off when you'd need them to? That's how CC feels like at the moment. We know it's awesome tech and all, but will it really protect me when it'll be needed? I very much doubt that to be quite frank...

[Alikhan]

And I consider "isn't picked up by CC" is another issue.
It does not measure the ability of CC, it just fails at its frontend. This means frontend seems to have some bugs and need to be fixed (or extended to other vectors), and after that we can finally see the results from CC.
I'm waiting for this fixes / extensions, decision will be made after that for me.

+1.

I still think there are some bugs which stop CC from coming into action.

Once this is resolved, we will be able to get a picture of its detection rates.

[Be Secure]

And I consider "isn't picked up by CC" is another issue.
It does not measure the ability of CC, it just fails at its frontend. This means frontend seems to have some bugs and need to be fixed (or extended to other vectors), and after that we can finally see the results from CC.
I'm waiting for this fixes / extensions, decision will be made after that for me.

+1.

I still think there are some bugs which stop CC from coming into action.

Once this is resolved, we will be able to get a picture of its detection rates.

Right.It has BUGS and not well tested before pushing the update.

[REDACTED]

With CC being "Malware" detection can you still use/compatible MBAM Pro & MBAE also running ?
Obviously, MBAM Pro / MBAE work great with prior versions of Avast for A/V.

Thx !

[bob3160]

With CC being "Malware" detection can you still use/compatible MBAM Pro & MBAE also running ?
Obviously, MBAM Pro / MBAE work great with prior versions of Avast for A/V.

Thx !

MBAM and MBEA have already proven that they work. CC has yest to prove itself.
I personally don't plan on making any changes with what's running to keep me safe.

[Be Secure]

Any news on CC?

[bob3160]

Any news on CC?

I'm sure that if there were, it would have been posted.