Privacy and data being sent to Avast.

[Pondus]

I did not say it that it dont collect info ... but it has no extra bells and whistles, at least very few and no popup ads   

I dont think there is a AV today that dont use some cloud feature?


ClamWin  >>  http://www.clamwin.com/
Clam Sentinel  >>  http://clamsentinel.sourceforge.net/

ClamAV (the engine) >>  https://www.clamav.net/
ClamAV blog  >>  http://blog.clamav.net/2011/03/top-5-misconceptions-about-clamav.html

[REDACTED]

I don't trust Avast.....

Then you should not install it. Even your OS / WinDefender collect data

All I want is an antivirus, no extra bells and whistles. My privacy is important to me.

Let me just clarify a little.

If Avast states that turning off data collection and whatnot does disable sending data completely and I can verify that via Wireshark, then I trust them enough to use and recommend the software. I don't like leaving consumer PC's unprotected.

I would like to be able to recommend Avast to clients. I would like to explain to them what each feature does and the potential privacy implications and leave the choice up to them.

I am very well aware of data collected and transmitted by other software packages and I do cut it off as best as possible, even on my phone. In many cases many apps I use simply cannot transmit anything. The security software on my phone cannot transmit a single thing.

It is not a case of accepting all or nothing, it is not black and white as you portray. I do not need to bury my pc. What I need is information, then I can make an educated and balanced decision regarding the matter.

I did not say it that it dont collect info ... but it has no extra bells and whistles, at least very few and no popup ads   

I dont think there is a AV today that dont use some cloud feature?

Heh heh heh, the lack of interference is definitely appreciated. I used another AV for a while, it was extremely bloated and asked more questions than a hyperactive 2 year old.

[bob3160]

I did not say it that it dont collect info ... but it has no extra bells and whistles, at least very few

I dont think there is a AV today that don't use some cloud feature?

Technically, there is very little anywhere that doesn't collect some information.
The difference is usually that one site reports what it collects and is then criticized for collecting the information
while other sites collect the information but don't disclose that fact.
Privacy on the internet is a myth. Even if you're careful, someone can always get access to what you've posted or what you used or,
the sites you frequent. Frankly, if you've used the net for any length of time, you really have no privacy.

[REDACTED]

I did not say it that it dont collect info ... but it has no extra bells and whistles, at least very few

I dont think there is a AV today that don't use some cloud feature?

Technically, there is very little anywhere that doesn't collect some information.
The difference is usually that one site reports what it collects and is then criticized for collecting the information
while other sites collect the information but don't disclose that fact.
Privacy on the internet is a myth. Even if you're careful, someone can always get access to what you've posted or what you used or,
the sites you frequent. Frankly, if you've used the net for any length of time, you really have no privacy.

I just want to minimise the footprint as much as I can.

I have outed some companies on social media for collecting data when they did not declare it. One transmitted quite a lot of personal information gathered from the device (phone/tablet) completely unencrypted, more than enough to steal an identity. It was also stored on the phone in a simple text file.
They were not very happy when I made that public, they instantly renamed the service, within a day. They also added the service to their PC software suite, so it could replace the software on the device if you deleted it.
I outed them again. 

If I worked for Avast I would add a privacy feature, even if all it does is disable several components, privacy is marketable.

[MartinZ]

Then Rejzor's answer is pretty accurate and it will minimize the footprint.

[REDACTED]

Then Rejzor's answer is pretty accurate and it will minimize the footprint.

Thank you. Are you able to tell me what it will continue to sent?
^{Of course I presume version number will be sent for the purposes of updates.}

[igor]

You need to disable:
- Reputation services
- Enable CyberCapture
- Participate in the avast! community
- Participate in data sharing
-snip-

Thanks for the information. Really simply, I am just after an antivirus. I don't need the reputation services and such, any malware scripts will not run on my machine without my permission, hopefully. 

I think the name "reputation services" doesn't describe the underlying functionality anymore. These services provide not only file reputation (which the local program may then use as part of some heuristic rule to allow the file to run or to block it), but they also provide strict detections (i.e. say "this file is malware").

Simply said, more and more detections are moved online - first because of the size (you wouldn't want to have gigabytes or terabytes of virus definitions on your disk), second because it's faster (when a system or analyst decides that a specific file is malicious, it takes a few seconds to push this information online - and if you encounter this file the next second, it will get detected. If you wait for streaming updates instead, it takes a few more minutes. If you disable even streaming updates and wait for a "big" update of virus definitions, it can be hours later and the definition may be quite useless by then because the particular malware has been replaced with a different one in between).

So by disabling the "reputation services", you significantly reduce the protection - and it's reasonable to assume that this trend will continue (i.e. at some point either disabling these reputation services would basically disable the antivirus protection altogether, or that setting will just disappear from the program and it won't be possible anymore). Not saying it will happen tomorrow, but the day will come I guess.

[Rundvleeskroket]

Simply said, more and more detections are moved online - first because of the size (you wouldn't want to have gigabytes or terabytes of virus definitions on your disk), [...]

So by disabling the "reputation services", you significantly reduce the protection - and it's reasonable to assume that this trend will continue (i.e. at some point either disabling these reputation services would basically disable the antivirus protection altogether, or that setting will just disappear from the program and it won't be possible anymore). Not saying it will happen tomorrow, but the day will come I guess.

If the choice is between gigabytes of definitions on my disk, or sending information about the contents of my disk to some server, I choose the first. If an AV only does online detection, I will drop that AV. Have done it before. Will do it again.

[Pondus]

If an AV only does online detection, I will drop that AV. Have done it before. Will do it again.

What AV does only online detection?

[Rundvleeskroket]

I can't remember which one. Years ago I was looking for a ultra light AV for an old PIII laptop with very little memory. Found one. After installation I noticed it didn't have an option to disable the online cloud scanning. So it got uninstalled. I get that that is why it was so light, but that is not an acceptable trade-off for me.

Even today on my main machine I still scan files offline regularly. Precisely because even full installers these days often want online connectivity, and they won't get it.

[Pondus]

Panda maybe ?

Posted in 2009 and technology has evolved since then

Arguments against cloud-based antivirus
https://www.pandasecurity.com/mediacenter/malware/arguments-against-cloud-based-antivirus/

[Rundvleeskroket]

Could be.

I find this thread very interesting because I share most of the OP's concerns. It isn't about cutting yourself off from everything, but about mitigating exposure. A kind of 'need to know' mindset to giving up information. Pick and choose. In the case of AV I am of the firm belief all scanning should be (able to be) done locally. I understand the benefits of moving that to the cloud, but I'm not comfortable with the implications that has.

[REDACTED]

Then I guess it is also quite important if a person chooses to remain "sharing" to find an AV program doesn't sell data to third parties, even after removing personally identifiable information. It can be quite easy to "re-personalise" the data. It doesn't take very much, especially with social media.

Another reason I do not like to transmit the data in the first place is because it ends up in places it shouldn't be, such as on the deep web.

I'd still like to know what is sent when choosing to opt out. The alternative is to block all network traffic from the app and download updates manually, which I don't really want to do unless I have to. If any of the data is sent unencrypted then it must be blocked.

An alternative would be to offer a prompt to ask if a suspicious file (perhaps identified by heuristics) can be sent for analysis. Once again, the user can define what they choose to do. I am perfectly fine with storing the signatures.

There's information regarding the data collected and sent here, AV comparatives - Data transmission in Internet security products.

[Rundvleeskroket]

Indeed. This whole idea of anonimized and depersonalized data is pretty dubious. It sounds great. And if it actually worked that way, you might be OK with that. But in reality often the vast majority of depersonalized data can be reconstructed. And since there is value to be had by doing so, it is reasonable to assume some parties wil indeed try to do so, and succeed. The prudent thing to do is to not collect and transmit anything that is non-essential for basic operation of the AV. And what that constitutes depends on what trade-off an end user makes. It is pointless to debate this because it is a personal choice. You might opt for the best protection at a cost of some privacy, and I might choose a bit less protection but in the knowledge some personal information is not out there to be used or abused. And then it is up to me to make sure I have taken precautions for a worst case scenario.

[REDACTED]

I couldn't agree more.
All I am after is the power to choose for myself and the information I require to effectively do so.

I don't know who Avast sells the data to, I don't know what other data has been purchased. I don't know who they are or what their goal is. I know Avast is a business and if someone is going to pay, Avast will do precisely what they detail in the EULA and sell the data they have.

That tells me I need to keep my data to myself. I know the saying very well, "If you are not paying for the product, you are the product". I am looking to purchase an AV product, I don't expect and will not tolerate my data being sold if I am paying for the product.