exclusions not working

[ady4um]

I have a problem since avast 4.8. Now I'm using avast 5 and the problem persists.

For version 4.8, I already posted my problem:

 http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=48200.0

So I won't repeat it here. In short, when using Vista's "Search" function, avast 4.8 was advicing about viruses it founds in my hdd, inside compressed archives (zip, cab, exe). The viruses are not the problem (read the original post). The problem is that I search with the option NOT to open zip's and cab's, but avast 4.8 was still "finding" those viruses at each search.

It may be a problem in Vista's "search" function (as if vista is searching inside archives even when I opt not to).

I couldn't find a solution (again, the compressed viruses are not the issue here), so now with avast 5, I decided to add the parent folder to the "exclusions" list. (FYI, yes I added "\" to the "exclusions" line and clicked "add" and saved the settings).

Something must be wrong, because even with the excluded folder, the search function in Vista is still making avast pop up with viruses being found.

As I posted before, this behavior started some time ago, but it wasn't the original behavior when I first installed avast.

Again, it could be some strange issue with the "search" options in Vista. But again, the problem is still present, even after adding the parent folder to the exclusions list in avast.

No matter which "search" options I set, avast shouldn't be popping anything about viruses found inside a compressed zip/cab/exe archive which is under my exclusions' list.

Any ideas?

[Asyn]

Did you exclude it in the file system shield settings..?
If not, do so.
asyn

[ady4um]

Did you exclude it in the file system shield settings..?

OK, so after your suggestion, now I added the path to the "File System Shield" exclusion's list also (previously, I only added it to the general settings exclusions' list). I test it and it worked. Thank you for your response and for actually giving the solution.

But if this was the solution, then I must ask, why the double "exclusions" lists?

There is already "exclusions" as a general setting. Shouldn't this be powerful enough? The way it is working now, it's like the general "exclusions" setting has its influence over the "Scan computer" section of avast 5, but not over the shields.

If I want some path excluded, I'm not sure what's the point to exclude it for a regular scan, but not for a specified shield. I can see the other way around, as in: "skip the path while using the shields, but check it if I want a scan to include it" (like in "generally I trust this path to be fine, but if I'm going to check the system I would like to be sure nothing strange/unexpected happened).

But if the Developers think there is some situation where the user would want to specify and differentiate this behavior, it's fine with me.

Still, since I had this situation where I didn't notice the "double" settings, I would like to make a suggestion.

Instead of putting 2 (or more?) places for exclusions, each shield and the current "general" exclusions list should be together in just one place to configure.

Maybe, one possible solution would be to transfer the shield options as columns with check boxes to the "general" settings' place, so the exclusions' list is unified there (for each path's line), and the user could decide to apply each exclusion to every aspect of avast, or partly, according to scans/file system shield/network shield/... and so.

Even more, each column could be actually divided in 3 subcolumns, so for each shield you could select different behaviors (exclude when Reading/Writing/eXecuting), as it is now for the shields.

I hope I was clear enough explaining my suggestion. If not, please say so and I'll try to clarify.

Thank you in advance.

[Asyn]

OK, so after your suggestion, now I added the path to the "File System Shield" exclusion's list also (previously, I only added it to the general settings exclusions' list). I test it and it worked. Thank you for your response and for actually giving the solution.

You're welcome..!!
All other questions/suggestions the devs would have to answer.
asyn

[Lisandro]

But if this was the solution, then I must ask, why the double "exclusions" lists?

Configurability. Each shield could be configurated accordingly. Each scanning could have a different profile...
If you want to do with all of them, use the general exclusion list.

[ady4um]

Configurability. Each shield could be configurated accordingly. Each scanning could have a different profile...

I understand that. I already wrote about, at least, one example.

If you want to do with all of them, use the general exclusion list.

This last sentence you wrote is actually not correct. As I stated before, I added the exclusion path, first to the general settings, which doesn't depend on one particular shield, nor one particular scan type. According to your statement, this setting should have been enough; but it wasn't. The user Asyn suggested correctly (from a "solution" point of view) that I should add also the path to the specific shield that was triggering the unwanted behavior.

So you see, the more "general" setting wasn't "imposed" over the particular shield. Again, for the developers, if this was the original intention, then it's not working as design.

My above-posted suggestion to change the place of exclusions' lists of each shield is still valid, whatever behavior was intended.

Thank you in advance.

[Lisandro]

This last sentence you wrote is actually not correct. As I stated before, I added the exclusion path, first to the general settings, which doesn't depend on one particular shield, nor one particular scan type. According to your statement, this setting should have been enough; but it wasn't. The user Asyn suggested correctly (from a "solution" point of view) that I should add also the path to the specific shield that was triggering the unwanted behavior.

So you see, the more "general" setting wasn't "imposed" over the particular shield. Again, for the developers, if this was the original intention, then it's not working as design.

Which shield? There should be a problem. That's not the theory how the exclusion list works.
Which was exactly that you've added to the exclusion list? (post the text here).

[ady4um]

There is already "exclusions" as a general setting.

I decided to add the parent folder to the "exclusions" list. (FYI, yes I added "\" to the "exclusions" line and clicked "add" and saved the settings).

Did you exclude it in the file system shield settings..?
If not, do so.
asyn

To which I answered:

OK, so after your suggestion, now I added the path to the "File System Shield" exclusion's list also ...

So, to resume, again:

1._ Open avast user interface -> upper-right "settings" (the general avast settings) -> Exclusions -> add a line to a parent folder finishing with "\*" (without the double quotes) starting from the local volume (I mean, absolute full path included) -> click "add" and "ok".

2._ For days I've been using the previous configuration, but each time I used the search function included in vista, avast still pops up with the "virus found" dialog. I reboot once a day, and also doublechecked the "exclusions" line. For those not reading the previous posts, the viruses are not the issue here, but avast behavior is.

3._ Open avast user interface -> real-time shields -> File system shield -> Expert settings -> Exclusions -> add a line to a parent folder finishing with "\*" (without the double quotes) (I actually copy+pasted the same absolute full path line from the general settings) -> leave Read column checked for the line, and Write and eXecute unchecked for the line. -> click "add" and "ok".

I hope at this post is clear enough that I did what is expected but the results were not the ones expected, until the third action listed just above these lines, the one suggested by Asyn.

If Tech is correct about the expected behavior - BTW, that's how I previously assumed it works - , then something is not working as intended.

One possible expected behavior is: General settings overcomes the specific shields' settings. But another possible behavior could be like working as exceptions: "take the general settings, but if a specific shield's setting is different, take the specific setting as valid for that shield".

But in my case, neither behaviors are actually in work. Avast simply ignored the general setting, and only when I added the same path to both exclusions lists, I received the expected result.

I suppose there is one additional test: leaving the exclusion path at the specific file system shield, but erasing it from the general exclusions settings. I haven't tried this option yet. But I must say, in my case, this option is irrelevant, although it could be relevant for the developers, so they could find the problem.

In any case, again, my above-posted suggestion is still valid, whatever behavior was expected.

If anybody needs more info about my system configuration, or vista's search settings, I'm willing to post it so the developers could find the problem.

Thank you in advance.

[zekeblue]

I have found similar behavior trying to exclude a particular file (a FP: antikeyloggertest3.exe).  General exclusion didn't work.  Only when added to file shield was it bypassed (I was not alerted to a threat) during a backup operation.

[ady4um]

That's not the theory how the exclusion list works.

I usually search the forum for similar problems that I have, before starting a new Topic.

I confess I didn't search the forum before starting this one, because I sincerely thought I had a specific problem.

When the user Asyn suggested the solution, it was clear I was wrong in my assumption, and here just some examples:

 http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=55851.msg474616#msg474616
 http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=55336.msg467705#msg467705
 http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=54198.msg459015#msg459015

I read a lot of additional topics, several trying to install other software, online antivirus checking, limiting the number of exclusions, and more and more "trial and error" procedures.

So I'm feeling lucky. I received the correct solution right away. A big "Again, thank you very much, Asyn" is in order.

It seems like DavidR has the explanation, and Avast's documentation and help should be corrected:
 http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=58418.msg492223#msg492223

And Vlk said a couple months ago
 ( http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=58418.msg492246#msg492246 )

The help file (and the in-product description) is wrong in this case.
We'll see what we can do to fix the problem.

Moreover, I found more of this kind of posts about exclusions general settings from even before a couple of months ago.

So, are Avast's developers going to change the Exclusions list behavior? If not, then I think it's time to change at least the note that the user can read just above the actual exclusions line (the in-product description - see attached picture). Even if the help file and other documents are still not changed after months, at least the specific note should be corrected. Again, that is, if the Exclusions general settings' behavior is not going to be changed.

So it seems Avast's team is "still thinking" about the documentation, but not about a better solution (I still think my humble suggestion is valid, whatever the intended behavior was/is).

Thank you in advance.

[Lisandro]

Thanks for resurrecting the issue.
Indeed. avast should have corrected this in the help files and we translators should have done our job.
I was wrong in my earlier posts about the Exclusion lists.

[Asyn]

So I'm feeling lucky. I received the correct solution right away. A big "Again, thank you very much, Asyn" is in order.

You're welcome..! Glad I could help you.
asyn

[ady4um]

...avast should have corrected this in the help files...

As the attachment in my previous post shows, the problem about not accurate documentation is not just in the help file - which no so many users actually read - but in front of the user who is just about to add a line to the exclusion list. It is right there, with a note explicitly saying the opposite of the actual current behavior.

I was wrong in my earlier posts about the Exclusion lists.

Well, maybe you were not. I mean, if Vlk and the Avast Team already know about this for awhile, and he said:

We'll see what we can do to fix the problem.

then maybe the reason not to change the documentation is that actually they are thinking about changing the behavior instead, and only then, change the documentation accordingly. But, even if this is the case, it shouldn't take months to decide about the appropriate behavior and apply the changes accordingly.

This is not still a beta version, but versions already being used by final users.

I wish we could hear someone from the Avast Team, about the issue (behavior and/or documentation), and even better, about my suggestion to resolve the problem.

Thank you in advance.

[Tristan Young]

Oh crap.

This is the same problem I've been experiencing.  I added an exclusion in the global section, and the eicar.com test virus was still being detected when it should have been ignored.

Added the exclusion to the file system shield, and it's properly ignored.

I bet all the problems I've been having with the new point of sales package I'm testing at work is due to this stupid exclusion system.  Come on, Avast.  This is very disappointing.