The future of avast protection

[vbaltazar]

Actualicé la versión de AVAST Internet Security y mi computadora se queda "pasmada"!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[Lisandro]

Actualicé la versión de AVAST Internet Security y mi computadora se queda "pasmada"!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Do not post twice the same... Follow your other thread.

[Dch48]

I absolutely would be against automatic sandboxing and I'm not enthused about cloud scanning either. I used to use the full package of Comodo Internet Security but grew increasingly disenchanted with it's default deny approach to things. I was constantly getting popup alerts from the HIPS component about not only safe actions of known safe applications but actions that were necessary for those applications to function properly. It just got more and more annoying seeing that nothing actually malicious was ever found during the year I used Comodo. It made setting up and playing full screen games harder and then I also had to jump through the same hoops over again when my favorite game,World of Warcraft, would receive a new content or bug fix patch. I lived through that but when they added the automatic sandbox, that was the last straw. It kept sandboxing things that were , once again, perfectly safe and would not remember not to do it when told to. If I told it not to sandbox something again, it would continue to do it but just wouldn't alert me that it had. It was a nightmare. Now they have added cloud scanning to the package and while I haven't personally used it (I switched to using only the basic firewall of Comodo in combination with the free Avast! back in May 2010.), I have read on their forums that it causes very noticeable slowdowns in scanning and overall performance of the computer.

What I want from my security software is a reasonable level of protection while still maintaining as much performance and ease of use of my machine as is possible. I feel that my current setup is perfect in those regards. I will gladly sacrifice increased "zero day" protection to retain free and unfettered usage of my computer. The odds of being hit by a zero day attack are infinitesimal and even if I did become infected, I back up the Documents folder regularly on to a DvD and it contains all the files and application installers I would need to get things back to normal if I had to do a wipe and reinstall of everything. I could be back to normal in 5-6 hours at the most with no loss of any important data. I will take that chance willingly to be able to use my machine as I like to with no interference or performance degradation caused by security software. I don't think Avast! needs any of the things that are being proposed here.

[Lisandro]

I was constantly getting popup alerts from the HIPS component about not only safe actions of known safe applications but actions that were necessary for those applications to function properly.

Dch48, the HIPS component is not the automatic sandboxing, it's Defense+.

It kept sandboxing things that were , once again, perfectly safe

That's the major drawback. They must kept the safe list (white) very updated to reduce this warning to the minimum. They need to improve their antivirus/cloud detection also. This is the usability drawback of HIPS and automatic sandboxing.

and would not remember not to do it when told to. If I told it not to sandbox something again, it would continue to do it but just wouldn't alert me that it had.

Bug in a specific version?

Now they have added cloud scanning to the package and while I haven't personally used it (I switched to using only the basic firewall of Comodo in combination with the free Avast! back in May 2010.), I have read on their forums that it causes very noticeable slowdowns in scanning and overall performance of the computer.

I've tested their cloud scanning without such problems in VMware environments.

What I want from my security software is a reasonable level of protection while still maintaining as much performance and ease of use of my machine as is possible.

So you've chosen (one of) the best combo for it.

The odds of being hit by a zero day attack are infinitesimal

Safe browsing.

I don't think Avast! needs any of the things that are being proposed here.

Thanks for posting.

[Para-Noid]

Just a thought...How much trouble would it be to add a "sandbox" to the free version?
Also, how does "pro" and "ais" work? Don't they use the cloud? If they do, why not put the sandbox in with the free version? By using the cloud those of us who use the free version would help populate the cloud. It seems logical to me.

[DavidR]

The simple fact is that there have to be differences or the free version becomes the Pro and AIS versions chief/biggest competitor.

Your questions are simple but the answers aren't, as in how does "pro" and "ais" work.

There is no cloud element in avast 5.1

The avast Community option already contribute to helping avast.

[Para-Noid]

The simple fact is that there have to be differences or the free version becomes the Pro and AIS versions chief/biggest competitor.

Your questions are simple but the answers aren't, as in how does "pro" and "ais" work.

There is no cloud element in avast 5.1

The avast Community option already contribute to helping avast.

Thanks DavidR...as I stated I was just wondering. I still think adding the sandbox feature would be a good idea. And will not compete with Pro and Ais since they have even more features that free does not have.

[Dch48]

The Comodo developers themselves have admitted that the cloud scanning slows down scanning performance. When you think about it, there is no way that it couldn't, especially if you encounter a high latency problem between you and them.

I also am well aware of the difference between D+ and the sandboxing that was added in CIS V4. I was just explaining how I was already growing disenamored of their approach and how the addition of the automatic sandboxing made it much worse. The sandbox in Avast! should remain as an on demand option.

[Lisandro]

Cloud version will come on version 6.
A basic free sandbox will be released also.
http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=64382.msg546016#msg546016

The Comodo developers themselves have admitted that the cloud scanning slows down scanning performance. When you think about it, there is no way that it couldn't, especially if you encounter a high latency problem between you and them.

Sure. The answer does not come in 15 minutes as promised at the first releases also.

The sandbox in Avast! should remain as an on demand option.

It will work side-by-side with Behavior Shield. Read link above.

[Dch48]

I reread VLK's post. I had read it when it first came out but had not retained much of what he had said. The implementation of sandboxing he speaks of sounds very good to me and if it works as intended should not wind up being a hindrance to usability like Comodo is.  The cloud stuff I'm still undecided about but I do have more faith in Avast! making it work right than I now do in Comodo.

[Lisandro]

avast released a beta site rating feature... I know, off topic, but also future of avast...

[yetanotheruser]

Whitelist will soon be the only way to go. Blacklisting approaches are rapidly beginning to fail, as we are seeing. And no it is not "copying Comodo" the entire industry has been discussing this for years and years now... problem is no one wants to stop a good thing... (read: the cash cow that is blacklist apps).

Cloud scanning? No. That is totally absurd and useless. On my own lan perhaps, but to some remote server controlled by someone else while I try to protect OUR proprietary resources? No effing way. Sorry, that will never happen, I'll just cut the connection forever when the day comes that is the only option.

Sandbox? No. That never goes well. Write your own OS if that is what you think is the solution. If it is on the whitelist it runs, if it is not it does not. That said, the USER needs full control of the whitlelist. Bur first you must qualify the user... can they handle it?

And can we please stop calling it a cloud? It is goddamn remote server (or load distributed cluster), not some airy fairy cloud... Can I puke now?

Ultimately the solution will be government regulation and licensing as was required for motor vehicles. People need training and testing before they can be allowed to use powerful technology. No pass? No internet for you - you too dumb.

Sometimes I think I just should not read forums... look what it does to me.

edit: taking the rant a few steps further... all AV products for windows do not have much of a future at all. Because windows has no future: it appears to me that kernel development stopped with Win2K. Vista and 7 are convoluted task schedulers written around an aging and frail kernel. Take a look at the default scheduled tasks in Vista and 7 and you will see what I mean. It is pretty clear that they have lost the talent that was capable... all they have now are java and .net grads who couldn't manage memory if their life depended on it. Whitelisting on such a platform will also become unmanageable because of its design and lack of kernel development. Apple is no solution either, prohibitive costs and monopolisitc tactics that microsoft can only dream of. I opend an apple case in the early nineties - not a single recognisable component inside. Useless, I thought, and they are still for all but the very rich and very limited application needs. Linux is no answer either, it would have been if Matrox had won out over ATI, but no, everyone has to be able to play the latest version of nude beach volleyball from Activision complete with the latest trumped-up video card requirements... ATI killed Linux. Matrox was so superior from the get go - I have no idea how ATI won... they were incapable of drawing straight lines on screen in the Rage/98 era... yet somehow... they win, and destroy Linux's future on the desktop in the process. Sigh... i think I'm done ranting now...  

[Hermite15]

all AV products for windows do not have much of a future at all. Because windows has no future: it appears to me that kernel development stopped with Win2K.

yeah and Linux has a future right

ps: if you reply to that, keep in mind that you're talking to an ex-Linux user, I can get into details and this might hurt. Not mentioning that this is not exactly the right thread for it.

[bob3160]

yetanotheruser,
I'm curious and would like to know what operating system you are using

[Rednose]

yetanotheruser,
I'm curious and would like to know what operating system you are using

Maybe a BSD distro. But I realy doubt that

Greetz, Red.