I like Avast, but...

[doktornotor]

LOL that's NOT solution at all. Again: If it is there, I presume it is there for some reason. What is the purpose of offering something if it's not working OK?

It is working perfectly fine. If you unpack virus signatures into memory, they will get detected. Get over it and move to something more productive.

[kodl]

What are you talking about? Malfunction of this software is "perfectly fine"? What is "more productive" then trying be better??

[doktornotor]

There is no malfunction, but you fail to grok very simple things, as evidenced by wasting everyone's time by your moaning about "broken" scanned by avast notes in email.

[igor]

Well, I dare say the memory scan is there for "historical reasons". While I'm not saying it cannot detect something the ordinary scan wouldn't (in the case when a sample, itself detected in the clean form, is packed or encrypted by something which the engine unpackers are not able unpack or emulate), I'd say something like that won't be very common (because avast!'s signatures are mainly file-oriented). Besides, if something is found in memory, it's probably too late anyway - the malware is already active.

If you tell me how exactly the Malwarebytes virus database is detected (what exactly the results show), I might be able to tell you a special mask to put into the list of exclusions for that particular scan - to suppress the detection.


Regarding the point 2... it's not there, because it wasn't implemented (yet?)
It's not that simple as it might seem, and it doesn't really have a high priority at the moment.

[DraKuL]

Well, I dare say the memory scan is there for "historical reasons". While I'm not saying it cannot detect something the ordinary scan wouldn't (in the case when a sample, itself detected in the clean form, is packed or encrypted by something which the engine unpackers are not able unpack or emulate), I'd say something like that won't be very common (because avast!'s signatures are mainly file-oriented). Besides, if something is found in memory, it's probably too late anyway - the malware is already active.

If you tell me how exactly the Malwarebytes virus database is detected (what exactly the results show), I might be able to tell you a special mask to put into the list of exclusions for that particular scan - to suppress the detection.

IF it detects something as a virus/malware running in memory, perform a quick scan with MBAM, a boot-time scan with Avast and see what file injects the malicious module into memory. The same thing happened to me - where it detected  Chrome, Skype and several other programs as viruses and a quick scan on MBAM detected it. Avast / MBAM is NOT faulty nor do they conflict. I'm using both and using real time protection of both, havent had any conflicts so far. The Avast Memory scan is a great tool IMO.

But anyway it would be really helpful for us to explain this further and give you a solution if you can provide us with screenshots of the results you get when you scan.

Cheers!

[kodl]

doktornotor, nobody is twisting your arm to participate in this discussion. Go ahead a be "more productive" in other posts. I decide to talk about things, which ARE malfunctions in this beautiful software - nonworking progress bar in Rootkits Custom Scan - for example.Quote:Posted by: nofallyaqoo - "there was same Q was asked by Saudi guy and he was saying what did u say". It looks like there is some "priority" shift for last 4 version. That's clearly NO GOOD.
There are another questions I asked and nobody answer them. Bring attention to them can (should) make next version better.
That's verrrry important things to do!

[kodl]

Update: I'm trying Avast 6.0.1000 now. GOOD NEWS: Memory scan no longer indicating Malwarebyte's as threat! EXCELLENT WORK - AAA+++. Now: Nonworking progress bar in Rootkits Scan and Mail Shield problem scanning Outlook 2010 email, inserting notes.......Again: Thanx for fixing Memory Scan problem.

[igor]

Erm, I don't really think anybody fixed that
Could be a coincidence related to other changes, or something changed in Malwarebytes database.

[kodl]

igor, well, it wasn't indication of Malwarebyte's database, but program protection module itself present in memory.....