"Zero Size Settings" (Virus chest - maximum size and other)

[Anacunga]

In avast settings, there is the option "virus chest" with the two size options, one for the maximum size of the chest itself (that can be set to 0 to have no limit) and maximum size of file to be sent.

Question: is it here the same rule to best set to 0 for not having a limit?

Similar question with Account settings: setting to 0 sets to "manual update" (for report program status - or how to report manually)?

What would happen when setting "auto-update every [ 0 ] minutes? No automatic and only manual update?

[DavidR]

I honestly don't know, but if it did, I certainly wouldn't consider it as there can be some huge files, your swap file for instance and you wouldn't want to send that to the chest.

The current default max file size to send is 16MB (in KBs), that is I feel a reasonable size, if there does ever happen to be something larger it would display an error and you can choose whether to increase the size to allow it to be sent.

All of this would have to be related to, what are you going to do with it once in the chest. If you wanted to send it for analysis you would find that there is an upload limit there also (I don't know what that is as I haven't encountered it, but there is one).

The other thing is that malware files I would say aren't going to be massive, so in general they should be under the existing 16MB default size limit.

[Anacunga]

Sorry, but your answer might be well-intended - in fact it is totally unsuitable, sorry.

What about some .iso-images of 3GB or 4GB in size that have some OS-installation-stuff on it and some of them could be PUPs or something not really infectuous, but maybe unwanted by AVAST (as potentially dangerous if not used with care) - and they are obviously too big for your settings - and what happens then in "default settings" File is going to be deleted without asking and you can pay and wait again for downloading it again, and maybe it' no longer downloadable at all ... That's one of the reasons why I only can consider the default settings as unsuitable. Sure I wouldn't upload one of those big things - but it' even better to decide depending on the place your are and the internet access line you have whether a file could be uploaded or not. If you're on a thin modem line, even some few MB is much to much, but on a thick cable line, some more MB are no problem. That's why a default settings does not make sense here.

BTW: I would prefer to be able to leave the suspicous file in place where it was, but that AV-protection would "put the hand on it" and block it - and grumble in case it should be accessed instead to be moved to chest. But that's a different philosophy - unsuitable for dummies.

[DavidR]

The last thing you would want to do is place .iso images in the chest, what the heck are you going to do with them in there. Not all of that .iso is likely to be infected and .iso files as archives aren't scanned by default, so you are electing to scan archives and they are inert until extracted and whatever inside of it may be run. Before that happens the file system shield would scan it.

As you say you would prefer to leave the suspicious file in place, in which case when the scan is complete you can change default setting for that detection to No Action/Ignore, etc.

[Anacunga]

Not only .iso-files may be big, but also .rar- or .zip-archives - and if there is something failing with "disinfecting inside the archive", deleting is the standard fallback-option; and as the first thing that AVAST does after installation is a scan, that setting is unacceptable.

Referring to the other topic: the question is, what happens between "having finished the installation" and "turning the ON-swich to on". I consider it as unacceptable that there is NO point to first set custom settings BEFORE activation the shields. Of course those who don't want to use custom settings should be able to just override that "first installation custom settings"-page. But as the first thing AVAST is doint is just a scan (with destroying destructive settings), I consider that as unacceptable. But keep in mind: my proposal does not change anything substantially for the "dummy-user"; there just wuld be an additional page to click OK (that hasto be done anyway); but the sophisticated user can intercept "standard default settings" before starting protection. There is NO (0%) less safety for standard users! (but that's the other topic).

[AntiVirusASeT]

@Anacunga: do not worry about the very quick scan directly after Avast installation. it does not scan into ur drives and stuff (its too quick to have done that). most probably it just scans active processes to see if anything malicious running in the background.

also, i have not seen anyone reporting files being deleted without being quarantined in virus chest yet. (this shows that the default settings is very safe)
'
note that there are safety measures within Avast to prevent it from potentially convicting any valid system files (through 'persistent caching' and 'do not scan verified system dlls')

[Anacunga]

@AntiVirusASeT: I'm sorry - but I remember the case that AVAST was attacking EVERY running program considering it as a thread - and depending on the settings - deleting them. Sure, it was a faulty "nightly-update" where heuristics were set much too severe; and that took not only several hours but quite several days until all the machines were running again - as some basic system serices also were killed - and people were'n able to work for some days. An I NEVER want to run into such a problem again. But as you can't rely on anything to at least 100%, you need to have a second defense line to intercept potential problems.

BTW: that's also one of the reasons why "total automatic update" is not acceptable here. It was just an "engine and virus definitions update" (that usually is updated fully automatic). But also such small things (normally are not, but) can be not unhazardous.

Sorry to describe it that way - but EVERY "protection suite" IS A POTENTIAL THREAT BY ITSELF - just from it's nature to get the rights to "manipulate" deep inside the system. Please don't misunderstand me: for quite a long time now AVAST IS THE BEST - and it is the protection-suite that I always not only recommend, but also install. But as a protection-suite is a "dangerous thing" by itself (that can eat your disk for breakfast if something goes wrong), it is necessary to have a "second defense line" to intercept potential problems a protection-suite can cause.

So safety ALWAYS is relative. And without second defense line to intercept problems from the protection-suite itself, even any AV-solution wuld be a danger by itself. Sure it's a different kind of danger than malware - but in the end-effect, it can "eat your disk for breakfast" (or just make programs or even the whole system make unfunctional) so that you not only can't work, but also loose much time for getting it back to work.

[CraigB]

Your second line of defence should be an image backup of your system.

[Anacunga]

No, image backup of the system must be third, fourth or even fifth defense line - before come things like "config safe" etc. - and of cours the caution not to let anything damage the system, including any malware-protection-suite ...