AskWoody.com declares Avira "unscrupulous crapware"

[Firebytes]

A post by Woody on AskWoody.com states that he was contacted by a person needing help dealing with constant pop-ups asking for money to continue his AV protection. From the post I assumed it to be a rogue AV that the person who was asking for help mistook for Avira due to a Google search he performed. However, Woody acts as if the deluge of pop-ups are indeed from Avira Antivir and even states, "Avira used to be a good program. Now it’s a piece of unscrupulous crapware."

Although I don't use Avira, as far as I know it is a good AV and is highly regarded by many members here. I do use AskWoody.com for info on Windows Update information a lot of times and as far as I could tell the site always had good information in the past. Does anyone know what is making Woody make such a statement against Avira? Has Avira changed their practices and gone to using shady tactics?

[Templar]

This has to be some mistake. A large majorityof posts and reviews out there are biased and unprofessional lacking all depth and sollid "know how".

Avira is a sollid piece of software.
Simon

[DavidCo]

What I have seen on Google is a paid for advert that comes top of the page when you searched for 'Avira'
Sometimes this is called AntiVirus 2009
Ooops

Always check the status bar as you hover over a 'link'

[Baz_kasp]

Looks like woody has been quite badly mistaken. I have left a comment that is currently in moderation:

Hi Woody,

I think you have made quite a serious mistake in your answer to this person.

Firstly, according to the person who asked the question, they are having symptoms typical of a rogue/fake antivirus infection, with web browsing being interrupted pestering them into buying some kind of software, usually a fake antivirus (about which I have written quite a few blog posts).

Secondly, you (and the poster) have incorrectly assumed that the legitimate security vendor (Avira GMBH), who make a genuine Antivirus software called Avira AntiVir and the malware trying to benfit from it's good name (the "Avira" rogue) are the same thing.

The REAL avira can be found at http://www.avira.com/en/pages/index.php, whereas the "fake" AntiVir does not have a website and simply uses the good name of the above mentioned security vendor to trick unsuspecting users to part with their hard earned cash.

The fake AntiVir is usually triggered by fake "scan" pages online that inform the user to run a file in order to scan their computer for supposed "threats" and then proceeds to bombard the user with threat alerts to force them into buying a worthless product.

Bleepingcomputer.com provide a screenshot of the "fake" AntiVir and a removal guide here: http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/viru...remove-antivir

Compare it with a screenshot of the "real" AntiVir: http://www.avira.com/en/support/migr...ortal_av9.html and you will see that they are completely different...this is the real antivirus, while the other is a malware!

I would urge you to research matters like this thoroughly before coming out which damaging claims against upstanding security companies in the future!

Regards,

Baz.

Also his "MS-DEFCON" patch advice system is downright stupid. Advising people to hold off patching their machines because (according to him) "patch reliability is unclear" is downright dangerous and irresponsible of a security "professional". Home users should install security patches as they appear to minimise the risk of getting infected or comprimised....and enterprise users will have a dedicated IT team who can test updates before they are rolled out. Having something like this to advise people is laughable:

MS-DEFCON 1: Current Microsoft patches are causing havoc. Don’t patch.

MS-DEFCON 2: Patch reliability is unclear. Unless you have an immediate, pressing need to install a specific patch, don’t do it.

MS-DEFCON 3: Patch reliability is unclear, but widespread attacks make patching prudent. Go ahead and patch, but watch out for potential problems.

MS-DEFCON 4: There are isolated problems with current patches, but they are well-known and documented here. Check this site to see if you’re affected and if things look OK, go ahead and patch.

MS-DEFCON 5: All’s clear. Patch while it’s safe.

[Fly]

Avira is a good AV. Not for everyone, but definitely not crapware.

[trjam]

Keep in mind, their is a Past, Present and Future. And everything in this cosmos passes through all 3 at every second of the day.

So where is Avira really at, this second.

[JerryM]

Originally Posted by trjam

Keep in mind, their is a Past, Present and Future. And everything in this cosmos passes through all 3 at every second of the day.

So where is Avira really at, this second.

Hi Jeff,
Would you PM me? I cannot seem to get through to you.
Best,
Jerry

[trjam]

sorry Jerry, doing it now.

[tsec]

'Woody' eh?

For crying out loud - he's nothing but an MS fanboi.

Hope he looks better than his picture.

[Firebytes]

Originally Posted by Baz_kasp

Also his "MS-DEFCON" patch advice system is downright stupid. Advising people to hold off patching their machines because (according to him) "patch reliability is unclear" is downright dangerous and irresponsible of a security "professional". Home users should install security patches as they appear to minimise the risk of getting infected or comprimised....and enterprise users will have a dedicated IT team who can test updates before they are rolled out. Having something like this to advise people is laughable:

I don't personally think it is stupid to wait to install patches since there have been patches that have caused problems before. I have always waited to see if there were reported problems with patches before I installed them anyway and AskWoody.com is just another source of information concerning the patches.

Originally Posted by tsec

For crying out loud - he's nothing but an MS fanboi.

I'm not sure how Woody is a MS fanboy since he regularly advises user not to use IE and he posts concerning problems with patches that MS releases. He was also critical of MS recently using open source code in one of its programs.

[bellgamin]

Woody.com is unscrupulous neophyte ap-cray.

[tsec]

Originally Posted by Firebytes

I'm not sure how Woody is a MS fanboy since he regularly advises user not to use IE and he posts concerning problems with patches that MS releases. He was also critical of MS recently using open source code in one of its programs.

Hmmm... OK then - this is just how he appeared to me on the page I was viewing, that's all.

[IceCube1010]

This is comedy at it's best my friends.
Ice

[zapjb]

Update from AskWoody.com

UPDATE: Thanks to all of you who posted in defense of Avira. I still say MSE is a far better product, but the main point is that I got duped! The fellow who wrote to me is apparently the victim of a piece of crapware that’s using Avira’s name to legitimize itself. Details on the BleepingComputer site. I’ll stick with MSE, but the rogue program is the problem here, not Avira.

[JerryM]

I won't argue what is best, but anyone who makes such a statement as Woody doesn't know what he is talking about. I will just ignore him in the future if that is the level of his knowledge.

Regards,
Jerry

[JerryM]

I have posted on another thread that a friend has gotten Antivir on his computer. He is having a real problem getting it off.
Bleeping Computer has a download that just reveals it, but to remove it one must but the program.

Regards,
Jerry

[whitedragon551]

Im going to have to agree with him on both counts.

I have Avira free on my wifes computer. She gets a popup atleast once a day asking for us to buy the premium Avira Antivir licence. Its definately something that seperates rouge software from legit software. Avira has it. He is right.

With Windows updates. I try to stay up to date, but you can not deny that MS has had ALOT of goof ups. Recently with the black screen due to the MS update. Unfortunately for MS and being based off of the registry anything can affect it even their own updates.

[The Hammer]

The moral of the story is don't ask Woody.

[Firebytes]

I had figured at the first that the poster who had requested help at AskWoody.com was the victim of a rogue but I was curious if it could possibly be true that Avira was the problem since it was stated so surely at that site. I would think someone running a website like AskWoody.com would be more knowledgeable concerning AV's or at least do some research before posting such a thing. It definitely knocks a good chunk out of his creditability I would think.

[JerryM]

Personally I do not categorize a free AV that has a nag screen to buy it a rogue. It takes a second to close the nag screen, and that is a small price to pay for such good free AVs as are available.

But if one considers it a rogue, then go to another AV or better yet buy one. There are good prices for AV and suites on ebay. I have bought a bunch and only three times did I have a problem. Then I got my money back through PayPal.

I guess you could not please some folks if you "Hung 'em from a new rope."

Regards,
Jerry

[whitedragon551]

Originally Posted by JerryM

Personally I do not categorize a free AV that has a nag screen to buy it a rogue. It takes a second to close the nag screen, and that is a small price to pay for such good free AVs as are available.

But if one considers it a rogue, then go to another AV or better yet buy one. There are good prices for AV and suites on ebay. I have bought a bunch and only three times did I have a problem. Then I got my money back through PayPal.

I guess you could not please some folks if you "Hung 'em from a new rope."

Regards,
Jerry

Rouge software as a whole is categorized by nag screens among other things. Avira does it. We cant make an exception just because they offer a good product, but still break one of the categories.

Why would a person be compelled to buy a software that is rogue just to get rid of the nag screen? Doesnt that give the rogue software creators exactly what you want? Your in turn funding their rogue software.

[ThatsArogue]

UPDATE: Thanks to all of you who posted in defense of Avira. I still say MSE is a far better product, but the main point is that I got duped! The fellow who wrote to me is apparently the victim of a piece of crapware that’s using Avira’s name to legitimize itself. Details on the BleepingComputer site. I’ll stick with MSE, but the rogue program is the problem here, not Avira.

For those of you who did not read the update, even AskWoody posted that he was duped! Any one of you thinking that the real Avira AntiVir is a rogue or even a problem have been taken in by hype. Even Woody withdrew that. "Read" and "Learn". Avira is okay. The rogue is the bad product.

[whitedragon551]

The hype doesnt change the fact that Avira still nags and thats a characteristic of rogue software.

[Page42]

Originally Posted by JerryM

It takes a second to close the nag screen, and that is a small price to pay for such good free AVs as are available.

It takes 10 seconds to close Hitman Pro's nag screen. Even on a right-click scan of a single file... 10 seconds must count down before the nag screen can be closed. I suppose it's still a small price to pay, but for me, an increasingly annoying small price. And I doubt that I'll ever purchase it to make the nag screen go away, which is what the dev apparently thinks will happen.

[The Hammer]

Originally Posted by whitedragon551

The hype doesnt change the fact that Avira still nags and thats a characteristic of rogue software.

Avira nags but that is but one characteristic and a stretch at that. Also the nag screen is easily disabled which is not a characteristic of rogue software. To include Avira in a discussion about rogue software is laughable.