Avast forum

Yeah. Unintentional really. As Vlk said, all in good will. All should learn from this one. Personally, I believe majority of those who where affected will still stick to Avast(and, will still believe that Avast will protect them).

It will be those who got really borked who will shelf it. Really depends on the individual how will he take it. But I hope there will not be a third time.

Actually (..seem to have read it somewhere...) they(Avast) are not alone with this kind of incident. I heard about something similar with Kaspersky but just dismissed it.

I have AIS in a Win7 pc (but seldom use it now..will update it manually later).

Again all should learn from this.

 

It is hard to even think about it being anything other than unintentional... I mean, who wants to consider what could happen if a bad employee released havoc on avast users? But what I focus on in Vlk's statement is this part...

If you ask me, that is where the work needs to be done, in the "checks designed to prevent such screw ups". If they can be bypassed, how effective are they as checks? Are they simple "remember to close the door or the cat will get out" common procedures? Maybe avast needs to review this very process, and make it more difficult to bypass.

 

Lots of clean files that Avast failed to quarantine was deleted from my mothers computer, it seem to work fine anyway.
Todays security apps are technical masterpieces and something can easily go wrong for anyone, I will stay with Avast

 

I believe one important lesson/consideration to ponder (for Avast, and other
definitions-dependant AV products) might be the possible necessity now to
inform their userbase (and particularly those "average Joes") of the likekihood
of encountering FP issues, and NOT to believe everything the product might
be telling them, and what procedures to follow.
It's more desirable to admit the shortcomings of a product, than to have to
deal with the aftermath and potentially ongoing consequences of any "hiccup".

 

Dermot7, the liklihood of encountering FPs is tiny and most detections from antiviruses are legitimate. If you tell a user to not believe everything the product might tell them, then there's a big problem with users allowing detected threats - and then we'll say they're being irresponsible and you end up with massive confusion.

No AVs deny ever having any FPs, all of them have it and its no secret. In terms of the AV vendors, their responsibility should be to mitigate occurrences of FPs and if there is a FP, fix it as soon as possible, mitigating damage.

I'm not an Avast user, but I know it is a good company in terms of reacting very quickly in the unlikley event of there being a FP.

 

dawgg, of course I realise and accept (most of) what you say, but there are
those that will allow e.g. deletion of 30,000 files believing they're infected.
What I'm advocating is more focus on user education, rather than a marketing
orientated attitude of just telling new or future users how effective the product is.

 

+1 on this. I have quoted quite a bunch of horrible examples of people totally failing to use their brain as opposed to relying blindly on technology above.

 

Got your point there.

Right on the money. "common procedure"...what is it? How was it that a particular person have not followed it and went on with the release? Why was he able to do that? Is it only a single person who has the main responsibility for it and need not be reviewed by another or a group prior release..? If so why only a single person? Why was the apparent flaw (of not following the "common procedure") not detected?

In my line of work(manufacturing) we have a standard-operating-procedure (SOP) for finalization of a certain process/product/item. The process owner (engineer)will have the job to finalize all requirements for the final release of the product/process/item. The approval for the final release will be reviewed by a team(composed of the Senior Engineer, Section Manager and Quality Control Manager / Manufacturing Manager). Any deviation from the SOP will be detected here as this will include all the test methods done on the prodcut/process/item for final release.

While my work is different from theirs there are existing ISO rules that govern almost all ISO certified (established) companies. You are right on the mark there that "avast needs to review this very process, and make it more difficult to bypass".

Again all should learn from this especially Avast.

-- Very nice there. Companies do tend to forget that.

Cheers

 

I agree, user education in terms of security is vital. I don't see the free market (including AVs) doing this though.

My mobile, car, computer manufacturers never told me anything about them not working or the possibility of them failing, they're always fantastic and highly reliable (unless they try to sell me extended warranties of-course )

 

I disagree. A truely effective product would be one that totally leaves the consumer out of having to be educated. Isnt that what most think they are buying.

 

Yeah..."set 'n forget", and when something goes wrong they don't know what to do...hmmm. Anyway, I'll agree to disagree trjam

 

If it is to be a successful business venture...yes! And...unless there is a late breaking story, money must play a role some where in there! Good "job security" for the "savy" IT folks.

 

Sometimes an error gets out that affects a few users. It's when a large number of users get whacked you just have to ask yourself is it worth the gamble. I would rather have Avast than Havast.

SourMilk out

 

You're absolutely correct when it comes to the friends I've dealt with.
And it never failed...if they got an alert, they'd call me for what to do.

 

Trjam is right in that the consumer should not have to be educated.

My belief is that the AV company must become more astute at stopping the harm that their products can do to consumer's machines, when consumers are being good (uneducated) consumers and letting the AV do its thing.

If default settings are such that auto updating takes place, and if a bad set of sigs cause legitimate files to be flagged, and if default settings quarantine these files and make the system unbootable (or any other set of circumstances that unfolds and brings some form of pain to the consumer), then it is clearly a breakdown on the AV company's part in the "checks designed to prevent such screw ups".

That is where the focus and attention needs to be, the way I see it.
Avast needs to review the process (that they have in place that is supposed to prevent these events) that is being bypassed, and make it more difficult to bypass.

They don't need to educate users. They need to look within, at internal procedures that are not adequate and are allowing mistakes to happen.

 

I see it sort of both ways. The main onus is on the company providing the product, but the more educated the end user is, the more that end user can benefit from the product. What I object to is some posters here whose lives seem to be consumed with computers and computer security, bashing normal computer users who have neither the interest nor the desire to become software addicts.

 

Without a shred of doubt, what you say is correct... "the more educated the end user is, the more that end user can benefit from the product". I definitely am not advocating staying uninformed. But the overwhelming truth is, few users outside of Wilders (and similar forums) have much computer understanding.

And I am curious to learn if you were referring to me when you mentioned posters "bashing normal computer users". I sure hope I don't give that impression, because that is not how I feel.

 

Absolutely not! I was referring to the aforementioned "know-it-alls" whose lives seem to center around their self-aggrandized computer proficiency, and who seem to have made it their life's mission to bully folks with their internet tough guy bravado. You, on the other hand, provided one of the main voices of sanity throughout this entire thread.

 

you know that is so true. Most of the people on here are not the average joes and yes we would think something would be up if all of a sudden we got thousand of infections in one day but the average joe doesn't even look at their antivirus protection- they expect it to just work.
More than half don't know how to configure it or use it and think ok I am infected I will just delete what is in quarantine what is going to happen? then they go and restart their computer and they get this lovely blue screen or black screen and freak out and have no idea why. I have seen this many times on new client computers that i get.
That is one of the reasons i provide a monthly maintenance plan.
I check their security software to make sure everything is ok and if i see a virus or "hundreds" of infections i research first what the heck is going on. Most of the time I know becausse I belong to so many antivirus/antispyware forums i find out first hand or see it myself on my own machines expecially if there is a false positive going around.
My clients are the "average joes" and do not want to be bothered with anything other than their checking emails, working in office programs, or ocassionaly serving the net.
robin

robin