Disable antivir notifier?

don't ntfs security permissions allow you to deny execution of a file for a specific group?

 

A while back I did essentially the same thing using processguard (I did not disable avguard).

If I recall correctly disabling avnotify.exe stopped the advertisment, but also broke some aspect of the autoupdate function.

 

I've tried that but it just borks up the updating process (it's constantly re-downloading that avnotify.exe crap).

 

there should be an advanced permission which reads "traverse folder/execute file". doesn't it work (and the rest to allow)?

 

Oh man, I sure did.. Every time there was a program update, or an update of any size, the update servers were useless to me for 2-3 days. In other words, I couldn't even get anything out of them for days. This was a regular occurrence too, as I have used AntiVir off and on for years.. No other product, even free ones, has this problem. To me it's just unacceptable..

Anyway, YMMV..

 

I blocked it here with security policy successfully in XP Pro, it still updated fine and no further downloading of avnotify.exe, but I'm not sure how that would translate in Vista.. just followed someone's directions and set up a new path rule to block execution of avnotify.exe, worked ok.

 

WinXP has different permissions editor than Vista Home Premium...

 

I have experienced no problem with updating AntiVir with the notifier blocked. Perhaps PG blocked avnotify.exe in a manner detectable by AntiVir. DSA does not.

By the way, the first time that DSA blocks any quarantined process (including avnotify.exe, of course) it pops-up a ONE-TIME notice to make sure you REALLY want it blocked. When that happens, just confirm the block & click the "quit bugging me" item (I forget the exact wording) & that'll do it.

I update AntiVir manually. Why? Because AntiVir's busy servers make it more efficient to update between midnight and 5AM, Germany time.

 

Ok... stands to reason that it might... but even though I could stop the nag screen, I still had update server probs regularly, which is enough to put me off it altogether..

 

I agree that the busy server can be a PITA. I myself have always been able to readily update AntiVir, even when it had 6MB or larger updates due to a new version or a major re-shuffle of its sig database.

I update AntiVir when it is just after midnight in Germany (their time is UTC+1). For instance, if you update from LA (UTC- at 8PM, it will be 11PM on USA east coast & 5AM in Germany (& much of Europe, as well). So there shouldn't be as much traffic hitting AntiVir's servers as at other times.

It works for me (I'm in Hawaii UTC-10). Maybe it will work for you.

 

Thanks Bellgamin, good suggestion.. Perhaps I will give it a try again soon... AntiVir IS my 1st choice if I can just overcome those problems...

 

Ah, maybe my update probs were due to the server issues you guys are referring to and not me disabling avnotify.

 

Yes, probably so. I just installed AntiVir latest right now, half hour ago, disabled avnotify via security policy in XP Pro, ran the update, and it all went fine.

Also, it was 3:30pm here, so 12:30 just after midnight in Germany, and no trouble with updating at all. The initial download was 9mb after install, that I got in about 2 minutes, looked like around 85KB/sec which is good enough I guess.

So as long as it stays good, I'm using it, as it's the best of the free AVs IMO. So far so good..

 

Just set it to update every hour and make the update box invisible. Then you don't have to worry about figuring out the time difference. If the updater doesn't get it one hour, it will get the next hour, or the hour after that. If it gets an update that is big and takes a long time, so what? Unless you are a user who turns off their computer and happen to turn it off in the middle of an invisible update. If you never shut down your computer and have a broadband connection, why would it matter if an update took a long time because the updater connected during congested hours?

Also set Avira to notify you if you don't get updates for more than one day. This way you can just completely forget about it and let the updater get the updates when it can and, if by chance, it can't get any after trying 24 times in 24 hours then Avira will notify you and you can then look into the matter further. With the free version, you need to make a new job if you want the updater to connect every hour to see if there are updates.

 

Hi Mele, and thanks for the suggestions.. The problem I had was that every time there was a program update or a major defs update, I couldn't get thru to the servers at all, meaning no download whatsoever. So it wasn't a matter of slow downloads, it was a matter of NO downloads. This would go on for several days too, which resulted in me saying "this is ridiculous" and dumping it. This is obviously the free version I'm talking about.. Fact is though, I have tried probably 6-8 AVs and the ONLY one with server probs is Antivir.

I really have no desire to edit my schedule and create 24 hourly time slots, I don't think that's necessary. I will give the midnight Germany time slot a try and see how it goes. I think it will be fine. If not, then there are other AVs right? And I don't think that the promise of better (normal) servers is going to convince me to buy the Premium version... if they wanted to persuade me to buy, they should impress me with how well the free version and servers work first.

 

I agree the argument that if you buy it you will get much better servers is not a good argument. I got a free SIX MONTH trial of Avira Premium from a thread here and the premium servers are far better. The only time I had a problem was recently and Avira was caught surprised and puzzled as to why the premium servers had a problem with the last big update. Even so, the updater tried three hours in a row then got it.

I don't know if I'd want Avira if I could not update every hour. I had Kaspersky and I guess I got spoiled on hourly updates. It puzzles me why you wouldn't want hourly updates. Out of the 24 update tries every day, I get updates about 15 to 20 of those connections. Why would I want to wait to get the update if it is there on the server? If you are on dial up, or only use your computer infrequently, and have it turned off a lot then I could understand but otherwise to me a main reason I use Avira is for updates every hour.

 

AntiVir-PE normally updates only once daily, & (sometimes) twice. Other than that, hourly checks will repetitively produce the message "Your program is up-to-date. At this time your protection is optimal."

In other words, hourly checks can be made, but that won't produce hourly updates.

 

I just went back through my log for four months and Avira updated an AVERAGE OF 5 TIMES DAILY. The lowest was FOUR times daily (with two exceptions of THREE TIMES) and the highest was SIX times. I've only had Avira since early January but I have NEVER seen it update less than 3 times in a day and I haven't seen that few in a while so maybe you are thinking of Avira from 2006?

I'd much rather get 5-6 updates daily than only 1 but each to their own.

 

Same as I!

 

Well, on that I guess I just don't feel the need for it. I am not, for example, surfing in "high-risk" territory every hour of the day where I might want to make sure I always have the very latest threat update in my defs at all times, etc. I feel that once a day is adequate for my needs. I think one can get a little too caught up in all this security stuff sometimes, and hourly AV update checks strike me a little that way. But as you say, to each his/her own..

 

For your information, I do not have Avira Guard installed nor do I have the mail scanner installed. I use Avira as right click command scanner only. So, I don't believe I fall in your category of being 'too caught up" in security stuff. I also use ProcessGuard but not anything else that runs in real time (unless one counts the Proxomitron which is a local proxy but I use it mostly to kill ads). Just the opposite. But if I am going to have an AV at all, I wish it to be as updated as possible at all times. Anything else is utter foolishness as what is most likely to get a careful user is a new threat that there not yet protection for. Why bother with having an AV unless it is, at all times, as up to date as possible? Even then the AV will miss some nasties so why have it missing more nasites because you have an adversion to a silent, hidden update?

I can't understand how you, or anyone, would balk at keeping your AV up to date...but if you like it that way ok. I could understand if updating was a difficult chore, but when it can be done in the background silently...well your reasoning totally escapes me.

edit: Wow, this is my 2,000th post here!

 

As for dialup, having the update process proceed while surfing does take a noticible effect on your web page loading. Your surfing speed is sometimes slowed by 1/2 of what it would be without that other download occuring. Remember that you have only one pipeline for sending data in and out of your modem so if you have multiple browsers open and loading, the slowdown is very apparent. But of course, the majority of you all have blistering speed. But you also pay the price for it too.

 

Well, to be quite honest with you, I have been online now for over 12 years (actually many years before that if you count the DOS days), and in all this time, most of it with a cable connection etc, I have only seen a virus here about 2 times, and malware once. Both times the virus was caught by my AV and it was from downloading .exe's in p2p apps, and the malware was an obvious keylogger from another p2p app, so I was asking for it.

So I ask you, 2 or 3 instances in 12 years.... where's the threat Mele? Or are we just a little paranoid?

At any rate, I still think an update once a day is fine. If you prefer hourly then go for it, no harm done except the update server suffers a lot more traffic that way. But that's the AV server's problem right?

To be honest with you, I think I could probably do without an AV altogether most of the time. But since I'm a reasonable guy, and there's no harm in running one, I install AntiVir, which I believe is the best free one. But hourly updates you can have, I just don't care about all that.. once a day is good for me..

Congratulations! I'm not far behind you...

 

When it comes to a free AV with best update and fast servers, nothing comes close to Avast, paid or free, the servers remain the same, in fact among free offers, Avast is the least crippled, I do use Anti Vir and am a big fan of it specially now that they have anti rootkit feature but the update servers are a PITA, for weeks they would be fine and then they would go down for few days, really and truly annoying.

 

I'm at my 2,000th install of security software. LOL. I agree about Avast. It's the only thing my wife and son use, and they have never had any troubles. As far as Avira, when I go back to it again, I won't mind doing the safe mode Administrator procedure to disable the Notifier or the occasional update problems in order to use this ever improving AV.