avast! 7.0 released!

jadinolf,

I have MalwareBytesPro and Avast 6 on 2 computers with zero problems and look forward to doing the same with Avast 7, when the dust settles with the new release.

XP PRO SP3, DropMyRights* Avast6, MalwareBytesPro & WinPatrol

*DropMyRights will be dropped if I use the sandbox in Avast 7. <g>

 

I've been running MBAM PRO real time since I bought a new computer last April along side Avast! with no conflict, including Version 7.

 

Same here.....

 

Ditto and very very happy!!

 

Yes, very positive. The only real quibble is the inability to set boot time scan parameters so user interaction during the scan isn't necessary. It would be nice to be able to put that scan on auto-pilot.

By the way is Avast Remote Assistance working today? I'm getting a session termination error.

 

Click on Boot Scan and then in the right pane,settings. At the bottom in the drop down window you can set it to Ask, Repair, Move to Chest, Delete, or No Action. I put a eicar test file in a folder, started boot scan with the Move to Chest option selected and avast automatically put the file in the Virus Chest with no interaction on my part.

 

Someone should tell that to Mr. Rubenking.

 

ot posts removed. Please stay on subject and stay civil

 

site blocking in additional protection is the same like blocking sites in host file=systemwidefor all browsers?

 

Host file approach:
- Provides local answer to hostname lookup so subsequent IP traffic will be redirected to a different IP Address (like 127.0.0.1)
- This (typically) would affect all programs that lookup the IP Address for a hostname, and by extension would affect all ports/protocols. For example, it will affect HTTPS, HTTP on any port, SMTP, SSH, etc, etc, etc.
- No hostname wildcards and can't target URLs

Avast Site Blocking approach (based on my understanding of avast 6, *assuming* 7 is same):
- Uses WebShield, which uses a lower level interception technique to proxy and check traffic to *only* those ports shown in Settings->Troubleshooting->Redirect Settings->Web (default: 80,8080,8091,8081,8008,8888,3124,3127,3128 ). So for example, will *not* affect HTTPS (on port 443) or HTTP on other ports.
- Affected by Web Shield Settings->Expert Settings->Main Settings, so it depends may depend on what you mean by "browser"
- It appears to identify the target host by looking at the Host header in the HTTP Request, and the target URL by looking at the Method header. Which generally might work OK, however, exactly how well it works would seem to depend on how the program is interacting with that host and what you want to achieve (block all contact or just block a normal HTTP Request). Quick test... I add a site lets call it example.com to Site Blocking, I telnet example.com 80, I type G then E, I see avast WebShield connecting to example.com on port 80, then I hit enter, this site gave me a 405 Response. If instead I visit the site with FF, I get the avast blocked site page and there is no contact with the site.

Perhaps there have been some changes for avast 7. Just know what you want to do and actually test things before calling it a day.

 

The post below is from a current thread in the Avast help forum. It pretty much says it all about the new version of Avast (it's the 9th post in the thread):

http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=95401.0

 

What "ugly white button"

 

"Says it all about the new version of Avast"?,
Maybe you could elaborate a little bit?

 

The registration servers are busy and the whole registration process is dispensable ...

 

What more "elaboration" is really necessary? Did you READ the post that was linked? The new version, and everything related to it, is causing a lot of problems. And people who want to install an a/v and NOT experience such problems are getting fed up with all the problems. Could it possibly be any clearer?

 

Yes, registration is mandatory, but avast! will work without restrictions for 30 days. So if it registration doesn't work now, you can try next week or tommorow or in next few hours. It doesn't matter. Yes, it's annoying that the form is not working due to load (i assume), but it's not as bad as you make it look.

 

Well...annoying, on a mass scale, is pretty bad, IMO. But hey...to each his own, right?

 

On a mass scale, you obviously expect everything to be perfectly flawless. No one can make that.

 

1. There's a big difference between perfect and the issues impacting the current version of Avast.

2. Part of the problem might be related to the fact that power users (i.e. users here @ Wilders) who are comfortable tweaking configurations, and who are, in general, more comfortable with programs that don't run totally as expected, are more forgiving than casual users who simply expect to install a program and forget about it.

3. Somewhat related to #2, it might be that the beta testing process used before the current release was more heavily weighted with experienced users who might not have been thrown by the current issues. Or it was a more limited group that did not tax the servers the way the full release did.

 

avast! is not the first and not the last application with such problems. And quite frankly, not many programs have so many users which represents a problem on its own.

 

No problems here ,perhaps you,ve just been unlucky.

 

1. We're only discussing Avast on this forum.

2. I think you might have hit on something in your second sentence -- servicing 140,000,000 - 150,000,000 installations has to be a daunting task, and an expensive operation, especially in such a highly competitive market, and especially considering that a lot of users are using the Avast Free version. In the PC World review posted above, the connection between needing additional finances and bundling Google Chrome was specifically stated. One question might be...has Avast made any additional arrangements with ad companies contingent upon providing user information?

 

Before someone misunderstands your post and starts some obvious lame trolling about avast handing over user info to ad companies;
What current arrangements are you aware of, as you mention 'additional arrangments'?

 

It's a question, not an assertion. If the answer is no, then it's no. No problem. The foundation for asking the question is that Avast has already made an arrangement with Google Chrome to obtain ad revenue. The changes in the EULA might or might not open the door for any additional arrangements. So given those two aspects, whether any other arrangements have been made then becomes a logical question. And it's really a simple matter of "yes" or "no". Nothing to get emotional about.

 

Avast....excellent AntiVirus software imho.....Mind you, if I had ANY issues using it I would use something else...put my mind at rest.