AVG 2013

I don't know why they are writing this,but it's a plain lie.The free version has grey out the options for schedule updates.

 

Thanks.
It doesn't look good for AVG to promise one thing and offer quite another.

 

Exactly. I used it for 2 weeks and there was no option.

 

Why the hell you can't send false positive reports from Virus Vault!? So stupid. AVG 2013 detected LameXP audio encoder program as some trojan and now i can't report it to AVG in any way. Unless if i first disable it, restore the file, send it by mail and repeat the whole process when they remove FP. So idiotic.

Btw, any "hack" to update this thing a bit moe often? I know older versions had few tricks...

 

Ok, you can schedule avgmfapx.exe to run a bit more often than only every 24 hours in Task Scheduler. Make sure you give it admin rights to run on WinVista and Win7. Only downside is that it always shows popup regardless of if it actually updates or not.

Anyone has any idea for a commandline switch for it to do the updating silently if there is nothing actually updated?

 

Maybe if you run a paid version trial in a virtual machine and monitor the process and see its command line parameters, you'll get an idea of what to add. Or, if someone running the paid version could tell you...

 

There is however one massive downside of AVG. Their forums are nearly dead and that isn't good. On avast! forums there are always ppl to help out.

 

AVG is apparently just trying to get rid of their own users. After last AVG program update, they again stuffed all the idiotic useless buttons in the interface. Initial interface was rather clean but they've ruined it again. Nice job

 

yup agreed stupid move

 

what was that you are saying ?

 

And did a full scan right now, found 4 things and it's now "Finishing..." for 10 minutes and still counting. They really can't seem to do anything right...

 

I tried AVG Free 2013 on my junk pc after it came out. Went to malc0e,malwaredomainlist and malware blacklist. I downloaded 10 links from each site. Chrome flagged the malware sampled before AVG did. Pretty pathetic.

 

Ive never tried AVG and by the sound of it i dont wish to do so.But to be fair if chrome were flagging the domains first that doesnt mean AVG was failing as chrome was being given priority in those cases.

 

To me that's a failure. I let Chrome download the samples by ignoring the warnings and upon completion if the downloads AVG still did nothing. Avast blocks more then AVG. Even Panda.

 

The more i read about AVG the worse it gets.No avg for me.

 

First of all, are you 100% sure the samples you downloaded are valid malware samples? It wouldn't be the first time that those sources have links for clean files.

Second, if they're indeed malicious, did you give a chance to the on execution protection? You need to test the full product, and with valid samples, in order to come to a conclusion. Even then, 10 samples do not reveal anything, of whatsoever. Someone else could have done the same test with 10 different URLs, and it could have stopped them. Would that mean it's great? Not, at all.

 

If they were not valid samples then why would chrome be flagging them as malicious.

 

Stop over analyzing it. My point is that Chrome gave me warnings before AVG did. Thats pathetic. I tried just about every av out there and the av alerts you before your browser. I know AVG lacks a web shield but still. You can download all 4 eicar tests and AVG does nothing until executed.

 

Thank you.

 

Oh... you're protesting that an AV without a web shield doesn't flag the URLs/downloaded files? Really? You're the one who should stop making tests without any sense. There's a great reason why there's a policy in this forum forbidding users showing these kind of home tests.

It would be like testing sandboxing capabilities of a security application that lacks sandboxing functionality, and then complain that it doesn't sandbox anything. lol

 

Isn't Safebrowsing malicious file protection like Internet Explorer SmartScreen - reputation based?

I remember that SmartScreen already freaked some people out in not so distant times. If files aren't that widely spread, then the user will get a warning from the browser. But, not being widely spread doesn't necesserily mean it's malicious, hence I made a question that I believed was acceptable - if we're dealing with valid samples.

But, now that it was made clear by the other user that AVG lacks a web shield (not my words), it's understandable why AVG didn't flag anything. Also, the reason I asked if on execution protection had been tested.

 

Ever thought the fact that AVG free doesn't have HTTP scanner? of course browser would detect it before AVG if it downloads the data first...

 

Please read before responding. I have mentioned several times already that I am well aware that AVG lacks a HTTP scanner. But a malicious files should be detected once its on your pc and the download is complete. Heck CAV catches more and that also does not have a HTTP scanner.

 

It does, if the file is detected by AVG components.

-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_b92eCi3XM- (remove if a violation).

 

That's your opinion. Malware can't infect if it doesn't execute, scanning on write is not absolutely necessary.