Making Avast the lowest overhead AV available

It seems to me that you are going around your left leg in order to get to your thumb.

For the lowest overhead AV, why not just use Prevx right out of the box, instead of all the bother with Avast?

 

I'm not sure if Kees's bag of tricks does something else, but if you're referring to the persistent caching and transient caching, you have nothing to worry about.

If a file is found to be clean AND has a valid digital signature from a trusted source, then it will never be scanned again.

If a file is found to be clean but doesn't have a valid digital signature, then it will not be scanned again until either the AV signatures have been updated OR the computer is restarted.

Fuzzy

 

Excellent suggestion, but with SafeOnline.

 

Optimalisation suggestion for PrevX

Suggested this at PrevX forum for the average Joe https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1652336&postcount=152

Their response https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1652551&postcount=153

Since Wilders members are on avarege a lot more knowledgeable about PC security, I think you can manually perfrom the same optimisation procedure now (since PrevX seemed to agree)

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1676151&postcount=59

 

I hope you don't mean me bellgamin I'm tooooo old for such a manoeuvrer. All I want is best prevention from my AV on a W 7 64 bit notebook.

I agree that the focus on performance can be counter productive BUT not all users have my kind of cpu horse power.

Kees has shown the power of policies for me and that is valuable learning as til now my os's haven't had that function.

 

Not to spoil the party or get too far OT but I have Avast 5.0 free running without the P2P or IM shields, everything else is fired up and for the most part, maxed out in sensitivity. Also, have Prevx paid running alongside and the combo is still lighter than any single av I have used in the past, at least on my machine.

 

it is true that avast is very light AV, maybe the lightest

 

Let's just say that I got the Unbearable urge of Being Light it can always be configured lighter with nearly the same practical protection

 

Out of curiosity, do you turns off p2p and IM because you don't use those functions?

 

I don't do any p2p but I IM at times. I just don't download files from IM's.

 

Right! Got it. I don't use either (yet) but do you guys know if using IM even though no downloads is a risk by itself?

Sort of like a visit to a site which gives a drive by virus just by visiting.

 

Would you be kind enough to explain that if one does not download files via IM, or click any links shared via IM, how is one at risk, and how will avast's IM shield protect from that scenario. As per my understanding, even if a malicious link is clicked, it will be taken care of by the network or web shields. So what role does the IM shield play anyway?

 

I never understood that IM shield (from any Vendor) nor P2P for that matter.
I mean, whatever you download it will be picked up by file shield.

IMO, that exists only for marketing purposes , average Joe can say .. WOW , it can protect me from IM even, that's awesome !

 

Shouldn't be if you keep your IM up-to-date. Almost all drive-by attacks only affect unpatched software.

 

Not 100% sure that is the whole story on IM or drive by attacks.

Anybody else here have information

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drive-by_download

I'd say IM is safe, if you're not talking to strangers.

 

The same goes for web shield, mail shield ...

 

Really, so whats next a PDF Reader shield? An Office shield? A media player shield? coz as you said drive by download can affect any unpatched software..... But then it bugs me, why did avast! guys choose only IM to protect against drive by attacks. Come on man, make some sense.

 

The group policy which invokes this, see pic

User Configuration > Administrative Templates > Windows Components > Attachment Manager

 

I believe the reason is that, by default, the settings for downloaded files from IM and P2P programs are tilted more towards safety and less towards performance, compared to the file shield.

 

So my Avast! 5 Free is has only File, Network and Behavior Shields.. Is this good enuf? Feels lighter

 

Yep and also apply the PrevX safe online tip here https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1707285&postcount=79 (tighter heuristics, lower system impact)

 

I have just installed Avast using those three shields you are using, Eugene. Only 8,000k usage!

I've had Prevx SO installed for about a week, and will be using Kees recommendations for changing the settings week by week. But at the moment Prevx is only using 6,000k. I don't know why, it was at about 16,000k last week, and I haven't changed any settings yet.

If this combination actually provides good protection, that is really amazing, the total usage is only 14,000k.

EDIT: Now they are down to 8,400k total. Is that even possible? They both seem to be running normally.

 

@Kees1958
thanks for the info

@justenough
Good to know

 

Avast is running better then any suite I have ever tried. So good, it has a 3 year license. Guess I am locked in.