Configuring Avast Home Edition I happened on a cool option called "Silent
mode". If I get it right, is is supposed to automatically do the job in case
of a certain problem, e.g. virus found without bugging the user. However if
you switch the "Solent mode" on then another problem arises, whethter to
choose "With general answer YES (OK)" or "With general answer NO (Cancel)".
How do I interpret the two?! Which is more safe and restrictive? I am
interested in a silent mode killing everything suspicious (even if there is
some risk of a mistake) without bothering the user. I am afraid that some
unexperienced users may unintentionally let a virus into the system. Is it
possible to switch off any kind of Avast interaction with the user?
Regards,

--
Ricardo

Ricardo wrote:


This is a totally stupid idea. A virus scanner is an intrusion detection
system and should give the user a loud and clear alert if it detects something.

That's even more stupid. You're even trying the delete the only evidence of
a compromise?

The do something against viruses, f.e. implementing a whitelist policy for
programs. A virus scanner, however, won't protect against viruses.

Uzytkownik "Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de> napisal w wiadomosci
news:5lt8ruF9tcreU1@mid.dfncis.de...
of potential threats. I do not want to involve and stress an unexperienced
user who can do more harm than good.

reacting to a virus alert? And what if an experienced user chooses such
option intentionally to compromise your system?!!! What do you say then,
wise guy, heh?!

Regards,
Ricardo

"Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de> wrote in
news:5lt8ruF9tcreU1@mid.dfncis.de:


I'm with Sebastian on this one. Anti-virus and other such software
tools, are *aids* to achieving security. To think they can work without
knowledge or supervision is not just ordinary folly, it is encouraging
users to live in a fool's paradise.

By all means make such programs user friendly, to the extent possible.
But if you think you can make them idiot-proof for idiots (the most
resourceful folks on earth in finding ways to sabotage themselves) then
you are no better than they.

What you suggest is equivalent to the fellow who, after being sold a big
RV with cruise control, got out of the driver's seat and went back to the
RV's kitchen to make himself a sandwich! After all, he had cruise
control. (True story! And, yes, the RV crashed.)

Regards,

Ricardo wrote:



But you want to run Avast? Better check for a product that fits the job much
better.


Why should this be a problem? Alert is alert.

An experienced user would simply use a virus that doesn't get detected, at
best one that doesn't have any defined signature at all.

Uzytkownik "Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de> napisal w wiadomosci
news:5ltkagFa2v9jU1@mid.dfncis.de...
Avast whose big advantage is that it is free and still has quite good
reputation. For a number of reasons that I am not going to elaborate on,
Avast just suits me. I posted a very concrete question concerning Avast
configuration. If you don't know the answer, which seem very much like that,
would you please stop that useless flaming and aggressive tone.

"Cancel", "Continue", "Ignore" or whatever you call it, instead of "Delete
file" or "Remove virus", can be a serious threat to the system. Is it so
complicated, you dummy?!

zero of the NATO Headquarters but in a small university subnet, having a
bunch of unexperienced users to protect, many a time against themselves. You
definitely lack imagination to get it and obviously try to build up your
sick ego on each and every occasion. Considering further discussion with you
completely useless I announce the EOT.
Regards,
Ricardo

Ricardo wrote:



People can exchange software, mind you.

Why are you twisting virus scanning with protection?
And heck, it seems like you're abusing Outlook Express as a newsreader. Why
don't you start with the basics first by replacing your known vulnerable
software?

Uzytkownik "Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de> napisal w wiadomosci
news:5lup9pFac9snU1@mid.dfncis.de...
executables, not on mine. Have you ever heard of EXE authorized only system?
Actually, Avast is just yet another means of widespread and tight protection
implemented by myself, which I have succesfully tested for years now. Just
fine tuning the system with a new antivirus and that's why asking a simple
question.

means of system protection?! And what is so shocking for you with regard to
using the silent mode - actually implemented in lots of antivirus software.
What is so incomprehensible about predefining specific behavior of the
antivirus like deleting potentially dangerous files without discussing the
problem all over again with a blonde operating MS Word?! Just a very
standard approach. Your ignorance is actually unbelievable!

right? Pathetic again... I am speechless... Please cut it out, man.
Further discussion is really pointless.
May you have a good rest,
Ricardo

Ricardo wrote:


So you actually have a global no-exec policy in place?


The correct word is "detuning". According to your description, a virus
scanner is superfluos and therefore definitely a decrease in security.


Yes, it's a trivial fact.


Yes, but not for the SOHO products. I think that Avast Enterprise Edition
has such client-server architecture, that's why I told you for checking if
you're using the right software at all.


Simply that any sane person would even think of implementing such a horribly
stupid policy.


Only as much standard as many idiot admins are actually doing that. It has
nothing to do with any security or sane administration.


No, but more serious than your problem. You have a vulnerable software
exposed to the net with scripting and in-memory exploit being a major attack
vector, both trivially circumventing your whitelisting policy.


.... said the dirty address faker and lurked away.

"Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de> wrote in
news:5lv6igFafnv0U1@mid.dfncis.de:

Right on, Sebastian. It's just I feel a little disoriented agreeing with
you :-)

Regards,

Uzytkownik "Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de> napisal w wiadomosci
news:5lv6igFafnv0U1@mid.dfncis.de...

advantages especially in case one of the protective means fail to work
properly. But of course, Mr. Perfect does never take that into account,
right? "Detuning" makes sense only on highly overloaded machine where a
few percentage of performance matters, which is not always the case. Also
not taken into account by the local security wise guy, heh?

dummy.

Edition. Your too pompous to understand simple words people say to you.
Typical for a twisted pseudo-rocket scientists.

actually.

Pathetic again.

No regards this last time. Sorry for that
Ricardo

Ricardo wrote:


As long as the additional "protection" doesn't introduce any additional
insecurity, which is inherent due to the increased complexity.

In fact if your no-exec policy fails, you'd have much bigger worries than a
lousy virus scanner.


No, it's a trivial fact. A virus scanner doesn't provide protection because
it's reliability is zero. Trivially, because an attacker can simply choose a
malware that doesn't have any categorized signature yet, and even further
can change itself to omit any permanent signature at all.


Beside not having read any such reason, your argument is bullshit. You might
as well give me reasons why you'd like to nail a pudding on the wall.


Then go forth and implement your "delete every file that produces a false
alert"-policy!


"I have no argument" would be much shorter to express your point.

Ricardo wrote:


As long as the additional "protection" doesn't introduce any additional
insecurity, which is inherent due to the increased complexity.

In fact if your no-exec policy fails, you'd have much bigger worries than a
lousy virus scanner.


No, it's a trivial fact. A virus scanner doesn't provide protection because
it's reliability is zero. Trivially, because an attacker can simply choose a
malware that doesn't have any categorized signature yet, and even further
can change itself to omit any permanent signature at all.


Beside not having read any such reason, your argument is bullshit. You might
as well give me reasons why you'd like to nail a pudding on the wall.


Then go forth and implement your "delete every file that produces a false
alert"-policy!


"I have no argument" would be much shorter to express your point.

Uzytkownik "Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de> napisal w wiadomosci
news:5lvfb2Faj835U1@mid.dfncis.de...
Actually there is no such thing, which you should know unless you are a very
simple minded creature...




unless you come up with anything safer like cutting the electric cords of
your comps followed by smashing network interfaces and the hard disks. Then
nobody would be able to hack your machines. Good luck, you paranoid maniac!

bullshit, really. Now, give me a break, will you?
Thanks in advance.
Ricardo

Ricardo wrote:



One must be incredibly stupid to not understand that complexity is the
archenemy of security...


Quite decent for a virus scanner, that is, well, lousy.


I think this word doesn't mean what you think it means. Heuristic apporaches
are an even lesser argument than pattern scanning.

Uzytkownik "Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de> napisal w wiadomosci
news:5lvsh0Fanp3nU1@mid.dfncis.de...
pathetic. FOAD and EOT.

"Ricardo" <kill@spam.edu> wrote in news:fdegih$l5t$1@achot.icm.edu.pl:
....

I'm not usually a fan of Sebastian, but in this thread, Ricardo, he has
been beating you like a drum.

You came here with a question. You did not like the answers. Hard cheese!

Since then you've been playing the petulant fool.

Regards,

U¿ytkownik "nemo_outis" <abc@xyz.com> napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
news:Xns99B79AB8B2ABEabcxyzcom@204.153.245.131...
I can only say that I am very sorry for you.

announcement means that you are really under the spell of you idol. Maybe
you are even another schizophrenic identity of himself. I do not give a damn
actually.

rather than aggresive bullshitting of some asshole with serious hang-ups
hopelessly trying to cure his sick ego. My advice: do not hang out with the
man or you'll soon be his look-alike, if not already...
Take care,
Ricardo

"Ricardo" <kill@spam.edu> wrote in news:fdejel$qj6$1@achot.icm.edu.pl:


No one asked for your advice. And that's just as well since it's clearly
worth nothing.

I have frequently jumped on Sebastian in the past on any number of topics.
But when he's right, he's right - and I acknowledge it. And in calling
your approach foolish and ineffective, Sebastian is spot on.

And in calling you a petulant whiner for not listening to the advice you
asked for, we are both right on.

Regards,

U¿ytkownik "nemo_outis" <abc@xyz.com> napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
news:Xns99B7B4256FE93abcxyzcom@204.153.245.131...
that satisfaction and won't reply to your next post that is coming for sure.
Don't have too much time for a bunch of idiots beating about the bush.

that there is a kind of delicate relationship between you two, which
actually explains a lot. Mr. Perfect and Mr. Right - what a nice couple,
really. Now, please cut this gay whimpering and come out of the closet
finally - you will feel a relief. Only choose a proper newsgroup before so
as not to shock some kids coming here accidentally.

megalomaniac pseudo-objectivism.

You'd better find yourselves a cozy place and decide who's jumping on whom
next instead of overreacting your personal problems in public.

regards this time to avoid unnecessary hypocrisy.
Now good-bye butt monkey, welcome to my killfile! Made some room for your
queen there to let you stay together