Advice Request Avast Software Updater Discussion

[Ink]

Software Updater is a feature of Avast Free Antivirus to Internet Security, but requires user's to manually click update - which in all honestly isn't time consuming. If you want the Automatic Software Updater, you have to upgrade to Avast Premier.

You may find this topic interesting.

Here's a list of what software is scanned by Avast to check for updates.

7-Zip Filemanager (32 Bit)
7-Zip Filemanager (64 Bit)
Adobe AIR
Adobe Reader
Adobe Shockwave
DivX Plus Web Player
Flash Player ActiveX
Flash Player ActiveX (Windows Update)
Flash Player Plugin
Foxit Reader
GOM Media Player
Google Chrome (all users)
Google Chrome (current user)
Internet Explorer
Internet Explorer 11 upgrade
IrfanView
iTunes (32 Bit)
iTunes (64 Bit)
Java Runtime Environment 6 (32 Bit)
Java Runtime Environment 6 (64 Bit)
Java Runtime Environment 7 (32 Bit)
Java Runtime Environment 7 (64 Bit)
Java Runtime Environment 8 (32 Bit)
Java Runtime Environment 8 (64 Bit)
Miranda IM (32 Bit)
Mozilla Firefox
Mozilla Firefox (64 Bit)
Mozilla Firefox (ESR)
Mozilla Thunderbird
Opera
Opera (32 Bit)
Opera (64 Bit)
QuickTime
Safari
Skype
VLC Media Player (32 Bit)
VLC Media Player (64 Bit)
WinRAR Archiver (32 Bit)
WinRAR Archiver (64 Bit)
WinZip (32 Bit)
WinZip (64 Bit)

Do you think Avast should consider adding a wider range of software, or focus only on popular software that is commonly exploited? Please vote in the Poll above, or comment down below.

Disclaimer: Listed software may or may not be complete, or accurate per different operating systems.

 

[_CyberGhosT_]

This is a very sparse list, even for exploited software.
All Office related software libre, softmaker, ect are targets.
Many more too numerous to list as well, the list does need
expanding in my honest opinion.
PeAcE

 

[Logethica]

I voted "Focus on commonly exploited software", not because I don't think that there is a potential market for focusing on a wider range of software,but because I think that if they (Avast) were to widen the net then they would be constantly bombarded with requests to add more and more software to their list....the list of "potentially" exploitable software is endless,and at some point a line has to be drawn.

 

[hjlbx]

Problem is this -- less commonly exploited softs - rarely - if ever - receive vulnerability\security updates.

WinRAR, for example, had an exploitable vulnerability for years - before it was discovered and fixed.

Keeping a soft up-to-date only makes a security soft less likely to be exploited - if the updates include security updates - and most updates are just bug fixes and\or feature updates.

To keep a soft safer from vulnerabilities:

This requires the soft publisher to:

1. Tests their products for vulnerabilities - or -
2. Heeds user reports of vulnerabilities
3. Makes a patch for the vulnerability\ies
4. Pushes the vulnerability patch as an update

For the most part - only the most major soft vendors do the above.

So adding more coverage will likely not result in any significant increase in security.

 

[jamescv7]

Honestly many people wanting to have updater a wider coverage, but to way impossible because of time consuming maintenance.

So as a security company, better focus on exploited applications since that is a part of duty to provide quick updates as part of convenience for each user.

However add office related products cause many vulnerabilites are circulated too.

 

[Deleted member 178]

I voted "Focus on commonly exploited software"

That is the job of the user to stay alert on updates of his other softwares, and most of them have already some update notifier.
In term of security, surface attacks are not as common on other softwares than on plugins like flash/java.

 

[generalwu]

I too voted for "Focus on commonly exploited software".

There's just too much soft for any company to focus.

Not to mention the possibility of bugs or breaks that might come with automatic updates.

I think a good soft example would be Heimdal Security, just focusing on the widely used soft and it does managed it well enough.

It does the update better than Secunia PSI in my personal experience (I deployed both in my home PC).

Not doing any promo, just sharing personal experiences.