- May 16, 2018
- 1,363
Known Problems with Most Common AV's
- Thread starter RoboMan
- Start date
- Status
- Apr 1, 2019
- 2,868
Sophos Home Premium-
Slows down Firefox significantly, especially launching.
It was a deal breaker for me on top of the other quirks that I wouldn’t consider issues, just design choices.
Slows down Firefox significantly, especially launching.
It was a deal breaker for me on top of the other quirks that I wouldn’t consider issues, just design choices.
I agree,
I think this thread is a great idea and a very interesting one, but @Opcode is right. While there is a lot of great info here, I think we have to be mindful that some things are simply due to either personal preference (not a known problem) and/or just simply by design, but it is not really a known problem. Eset HIPS is a good example, some people may not like it (personal preference), or it may cause issues if not configured properly (user interaction), but it's not a known problem. One could argue that HIPS is more complex and requires some understanding on how to setup/configure it, but it's not really a problem unless it's causing issues/bugs when it is configured/used correctly.
- Jun 24, 2016
- 2,487
- I think an antivirus merging labs with one of the biggest government corporations in the world is something some users would like to know before installing.
- Mentioning ESET HIPS doesn't mean the HIPS is an issue, rather that it's not displayed in a way easy to use for all users. It becomes a problem when a public software has advanced features not everybody understands. In case someone wanted to use ESET because of it's HIPS, he/she should know that before installing. But of course this doesn't mean ESET has an issue with its HIPS, rather than it's not for everybody.
- Same applies to HitmanPro, people will want to know it doesn't come/isn't the same before buying it. This doesn't mean it's a bug or related.
Last edited:
- Mar 16, 2019
- 3,867
A very old 8-9 years old Bitdefender problem that hasn't been fixed yet. Check here
I'm struggling to point out the problem properly in a single sentence so have a look and put it in the known problem list any way you see fit.
Kudos to the person who came up with the name Bugdefender.
I'm struggling to point out the problem properly in a single sentence so have a look and put it in the known problem list any way you see fit.
Kudos to the person who came up with the name Bugdefender.
- May 19, 2016
- 1,580
Hum I'm surprised
The less buggy seems to be G Data
.................................or the less used
The less buggy seems to be G Data
Hum I'm surprised
The less buggy seems to be G Data
.................................or the less used
Question from post #85: Could OSArmor prevent those modifications?
It depends, I guess, and also depends on the rules one has enabled. I used Evjl's Rain's example of Defender Control v. 1.5 and OSA blocked the download but with a different rule than suggested in post #85. If I disable OSArmor, and then attempt to disable Defender thru the Defender Control UI, this is again blocked using the same rule--in Lockdown Experimental section. Here is a snip of what I enable in Lockdown rules, but like any lockdown mode, there's a price tag of possibly higher false notifications. Fortunately, for me, these are very few. Edit: Not off-topic I hope.
It depends, I guess, and also depends on the rules one has enabled. I used Evjl's Rain's example of Defender Control v. 1.5 and OSA blocked the download but with a different rule than suggested in post #85. If I disable OSArmor, and then attempt to disable Defender thru the Defender Control UI, this is again blocked using the same rule--in Lockdown Experimental section. Here is a snip of what I enable in Lockdown rules, but like any lockdown mode, there's a price tag of possibly higher false notifications. Fortunately, for me, these are very few. Edit: Not off-topic I hope.
Last edited:
Of course its the least used, no promos, giveaways, no ways to get their stuff for cofee price, just regular 30 day trial or buy for full price. Now lets think how many in the MT actually pays for the software they are using which translates into a small percentage.. oh, and the AV vendor market is so big, and such alternatives around.. makes sense doesn't it. G Data has same amount of bugs as any other security companies product made. Its a software, and software have bugs, its normal.Hum I'm surprised
The less buggy seems to be G Data
.................................or the less used
All of these points should be added because every consumer of an AV should be given a bullet point list of every potential thing that might make them feel uncomfortable due to business policies and the product working as intended. /s obviously.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Mar 16, 2019
- 3,867
I wonder why it hasn't been added yet? @Robbie
Edit: The problem is: After detecting and removing a malware it's not possible to see hidden files until the system is restarted. Whether you tick "Show hiiden files and folder" from folder options or you manually tweak the registry, it doesn't work until you restart the system. A permanent issue of Bitdefender's disinfection system.
Last edited:
- Aug 12, 2015
- 29
Avast/AVG:
- Still blocks the execution of some binaries, even with the protection disabled or with the files added as exceptions.
- Uploading of suspicious files without asking the user first ("This file might be dangerous").
- If Protected Folders (Safe Files) can be bypassed by some programs, what to think of real ransomware? (“This application attempted to change or delete files from [a protected folder] and was blocked.” No, CoreFTP actually managed to delete that file!)
- It lacks the possibility to temporarily pause the protection from the system tray icon.
- CCAV (Cloud) has a lower detection rate than CAV/CIS. Too bad, since it's very light (but it lacks HIPS).
- CCAV (Cloud) 2.0.470195.867 Beta seems abandonware, and the official 1.21.465847.842 was released more than 8 months ago.
- Valkyrie is almost useless; once you let it upload files for analysis, you'll probably end up looking at that list forever, with most uploads not being classified as safe or malware like, never.
- Restores the hosts file to its original virgin state without notifiying the user.
- Sometimes, after a program (NOT signature) update, it "forgets" some of the exclusions. (Not easy to reproduce, but it happened more than once.)
- Quarantines files WITHOUT NOTIFYING THE USER! (Say you try to copy 100 files from a drive to another, such as in making a backup. You end up with 96 files on both drives, and unless you manually check the quarantine, you don't even know that they were detected and deleted!)
- Note: all the ads can be disabled by using Windows Firewall Control to create a rule that blocks the outbound connections of “C:\Program Files (x86)\360\Total Security\PromoUtil.exe”.
- It silently blocks the customization of the Notification Area Icons by changing HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\Explorer\NoAutoTrayNotify from 0 to 1.
- No quarantine, malware is simply deleted. No way to restore a FP.
- Generic detection names shared both by ransomware and keygens (FPs), e.g. “Trj/CI.A” for Panda, “Win32:Malware-gen” for Avast/AVG, “Trojan.GenericKD.nnnnn” for Bitdefender, etc.
- Even if some detection names include “not-a-virus:” (Kaspersky) or “crack”/“patch”/etc., they're still considered PUP/malware and treated as such, instead of just raising an information popup.
- After extracting malware from an archive, or generally right after the malware files have been created, they are detected, but the AV insists that it needs to reboot in order to remove the files, despite them being easily deletable and never executed.
- After detecting a malicious file, the AV starts a system scan that cannot be stopped (you mentioned Avira, but it's also WebRoot).
- I don't understand the need to automatically scan a USB drive upon insertion. Once its filesystem is accessed, the realtime protection will scan the accessed files anyway, so why the need for a specific full scan?
- Blocking supposedly malicious URLs that are invalid since ages, i.e. they cannot be accessed or the file to be D/L doesn't exist.
- Blocking an entire file sharing site just because at some point there was a contaminated file on it. Heck, why not blocking the entire Internet?
Last edited:
- Mar 16, 2019
- 3,867
I can confirm Bitdefender does the same too. Tested Bitdefender 2020 yesterday and it put # before every host names without notifying me.
- Jul 27, 2015
- 5,458
In my book that's actually a pro. It's done for a reason.
- Aug 12, 2015
- 29
If you're referring to the hosts file, you're totally wrong. No, you don't have a right to a different opinion.
If the file were meant to only contain the well-known IPv4 and IPv6 definitions for localhost, then it shouldn't be there anyway. This can be hardcoded in the TCP/IP stack.
On the contrary, Microsoft specifically wrote in that very file: This is a sample HOSTS file and This file contains the mappings of IP addresses to host names. which you're supposed to add as needed. I personally need an entry "192.168.2.1 speedport.ip" and anti-telemetry entries can be added as legitimate actions (I'm not talking to entries meant to avoid license checking, but even so, this isn't anyone's business).
Last edited by a moderator:
That escalated quickly lol
Everyone has a right about a different opinion, even if you dont agree
45 is over mate.
- Dec 30, 2012
- 4,809
With the Hosts file you can make it "read only" to avoid BD tampering with it.
- Aug 12, 2015
- 29
This only helps with BD (I just checked), but not with F-Secure, who couldn't care less.
- Dec 30, 2012
- 4,809
Kaspersky v20(b)....CPU being hammered by avp.exe when browsing....Never happened with the previous release.I suspect it has to do with script injection..Can anyone confirm??
- Status
Similar threads
