Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

AVG Backs Down From Flooding the Internet

timothy posted more than 6 years ago | from the time-off-for-good-behavior dept.

The Internet 297

Simon Wright writes "As a website that is featured heavily in many Google Australia search results, Whirlpool (Australia's largest technology forum) has been particularly affected by AVG's LinkScanner. We've seen a traffic increase as much as 12 hits per second from these bots. So we've actively and loudly campaigned against this move by AVG, encouraging all users of AVG 8.0 to uninstall the product. The discussion starts here. And AVG's backing down is posted here." From that URL:"'As promised, I am letting you know that the latest update for AVG Free edition has addressed and rectified the issue that [Whirlpool] have brought to our attention. This update has now been released to users and has also been built into the latest installation package for AVG Free.' — Peter Cameron, Managing Director, AVG Australia."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Fourth Post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24073179)

I am GOD!

Then fix this (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24073571)

Slashdot is dying. Netcraft confirms it.

Are you sure? (2, Interesting)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073187)

Can it be shown that they have stopped doing this accross the board? Or only for the "high rollers"? It wouldn't surprise me if such a bunch of assholes as these only "whitelist" people that can sue them.

Re:Are you sure? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24073217)

See: http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1007329&p=13#r256

The fix has been independently tested.

Cheers WTW

Re:Are you sure? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24073327)

For *some* people. Wait and see.

Re:Are you sure? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24073653)

One could always just turn the link scanner off. It requires the clicking of a button, if thats not to hard?

Re:Are you sure? (4, Insightful)

Heembo (916647) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073741)

The problem is no so much the consumer experience... (although consumers experience was changed significantly as web searching became a lot more resource intensive).

The problem is that the link scanning featured caused a great deal of traffic to sites - even sites that consumers did not visit. That's not cool.

Re:Are you sure? (1)

CautionaryX (1061226) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073879)

By visiting those links for you automaticallly, doesn't it give you a higher level of privacy?

I think that the link scanner was a bad idea, but that argument could be used in its favor.

Re:Are you sure? (3, Insightful)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 6 years ago | (#24074157)

By visiting those links for you automaticallly, doesn't it give you a higher level of privacy?

It would be quite convenient if one could just piss in any doorway when the need arose. We don't do it (most of us) because it is antisocial.

Accessing every webpage you see a link to multiplies the bandwidth you use by at least an order of magnitude.

Re:Are you sure? (1)

legirons (809082) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073895)

"One could always just turn the link scanner off. It requires the clicking of a button, if thats not to hard?"

Surely it requires getting everyone who might visit your website to click the button, which seems infinitely harder?

Re:Are you sure? (1, Redundant)

hubdawg (1148477) | more than 6 years ago | (#24074097)

The link scanner and web shield that caused the issue were an optional part of the install. As such they can be disabled seperately from the antivirus component. Thus once again, a knee jerk reaction condemning the entire product when it was only a new feature that was an optional add on was causing all the trouble. AVG is still good antivirus. I noticed increased load times and issues on the browser as soon as I installed it and disabled it quite promptly. Its most distressing that such a fine product can take a beating for a simple fix and mistake. Its not like they out and out tried to crash the internet or steal all our credit card numbers.

Good Stuff! (4, Insightful)

IceDiver (321368) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073189)

I was looking at alternatives to AVG because of this. Good to know I don't have to keep looking.

Re:Good Stuff! (5, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073205)

I was looking at alternatives to AVG because of this. Good to know I don't have to keep looking.

Maybe you should keep looking. A company in the business that AVG is in should have seen this coming, what makes you think more of the same "quality" is not in the future? It shows a serious lack of foresight for a company that should have top-drawer management and programmers considering their business. Frankly, this kind of crap reflects badly on what consumers should assume for the quality of their product.

Re:Good Stuff! (4, Interesting)

rbochan (827946) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073607)

Maybe you should keep looking.

I don't disagree. Version 8 of their product is the most bloated thing I've seen in ages. Almost moreso than the consumer Norton/McAffee stuff. And to top it off, it's so naggy it's ridiculous.

Re:Good Stuff! (5, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073725)

That is why after using AVG for years I switched to Avast. The whole point of AVG was that it WASN'T all bloaty and full of extra crap like Norton. Now they are just as slow,just as sluggish,and just as irritating. Oh and for the user that says turn it off? I don't know that it is still the case as I switched to Avast,but AVG would scream that it wasn't working if you disabled the bloat. So you would have to check the stupid thing because you had no idea if it really wasn't working because of an error,or if it was just bitching because you had turned off linkscanner. Anyway that is my 02c,YMMV

Re:Good Stuff! (1)

Shabbs (11692) | more than 6 years ago | (#24074151)

I totally agree. I was so disappointed with the upgrade to AVG v8 and then I read about all this crap. I have moved to Avast as well and I am liking it so far.

Re:Good Stuff! (4, Insightful)

Jurily (900488) | more than 6 years ago | (#24074059)

AVG took a serious wrong turn somewhere. It used to be a no-questions-asked-use-me-please virus scanner of the highest quality. I used to recommend it to everyone. I used to start fixing my friends' computers by uninstalling the bloated virus scanners they had and installing AVG.

Now they've gone corporate (for lack of a better term).

Anyone know of an alternative to fill the role?

I certainly won't be looking (5, Insightful)

xtracto (837672) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073979)

. A company in the business that AVG is in should have seen this coming, what makes you think more of the same "quality" is not in the future?

No, I certainly won't be looking. There are just a handful of companies which *listen* to its customers. There fewer that listen to the users of their product which use it for free.

AVG shown that at least they do listen to their users, and are likely to rectify when they screw up. Similar to what happened with Netflix.

A bad company is not one which makes wrong choices, we all make wrong choices. But when the company is not able to acknowledge their errors and rectify, is when you should start looking for someone else to make business with.

I use AVG Free and recommend it to all the people who come to ask me for an Antivirus. The truth (in my opinion) is that such a thing should be provided with Microsoft Windows for free, after all it is the fault of their crappy Operating System that the computers get all infected.

Re:I certainly won't be looking (2, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 6 years ago | (#24074037)

But what about the bloat? I often have to work on computers that are a few years old. AVG went from using a little over 14Mb with all the bells and whistles on to over 59Mb,and that is even after using the command line to install ONLY the resident shield! No email scanner,no link scanner,just the AV and spyware detection. I need something that isn't going to slow down those computers who max out at 512Mb down to a crawl,so after trying Avast ( didn't really care for it and heard it has a poor detection rate) I figured if I'm going free I might as well go open source while I'm at it so I just installed Clamwin. It is only using 18Mb according to process explorer which is a whole lot better than 59Mb.

Does anyone here have experience with Clamwin and know how the detection rate is? I get some pretty clueless users in my shop and need something that will protect the clueless. AVG until version 8 was perfect for the job,but is now just as bloated and slow as Norton. And this is my 02c,YMMV

Re:Good Stuff! (3, Insightful)

XaXXon (202882) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073239)

You might want to keep looking. Companies that do this kind of thing once don't usually stop at 1.

Re:Good Stuff! (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073257)

As an Opera user I don't care, the link scanner only works for IE and Firefox. Or at least that's what the description says.

Another good reason is... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24073303)

AVG is shit.

It is comparable to Norton in its resource hogging ability and lack of useful updates.

Run Linux, then you can tell all those virus-writing-wankstains to go suck a fat cuze.

Re:Another good reason is... (2, Interesting)

ciderVisor (1318765) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073533)

Run Linux, then you can tell all those virus-writing-wankstains to go suck a fat cuze.

Or, if you must run Windows, ditch ALL your anti-virus/anti-spyware/third party firewalls and set all your everyday users as Limited Accounts. I've been running like this for over 18 months and I'm completely malware-free.

Re:Another good reason is... (2, Interesting)

AngelofDeath-02 (550129) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073613)

I've never ran an antivirus in the 8 years I've used windows.

I've periodically ran scans from antivirus.com to confirm that I have no viruses, and I haven't had any obnoxious (I won't say no spyware, the definition is rather broad ...) spyware in the last 5 years ...

Really, safer web habits and nat based firewall are an excellent defense. You don't always need resource hogging programs or top tier firewalls to protect your computer, just think twice before clicking random links!

Re:Another good reason is... (1)

bickerdyke (670000) | more than 6 years ago | (#24074013)

You mean you've seen no alerts from Virus Scanners?

Re:Another good reason is... (2, Informative)

flape (1114919) | more than 6 years ago | (#24074031)

Can you prove it? Rootkits? Priviledge escallation? Malware != virus != bot ... Anyone? Even if it were true, it does not prove your tactic is a good one... you just might have been lucky... Ditching firewall(neither for private nor public IP) is not a good idea. First, there are many programs that open ports. And second, there isn't a day that my outer perimeter isn't under constant attacks.

Re:Good Stuff! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24073415)

As a jackass is really the reason you don't care. Opera? Elitest swine, are you fucking your 14 yo son right now? You're a sick fuck.

Re:Good Stuff! (4, Insightful)

shellbeach (610559) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073473)

I was looking at alternatives to AVG because of this. Good to know I don't have to keep looking.

If you have a look at the Whirlpool page, you'll see that every page in the forum is headed by an orange banner, that not only references the AVG problem and suggests users uninstall the software, but also recommends and has direct links to "superior alternatives" such as Avast and Avira.

I can't think of a better way to quickly change a company's mind than this sort of strategy :)

Another reason (4, Interesting)

mangu (126918) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073963)

every page in the forum is headed by an orange banner, that not only references the AVG problem and suggests users uninstall the software, but also recommends and has direct links to "superior alternatives" such as Avast and Avira.

That's a good one, but there's also this suggestion from TFA:

one web master advocates redirecting AVG scans back to AVG's site. "Many webmasters simply tell LinkScanner to scan AVG's site instead, so their site gets marked as malware free every time - while AVG gets handed the extra bandwidth cost," says the webmaster of TheSilhouettes.org.

Re:Good Stuff! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24073779)

There are (or at least there were) other motives to dump AVG.

1) I installed it - just once, long ago, and threw it out of the window as soon as I found out that it was adding a spam footer advertizing itself in each e-mail I sent. Didn't even try to find if that could be turned off: garbage belongs in the garbage bin, not on my PC, and certainly not in my outgoing mails without my knowledge.
Don't know if they're still doing it, or if it's still on by default, and I'm not interested in finding out either.

2) Visit the forum TFA links to, find the post by the guy who upgraded to Avast and immediately discovered a pile of bad stuff on his system that AVG had apparently missed. Instead of scanning sites you don't visit, it sounds like they'd better start doing something about the quality of the scan on those you DO visit.

I'm sure #2 hasn't always been as bad as it sounds here. But protection is a process, not a goal, and it smells like they're lagging a bit behind right now.

LinkScanner was unnecessary in the first place (4, Interesting)

DigitAl56K (805623) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073203)

I fail to see what Grisoft ever thought LinkScanner would acheive above the scanners that are becoming common in competing products that simply intercept http and pop3 traffic as it comes over the network. To me it seemed unnecessary to actually fetch every single search result. It also would obviously interfere with web analytics, and is potentially a security risk to people using AVG, not in terms of desktop security, but in terms of your real-life personal security. For example, I recall a recent article where the FBI had arrested people [slashdot.org] merely for clicking links to a porn site they had set up. Are you really safe from such operations and the general tendency of Government agencies to monitor activity these days when your computer is in effect programmed to click links for you?

I don't see information at the links in the summary of what changes were actually made to AVG now. Does anyone have details?

Re:LinkScanner was unnecessary in the first place (2, Interesting)

KenMcM (1293074) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073259)

Although if it is widely known that software can click links for you; then using AVG should help to shield you and others from such already far-fetched charges based on the so-called evidence of your request for child pornography.

Re:LinkScanner was unnecessary in the first place (4, Interesting)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073301)

The only reason I could think of would be to reduce latency - scanning a page on demand probably incurs some noticable cost and if you can start a scan before the user clicks the link, you lower the perceived time to scan. But it definitely wasn't very friendly to servers.

Re:LinkScanner was unnecessary in the first place (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24073949)

It definitely wasn't very friendly to my computer on a DSL, either! Slowed searching down like molasses. I don't understand all the complainers though (people running AVG), just turn the damn link search off like I did.

Re:LinkScanner was unnecessary in the first place (5, Funny)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073381)

I fail to see what Grisoft ever thought LinkScanner would acheive

It turns out that LinkScanner was implemented in secret by two employees during odd hours, when all the other people had gone home(*). One of these employees, who likes to use the handle "pinky", was in charge of unit testing, while the second employee, who sometimes goes under the nickname "brain", actually designed the module.

Investigations are ongoing, but preliminary questioning of the employees does suggest that LinkScanner's purpose was either to "take over the world", or possibly to "zort" a "narf-poit".

(*) except for Norm, who didn't notice anything because he was busy looking for a misplaced stapler in another part of the building.

Re:LinkScanner was unnecessary in the first place (1)

Sven Tuerpe (265795) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073521)

For example, I recall a recent article where the FBI had arrested people [slashdot.org] merely for clicking links to a porn site they had set up. Are you really safe from such operations and the general tendency of Government agencies to monitor activity these days when your computer is in effect programmed to click links for you?

Yes, if links are commonly "clicked" by rogue security software, and everybody understands this, then you are really safe.

Re:LinkScanner was unnecessary in the first place (5, Funny)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073647)

There's no need to be hypothetical. Anyone here have an unmodified AVG 8? Congratulations: you have just downloaded a page on how to home-brew all the most illegal drugs in the USA [totse.com] . Enjoy!

Re:LinkScanner was unnecessary in the first place (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24073893)

I was under the impression that the linkscanner only checked the links in search results, so those AVG8 users shouldn't have downloaded the link unless they clicked on it.

Way to go! (5, Insightful)

djce (927193) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073211)

The site complains to AVG that its load has increased, so in response in gets a /.ing. Nice!

Anyway, the statement that "We've seen a traffic increase as much as 12 hits per second" is meaningless without knowing the overall traffic levels - for example, is +12/sec an increase of 100%, or an increase of 1%?. It's referred to as a "significant drain" on resources, but quoting one number without the other is pointless.

Re:Way to go! (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24073249)

Simon has state that the server normally deals with 50 queries / second.

So 12 more / second is quite a bit of load.

Cheers WTW

Re:Way to go! (2, Informative)

hankwang (413283) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073559)

It's referred to as a "significant drain" on resources, but quoting one number without the other is pointless.

Well, I'm not sure how efficient Coldfusion is for handling large web forums, and how fast their database back-end is (16 million posts), but if each request takes 0.1 second of CPU time, it means it's enough traffic to keep a whole extra server busy. Approaching it differently: there are typically about 1000 users online, which open maybe one page per minute each. That means about 20 page requests per second during normal usage. Someone else mentioned 50 requests per second, but it's not clear whether that includes static content (images, CSS, javascript), while AVG only requests web pages. Database/script-driven pages take much more server resources than static content.

Re:Way to go! (0, Flamebait)

Spliffster (755587) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073645)

Well, I'm not sure how efficient Coldfusion is for handling large web forums,

Piss poor

Re:Way to go! (5, Informative)

Now15 (9715) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073721)

The single web server that powers Whirlpool is typically handling 30 to 40 non-cached template requests per second. We've got over 15 gigabytes worth of user posts online, and receive hundreds of referrals from Google every minute.

Given that it's running on a 4-year-old web server (in tandem with another 4-year-old MySQL box), I think ColdFusion is doing pretty well for itself.

Cheers
Simon Wright

So is AVG still a good AV prog? (3, Informative)

deft (253558) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073213)

I use AVG... and was watching this.

I'm sure they thought it was a good idea, and sometimes good companies make bad moves.... I got AVG because leo laporte reccomended it, and dammit, i like leo.

But things change over time... is AVG still a good free AVG prog? And I dont mean just because of this controversy, they made good on it and responded. I mean the long haul.

Re:So is AVG still a good AV prog? (2, Interesting)

derfy (172944) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073255)

I too use AVG and have for a long time, mostly cause Norton / McAffe sucks. I would like to know if there are any other good free AV programs out there nowadays.

I know that the good people of /. will help guide me to a good solution with a minimum of ranting and flaming.

*snicker*

No seriously, any suggestions?

Re:So is AVG still a good AV prog? (5, Informative)

i.of.the.storm (907783) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073285)

I dunno, I use Avast, it's pretty good and free as well. I like the UI a bit better and it seems to get definition updates pretty frequently. Much less of a resource hog than Norton/McAfee too, although so is AVG.

Re:So is AVG still a good AV prog? (1)

Nightspirit (846159) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073307)

I use avast, but when intentionally bullshitting around and doing things I shouldn't have been doing it let a couple things through that it wasn't able to clean up. NOD32 picked up the mess, but unfortunately after the trial it costs $ compared to avast. I'll probably just stop trudging through the cesspool of the internets and keep using avast.

Re:So is AVG still a good AV prog? (1)

i.of.the.storm (907783) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073341)

Yeah I've heard NOD32 and Kaspersky are good for-pay AV softwares, but I tend to not pick up viruses anyway so I don't feel like actually paying for antivirus.

Re:So is AVG still a good AV prog? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24074009)

NOD32 picked up the mess, but unfortunately after the trial it costs $ compared to avast.

I am not sure about that, I use a cracked version of NOD32 (the one who came with Windows UE) and it updates regularly without me having to pay anything.

Re:So is AVG still a good AV prog? (4, Informative)

BagOBones (574735) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073483)

The and Update system in AVG 8.0 is vastly improved.

I was using Avast and and installed it for several family members only to have one of them get a HORRID spyware infection.

Interestingly AVAST did not detect it at all, Spybot and Ad-aware could not completely remove it, but after installing AVG 8.0 it cleaned everything up.

After checking several reviews it seems AVG 8.0 has one of the best Virus and Spyware detection rates among current products.

Re:So is AVG still a good AV prog? (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073293)

I thought they had a fairly bad reputation with pretty low recognition rates but my memory is kinda fuzzy.

Re:So is AVG still a good AV prog? (1)

ragethehotey (1304253) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073551)

Its actually the exact opposite, myself and a lot of other AVG users consistently get false generic Trojan reports for files we know to be clean. The only reason I continue to recommend it as the free Anti virus of choice to family and friends is because Avast has one of the absolute worst user-interfaces that I have ever seen in a commercial product. And no scheduling automatic scans in the free version without additional scripts? Fuck That.

Re:So is AVG still a good AV prog? (1)

stavros-59 (1102263) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073325)

is AVG still a good free AVG prog? And I dont mean just because of this controversy, they made good on it and responded. I mean the long haul.

It's not the antivirus that I'd recommend. Along with Norton and McAfee it features heavily on HijackThis log postings on malware removal forums all over the internet. AVG Antispyware (originally ewido) is a good antispyware product and is incorporated into the AVG 8.0 product so it's not all bad.

AV product assessments are a difficult area but consistently good performance over time would be what I'd look for. Most opinions are highly emotional and based on limited experience of "I got [insert name of nasty] and the AV I had missed it, but [insert name of AV product] fixed it up".

AV Comparatives [av-comparatives.org] do keep post their test results and previous test results are available.

The malware epidemic out there is not going to be stopped any time soon by antivirus software. In general it seems to be stuck in a bit of a time warp in some ways and I'm not convinced that any method of testing is any sort of proof, given that testing has to be against known exploits/risks/malicious software.

Re:So is AVG still a good AV prog? (5, Interesting)

FilterMapReduce (1296509) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073335)

I second your question. I used AVG Free for a long time and uninstalled it very quickly when I heard the news. But I'm having choosing a replacement cost-free anti-virus program for Windows. Here's are the factors I've been considering...

AVG Free [avg.com] Pro: seems pretty effective and runs inobtrusively (at least locally). Con: has DDoS'd websites in the past and perhaps still shouldn't be trusted.

Avira [avira.com] Pro: no track record of DDoS'ing websites. Con: obnoxious pop-ups "reminding" me about the premium version; apparently [wikipedia.org] got some poor reviews for infection treatment.

Avast [avast.com] Pro: no track record of DDoS'ing websites. Con: requires manual re-registration.

I'm using Avira now but I'm considering switching again because of the pop-ups. Any advice? (And yes, I already run Linux but still need Windows for some things, and no, I'm not interested in paying for anti-virus software, since 99% of virus protection is common sense.)

Re:So is AVG still a good AV prog? (1)

owlnation (858981) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073711)

AVG also now has annoying nagging pop-ups, it's been around for a month or so. So that leaves Avast. How much hassle is the manual registration? I'm using AVG now, and the pop-ups are far too much. This debacle with DDOSing site is proof of a disturbing change of management and I want that software off my machine for good. There WILL be a next time with these assholes in charge.

Seriously, you'd thing that companies would learn from Real Player. If you get too greedy you end up with no customers.

Re:So is AVG still a good AV prog? (2, Informative)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073905)

Manual reregistration is once a year, which is a pain in the neck. If you can handle that it's OK. Oh and you have to disable the sound otherwise it screams 'VIRUS DATABASE HAS BEEN UPDATED!!' at full volume about twice a day (I *really* wish they'd give an option to just switch that off and leave the other sounds on).

Re:So is AVG still a good AV prog? (1)

Fex303 (557896) | more than 6 years ago | (#24074147)

Since you're asking, I'd suggest Avast. I used it for a few years when I still used a PC and found it to be excellent. The registration process was simple enough to be painless, so my biggest complaint would be the horribly skinned main interface window (which they may have gotten rid of by now).

Just my 2c.

Re:So is AVG still a good AV prog? (4, Insightful)

onefriedrice (1171917) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073387)

Here is a secret for you: You do not need AV software.

Actually, let me clarify that statement. You might need AV software if you are a very uninformed user who likes to open email attachments from unknown people or download lots of useless software from questionable sources. However, if that person I described is not you, then you do not need AV software, and it is just taking system (and apparently network) resources.

The reason you don't need AV software is because there are only two ways to get virus on your computer: 1) Network-related software you use is exploited. 2) You willingly (although accidentally) run the bad software yourself. Yes, I'm simplifying things, but it is hardly any more complicated than this. Since you are an informed user, you have learned not to run bad software, so #2 doesn't apply to you; and since you patch your system regularly (right?), #1 is very unlikely.

However, there may be a tiny window between the time that an exploit is found and the patch being made available where you could potentially be vulnerable. Theoretically, AV software can 'protect' you in this scenario since virus definitions are made available sooner than patches. The solution here is, again, to be an informed user. If a piece of software you use becomes vulnerable to a new exploit, you should know about it and take the necessary precautions yourself during the time before a patch is released, in order to protect your system. This will protect you much better than any AV software will, and it's not difficult since there are not many pieces of software which could even be exploited (the main ones are your browser and other internet-related apps).

Now, I'm a user and developer of Mac OS X, Linux, BSD, and Windows. I have been running Vista for almost a year without a hitch by being an informed user. Actually, I also usually install patches long after they are available because I turned off the automatic download/install feature (I like to know what's using my internet connection), and for some reason it doesn't even notify me of the availability of patches so I often forget. Nevertheless, I've never been compromised mainly because I don't run questionable software or read unknown emails, and the security of the software (and patches) has been good enough.

In my opinion, AV software is a scam. It might be useful for grandmas and other clueless users who open email attachments indiscriminately, but I cannot see how anyone informed enough to be on /. cannot also manage his own security. Not that /. users are at the pinnacle of being-informed-edness, but I should think that you should be informed enough to be able to live without AV software quite easily. Bottom line: run a firewall (preferably a hardware firewall), patch often, be informed, and ditch the AV software.

Re:So is AVG still a good AV prog? (1)

iamapizza (1312801) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073429)

I agree with you. For a lot of us who do have an AV software, it's more of a token gesture than it is a safety measure. I've been using AVG on and off over the past (million) years and have often wondered why it's there when my surfing and usage habits aren't harmful. Our browsers are getting better, our OS is getting better and of course, 'they' will find a way to bypass it, but we're nerds. So we'll always know about it.

Re:So is AVG still a good AV prog? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24073497)

You have a point, but I received an infected Word file from a customer just a couple years ago.

When the contract is a few million bucks, you suck it up and run AV and don't tell them how to run their business.

Re:So is AVG still a good AV prog? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24073523)

This is about the same amount of protection as pulling out is a form of birth control.

Are you telling me:

1. You never open links in search results to sites you have never been to?
- If you are running windows using Firefox or IE there have been many cases of 0 day exploits

2. Do you not use any USB storage devices?
- Just this Christmas I purchases a digital photo frame for a family member that had built in storage. low and behold when I went to preload it with photos it was already infected with a virus that was set to use auto play to install.

3. You 100% trust EVERY thing your friends or family send you? Document infections are still somewhat common. I suppose using Open office would get you around macro infections but you also might not be able to open company documents then.

I would also imagine that ANYONE who is on slashdot and manages security also believes in the layered approach. Inbound only filtering from your firewall and using your gut to know what is safe or not is an easy one to work around.. Well unless you are a hermit that never gets any email.

Re:So is AVG still a good AV prog? (4, Funny)

StormyWeather (543593) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073713)

Damnit! That's why I keep having kids.

Re:So is AVG still a good AV prog? (0, Flamebait)

ivucica (1001089) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073959)

Here are my responses:

1. I don't browse (usually) for pr0n or for cracks, so I don't worry. And I use Opera on GNU/Linux.

2. Why worry about autoplay if you don't use Windows?

3. I trust everything my friends or family send me to Gmail, since Gmail has virus detection. Oh, did I mention I don't run Windows?

GNU/Linux is not safe ... it's just safER. And since many "informed users" are satisfied with security of Windows, how could I be not satisfied with GNU/Linux? Besides, what will they infect? Stuff stored in my home directory? Stuff that I can _easily_ clean up with Knoppix? (Unlike with Windows, I am reasonably sure I can find and solve any problem on my installation that originates in my home directory.)

Don't give me "this doesn't work under Linux" crap. If GNU/Linux doesn't have the answer, you're giving the wrong question. Or do my last year and a half of active use of GNU/Linux say otherwise? (Not to mention I used it before, but only occasionally; in last year and a half, it's Windows that's being used only occasionally.)
Lesson of the day? Don't use Windows.

Re:So is AVG still a good AV prog? (1)

kevingolding2001 (590321) | more than 6 years ago | (#24074109)

This is about the same amount of protection as pulling out is a form of birth control.

This being /., how does that compare to just not getting laid in the first place?

Um.. Do you perhaps have a car analogy you could use instead?

Re:So is AVG still a good AV prog? (2, Informative)

Artefacto (1207766) | more than 6 years ago | (#24074113)

There are solutions for each one of those circumstances:

1. You never open links in search results to sites you have never been to? - If you are running windows using Firefox or IE there have been many cases of 0 day exploits

Run your browser with lower privileges (even if you are a not an administrator, which by itself thwarts most of the virus, which expect otherwise, run it with a constrained token). See http://blogs.msdn.com/nigelwa/archive/2005/07/29/445155.aspx [msdn.com] . Additionally, IE7 protected mode under Vista has an excellent record.

2. Do you not use any USB storage devices? - Just this Christmas I purchases a digital photo frame for a family member that had built in storage. low and behold when I went to preload it with photos it was already infected with a virus that was set to use auto play to install.

This one is straight-forward: just deactivate auto-run.

3. You 100% trust EVERY thing your friends or family send you? Document infections are still somewhat common. I suppose using Open office would get you around macro infections but you also might not be able to open company documents then.

This may be a bit more problematic, but macros are usually not set to be run by default. If you are paranoid, you can always run Office apps with less privileges.

Re:So is AVG still a good AV prog? (2, Informative)

Mprx (82435) | more than 6 years ago | (#24074177)

1. Use NoScript
2. Disable autoplay
3. Run anything you don't 100% trust in a VM without network access

Re:So is AVG still a good AV prog? (3, Insightful)

johannesg (664142) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073553)

I'm not sure why this guy is moderated flamebait, because he certainly has a point. I guess I'm the kind of user he describes, and how many viruses have I seen in the last 8 or so years? Zero. That's right, none.

And is this because I don't bother to check? Hardly: I'm running Zone Alarm, SpyBot S&D, and Avira, and I make backups (to USB disk). I even rotate those backup disks to an off-site location (my parents house!). I have all my patches up to date. I watch the lights on my ADSL modem for activity at times when I'm not doing anything, and if the HD spins up while I'm not doing anything I investigate why.

I'm not saying that I'm invulnerable, that would just be silly, but I've taken all the usual precautions and a few that most people don't bother with, and I've NEVER seen anything unusual.

So what's the difference with people who do get infected? Well, I readily admit that some of it is random luck, because I don't shy away from downloading "trialware" (you know, from http://www.thetrialwarebay.org/ [thetrialwarebay.org] pr0n, and TV shows. So there are plenty of potential infection vectors.

However, I don't give permission to suspicious websites to download anything I didn't request first. I run spam, popup, ad, and flash blockers mostly to stop the annoying barrage of color and sound that makes up much of the web these days, and if something makes it through that shield: I don't want any shitty cursors (the system default works for me) or dancing girls on my desktop, and I NEVER run any "funny" exes. I'm sure I missed out on a lot of entertainment over the years that way. And I've set Zone Alarm to a "shoot first, ask questions later" policy - ET will not be phoning home from my machine.

So, why not run entirely without anti-virus? It doesn't seem to be doing anything much for me anyway. Sure, it will increase the risk of me missing a potential infection - but that risk is not zero in the current situation anyway, as there might always be a virus out there that is too new to be detected by Avira anyway.

Re:So is AVG still a good AV prog? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24073565)

Since you are an informed user, you have learned not to run bad software

And how do you recognize bad software? From either a download, or a floppy/CDR/DVDR? You right-click "scan with AVG".

God, you're a wind-bag.

Wake up (1)

tmk (712144) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073609)

Your statements might have been nearly true some years ago, but the world is not as simple anymore.

If the informed user does not run software that is exploited, he does not run any software at all. There are always some bugs that are actively used to compromise systems. You acknowledge the gap between the time a exploit is found and the patch being made. But you seem to believe that every vulnerability is at once public knowledge.

AV software is not only to protect systems from being compromised, the identify compromised systems.

Network-Related Software? (2, Interesting)

DingerX (847589) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073617)

Uh, vector #1 includes basic Windows networking.

Seriously, take an XP box and plug it directly into a home cable/ADSL modem.

About a year and a half back, I did that for maybe a week. I'd kept all the crit updates in there, and yet the AV software would pop up every few hours announcing that a new gift had arrived on the PC. Installed a third-party firewall, and then put the thing behind a router/hardware firewall.

Malware evolves rapidly, and we as individuals can't spend as much time combating it as the makers do in developing it. Sure, by only using trusted programs, only surfing to known sites, and never opening suspect attachments, you'll avoid all but 1% of the types malware out there. But when you're talking about thousands of types, the odds aren't so good.

And, when you're talking about a home environment, where the "administrator" cannot lock down the usage all the time, you better have something.

You also left out a vector #3) any software defect that, when combined with networking, leads to an unsafe situation. Using images to trigger buffer overflows and execute code, for example. Or exploiting a Flash bug. Now, combine that with an exploit to gain access to third-party ("Trusted") web servers, and everyone's gonna need something.

As bad as it was, AVG's spoofing the useragent as IE6 was pretty smart: if a site has malware, it'll deliver it to IE6.

Re:So is AVG still a good AV prog? (1)

Archon-X (264195) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073619)

I concour, completely.
I've not used AV software for the last 6 years, and have never had so much as a spyware infection.

However, I'm disciplined in my surfing habits. Spend 5 minutes watching others surfing, clicking 'Allow ActiveX Control' as fast as they can, and trawling torrent sites, and you know exactly why some people need AV.

Re:So is AVG still a good AV prog? (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073889)

I've not used AV software for the last 6 years, and have never had so much as a spyware infection.

      How do you know you're not infected if you've never used the software?

      I've had a couple surprises myself over the years. But then again I have kids.

Re:So is AVG still a good AV prog? (1)

Archon-X (264195) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073943)

I've kept a subscription to Webroot Spysweeper, and will do a scan if the system ever feels sluggish :)

Re:So is AVG still a good AV prog? (1)

Freggy (825249) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073819)

You do not need AV software.

This nonsense if you are using Windows. Several years ago, when I was still using Windows, I received an executable file, developed by a friend for a computer science course. My anti-virus alerted me that the file had been infected. My friend was not even aware of this infection on his system, and I surely would be infected too if I did not have an anti-virus program. The file was coming from a friend who's an advanced computer user. The file was a self-written program, and I was really expecting this file. Even if I am an advanced computer user, there was not reasonable way to expect this file to be a virus.

Re:So is AVG still a good AV prog? (1)

Gorshkov (932507) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073957)

And are you sure that it wasn't just a false positive? I've triggered a few of those myself over the years - and no, I did not have an infection. The problem with huristics and/or statistical analysis is that some things WILL fall outside the bell curve, or be incoreectly classified. That's just reality.

Re:So is AVG still a good AV prog? (1)

ciderVisor (1318765) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073981)

This nonsense if you are using Windows. Several years ago, when I was still using Windows, I received an executable file, developed by a friend for a computer science course. My anti-virus alerted me that the file had been infected. My friend was not even aware of this infection on his system, and I surely would be infected too if I did not have an anti-virus program. The file was coming from a friend who's an advanced computer user. The file was a self-written program, and I was really expecting this file. Even if I am an advanced computer user, there was not reasonable way to expect this file to be a virus.

And that's why you should only run as admin when you need to do admin stuff. Do all your day-to-day work as a Limited User.

Short memory (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073853)

True this minute. However it was not true when the bagel worm and others were infecting everything they could find through open ports. It was not true when the spectacular stupidity of allowing arbitrary code inside images to run was a feature inside the entire Microsoft software range. While a firewall can protect you against the first it is instances similar to the second that can not be dealt with unless you have third party software to do so. We have a shambolic heap of MSDOS stuck to a incomplete VMS rip and a stolen web browser with appalling ideas like ActiveX piled on top - it needs adult supervision of some kind.

Re:So is AVG still a good AV prog? (4, Informative)

FredThompson (183335) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073423)

I recently gave up on AVG. It was a nice free option until this version 8. Surely, Grisoft knew this was a big problem for a long time. They're not the only people who thought this approach of extra verification would be a good idea. MCAfee did it, Opera (I think) just linked up with one of the Microsoft spawns that tests everything and drags web use to a crawl. It's as poor an idea as "background" disk defragging which does nothing other than work the drives because it's not possible to sort a drive which is in flux.

Avast! is frequently recommended as a free anti-virus. BUT...do some research and you'll see it's not that great at catching known junk. ESET does test very well but you only get 30 days of free use. Avir's free version does seem to offer full integration (in-line scanning, auto updates, etc.) which I don't remember being there a few years ago when freeware scanners only worked on-demand. http://www.free-av.com/ [free-av.com] It tests very well, actually, better than AVG and Avast!

In their defense, if I remember correctly, AVG DID offer free fully integrated inline scanning first with a decent catch rate. Why did it take them so long to comprehend version 8 was a hog and would generate so much anger and resentment? Who knows. Maybe their time has past just line PKZip...

Re:So is AVG still a good AV prog? (1)

FredThompson (183335) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073733)

Heh...I just realized the word "hog" for AVG 8 is pretty funny given they used to have a pig character to illustrate the bad stuff they would filter.

Re:So is AVG still a good AV prog? (1)

Fallen Andy (795676) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073561)

Yes, but it seems less appropriate for low end machines than the old 7.5 version. In particular, it seems to spike the CPU usage much more.

Had a couple of BSOD's in pci.sys upgrading from 7.5 and removing 8.0 to try some other av products. 1 in a 100 - I had to re-install XP.

Tried out Avira, but the resident is a PIG at around 70MB (and you can't slim it down like AVG). So right now I'm using Avast (just the std. provider) and RegProt rather than TeaTimer (from Spybot-SD) to track registry changes. Don't recommend that for Joe Public - AVG out of the box is probably better for them, but in the last 6-7 years i've only been pwned twice (both times trivial to even manually cleanup). For backups, I use ClamWin (portable) and Spybot-SD (both live on a memory stick).

Andy

I never liked AVG much. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24073299)

Always liked nod32 better. Or even panda av. Or bitdefender.

And theres always the online scan that will test one file with a bunch of scanners...

http://www.virustotal.com

They even have avg on their test list.

But the only scanner i use daily is common sense. And you can't get that from any site. :)

I've uninstalled AVG Free after using it for years (3, Insightful)

ardle (523599) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073361)

I had already disabled LinkScanner.
I followed instructions as posted recently here to remove LinkScanner: this resulted in a re-install of AVG (without LinkScanner). The first update this re-install wanted was LinkScanner plus plugins, there was no way I could cancel and just get virus definitions, no point in continuing.
I have installed Clam. Now I can scan what I want when I want.

Re:I've uninstalled AVG Free after using it for ye (1)

TSDMK (979550) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073475)

I use AVG8 Free fairly stripped down but this hasn't happened to me. Did you install SafeSurf/SafeSearch? I found those features useless and annoying you couldn't deselect them at install.

/REMOVE_FEATURE fea_AVG_SafeSurf /REMOVE_FEATURE fea_AVG_SafeSearch as a command switch to the installer will remove those two features.

I'll agree that AVG8 Free by default is pretty annoying and memory hog-ish, but if you get rid of the silly Internet Security features you're left with a reasonable on-access scanner with a UI better than Avast!'s IMO.

Re:I've uninstalled AVG Free after using it for ye (1)

Fuzi719 (1107665) | more than 6 years ago | (#24074053)

Those switches no longer work in the latest installers from Grisoft.

The Smart One (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24073535)

I use AVG free but I disabled the stupid link scanner when I got it a while back because I figured it'd slow my browsing. :) FTW!

ZXTM TrafficScript rule: (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24073573)

Users of Zeus Technology's ZXTM could use the following TrafficScript rule to protect themselves from AVG's DDoS attacks:

if( http.getHeader("Accept-Encoding") == "" &&
        http.getHeader("Referer") == "" )
{
      $ua = http.getHeader("User-Agent");
      if( $ua == "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)"||
              $ua == "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1;1813)"||
              $ua == "User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)"||
              $ua == "User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1;1813)" )
      {
            connection.discard();
      }
}

Resolved (1)

Kensai7 (1005287) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073583)

Resolved stories are not interesting.

I use Steganos which is based on AVG iirc. I guess it's patched as well.

Whirlpool and WebCentral (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24073599)

Thing about Whirlpool is that it's a custom CF package developed by the webmaster and it's a thing of beauty. The ugly thing about is that it's hosted on WebCentral.

WebCentral [webcentral.com.au] ... Whirlpool doesn't have to pay any money to WebCentral, they host it for free. The funky thing is that almost nobody on Whirlpool ever recommends WebCentral for webhosting. They recommend all sorts of other companies in Australia, except probably the most vocal one, WebCentral.

The reason? I've got customers that have PHP and ASP websites with WebCentral and pay $40 a month for a massive 200 MB of storage and 1 GB of transfers. Which is nothing these days. And for that amount of money, you'd think that the sites would at least be quick... think again. They are slow because WebCentral really don't know what they are doing. They've only got IIS and the first access to a website always takes ages for the DLL of the virtual site to start up and do its stuff. All the subsequent accesses are pretty quick. 12 accesses per second for the biggest techie forum in Australia shouldn't be all that much extra and certainly shouldn't bring the server to its knees. Search on Whirlpool hasn't been working most of the time because WebCentral's servers just won't take it. Full-text search will never exist, not as long as it's on WebCentral anyways.

WebCentral got bought out, not too long ago, by MelbourneIT, a registrar for .au domains, so you'd think that WebCentral had a clue when it came to DNS. They don't. I asked them to set up a new subdomain with a different IP address? What do they do? The redirect mail.something.com.au to point to the new IP address, with the hilarious consequence of a dozen people not being able to get any emails for a few days.

And then there's the case of the $65 for 2 year domain registration. You'd think that would include DNS hosting, as asiaregistry.com do for $30 for 2 years. MelbourneIT offers a 1-page website for $140 for 2 years. Well, think again. The $65 only cover domain reservation. It means that you register a domain, pay them money, but that's it. They sell you a product that's more than twice as expensive than with a reasonable competitor, but you can't actually do anything with it. No, what you want is 'Domain Parking', there's no way to get DNS hosting apart from that. $240 for 2 years. We've had domain names with AsiaRegistry for years now, and they've been absolutely reliable, more so than WebCentral will ever be.

I called them about that, they say that the advantage is them being a local business. That's the entire argument. A local business with shit webhosting and crap value. Don't ever do business with WebCentral.

There's no way I'd ever post this on Whirlpool, because it'd get removed by WebCentral, one way or another, immediately. And there's no way you'll see Simon Wright responding to me, it's like everything is open for discussion on Whirlpool as long as it's on topic, except WebCentral. They do provide hosting for free and can make Simon's life a bit uncomfortable at least if WebCentral is all of a sudden open for discussion.

Re:Whirlpool and WebCentral (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24073897)

Just so you're aware, no one actually cares. At all.
But thanks for sharing. Did you need a box of tissues?

Tell you what, why do you write this up as a big article and submit it to all the sites like Reddit, Digg, StumbleUpon. I'd vote for it, it's a heartfelt post about, well, whatever it's a about. +1 would read again.

Bob

So, what if LinkScanners scan engine... (5, Insightful)

NorQue (1000887) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073611)

... contains some kind of overflow bug? I guess hundreds of thousands of AVG equiped PCs will get infected instantly?

A programm that fetches each and every link it comes across *can't* be a very good idea. Certainly a feature invented by people without a security mindset [schneier.com] ?

Re:So, what if LinkScanners scan engine... (1)

something_wicked_thi (918168) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073829)

All antivirus programs suffer from this problem to various degrees. The on-demand scanners for AV programs scan everything, not just code that will be executed. Furthermore, they often recommend doing periodic system-wide scans which will open all files on the machine. It's quite possible that there's a bug in the scanner that can be exploited simply by storing a file on disk. Thus, if you can get your file fetched via a web browser (e.g. embed it in a .js file or something), you don't even need a browser exploit.

Does this mean that AV software isn't the best thing for our security? Maybe, but there are two mitigating factors: it's supposedly written by people who know how to write secure software, and it does simpler things with the data than the software that uses it, so it's less likely to have security bugs.

It's a trade-off. AV software makes it more likely that you will find viruses and other bad things that get onto your machine, but they can also make it more likely that this badware makes it onto your machine or gets executed in the first place.

Re:So, what if LinkScanners scan engine... (1)

NorQue (1000887) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073969)

You're right with that tradeoff argument. But IMHO the severity of a local exploit is a few magnitudes lower than a (possible) overflow bug in this scan engine.

A bug in the file parser affects only local files, so an attacker has to find a way to get an infected file to your PC, too. Take this vulnerability from Symantec [heise-online.co.uk] , for example. Exploiting it would involve a User actively downloading an infected RAR file to his PC, or at least exploiting another security hole in his browser to autodownload. That's several variables: a user has to have a buggy Symantec product *and* a buggy browser installed *and* you have to find a way for users to visit your infected website *or* you have make him want to download your file.

Now imagine a similar bug in that LinkScan scan engine and you'll have a disaster in spe. "Just" SEO a few infected sites into popular searches and a user doesn't even have to visit them. It's enough to visit the Google search and LinkScanner takes care for the infection all for himself by fetching and scanning all the links. This could infect thousands of AVG users before someone finds out.

Re:So, what if LinkScanners scan engine... (1)

NorQue (1000887) | more than 6 years ago | (#24074083)

Argh, overread the "Thus, if you can get your file fetched via a web browser (e.g. embed it in a .js file or something), you don't even need a browser exploit."-part. You still have to actively visit that site and not have execution of scripts forbidden, by e.g. NoScript. Entry level to exploit is still lower, IMO.

Re:So, what if LinkScanners scan engine... (1)

dmcq (809030) | more than 6 years ago | (#24074169)

Without the link scanner AVG is a pain to virus writers. With the link scanner it becomes a possible very valuable virus vector. That's an awful silly thing to do. I really wouldn't depend on that mitigating factor of them being 'people who know how to write secure software' to stop a close analysis of their code showing up a bug. If they had the security gene I don't think they would ever have though of doing this.

Too late for me, but damn, it's hard to get rid of (2, Informative)

Masa (74401) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073703)

I already switched from AVG to Avast. One thing I noticed, is that under Vista, the "AVG safe search" doesn't get uninstalled from the Internet Explorer. Mind you, I use Firefox, but after uninstalling the AVG, I realized that I haven't checked if the IE also has this piece of software in it. Well, it does, and now I have no idea how to get rid of it without fiddling with the registry. IE doesn't let me delete the component even with Admin privileges. Any ideas how to get rid of it? Google turned up only similar questions but no solution.

Self-solving problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24073717)

I wouldn't have worried too much anyway (if you're not using AVG), this AVG DDOS problem is self-solving.

  1. AVG invents link scanner
  2. FBI's fake child porn trap links get massive increase in # of visits
  3. AVG users get arrested by the dozens
  4. ...
  5. Profit (for AVG's competitors)

"brought to our attention", yeah, sure... (2, Insightful)

Enleth (947766) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073729)

Goddamned sales-speak, full of lies and deception, as always. There was no "issue" to "addres and rectify" after being "brought to attention". Of course they knew it would work like that, they desgined it to. They just thought they would get away with it. The world would be a better place if it were to be criminal to tell such cattledung as an official statement.

They will be back. (3, Insightful)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 6 years ago | (#24073775)

Bad ideas like this one seem to have a life if their own in marketing departments.

Truly disappointed in AVG after several years (1)

Fuzi719 (1107665) | more than 6 years ago | (#24074089)

I began using AVG Free several years ago and liked it so much I purchased a two-year licence for the Pro version. It ran beautifully on my ancient P4 1.7GHz XP Pro machine, never noticed any performance hit. I also recommended it and installed in on many friends computers. Then came version 8.0. What a nightmare. The first time, I let it install everything and I could barely open my web browser afterwards. I uninstalled it and then did a custom install and deleted everything except the anti-virus/malware/rootkit options. Since I use IMAP for email, I didn't install the email plugin either since it doesn't support IMAP. Performance hit was still huge. Just right-clicking on a file, any file, it would take anywhere from 30 seconds to a full minute for the context menu to appear. Totally unacceptable. Trying to copy a file from one disk to another would take forever. I used PROCEXP to look at what was going on, AVG was sucking up every processor cycle on every task I tried to perform. I emailed with their tech support, which was very attentive, I can not fault them on that, but there simply was no resolution that worked. Finally, I had to give up using AVG even though I still have many months left on my license. I'm now using Avast! and it is performing very well. I see no noticeable performance hit at all. I may go ahead and purchase a license for the full Avast!. I just hope they don't "upgrade" and disappoint me as well.

..news just in (2, Funny)

catwh0re (540371) | more than 6 years ago | (#24074149)

news just in, whirlpool hit with a new torrent of traffic due to posting on slashdot... mmm irony.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?