# Avast Free - Spying & Selling Your Data :(



## Bill_Bright (Jan 27, 2020)

Wow, this is really sad,
​







						The Cost of Avast's Free Antivirus: Companies Can Spy on Your Clicks
					

Avast is harvesting users' browser histories on the pretext that the data has been 'de-identified,' thus protecting your privacy.  But the data, which is being sold to third parties, can be linked back to people's real identities, exposing every click and search they've made.




					www.pcmag.com
				










						Avast sells your search and browsing data according to new report
					

A new report illustrates how Avast sells data, including every click from some users, to companies like Microsoft, Pepsi, and Home Depot.




					www.windowscentral.com
				










						Leaked Documents Expose the Secretive Market for Your Web Browsing Data
					

An Avast antivirus subsidiary sells 'Every search. Every click. Every buy. On every site.' Its clients have included Home Depot, Google, Microsoft, Pepsi, and McKinsey.




					www.vice.com
				










						Avast packaged detailed user data to be sold for millions of dollars
					

An investigation tracked detailed user data being sold to companies like Google, Home Depot, Microsoft and Pepsi.




					www.engadget.com
				


​For users of the free version of Avast, I guess this is the developer's scam... err... method to coerce... err attempt to create incentive for users to pay for one of their Avast Premium or Ultimate versions. I might suggest considering a different anti-malware program altogether.​​(Edit comment: Fixed a couple typos - BB)​


----------



## Countryside (Jan 27, 2020)

Wasn't there a same scandal some years back with Avast handling data


----------



## Deleted member 158293 (Jan 27, 2020)

Countryside said:


> Wasn't there a same scandal some years back with Avast handling data



Yup, this really shouldn't be a surprise...


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jan 27, 2020)

Bill_Bright said:


> For users of the free version of Avast, I guess this the developer's scam... err... method to coerce... err to create incentive for users to pay for one of their Avast Premium or Ultimate versions. I might suggest considering a different anti-malware program altogether.


After a dozen years on one PC or another I’ve let Avast go and our whole house is now on Bitdefender Internet Security.


----------



## Deleted member 193706 (Jan 27, 2020)

About 10 years ago, Avast used to the best free AV IMO though it has since gone downhill, I noticed it when it started to happen and swiftly got rid of it, the same is true for ZoneAlarm firewall, used to be one of the free firewalls out there for many years and then they just turned it to crap, cest la vie


----------



## cookiemonster (Jan 27, 2020)

What about Avast internet security bought version is that okay.


----------



## Deleted member 193706 (Jan 27, 2020)

cookiemonster said:


> What about Avast internet security bought version is that okay.


Why would you trust it considering this, is it OK to screw over free users as long as you don't pull the same crap with paid ones? Not exactly a sound business model imo


----------



## GoldenX (Jan 27, 2020)

More reason to just use Windows Defender and Common Sense™ .


----------



## Sashleycat (Jan 27, 2020)

I use Windows Defender for my main systems, but I use Kaspersky 2020 on my mum's PC for the online banking virtualisation protecting and link filter. Never really used free AV except Windows. This is really bad, how can they do this? it goes against the ethos of "Cyber security company", no?

this will hurt their reputation and for good. Unless this was made absolutely clear in the TOS, so that users had the option to go "yeah... Nope".

Question: Does this affect the mobile/android version, because my Huawei P20 has some Avast-provided security thing built in?


----------



## freeagent (Jan 28, 2020)

Looks like the internet is still most definitely the wild west for some companies. A lot of people need to go to jail. Not just over this, but in general


----------



## Gmr_Chick (Jan 28, 2020)

Bill_Bright said:


> Wow, this is really sad,
> ​
> 
> 
> ...



Well...er...ain't this a bitch. I've been using the free version of Avast for several years now. I put it on my mom's PC about a year ago as well... I guess I'll be uninstalling it from both PC's now and getting something else. 

@rtwjunkie - you mentioned you use Bitdefender Internet Security now. How's your experience been with it?


----------



## robot zombie (Jan 28, 2020)

The last time I had Avast installed was on my mother's computer... for the first 6 months or so it was okay, but at some point it started tossing up so many BS nags like "your computer has 12697 junk files, free 12.6gb of space now." I had to get rid of it. I know because she would text me a picture every time one would come up. All day long, it tries to sell you on this snake oil crap and it's really kinda pitiful, because it's the kind of stuff an uninformed user would see and go right for, not realizing they're kind of getting played. I've seen malware that was less intrusive to the user experience.

That alone kind of makes me not trust them. Everyone's gotta make their money, but when my AV is begging for it so desperately, trying to sell these unrelated services, I get wary. They all do it to some extent, but for some reason it would just not let up on my mother's machine... just full force all of the time trying to convince her of the same nonsense problems all of those "Fix your PC NOW" scams try to peddle.


----------



## freeagent (Jan 28, 2020)

I was surprised to see bitdefender still around, they were awesome back in the day, 2002 or so. I see Norton is still around, last time I used them they were a huge pile of shit. I would imagine some things don't change. These days I just float at the top and mind my business mostly. I just use the standard stuff on win 10 and my router


----------



## Gmr_Chick (Jan 28, 2020)

robot zombie said:


> *The last time I had Avast installed was on my mother's computer... for the first 6 months or so it was okay, but at some point it started tossing up so many BS nags like "your computer has 12697 junk files, free 12.6gb of space now." I had to get rid of it.*



I can confirm this is true, because it does (or did, rather. I immediately uninstalled it after reading this thread) that to me at LEAST twice a day -- this pop up will claim I have X GBs worth of "junk" X number of registry errors, X number of "performance issues" etc, and then if clicked on, it'll lead you to their subscription page and try to sucker you in to paying for their "Pro" package.


----------



## johnny-r (Jan 28, 2020)

I have not use Avast the past 10 years or so and this is bad news...stay away


----------



## Chomiq (Jan 28, 2020)

No surprise here, if it's free most often you (or your data) are the product.


----------



## enxo218 (Jan 28, 2020)

people noticed how much money Google makes selling user data on minimally functional freeware and an unregulated market practice so they all copied it


----------



## Countryside (Jan 28, 2020)

Windows defender is a decent free AV if you can call it free.


----------



## biffzinker (Jan 28, 2020)

Countryside said:


> Windows defender is a decent free AV if you can call it free.


It's alright for bundled with Windows 10. You might consider having a backup scanner/malware remover on hand.

My parent's did something to infect their PC with a trojan, and some other search redirect crap in the ProgramData directory. Defender caught the first part but missed the rest with a full scan. Emisoft emergency scanner picked up the rest.


----------



## Countryside (Jan 28, 2020)

biffzinker said:


> It's alright for bundled with Windows 10. You might consider having a backup scanner/malware remover on hand.
> 
> My parent's did something to infect their PC with a trojan, and some other search redirect crap in the ProgramData directory. Defender caught the first part but missed the rest with a full scan. Emisoft emergency scanner picked up the rest.



Indeed and i have more than one backup scanner, three to be exact


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 28, 2020)

yakk said:


> Yup, this really shouldn't be a surprise...


It really isn't. Avast's business model has to account for their free versions somehow. They're not like Comodo, Avira or others who offset the costs of their free versions with their premium and business products.



Gmr_Chick said:


> Well...er...ain't this a bitch. I've been using the free version of Avast for several years now. I put it on my mom's PC about a year ago as well... I guess I'll be uninstalling it from both PC's now and getting something else.


You may wish to consider the above mentioned Comodo or Avira. Both have been around for more than a decade, perform at top-tier levels and neither harvest peoples personal data for later sale.








						Comodo Internet Security | Best Internet Security Suite for Windows
					

Comodo Internet Security is a multi layered security suite, refrains hackers from creeping into personal or business data. Get 360° protection suite now!



					antivirus.comodo.com
				



You can download the premium trial and after 30days it reverts to the free version. Of you can buy it, it's worth the money.









						Download Security Software for Windows, Mac, Android & iOS | Avira Antivirus
					

Discover a range of award-winning security, privacy & performance tools for all devices • Antivirus • VPN • System Speedup • Mobile & more. Download now




					www.avira.com


----------



## Space Lynx (Jan 28, 2020)

enxo218 said:


> people noticed how much money Google makes selling user data on minimally functional freeware and an unregulated market practice so they all copied it



yeah basically every company is doing this, not sure why everyone feels the need to call out Avast for it. hell, even playing games collects and sells your data a lot of times now. I know Civ VI did until they removed it in a later patch.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 28, 2020)

lynx29 said:


> yeah basically every company is doing this


Not true.


lynx29 said:


> not sure why everyone feels the need to call out Avast for it.


Because they are selling directly identifiable human data. That's the difference.


----------



## Melvis (Jan 28, 2020)

So its as good as Windows 10 but with better protection against viruses  

Ive moved from Avast Free to Kaspersky Free on all my Machines

So I guess this also means AVG is the same since they are now owned by Avast?


----------



## Voluman (Jan 28, 2020)

Melvis said:


> So I guess this also means AVG is the same since they are now owned by Avast?


Did you read the Terms os Service?...


----------



## SomeOne99h (Jan 28, 2020)

Melvis said:


> So I guess this also means AVG is the same since they are now owned by Avast?


I think you mixed this. Avast is owned now by AVG. So we also should avoid AVG.
*EDIT:* You are actually right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avast


----------



## Splinterdog (Jan 28, 2020)

Windows Defender does the job perfectly well, but is disabled if other AVs, such as Avast are installed.
On all new Windows installs for clients, I always recommend sticking with Windows Defender, but many of them install multiple AVs and many times without realising it, such as McAfee which comes bundled with Flash, not to mention bogging down the entire system on low-end machines.


----------



## silentbogo (Jan 28, 2020)

Stopped using avast personally about 5 years ago, and started purposefully cleaning up customer PCs of this crap 3 years ago, when it became worse than adware/spywre that it meant to protect from.
Resource usage became unreasonable, ads and nagging became more and more frequent, performance and actual proper detection became abysmal, while false-positives became more and more frequent (to the point of crashing my cousin's laptop or my PC every time we tried to compile something in C/C++ which involved memory operations or syscalls).
And, of course, their latest "Avast browser" and VPN service caused me tons of headaches in the workshop. Mostly customers would bring their devices saying "can't use internet".

KAV is still under sanctions in my country, to the point where it's not even possible to install it if you have a regular online installer, and on most networks it can't even update. After upgrading my SSD, I've decided to stick with the good-ole Defender for the time being. 

Now that this thing popped up, I should probably double-check if I forgot to remove my account.


----------



## bug (Jan 28, 2020)

Not trying to defend Avast or anything, but did anyone notice this data collection is opt-in? Apparently only the usage of the data after submission wasn't properly disclosed.


----------



## micropage7 (Jan 28, 2020)

I have 2 run on avast free, if so i'll move


----------



## Chomiq (Jan 28, 2020)

bug said:


> Not trying to defend Avast or anything, but did anyone notice this data collection is opt-in? Apparently only the usage of the data after submission wasn't properly disclosed.


Now it is, it wasn't before.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jan 28, 2020)

yakk said:


> Yup, this really shouldn't be a surprise...



This. We should know by now that the 'free' sticker has that same hidden meaning everywhere. Data = money and ownership of data still isn't handled properly. My data still isn't 'mine'.

And this ladies and gents is why we need things like GDPR. And a much stronger version of it too.

If we get ownership of data straight and handle any theft of it as actual personal robbery, its a new internet bubble and we can see a quick demise of Google and all those other tech companies that have grown far too powerful. This is their wildcard and they keep abusing it, ever further on a daily basis. And with every breach, our freedom gets reduced, believe it or not. The rabbit hole is already far too deep and the majority has no idea. Its already bigger than themselves, too.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jan 28, 2020)

GoldenX said:


> More reason to just use Windows Defender and Common Sense™ .



Where can I purchase this product called Common Sense? It seems many people need it these days.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jan 28, 2020)

lynx29 said:


> yeah basically every company is doing this, not sure why everyone feels the need to call out Avast for it. hell, even playing games collects and sells your data a lot of times now. I know Civ VI did until they removed it in a later patch.



Anonimized data is not the same thing as identifiable. The latter is in fact illegal in many countries and falls under GDPR.



the54thvoid said:


> Where can I purchase this product called Common Sense? It seems many people need it these days.



Its on the top shelf right next to 'Sanity' and 'Awareness', not to be confused with the box of 'Fact Checkers'.



silentbogo said:


> Stopped using avast personally about 5 years ago, and started purposefully cleaning up customer PCs of this crap 3 years ago, when it became worse than adware/spywre that it meant to protect from.
> Resource usage became unreasonable, ads and nagging became more and more frequent, performance and actual proper detection became abysmal, while false-positives became more and more frequent (to the point of crashing my cousin's laptop or my PC every time we tried to compile something in C/C++ which involved memory operations or syscalls).
> And, of course, their latest "Avast browser" and VPN service caused me tons of headaches in the workshop. Mostly customers would bring their devices saying "can't use internet".
> 
> ...



Yeah I never quite understood why people liked Avast. It was always a bulky piece of crap... desperately trying to sell you a sub along the way with the idea you needed more protection in some way. Maybe because most other free suites do it too? Ahwell


----------



## Melvis (Jan 28, 2020)

Voluman said:


> Did you read the Terms os Service?...



Like 99.9% of people no lol



SomeOne99h said:


> I think you mixed this. Avast is owned now by AVG. So we also should avoid AVG.
> *EDIT:* You are actually right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avast



Yeah I thought so  all good. I found AVG to be better once they took over but now....hmmmmm shame


----------



## Joss (Jan 28, 2020)

When you install Avast you can chose custom install and uncheck all the crapware except the main shields (file, behaviour, web, mail).
If this (and the opt-out) is enough to avoid data collection I'm not sure.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 28, 2020)

> Avast collects data from users that *opt-in*



Another mountain out of a mole hill. They aren't spying on you if you choose to give them the data.

And they aren't exactly hiding the Opt-In deep in the ToS, when you install Avast this huge window comes up to have you opt-in to the data collection:




I knew they were collection data and didn't agree to it right away. If you didn't read that and just hit agree, that's on you. This isn't a super long ToS that no one reads, it's a dedicated window with a small amount of text.  There is no excuse for not reading it.


----------



## matthewmatics (Jan 28, 2020)

I imagine Ccleaner and adblock also do this. 

I always just assumed they do....nothing is free!


----------



## Countryside (Jan 28, 2020)

It is always a good idea to read what you are accepting when you install software and also to check install options.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jan 28, 2020)

newtekie1 said:


> Another mountain out of a mole hill. They aren't spying on you if you choose to give them the data.
> 
> And they aren't exactly hiding the Opt-In deep in the ToS, when you install Avast this huge window comes up to have you opt-in to the data collection:
> View attachment 143478
> ...



Apparently this is a new message and wasn't always there, so until they started using that they were in violation.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 28, 2020)

Vayra86 said:


> Apparently this is a new message and wasn't always there, so until they started using that they were in violation.



That message has been there for a long while now, AFAIK it has been there since they started collecting data, it was always Opt-In.  That's why out of their almost 500 Million users, they only have data from about 100 Million.

I haven't seen anything showing they collected data before that message was there.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jan 28, 2020)

Gmr_Chick said:


> you mentioned you use Bitdefender Internet Security now. How's your experience been with it?


Very good! It isn’t intrusive and yet is also very alert to possibly infectious things. 


freeagent said:


> I was surprised to see bitdefender still around, they were awesome back in the day, 2002 or so.


You really shouldn’t be surprised. They have consistently placed 1st or second in nearly every review roundup for the last dozen years or so. 


lexluthermiester said:


> They're not like Comodo, Avira or others who offset the costs of their free versions with their premium and business products.


Actually, Avast does offset the free with their consumer premium versions, business paid versions and server protection. They just decided to unethically take the extra step on the free models of selling information.


----------



## dirtyferret (Jan 28, 2020)

Gmr_Chick said:


> @rtwjunkie - you mentioned you use Bitdefender Internet Security now. How's your experience been with it?



Can't speak for rtwjunkie but I switched from Avast/AVG on my PCs/laptops to Bitdefender Free around 2010 and it ran great with little to no annoying pop ups or ads.  It will ask to scan email attachments when you download them which is fine.  Then at times I would see it run in the background and be a resource hog for no apparent reason raising HDD use to 100% (no background scans or downloads at the time).  I would have to manually shut it down and had this problem occur on three separate PCs. So I just went with Windows Defender/Malwarebytes free combo on my PCs/laptops and have yet to have any issues with zero annoyance from the antivirus.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jan 28, 2020)

Vayra86 said:


> Anonimized data is not the same thing as identifiable. The latter is in fact illegal in many countries and falls under GDPR.



Yeah and when they get caught they get a slap on the wrist, so they continue to do it. lol Not sure what your point is.  Nothing even happened to Civilization 6 company when they got caught red handed stealing peoples data. lol Nothing will happen to Avast either.


----------



## Voluman (Jan 28, 2020)

Melvis said:


> Like 99.9% of people no lol


But it is in there, they collect datas and selling them to 3rd party. Well in my case it was there, so i can decide what next.
Well, people should when using 'free' stuff  (well even paid one too, but), especially in todays environment like google, faceboook, etc. As someone write above in free stuff you pay with your personality (infos, datas, interests, habits, etc.)  You have to aware of this, and than choose to use / not use that service/program.
Some company telling it, directly, some not, some are switching face on the fly.

On the pc from i write this, is with Avira. There was some hidden update/upgrade, because it has a smart scan, optimizen something and some realtime system speedup which i didnt select or install anytime and it wasnt here like a few days ago. There have new functions / options enabled which i didnt want or allow. But it is there and seems active, against my will.


----------



## Gmr_Chick (Jan 29, 2020)

lexluthermiester said:


> It really isn't. Avast's business model has to account for their free versions somehow. They're not like Comodo, Avira or others who offset the costs of their free versions with their premium and business products.
> 
> 
> You may wish to consider the above mentioned Comodo or Avira. Both have been around for more than a decade, perform at top-tier levels and neither harvest peoples personal data for later sale.
> ...



Thank you for these alternatives. I'll check 'em out right away


----------



## matthewmatics (Jan 29, 2020)

May I ask why I any of you feel the need to run any of these?


----------



## Gmr_Chick (Jan 29, 2020)

^ Well, that's kind like asking why do people get vaccines -- because they don't want to get infected with some funky-ass, deadly disease. Same goes for computers. Unless there's some new anti-anti virus trend I'm not aware about, where people chose not to protect their computers from ransomware, trojans and whatever else is lurking out on the interwebs. A tech version of the dreaded "anti-vax mom" if you will


----------



## johnny-r (Jan 29, 2020)

yes and no, with todays O/S's we have build-in protection, with regular updates you can get away without 3rd party Internet security but then it depends what you actually do on the internet. for example do you use a VPN or encrypt your data etc.


----------



## johnspack (Jan 29, 2020)

Sorry,  I was going to say something smartarse about how linux doesn't have to worry about virii ect,  so it doesn't even have an av program....
but using a VPN under any os is a good idea.  Make sure your online data is encrypted and routed through protected networks.  Make sure you
properly password your os and all accounts,  and change passwords for sensitive accounts on a regular basis.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jan 29, 2020)

lynx29 said:


> Yeah and when they get caught they get a slap on the wrist, so they continue to do it. lol Not sure what your point is.  Nothing even happened to Civilization 6 company when they got caught red handed stealing peoples data. lol Nothing will happen to Avast either.



Sorry?





						GDPR fines and notices - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




It took one stab at DDG to figure this out. Note the 50M Google fine among them. And a few others. Or the 183M for British Airways. I don't know about you, but those aren't the sort of fines you happily put aside as irrelevant. Although in the case of Google perhaps they do. But it still is a warning sign - do not trespass. And the result has actually been changes in policy, too, look at how Google now offers you a dashboard with all sorts of levers to remove tracking and clear advertising IDs.

You really oughta stop the trigger happy uninformed statements... or at least verify them.

Rome wasn't built overnight and its the US that is really the big bad guy here, with its total lack of regulation or even the completely absent public discussion on data ownership. Instead, the US is happy to axe net neutrality to please their already fat ISPs and other domestic companies. Commerce over everything, screw social cohesion and all other things that make us who we are.

Its about time you guys started a GDPR initiative too, really. It will increase its weight ten-fold and make it too big to ignore. Because that is the real cause these tech companies get away with everything: they operate internationally and countries can only change domestic policy.


----------



## Countryside (Jan 29, 2020)

Bitdefender free is also a good option.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jan 29, 2020)

Vayra86 said:


> Sorry?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not sure what your point is, 50m fine on a 1 trillion valued company is nothing, slap on the wrist as I stated before... really not even a slap, little annoying fly that lands on your hand and you swat away at times, lol.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jan 29, 2020)

lynx29 said:


> Not sure what your point is, 50m fine on a 1 trillion valued company is nothing, slap on the wrist as I stated before... really not even a slap, little annoying fly that lands on your hand and you swat away at times, lol.



Do take the time to consider the rest of the post. The point is pretty clear, I think, unless you don't _want _to read it.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jan 29, 2020)

Vayra86 said:


> Do take the time to consider the rest of the post. The point is pretty clear, I think, unless you don't _want _to read it.











						Google and YouTube Will Pay Record $170 Million for Alleged Violations of Children’s Privacy Law
					

The settlement requires Google and YouTube to pay $136 million to the FTC and $34 million to New York for allegedly violating the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) Rule. The $136 million penalty is by far the largest amount the FTC has ever obtained in a COPPA case since Congress...




					www.ftc.gov
				




170 million here, a long long time after the first 50m fine. lol

Probably more to come in future years, its just a slap, not a warning sign like you seem to claim.

and I agree with you America needs its own form of GDPR.  but congress is corrupt and bribed and has been since the 1970's then it was sugar and corn syrup companies, now its big telecom. so eh good luck ever fixing it.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Jan 29, 2020)

Gmr_Chick said:


> ^ Well, that's kind like asking why do people get vaccines -- because they don't want to get infected with some funky-ass, deadly disease.


Good analogy but also, people use these programs (and get, or should get vaccines) so they don't become carriers and spread these viruses and diseases to others. And that leads me to this:


johnspack said:


> Sorry, I was going to say something smartarse about how linux doesn't have to worry about virii ect


Its a good thing you didn't say anything   because it would be naive and simply incorrect to suggest Linux users don't have to worry about malware infestations. While there have been no known widespread, pandemic-type infections like those seen with Windows, Linux malware is definitely out there. And attacks on Linux servers and systems, which are then used to attack other Linux and Windows systems, are growing every day. 

North Korea state-backed hackers, the Lazarus Group, target Linux with new Remote Access Trojan (RAT) Malware. So yeah, good thing you didn't mention that because you would look pretty silly!


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Jan 29, 2020)

I find it ironic that AV suites with "built-in" firewalls do not block themselves from contacting the Home Office. AVG, when it first came out, was the best AV software around, it was small and very efficient. When it started adding features is when it completely changed and became bloatware like 90% of the AV software, all of which collect varying amounts of data, none of which is 100% directly related to the functionality of installed purpose.

I can say with confidence that no one should put 100% faith and trust into any single piece of protection software, unless you wrote it yourself.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Jan 29, 2020)

DeathtoGnomes said:


> When it started adding features is when it completely changed and became bloatware like 90% of the AV software


This is a common pattern. When ZoneAlarm firewall first came out way back in early XP days, it was, by far, the best FW around. They added anti-spyware, and more extra features nobody asked for that made it a bloated ad campaign to buy more CheckPoint products. That's exactly why I dumped ZoneAlarm and AVG too. 

Once again, its the marketing weenies. "Oh look! We have a great product! Let's bog it down with more features and suffocate it to death!"  



DeathtoGnomes said:


> I can say with confidence that no one should put 100% faith and trust into any single piece of protection software, unless you wrote it yourself.


Even if I was a great programmer and true security expert, I think it would be pretty arrogant, and a mistake, to trust even my own single piece of protection.


----------



## Joss (Jan 29, 2020)

An on-demand scanner like HitmanPro is a good alternative to a real-time traditional AV. 
Just schedule a daily scan and you also benefit from context menu scan.


----------



## ador250 (Jan 29, 2020)

If u r a regular home user then a good adblock, a security dns something like quad9 or adguard and some common sense is more than enuf. I haven't use antivirus since 2014 and I'm fine, they r nothing but performance eater of ur PC. Just know ur internet and u will be fine.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 29, 2020)

ador250 said:


> If u r a regular home user then a good adblock, a security dns something like quad9 or adguard and some common sense is more than enuf. I haven't use antivirus since 2014 and I'm fine, they r nothing but performance eater of ur PC. Just know ur internet and u will be fine.



Tell that to all the people I hear from that got hit with ransomware that came through their email.  An adblock, secure DNS is not going to stop these.  And just saying "good common sense" doesn't help either, because what is common sense to us isn't common sense to a lot of people.  I mean, i can spot a scam email from a mile away, but I get calls from people all the time that fall for them.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 29, 2020)

DeathtoGnomes said:


> unless you wrote it yourself.


Or unless it proves to have been reliable consistently for more than a decade.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Jan 29, 2020)

newtekie1 said:


> Tell that to all the people I hear from that got hit with ransomware that came through their email.  An adblock, secure DNS is not going to stop these.  And just saying "good common sense" doesn't help either, because what is common sense to use isn't common sense to a lot of people.  I mean, i can spot a scam email from a mile away, but I get call from people all the time that fall for them.


common sense based what we know against the mental database of what we're taught vs what we're told is right that really isnt...I digress.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Jan 29, 2020)

ador250 said:


> If u r a regular home user then a good adblock, a security dns something like quad9 or adguard and some common sense is more than enuf. I haven't use antivirus since 2014 and I'm fine, they r nothing but performance eater of ur PC. Just know ur internet and u will be fine.


Not even. This tactic depends on simple good luck. And that always - eventually - runs out. 


Joss said:


> An on-demand scanner like HitmanPro is a good alternative to a real-time traditional AV.
> Just schedule a daily scan and you also benefit from context menu scan.


I don't agree. There's no real good alternative to a decent real-time scanner that is constantly looking for suspicious behavior in memory, and constantly scanning all incoming data (including downloads, attachments, and temp internet files). On-demand scanners are great for 2nd opinions after-the-fact, but not as real-time alternatives. 


lexluthermiester said:


> Or unless it proves to have been reliable consistently for more than a decade.


LOL Not even here either. First, 10 years is just an arbitrary number. Second, operating systems are constantly changing which introduces the potential for new vulnerabilities. Third, badguys are constantly learning and becoming more and more sophisticated and introducing new malicious code every day.  Forth, not even the best, most conscientious good guys are infallible nor do they remain at the top of their game forever - not to mention personnel and even companies come and go and/or change. 

Certainly, a company that has consistently given you good service for a long time instills confidence it will continue to do so. But that is no guarantee they will won't fail to protect you tomorrow.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Jan 29, 2020)

lexluthermiester said:


> Or unless it proves to have been reliable consistently for more than a decade.


I disagree with that, AVG/Avast for example was reliable for a long time.


----------



## matthewmatics (Jan 29, 2020)

I am literally  trying super hard to get a virus today. I know we have test virus I could dload on purpose but I am trying to get one off of surfing.

It just isn't happening.

As usual the worst I am seeing requires nothing more than control, alt, delete, kill it......or just crash my machine and reboot.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 29, 2020)

DeathtoGnomes said:


> I disagree with that, AVG/Avast for example was reliable for a long time.


No, they weren't. The quality of both AVG and Avast has been consistently unreliable year to year for more than a decade. Your example is not valid.


----------



## moproblems99 (Jan 29, 2020)

lexluthermiester said:


> No, they weren't. The quality of both AVG and Avast has been consistently unreliable year to year for more than a decade. Your example is not valid.



Except they were good for a decade before they were bad for decade.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Jan 30, 2020)

lexluthermiester said:


> No, they weren't. The quality of both AVG and Avast has been consistently unreliable year to year for more than a decade. Your example is not valid.





moproblems99 said:


> *Except they were good for a decade before they were bad for decade*.


This.^ 

AVG been around since win95? damn I forget. I didnt start vetting it until win98 at that time it only used around 44mb of system resources. When it was strictly anti-virus protection.


----------



## lmille16 (Jan 30, 2020)

lexluthermiester said:


> No, they weren't. The quality of both AVG and Avast has been consistently unreliable year to year for more than a decade. Your example is not valid.



Calling his no proof claim invalid while also making a no proof claim is also invalid.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 30, 2020)

lmille16 said:


> Calling his no proof claim invalid while also making a no proof claim is also invalid.


Except that the information can be found easily, if one goes to look... Are you saying that you don't know where to look?



DeathtoGnomes said:


> AVG been around since win95? damn I forget. I didnt start vetting it until win98 at that time it only used around 44mb of system resources. When it was strictly anti-virus protection.


That is way too long ago for there to be reliable records, but IIRC, back then AVG was one of the better A/V programs. According to Wikipedia, Grisoft started in 1992 in Europe and branched out in the late 90's, which sounds about right.


----------



## lmille16 (Jan 30, 2020)

lexluthermiester said:


> Except that the information can be found easily, if one goes to look... Are you saying that you don't know where to look?



If this is your response to what I said then you largely missed the point. People on these forums are constantly calling others out for making claims with no proof to back them up. How about we all start putting our money where our mouth is?

More to the point AV Comparatives and AV Test Institute tend to disagree with the reliability over the last 5 or so years.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 30, 2020)

lmille16 said:


> over the last 5 or so years.


I did say more than a decade. And you need to look at the detailed performance data on each of those sites. Paints a clear picture, even for just the past 5 years..


----------



## moproblems99 (Jan 30, 2020)

lmille16 said:


> If this is your response to what I said then you largely missed the point. People on these forums are constantly calling others out for making claims with no proof to back them up. How about we all start putting our money where our mouth is?



You're talking to empty air on this one.  Might as well move on.


----------



## Solaris17 (Jan 30, 2020)

Back in topic folks.


----------



## biffzinker (Jan 31, 2020)

"Avast axes marketing subsidiary following public outcry about selling user data to third parties"


			
				Techspot said:
			
		

> Earlier this week, news broke that Avast was using its free antivirus to harvest and sell users' (supposedly anonymized) browsing data to advertisers through a subsidiary called Jumpshot. The revelations came as a result of a joint investigation from Vice and PCMag, who also found the results of the data mining was then sold to companies like Microsoft, Google, and Pepsi.





> Avast acquired Jumpshot in 2013 to integrate the latter's cleanup tool into its software suite. Fast forward to 2015 and Jumpshot's new focus was data analytics and market intelligence. And while nothing is inherently wrong with trying to gauge how consumers spend their money, the problem was the firm did so without informing them, nor a proper mechanism to fully anonymize the data.
> 
> There are no less than 400 million people around the world using Avast products, and Jumpshot essentially put their online identity at risk.











						Avast axes marketing subsidiary following public outcry about selling user data to third parties
					

Earlier this week, news broke that Avast was using its free antivirus to harvest and sell users' (supposedly anonymized) browsing data to advertisers through a subsidiary called...




					www.techspot.com
				




Only when caught do they shutdown the data mining that took place before all heck broke lose.


----------



## Chomiq (Jan 31, 2020)

DeathtoGnomes said:


> I disagree with that, AVG/Avast for example was reliable for a long time.


Was using Avast before. I remember it failing do detect some malware hidden in the browser cache files that was picked up by Mks_vir online scanner. That was back in the W7 age, before I switched to 8.1 and started using Defender.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 31, 2020)

biffzinker said:


> Only when caught do they shutdown the data mining that took place before all heck broke lose.



Or, you can say they listened to their customers and adapted their product to what their customers wanted.  

You can't really say they got caught doing anything when they are popping up a huge screen telling people what they are doing.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 31, 2020)

newtekie1 said:


> You can't really say they got caught doing anything when they are popping up a huge screen telling people what they are doing.


This is true, however the problem was not that they made a statement, but what they didn't say about how much, very personal, information they were marketing.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Jan 31, 2020)

From the TechSpot article, Avast CEO Vlcek says...





> ...he's spent the last seven months reviewing every aspect of Avast's business, and at some unspecified point concluded that data collection was not in line with "our privacy priorities as a company in 2020 and beyond."


"_At some unspecified point_"? Perhaps, maybe, that "_unspecified point_" was about a week ago, after PCMag announced this scheme and reported they could no longer recommend Avast Free? Or was it after Mozilla removed Avast and AVG Firefox Extensions? Or maybe it was after Avast stocks plummeted from  546.71 on Monday to a low of 388.25 on Thursday, a drop of ~29 percent?

I mean come on? His reversal had nothing to do with "their" privacy policies, and certainly nothing to do with their customer's privacy. It had everything to do with their profits.

While I am constantly reminding folks on this site and everywhere else, there is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between "privacy" and "security", I have never suggested they were not closely associated with each other - at least in terms of protecting us from either being violated. The BIG issue here, IMO, is that Avast is a big and popular "cybersecurity company". As such, we hold them to a higher standard and "trust" that, as a security company, they would have "our" best interest at heart. They violated that trust.

Why should we worry about Avast getting hacked by bad guys when Avast is collecting and selling customer's information on their own?


----------



## robot zombie (Jan 31, 2020)

newtekie1 said:


> Or, you can say they listened to their customers and adapted their product to what their customers wanted.
> 
> You can't really say they got caught doing anything when they are popping up a huge screen telling people what they are doing.


Sure you can. They specifically say in the data collection prompt that none of the info is personally identifiable. Most people probably don't care about the anonymized data. Those same people probably wouldn't be okay having that same info directly tied to them... if they were told that's how it was.

It's not unlike when Google pulled that stunt with the non working opt out slider. You said no to the data collection and they did it anyway. Nobody said yes to Avast scooping up thier personal information. To me that's a pretty big ethical oopsie. They need to be held accountable. It's such a slippery slope. Give em an inch and they take a mile.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Jan 31, 2020)

newtekie1 said:


> You can't really say they got caught doing anything when they are popping up a huge screen telling people what they are doing.


Except they didn't say what they are were doing! There is a HUGE difference between "sharing" our data with their own,  "_...subsidiary, Jumpstart for the purpose of enabling Jumpstart to analyze markets and business trends and gather other valuable insights_" (which is what that "huge screen" says they will do with the data) and "selling" it outside their company to The Home Depot, Pepsi and others!

The pop-up suggests it will stay inside the company for analytical purposes only. It says nothing about selling it to outside companies. BIG DIFFERENCE!


----------



## xtreemchaos (Jan 31, 2020)

yes its a dog eat dog world and thay make it easy to get on the menu, if the truth known there all at it, I hate to say it but we need rules that fav us, fat chance we will ever get any.


----------



## amit_talkin (Jan 31, 2020)

Been using Comodo Internet Security free version for over a decade now. No issues so far. It has the best firewall You can have among the others.
Not to mention virtual kiosk and sandbox are so much handy while executing suspicious keygen or patch files.


----------



## moproblems99 (Jan 31, 2020)

amit_talkin said:


> Been using Comodo Internet Security free version for over a decade now. No issues so far. It has the best firewall You can have among the others.
> Not to mention virtual kiosk and sandbox are so much handy while executing suspicious keygen or patch files.



I lost trust in Comodo after they lost control of their CA.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Feb 1, 2020)

biffzinker said:


> "Avast axes marketing subsidiary following public outcry about selling user data to third parties"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This problem here is that AVAST will still be collecting the exact same data, the only part they shutdown is extracting that data from their own servers. They have already lied and abused trust to collect this data, whats to say they dont save it and sell it at a later date. It should be deleted and their software updated to limit what data is collected and inform the consumer exactly whats being collected unlike m$ that gives you a vague generality.

When software has built in telemetry track unlike, for example, Nvidia, that has a separate telemetry data collector, which can be block easily, but the built in data collection cannot unless you block the whole program.  That is where an IP blocker would come in handy.

TBH, I think they should bring back the option to opt-out of all data collection by law by removed privacy clauses from EULAs.  I know it wont happen but as the collective awareness on privacy grows, eventually there wont be such crap privacy policies that remove consumer privacy rights.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 1, 2020)

lexluthermiester said:


> This is true, however the problem was not that they made a statement, but what they didn't say about how much, very personal, information they were marketing.



It doesn't matter, if you are worried about how much and what kind of data they are collecting, don't opt-in.  That's the beauty of making it an opt-in option instead of an opt-out.



robot zombie said:


> Sure you can. They specifically say in the data collection prompt that none of the info is personally identifiable. Most people probably don't care about the anonymized data. Those same people probably wouldn't be okay having that same info directly tied to them... if they were told that's how it was.



Except that isn't how it is. There is nothing that says Avast's de-identification failed.  The PC Mag articles suggests that de-identification _can_ fail, but not that it did in this instance.  



robot zombie said:


> It's not unlike when Google pulled that stunt with the non working opt out slider. You said no to the data collection and they did it anyway. Nobody said yes to Avast scooping up thier personal information. To me that's a pretty big ethical oopsie. They need to be held accountable. It's such a slippery slope. Give em an inch and they take a mile.



Apparently 100 million people said yes to Avast collection their data, and no personal information was collected.  Again, a theory on how de-identification can fail is not proof that it did or even that that theory is viable in the real world.



Bill_Bright said:


> Except they didn't say what they are were doing! There is a HUGE difference between "sharing" our data with their own,  "_...subsidiary, Jumpstart for the purpose of enabling Jumpstart to analyze markets and business trends and gather other valuable insights_" (which is what that "huge screen" says they will do with the data) and "selling" it outside their company to The Home Depot, Pepsi and others!
> 
> The pop-up suggests it will stay inside the company for analytical purposes only. It says nothing about selling it to outside companies. BIG DIFFERENCE!



They said exactly what they were doing in a huge f'n popup window!  It even says "jumpstart may share aggregated insights with it's customers".  That is exactly what they are doing.  It is also why the whole "de-identification can fail" argument also doesn't work.  Jumpstart isn't giving every piece of data they collect to it's customers.  AFAIK, they aren't even giving the device ID's to their customers.  They are aggregating the data and giving statistics to their customers, not the directly collected data.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Feb 1, 2020)

newtekie1 said:


> don't opt-in


AFAIK the only way to not opt-in by not agreeing to the EULA, so if the opt-out option ( assuming there is one) you still have to agree to the EULA to get to that check box.



newtekie1 said:


> Apparently 100 million people said yes to Avast collection their data, and no personal information was collected


apparantly there is a rub, Avast DID collect personal data.


----------



## moproblems99 (Feb 1, 2020)

newtekie1 said:


> They are aggregating the data and giving statistics to their customers, not the directly collected data.



Hey, I have stock in tin foil.  You're not helping my profits.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 1, 2020)

DeathtoGnomes said:


> AFAIK the only way to not opt-in by not agreeing to the EULA, so if the opt-out option ( assuming there is one) you still have to agree to the EULA to get to that check box.



Have you not been paying attention?  It pops up with a giant window when you install Avast asking if you want to allow them to collect data.  I even posted a screenshot of the giant window earlier in the thread.

No, it is not buried in the EULA agreement of Avast. No, you don't opt-in by agreeing to the EULA of Avast.  Avast presents the option to you clearly, and lets you pick yes or no independent of everything else involved with Avast.



DeathtoGnomes said:


> apparantly there is a rub, Avast DID collect personal data.



No, they didn't. They collected de-identified data.  That's not personal data.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 1, 2020)

newtekie1 said:


> It doesn't matter, if you are worried about how much and what kind of data they are collecting, don't opt-in. That's the beauty of making it an opt-in option instead of an opt-out.


This is where it seems you missed a critical point, whether you opted in or not, they were collecting the data anyway. They made the appearance of giving the user a choice when in fact they were not. They were going behind the back on this one.


----------



## Kissamies (Feb 1, 2020)

Hasn't Avast been "meh" couple years already? I remember using it like 10 years ago or something.


----------



## Gmr_Chick (Feb 1, 2020)

Bill_Bright said:


> Good analogy but also, people use these programs (and get, or should get vaccines) so they don't become carriers and spread these viruses and diseases to others.



Thanks Bill. I thought that comparison made the most sense. Just wanted to let you know I signed up for a free 30 day trial of Bitdefender Total Security the other day and I'm enjoying it so far. So thank you for the recommendation  




newtekie1 said:


> Tell that to all the people I hear from that got hit with ransomware that came through their email.  An adblock, secure DNS is not going to stop these.  And just saying "good common sense" doesn't help either, because what is common sense to us isn't common sense to a lot of people.  I mean, i can spot a scam email from a mile away, but I get calls from people all the time that fall for them.



Truth. Happened to my mom a couple months ago, in fact. One day, I heard her downstairs talking on the phone (she had it on speaker phone) to some Arab dude who was trying to get her to spend $500 bucks to "unlock" her computer after this "ransomware" screen had interrupted her browsing session. I took one look at it, got pissed and snatched the phone from her hand. I chewed the guy out, called him a PoS and hung up. My mom looks at me and goes "why did you do that?" I told her she was being taken advantage of and nearly got suckered into paying this unscrupulous bag of d^*ks half a grand when her computer wasn't even infected by ransomware. These kinds of swine prey on people like my mom who have only very basic knowledge of how to use a PC (how to turn on.turn off, check email/browse the internet, etc.) and that just pisses me right off.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 1, 2020)

lexluthermiester said:


> This is where it seems you missed a critical point, whether you opted in or not, they were collecting the data anyway. They made the appearance of giving the user a choice when in fact they were not. They were going behind the back on this one.



Nothing I read presents any evidence of that.  Care to post where you got that from?


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 1, 2020)

newtekie1 said:


> Nothing I read presents any evidence of that.  Care to post where you got that from?


Sure.








						Avast axes marketing subsidiary following public outcry about selling user data to third parties
					

Earlier this week, news broke that Avast was using its free antivirus to harvest and sell users' (supposedly anonymized) browsing data to advertisers through a subsidiary called...




					www.techspot.com
				





> Avast acquired Jumpshot in 2013 to integrate the latter's cleanup tool into its software suite. Fast forward to 2015 and Jumpshot's new focus was data analytics and market intelligence. And while nothing is inherently wrong with trying to gauge how consumers spend their money, *the problem was the firm did so without informing them, nor a proper mechanism to fully anonymize the data.*


----------



## xtreemchaos (Feb 1, 2020)

lexluthermiester said:


> whether you opted in or not


windows is doing the same, I don't think we can trust any of them, thay all act like a bag of ferrets


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 1, 2020)

xtreemchaos said:


> windows is doing the same, I don't think we can trust any of them, thay all act like a bag of ferrets


Very true. However, with Windows you can disable the offending nonsense. It takes some know-how and effort, but it can be done.


----------



## Deleted member 171912 (Feb 1, 2020)

Free A.. version "functionality" is known for years... 

AV in Windows 10 is all what is needed as AV on Windows. Microsoft AV is in development more than 15 years It was also enterprise AV (Microsoft Forefront, now discontinued family of security software). Microsoft changed name many times, because Microsoft. Now it is part of Windows 10, engine with AV cloud infrastructure around. More than enough for standard users on Internet.

But AV alone is not enough. On Internet is important to use user accounts with as few privileges as possible, regularly update software (BIOS, drivers, OS, software) and backup important data and keep backup on offline disk (USB disk for example). And if you need more security you must use combination of technologies, defense in depth. For example, browse from VM and use snapshots, set advanced settings in firewall, ...

But more than 50% Internet users are mobile users already. Many on mobile only and with all files on "smart" mobile...


----------



## Athlonite (Feb 1, 2020)

lexluthermiester said:


> Very true. However, with Windows you can disable the offending nonsense. It takes some know-how and effort, but it can be done.



he only effort it takes is download O&O Shut up 10 and turn it all off via that ap


----------



## Bill_Bright (Feb 1, 2020)

newtekie1 said:


> It doesn't matter, if you are worried about how much and what kind of data they are collecting, don't opt-in. That's the beauty of making it an opt-in option instead of an opt-out.


I agree 100%. And it is good Avast changed the default so users now have to opt in. But, IMO, especially for a cybersecurity company, that should have been the default from the start - and not after they started getting flack about it. 

I will also say that we, as users, need to be more diligent when installing software AND with notice of Privacy Policy changes come out and we must actually take the time to read what we are getting ourselves into. 

Additionally, I always and I always recommend folks always choose the "custom install" option when installing anything. For one, this option typically lets us choose where to install the program (in a different folder or drive than the defaults, as examples), but often brings up prompts to opt-out of any extras and telemetry sharing.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 1, 2020)

Bill_Bright said:


> I agree 100%. And it is good Avast changed the default so users now have to opt in. But, IMO, especially for a cybersecurity company, that should have been the default from the start - and not after they started getting flack about it.


100% agree. Security companies really need to take their purpose to heart and remember that they exist not just to make money.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 1, 2020)

lexluthermiester said:


> Sure.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No where in there does it even suggest they collected data even when users choose not to.


----------



## matthewmatics (Feb 1, 2020)

Has anyone here talking about all of this even tried to get a virus or spyware? Or are you all just trying NOT to!? LOL. 

They barely even exist these days and for sure need ZERO 3rd party software to deal with them!

I am sure someone here has seen exceptions to this?? Well I hope you have anyway or what exactly are you protecting yourself from!?


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 1, 2020)

newtekie1 said:


> No where in there does it even suggest they collected data even when users choose not to.


Can't help you with that one...


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 1, 2020)

matthewmatics said:


> Has anyone here talking about all of this even tried to get a virus or spyware? Or are you all just trying NOT to!? LOL.
> 
> They barely even exist these days and for sure need ZERO 3rd party software to deal with them!
> 
> I am sure someone here has seen exceptions to this?? Well I hope you have anyway or what exactly are you protecting yourself from!?


You’re doing a great job at trying to convince people there is nothing to fear and protection is not needed. It borders on irresponsible though, since this is a site that thrives on providing sound advice.


----------



## matthewmatics (Feb 1, 2020)

I mean to each their own, right? But I asked a legit question expecting legit answers.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 1, 2020)

matthewmatics said:


> I mean to each their own, right? But I asked a legit question expecting legit answers.


The problem with that is simple, no one wants to put their personal machines at risk. Someone like me has plenty of spare machines but I only do AV/AM/FW tests once a year, and I'm not doing that run of tests again until June.


----------



## matthewmatics (Feb 1, 2020)

I guess I am just a tad shocked that people on a forum such as this think that: a.) there is a risk (for us) and  b.) they need 3rd party software to mitigate it.

I mean I get it that some crazy things can happen if you participate in it....but it really really really takes some serious participation via careless clicking and clacking to even come across anything and those anythings are crazy simple these days. 

I am trying to be proven wrong here. LOL.

Jeesh man I really really think techs should know first hand what it is they are trying not to get!! LOLOL.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Feb 1, 2020)

matthewmatics said:


> I guess I am just a tad shocked that people on a forum such as this think that: a.) there is a risk (for us) and b.) they need 3rd party software to mitigate it.


  That's like thinking you are so much smarter than all other drivers and such a great defensive driver that you don't need insurance. It is bogus, naive thinking.

Are you seriously suggesting you are infallible? 
That you are smarter than all the bad guys out there? 
That you could never be fooled by a cleverly designed, socially engineered fake email or webpage? 
That you are so self-disciplined that you could never, not even once, slip up and accidentally click on something you shouldn't? 
That no legitimate site you visit could ever be hacked and planted with malware?
That an update for one of your trusted programs could never be implanted with malware by a hacker to the developer's site?

I could go on but hopefully you get the point. Most of us on this site are conscientious enough to prevent compromises - when we are paying attention. But I personally am not that focused every second of every minute of every hour I am on line every day. 

Many of us use computers that have other other users - other users that may not be as disciplined as us. Many of us have kids and grandkids with pretty smart (and perhaps nosy) friends that might not be so trustworthy. Many of us have occasional house guests with wide ranges of skill-sets and "_security awareness_" that use our computers or request network access. 

There is some truth to what you are saying - especially these days with a fully updated Windows 10. If you are the only user of your computer and you stick to the legitimate sites, it is difficult to become infected. But difficult does not mean impossible. Having a good anti-malware solution is like having good insurance. You hope you never need it. But if (when!) you do need it, you want it to work.


----------



## matthewmatics (Feb 1, 2020)

No none of those things...I am a idiot.

But every day I try to kill machines and it is very difficult to do! Windows 7 too.

Like I said if you aren't trying then what are you even afraid of? LOL...the boogie man?


----------



## Bill_Bright (Feb 1, 2020)

matthewmatics said:


> then what are you even afraid of? LOL...the boogie man?


It is not about being afraid. As I said above, it is about being "aware" of what "could" happen.


----------



## robot zombie (Feb 1, 2020)

To me, it's generally worth the trade-off. MBAM active and WD running routine scans has no impact on me at all and leaves a few less ways for something I might miss to happen, no matter how likely or unlikely that may be. I may also occasionally run one-time scans with other tools. Just another brick in the wall with a system firewall, router-level protection, and browser protections. After those things comes good practices, which takes a little conscious effort. To me, if you want to run your machine with you having basically full access to everything... as an admin, or 'power-user' it just makes sense to also consider responsibility from multiple angles. None of these things impact my use at all, though. If you can find a protection solution that on your end is basically zero cost, why wouldn't you, as someone who cares about your machines, use it? Yanno? Kind of a "why not?" kind of thing. Though this thread definitely shows the answer to that question, haha. Still... to me the logic follows that if you do know what you're doing, you also know how to implement a multi-point protection system that doesn't hinder you, and that you know how to configure and operate well enough to benefit from. It actually works best when you know what it does and doesn't do for you, and when things actually do fall on you to use caution.

Consider this. A lot of less knowledgeable people may just grab an AV and still compromise themselves in other ways. A more experienced user picks it up as a way of augmenting what they already do on their own. It makes whatever practices you use on top more effective.


----------



## lmille16 (Feb 1, 2020)

matthewmatics said:


> No none of those things...I am a idiot.
> 
> But every day I try to kill machines and it is very difficult to do! Windows 7 too.
> 
> Like I said if you aren't trying then what are you even afraid of? LOL...the boogie man?



You are also coming at this from the perspective of someone that has some good tech sense. Most people on this site know what search sites to click on, know which emails are scams and know which links on web pages are fake. We know not to give general users admin rights or privileges on their accounts.

So to your point, ignore all that. Make the ignorant mistake of allowing all users on a machine to have Admin rights and then give that machine to a horny teenager or grandmama who loves chain emails. You would be amazed.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 1, 2020)

lexluthermiester said:


> Can't help you with that one...



Then why did you make that claim?  I'm still waiting on you to back up your statement that they were collecting user data whether they opted in or out.  if the user chose to not allow Avast to collect their data, then Avast respected that choice.  You claimed they didn't, prove it!


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 1, 2020)

lmille16 said:


> Sure you can help. You posted the link as proof therefore you can provide the quote that backs you up. I know you won't though.


I highlighted in bold the point, but it seemingly doesn't resonate with him or you, so I can't help you any further. Good luck with that.


----------



## lmille16 (Feb 1, 2020)

lexluthermiester said:


> I highlighted in bold the point, but it seemingly doesn't resonate with him or you, so I can't help you any further. Good luck with that.



I will be a civil person and amend my post as to when I initially read your post this morning I did not see the quoted text. I chose to interpret the text in a different way, but to each their own.


----------



## matthewmatics (Feb 1, 2020)

lmille16 said:


> You are also coming at this from the perspective of someone that has some good tech sense. Most people on this site know what search sites to click on, know which emails are scams and know which links on web pages are fake. We know not to give general users admin rights or privileges on their accounts.
> 
> So to your point, ignore all that. Make the ignorant mistake of allowing all users on a machine to have Admin rights and then give that machine to a horny teenager or grandmama who loves chain emails. You would be amazed.



I have hundreds of users on 7 and 10 from teens to 88 years old (just celebrated their 72nd wedding anniversary!!!) all running zero AV. I simply show them control alt delete and how to hold in a power button from  the day I set them up. I am not kidding or exaggerating in any way here.  

I don't see them for months at a time and sometimes even a year or 2 or 3! Then I go visit and do a little bit of checking/cleaning MANUALLY with no 3rd party software. These are facts.

As of now, from what I SEE, the bad stuff of the past (95 thru XP) has disappeared.  

I have seen AV programs BECOME the issue so why on earth would I ever want to see it again.....and PAY for it!? Just no no NO.

I have 1118 custom built machines in NE Ohio and not one of them gets anything more than aggressive pop ups trying to bait them into being fools.....

So I think maybe I am out of touch  ?  so I try super hard to find the worst of the worst and just can't. 

Everything I see is killed with Control alt delete or crashing the unit.

I am trying as we speak!


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 1, 2020)

matthewmatics said:


> I have hundreds of users on 7 and 10 from teens to 88 years old (just celebrated their 72nd wedding anniversary!!!) all running zero AV. I simply show them control alt delete and how to hold in a power button from  the day I set them up. I am not kidding or exaggerating in any way here.
> 
> I don't see them for months at a time and sometimes even a year or 2 or 3! Then I go visit and do a little bit of checking/cleaning MANUALLY with no 3rd party software. These are facts.
> 
> ...


Then stick with your hundreds of clients and stop giving bad advice here.  Even within your group of hundreds, you are basically advising them to go out and have indiscriminate, anonymous and unprotected sex.  One might go years and not catch anything. Then that nice girl/guy next door type that you swear should be safe is the one to infect you.  Your advice is akin to that.  

This is not just a site of tech experts and enthisiasts playing amongst themselves. There is a reputation of good and sound advice, and the expectation that many people can come to TPU and get their concerns or questions answered responsibly and correctly.


----------



## lmille16 (Feb 1, 2020)

matthewmatics said:


> I have hundreds of users on 7 and 10 from teens to 88 years old (just celebrated their 72nd wedding anniversary!!!) all running zero AV. I simply show them control alt delete and how to hold in a power button from  the day I set them up. I am not kidding or exaggerating in any way here.
> 
> I don't see them for months at a time and sometimes even a year or 2 or 3! Then I go visit and do a little bit of checking/cleaning MANUALLY with no 3rd party software. These are facts.
> 
> ...



Probably not out of touch, there is always just an interesting group that can find a way. I work with teachers and students and there are always a group that can find a way to just blatantly click "yes" or "accept" to every pop up that comes on their machine.


----------



## matthewmatics (Feb 1, 2020)

rtwjunkie said:


> Then stick with your hundreds of clients and stop giving bad advice here.  Even within your group of hundreds, you are basically advising them to go out and have indiscriminate, anonymous and unprotected sex.  One might go years and not catch anything. Then that nice girl/guy next door type that you swear should be safe is the one to infect you.  Your advice is akin to that.
> 
> This is not just a site of tech experts and enthisiasts playing amongst themselves. There is a reputation of good and sound advice, and the expectation that many people can come to TPU and get their concerns or questions answered responsibly and correctly.



Their condom is their mind not some for sale BS third party piece of software that may or may not (probably not!) stop a issue all while pretending that it can while hogging resources and stealing and selling data.

Here I sit completely unprotected surfin the web and dark web and the worst of all (xhamster lolol ONLY FOR TESTIING) and nothing that can't be beaten back by a power button or 3 simple keyboard buttons.

This is fact and not short term either.....10 years + of this way of thinking/teaching.

I dare you all to just let go and try it. LOL.  I am far far from the only one that knows/does this but apparently not here.

Great advice is teaching people what to expect and how things happen and keeping their money.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Feb 1, 2020)

matthewmatics said:


> Their condom is their mind not some for sale BS third party piece of software that may or may not (probably not!) stop a issue all while pretending that it can while hogging resources and stealing and selling data.
> 
> Here I sit completely unprotected surfin the web and dark web and the worst of all (xhamster lolol ONLY FOR TESTIING) and nothing that can't be beaten back by a power button or 3 simple keyboard buttons.
> 
> ...


You seem to be making a mistake there in the perceived attack source, and that browsers are the only source for all your virus attacks. Data Collection is not the direct attack that you seem to expect that will do your system harm, think identity theft. You also seem to expect a porn site to install malicious software, it does not. Infact a lot of the stuff you are preaching here is actually the result windows defender working just fine. IDK what browser you are using but I bet its got some built in protections as well. Installing a AV on your PC will not interfere with whats already available except if its crap.

What you seem to be preaching here is awareness that only you can give, you are preaching to the choir, and you are insulting doing it. I dont mind its a good laugh. So keep on truckin'.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 1, 2020)

lexluthermiester said:


> I highlighted in bold the point, but it seemingly doesn't resonate with him or you, so I can't help you any further. Good luck with that.



You highlighted something that has nothing to do with your original statement.  You made the claim that they collect data even when the user says not to, back it up.

Hell, the part you highlighted wasn't even a true statement...


----------



## matthewmatics (Feb 1, 2020)

I mean if you can teach someone how to install a crap 3rd party bloated AV then you can teach someone to hit control alt delete and kill the process or crash the machine and reboot (and if you get that far then how has defender done its job because if you don't do either of those things I imagine it very well could install a PUP or worse no problem).

Not at all trying to insult anyone... actually anyone telling someone to use a 3rd party AV is insulting me so if we are going to be all touchy feely well I am insulted! LOL.

Trucking hardens you man.... so take what I say as if we were neighbors and friends.

I simply do not and will never ever believe in AV.

Some 3rd party tools at most...but nothing running...ever!

And yes AV interferes! They are all resource hogs and annoying at the very very least.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 1, 2020)

matthewmatics said:


> They are all resource hogs


 This isn’t 2003 or earlier anymore.


----------



## matthewmatics (Feb 1, 2020)

Well yes and no....just because you have a more powerful machine and more RAM you don't "feel"it...sometimes.

They are massive hogs if you take the time to see it...knock yourself down to 4GB of RAM and tell me then.


----------



## biffzinker (Feb 1, 2020)

matthewmatics said:


> Jeesh man I really really think techs should know first hand what it is they are trying not to get!! LOLOL.


It's not the technically inclined I would be overly concerned with but those that don't know what the CPU's purpose is, and those that think RAM/Storage drive serve the same purpose.


----------



## matthewmatics (Feb 1, 2020)

Thats is why were here??? To teach.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 2, 2020)

matthewmatics said:


> Thats is why were here??? To teach.


Yes, but also to learn.


----------



## Fry178 (Feb 2, 2020)

So far i never installed outside custom option, and i didn't opt in, and will keep avast, as i can completely turn it off (not constantly on), which bitdefend would have as an option (before i switched), and avira was uninstalled right after i installed it for something that really pi#%*+ me off (dont remember).
Especially with folks giving away all their data on social media, or for getting "free" stuff, im not worried about some of my info getting relayed (dont have to use my real info anyway, look for Frank Honest ;-).
Fact is, i had more personal information leaked/comprised thru bank/credi card and other companies that got hacked/weren't secure (server etc).

And anyone claiming you don't need a ireal time av scanner:
Visit gamecopyworld dotcom, select any game from past 2y, dl two no-dvd exes and 2 trainers...


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 2, 2020)

newtekie1 said:


> You highlighted something that has nothing to do with your original statement.


Opinion based on your own interpretation.


newtekie1 said:


> You made the claim that they collect data even when the user says not to, back it up.


I did, if that's not good enough for you, oh well.


newtekie1 said:


> Hell, the part you highlighted wasn't even a true statement...


Ok, then. Do carry on.


----------



## matthewmatics (Feb 2, 2020)

Stripped ripped and gutted and notta problemo...


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 2, 2020)

Fry178 said:


> Visit gamecopyworld dotcom, select any game from past 2y, dl two no-dvd exes and 2 trainers...


That's not going to work. gamecopyworld does not allow malware or infected files to be hosted there. They are throughly checked before going live on their site.


----------



## Fry178 (Feb 2, 2020)

@matthewmatics
start installing the EU/GB version of win, and you dont even get half of your disabled stuff installed in the first place.
use things like shutup/win10privacy/blackbird, that takes care of the few leftovers.

@lexluthermiester 
there is a difference between a (clean) file sitting on their server, and the clicking i have to do, to get to the dl.
at some point you will have crap on your rig...


----------



## matthewmatics (Feb 2, 2020)

I love shut up 10! But SC delete command are just so easy and permanent!

Shut up 10 won't hold some settings and needs checked up on...


----------



## Gmr_Chick (Feb 2, 2020)

@matthewmatics: Honestly guy, I'm still trying to figure out what the hell you're trying to contribute to this discussion other than the ridiculously naive belief that you've gone X years without an AV program of any kind, relying solely on WD for protection, and haven't gotten infected with a virus/trojan/malware of any kind so that means it can NEVER happen to you. The fact of the matter is, it hasn't happened to you...YET. The fact that your rig hasn't gotten infected in a certain number of years DOES NOT mean your rig is somehow magically immune to becoming infected indefinitely. It just hasn't happened yet. 

So, what, are you just here to give terrible advice to people (AV programs are bad, m'kay! Don't use them, m'kay?) or do you have something to actually contribute here?


----------



## matthewmatics (Feb 2, 2020)

Duh. I said I use control alt delete and the power button.

I have not had any issues since XP and that is a fact.

My contribution is saving people the fear of the unknown.

I didn't say it can't happen just that it hasn't. I am aggressively trying to be proven wrong every day.

In my very honest opinion AV is silly....why do you want to change my mind?

Why do you care....just be you. People that read and takes risks can decide what they want from all of this.

How is it a naive belief if it is true?

And if you READ it is way more than  my rig.....it is my rigs...and the rigs of my customers! A lot of them.

Computers ain't rigs! This is a rig!



Jesus man....I can't believe some people.  I am telling you all what I do like it or don't and move on.

I have been at this a LONG time and I know what I see and I see it a lot! I try to destroy these things and some of ya'll try yo protect them like they have value.

Gimme the worst thing out here (nothing) and I'll simply re partition, reload, add drivers, bring back data from other drive and be done in 30 minutes. No AV needed ever.

And beside this f&%$$^#ing thread is about a AV selling your data for Christs sake!! WOW! Keep using AV then!

Get a grip lady. Is that on par with "guy"?

What is your contribution on the actual thread topic?


----------



## Solaris17 (Feb 2, 2020)

Let’s stick to on topic, thanks a bunch!


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Feb 2, 2020)

newtekie1 said:


> You highlighted something that has nothing to do with your original statement.  You made the claim that they collect data even when the user says not to, back it up.
> 
> Hell, the part you highlighted wasn't even a true statement...


Back in win 95 one of the early AVs had the ability to read characters/numbers being sent out, so you could enter a string to watch out for and tthe program would sniff every packet going out. How it worked I did not know, I am assuming the packet data was not encrypted then and  I assume nowadays that same data is encrypted.

I wonder what tools are available now.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 3, 2020)

lexluthermiester said:


> Opinion based on your own interpretation.



No there is no opinion or interpretation here.  You made the statement that Avast collected user data even when the user choose not to.  You backed this up with a statement from a article that said:



> *the problem was the firm did so without informing them, nor a proper mechanism to fully anonymize the data.*



That in no way backs up your original statement that Avast collected data when the user chose not to.  On top of that, the statement you quoted is wrong.  Avast did inform the users they were collecting data.  At *no* point did Avast collect data without informing the user.  The users were either informed by the EULA or they were informed by a large pop-up during installation.  Both ways are valid methods to inform the users data is being collected.  And if the user made the choice to not allow Avast to collect data, than Avast didn't collect data, period.  There is no opinion there, that is a fact that is directly opposite of your claim.  You've provide no proof otherwise.



lexluthermiester said:


> I did, if that's not good enough for you, oh well.



Sorry, posting no proof at all is in fact not good enough for me.


----------



## Athlonite (Feb 3, 2020)

DeathtoGnomes said:


> Back in win 95 one of the early AVs had the ability to read characters/numbers being sent out, so you could enter a string to watch out for and tthe program would sniff every packet going out. How it worked I did not know, I am assuming the packet data was not encrypted then and  I assume nowadays that same data is encrypted.
> 
> I wonder what tools are available now.



Wireshark would probably be its modern counterpart these days


----------



## Solaris17 (Feb 3, 2020)

Athlonite said:


> Wireshark would probably be its modern counterpart these days



That or an IDS/IPS system. Like Suricata or snort.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 3, 2020)

newtekie1 said:


> No there is no opinion or interpretation here. You made the statement that Avast collected user data even when the user choose not to.


Are you done? What you're doing is textbook trolling.


newtekie1 said:


> Sorry, posting no proof at all is in fact not good enough for me.


What I quoted is all I'm providing. If that's not good enough for you, hard cheese. Let it go.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 3, 2020)

lexluthermiester said:


> Are you done? What you're doing is textbook trolling.
> 
> What I quoted is all I'm providing. If that's not good enough for you, hard cheese. Let it go.



Ok, so lets go over what happened here.

I made a post. You responded to my post with a total BS inaccurate statement arguing with me. You then failed to provide any proof to back up your original statement.  And now _I'm_ the troll.  Ok there buddy...

I think we're done here.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Feb 7, 2020)

at the 14:48-ish mark is a real eye opener. holy crap


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 7, 2020)

DeathtoGnomes said:


> at the 14:48-ish mark is a real eye opener. holy crap


He's actually directly stating the reference data. Scary indeed.

He did get something wrong, near the end of the video he said that AVG is owned by Avira. It's owned by Avast. Honest mistake, but it needed to be clarified.

The good side of this is multifold.
1. Every other company is watching this carefully.
2. Most of them will take serious measures to come into compliance with Europe's and California's laws, which means that they will simply apply all rules equally.
3. The most likely result will be that the data will be striped of PII on the client level, meaning that the software itself will either fail to log PII or will strip it out of info being sent to the DB host servers.

This will be good for the public in the long run.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Feb 7, 2020)

lexluthermiester said:


> This will be good for the public in the long run.


Public awareness is still an issue, too many still say "I have nothing to hide" accusing those that do care about privacy wear tinfoil hats too much. The same people that do not care what their info is used for until their identity gets stolen.  I have little faith in the companies that buy this kind of data. I expect they handle such info with little regard to security or privacy and probably resells and trades the data with less reputable companies with shady intent. (Oops, did I let my tin hat show here?)


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 7, 2020)

DeathtoGnomes said:


> Public awareness is still an issue, too many still say "I have nothing to hide" accusing those that do care about privacy wear tinfoil hats too much. The same people that do not care what their info is used for until their identity gets stolen.  I have little faith in the companies that buy this kind of data. I expect they handle such info with little regard to security or privacy and probably resells and trades the data with less reputable companies with shady intent. (Oops, did I let my tin hat show here?)


Yeah, it’s not about having anything to hide. It’s about me protecting my fundamental right (in the U.S. at least) to privacy.  Give an agency or even a private company an inch, and they will take a mile.


----------



## bonehead123 (Feb 7, 2020)

As the saying goes:

"Cheap is as cheap does", hehehe....

I am all for free, basic versions of alot of different software, since alot of users on need the basic set of features, but internet security/anti-virus/anti-malware are NOT included in this category....

And as with many things, free software included, another saying comes to mind:

R.T.F.M... 

or more specifically, the terms & conditions & usage agreements


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Feb 7, 2020)

bonehead123 said:


> As the saying goes:
> 
> "Cheap is as cheap does", hehehe....
> 
> ...


the fine print.



rtwjunkie said:


> Yeah, it’s not about having anything to hide. It’s about me protecting my fundamental right (in the U.S. at least) to privacy.  Give an agency or even a private company an inch, and they will take a mile.


as someone else mentioned in some other thread, your data is out there and has been for a while, my answer to that is that we can still try to reduce the footprint by taking any steps we can to reduce exposure.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 7, 2020)

DeathtoGnomes said:


> as someone else mentioned in some other thread, your data is out there and has been for a while, my answer to that is that we can still try to reduce the footprint by taking any steps we can to reduce exposure.


And this works. You just have to be willing to make the effort.


----------

