Avast Releases Fix Update Utility For Corrupted Installations

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bear
  • Start date Start date
B

Bear

"The release of Avast 7 has caused anger and confusion in part of the
security software’s user base. Especially the fact that Google Chrome
was installed in a sneaky way during updates or new installations
fueled criticism of the new version. Some users on the other hand
reported that the application did not install or update correctly. The
installation basically hangs and exits with an error message.

Especially users who try to upgrade from version 6 to 7 are affected by
corrupted installations of the security software. The core issue here
is that it is not possible to update the program anymore. Some users
have experienced other issues as well, like crashing third party
applications, slow system starts or shutdowns or related issues.

Avast has released a Fix Update utility"

http://goo.gl/l4uxu+
 
http://goo.gl/l4uxu+
Click to expand...

A lot of companies have recently fallen prey to financial influences, try
to implement them and get slammed by Users. CNET and avast! are the most
recent. Unlocker in the recent past. All eventually recant. Users are their
source of capability and your voice collectively can be powerful.
 
Especially users who try to upgrade from version 6 to 7 are affected by
corrupted installations of the security software. The core issue here is
Click to expand...

If they could not test the upgrade process completely, why bother to
offer it as an option? Just tell everyone to do a clean install. :)


--
@~@ You have the right to remain silence.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and farces be with you!
/( _ )\ (Fedora 15 i686) Linux 3.2.6
^ ^ 19:57:01 up 5 days 6:54 0 users load average: 0.00 0.01 0.05
ä¸å€Ÿè²¸! ä¸è©é¨™! ä¸æ´äº¤! ä¸æ‰“交! ä¸æ‰“劫! ä¸è‡ªæ®º! è«‹è€ƒæ…®ç¶œæ´ (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa
 
From: "Bear Bottoms said:
@news.sunsite.dk:


A lot of companies have recently fallen prey to financial influences, try
to implement them and get slammed by Users. CNET and avast! are the most
recent. Unlocker in the recent past. All eventually recant. Users are their
source of capability and your voice collectively can be powerful.
Click to expand...

Unless the URL is very long and you post the original URL and a shortened URL, do NOT use
shortened URLs as they can be malicious URLs being masked for their malicious activity.

This is a White Hat group. Act responsibly!
 
Unless the URL is very long and you post the original URL and a shortened URL, do NOT use
shortened URLs as they can be malicious URLs being masked for their malicious activity.

This is a White Hat group. Act responsibly!
Click to expand...

+1

I never click directly on Bears shortened urls. Sometimes, if
the subject is really interesting, I use an anonymous proxy or a site
that shows urls as images.
A lot of trouble, for Bear to shorten it, for us to unhack it.
No idea why he bothers.
[]'s
 
Unless the URL is very long and you post the original URL and a
shortened URL, do NOT use shortened URLs as they can be malicious URLs
being masked for their malicious activity.

This is a White Hat group. Act responsibly!
Click to expand...

David, do you understand how a shortened url preview works?
 
David said:
Unless the URL is very long and you post the original URL and a shortened URL, do NOT use
shortened URLs as they can be malicious URLs being masked for their malicious activity.
Click to expand...

<sardonicism>What's the problem, you can just go ahead and click as long
as you then immediately re-image your harddrive with any one of your
several level three pristine images.</sardonicism>
 
<sardonicism>What's the problem, you can just go ahead and click as
long as you then immediately re-image your harddrive with any one of
your several level three pristine images.</sardonicism>
Click to expand...

Zacktamente.... :)
 
There is no obfuscation to the source of the data and a shortened URL
was provided for a legitimate purpose thus giving the reader a choice
to either use the shortened URL or unwrap and use the long URL and the
user KNOWS where the data is sourced.
Click to expand...

Then I really don't think you understand a shortened URL preview.

You get the shortended URL to click on which shows the actual long URL you
will be directed to which you can choose to go to or not.

You have no case here.

PS: a shortened URL with goo.gl with the added + does just that!
 
You are in the wrong place.
Click to expand...

LOL...Of course that is what all of this childish and amateurish behavior
is all about from you and your buddies.

You don't really understand that I choose what groups I participate in and
how, not you....or your buddies.
 
David said:
It is not the job of the viewer of the post to
decipher/interpret the post. The onus is on the poster to
provide cl\ear and concise information.

If it is a truly long URL (such as one can get from HP) then a
shortened URL is appropos but it would be best practice to
provide both the original URL and the shortened URL.

Example:
<http://h20000.www2.hp.com/bizsupport/TechSupport/SoftwareIndex.jsp?
lang=en&cc=us&prodNameId=13039&prodTypeId=18972&prodSeriesId=27905&
swLang=8&taskId=135&swEnvOID=1093>

<http://tinyurl.com/HP-URL1>
Click to expand...

What in any post makes you think the second URL necessarily has
anything to do with the first?

There is a legitimate reason to use a shortened URL and the
actual URL is also provided.

There is no obfuscation to the source of the data and a
shortened URL was provided for a legitimate purpose thus
giving the reader a choice to either use the shortened URL or
unwrap and use the long URL and the user KNOWS where the data
is sourced.

What an excellent form of Social Engineering it would be to
post Security related article excerpt but post a malicious
shortened URL.
Click to expand...

I guess ...
What an excellent form of Social Engineering it would be to post
Security related article excerpt but post a malicious shortened
URL directly after an actual non-malicious actual URL.

There is a solution for the very long HP URLs.
Don't use HP ;-)
Or actually if everyone was posting only the long ones, it will
eventually make web-sites that use very long URLs look silly and
perhaps because the may end up broken in postings on Usenet and
in web-groups it will accumulate resentment and ridicule.
 
From: "Etal said:
What in any post makes you think the second URL necessarily has anything to do with the
first?



I guess ...
What an excellent form of Social Engineering it would be to post Security related
article excerpt but post a malicious shortened URL directly after an actual
non-malicious actual URL.

There is a solution for the very long HP URLs.
Don't use HP ;-)
Or actually if everyone was posting only the long ones, it will eventually make
web-sites that use very long URLs look silly and perhaps because the may end up broken
in postings on Usenet and in web-groups it will accumulate resentment and ridicule.
Click to expand...

The shortend URL makes it easier because of News Clients wrapping long lines and breaking
a URL. Thus thus the news post reader has options.

Although HP makes crap such as digital cameras there are many really good HP products and
thus there are HP support URLs and I see no reasonb for complete avaoidance of HP.
 
David said:
The shortend URL makes it easier because of News Clients
wrapping long lines and breaking a URL. Thus thus the news
post reader has options.
Click to expand...

But don't you agree that it can be dangerous to have a long URL
pointing to what you showed an excerpt from, followed by a
shortened URL ..leading most readers to think it will take you to
the same place. Some will use the true long URL and have no
problems, while those using the malicious shortened URL will get
something 'extra'.

Although HP makes crap such as digital cameras there are many
really good HP products and thus there are HP support URLs and
I see no reasonb for complete avaoidance of HP.
Click to expand...

I don't really have any issue with HP, that was partly in jest as
the smiley indicated.
I do have issues with people that point others to sites using
nothing but shortened URLs.
 
But don't you agree that it can be dangerous to have a long URL
pointing to what you showed an excerpt from, followed by a
shortened URL ..leading most readers to think it will take you to
the same place. Some will use the true long URL and have no
problems, while those using the malicious shortened URL will get
something 'extra'.
Click to expand...

They can't think it through and do not understand how silly their demands
are.

A preview shortened URL is sufficient. A shortened URL without a preview
could be very dangerous if you don't know or trust the originator. Pretty
much a safe hex thingy.

The thing about a preview TinyURL link is you don't know if it is a preview
or not until you click it. With a goo.gl link, the plut (+) is a dead
giveaway.

At any rate, if you are really that paranoid and afraid you can use safe
hex practices. One being:

http://zulu.zscaler.com/
or
http://www.avgthreatlabs.com/sitereports/
or
http://online.drweb.com/?url=1
 
BB your nothing but a troll and you just proved why using a shortened
URL is bad in any case. ;-)
Click to expand...

David, you are either wrong or don't know what the definition of a troll
is. You are childish and haven't the confidence in your own opinions to
stand on their own thus feel the need to /attempt/ to demean other's
opinions in the ill-begotten belief that you are somehow improving your
perceived dominance of this group. That is over.
 
David said:
BB your nothing but a troll and you just proved why using a shortened URL is
bad in any case. ;-)
Click to expand...

A full OR shortened URL will either take you somewhere or not
and where if any place you go shouldn't be a problem with a properly
configured browser. Maybe you could offer some inkling of proof that there
exists such a thing as a bad location, anywhere online.
IOW: Maybe it's foolhardiness, but I don't believe in 'bad' URLs, except ones
that don't work (do nothing).
 
ASCII said:
A full OR shortened URL will either take you somewhere or not
and where if any place you go shouldn't be a problem with a
properly configured browser. Maybe you could offer some
inkling of proof that there exists such a thing as a bad
location, anywhere online. IOW: Maybe it's foolhardiness, but
I don't believe in 'bad' URLs, except ones that don't work (do
nothing).
Click to expand...

For me it's not that, but that i want to know where i'm supposed
to end up. Say in a discussion about printers, or driver-support
we get offered these two links;

<http://shrt.com/tosomewhere>
<http://hp.com/bla/bla.php>

The first link i don't know if it's something i want to bother
with as i have no idea where that will take me, so i probably
wont bother going there, nor take the trouble to check out a
/preview/ of that site. The second one i would more easily visit
as i can see that it is from a (former) printer-manufacturer.

If someone offers links because they feel people should go there,
i think they should have the courtesy of divulging what site that is.
 
For me it's not that, but that i want to know where i'm supposed
to end up. Say in a discussion about printers, or driver-support
we get offered these two links;

<http://shrt.com/tosomewhere>
<http://hp.com/bla/bla.php>

The first link i don't know if it's something i want to bother
with as i have no idea where that will take me, so i probably
wont bother going there, nor take the trouble to check out a
/preview/ of that site. The second one i would more easily visit
as i can see that it is from a (former) printer-manufacturer.

If someone offers links because they feel people should go there,
i think they should have the courtesy of divulging what site that is.
Click to expand...

Usually the context of the discussion divulges that information. Not all
links are marked as you want them to be. Don't expect people to do what you
want them to do...less stress. Do - do what you want to do.
 
Back
Top