Sure - it is better than nothing and a lot better than it used to be. I just don’t trust their competancy or focus in this area. I disagree about Microsoft Defender (as its called now) - I would not trust Microsoft to look after my security alone. If they can’t cope with that then I advise they either get a good paid alternative (such as Norton 360 or others) or stick with Microsoft Defender and hope for the best. If they can cope with not using those features and can cope with the upsell messages then it is a perfectly good antivirus. They also need to understand the programs they are updating and any implications it may have on the system.įor my customers, I advise that they disable all three of these. The user needs to understand the drivers that are being updated as newest is rarely best and in some cases it can kill a perfectly good and working computer. I also feel any driver updater is similarly a bad thing and also any software updater. Optimisers like this are a blunt tool and they don’t work - its that simple - if you want to optimise your computer then learn how to do it yourself (properly) or get a local repair person to give it an annual spring clean and do it for you. The only reason not to use it is the PC Speedup feature (or PC Optimisation as it used to be called) is a terrible dogs dinner of a feature and I call it the “destroyer of computers”. The detection rates, false positive rates and system impact rates are some of the best (be it free or paid) and that is borne out by Avcomparatives and AVTest and other testing organisations. ¡Saludos desde la soleada Sevilla en español, luego portugués e inglés, con conocimiento de varios otros idiomas. This may not directly relate to the issue raised, whatever the outcome of the effect of the new Avast products we nor any of our clients will not be concerned with ‘will it work with eMC’ Not that we have anything to hide, we simply have very strong opinions about this sort of activity and why we took this stance about my personal computers and company systems.įurther that my company could not have offered the security that we do to our government, banking, insurance, military and blue chip clients, and potentially lose their trust. Each user history was assigned to an identifier called the device ID, which persisted unless the user uninstalled the Avast antivirus product. The collected data was linked to a person’s name, email and or IP address. The data collected was so granular that Jumpshot clients could view the individual clicks that Avast users made on their browsing sessions, including the time right down to the millisecond. We will not use any Avast products or accept any client for support who will not divest themselves of their products.Īvast Collected and Sold Their Client Browsing History!īy default, Avast collected your web browsing activity and offered it to marketeers through their subsidiary named Jumpshot.Ĭompanies who paid Avast/Jumpshot could view full “clickstream data” to see what Avast users were doing online. We, and thousands of seats within our client companies used to be users of Ccleaner when it was a Piriform product, it is now Avast owned - we and our clients no longer use Ccleaner, you can draw your own conclusions from this. The first thing that you need to remember is that there is no such thing as a free meal plus with some companies, even with paid for versions, there are strings attached. I hope it has been removed (the https bit) as this then will mean that Avast One Essential can be put back on the list of AV that can work with emClient.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |