AVG Backs Down From Flooding the Internet

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

Comments

LinkScanner was unnecessary in the first place

[DigitAl56K]

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

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

Re:LinkScanner was unnecessary in the first place

[PhrostyMcByte]

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

Re:So is AVG still a good AV prog?

[FilterMapReduce]

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Good Stuff!

[rbochan]

Maybe you should keep looking.

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

Another reason

[mangu]

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

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

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