AVG not free anymore? Maybe yes/maybe no.

[micky]

Is AVG Free still available?

About 20 days ago, I started getting a big window on my screen telling
me I had 20 days before I would no longer have AVG Free protection and
urging me to pay. Every day the number decreased by 1.

I've been using AVG Free for several years.

I googled AVG not free anymore , and found a bunch of pages
from 5 years ago, and from 3 years ago, that said all one needed to do
was reinstall. I don't remember those episodes, but I do remember AVG
threatening me before, but nothing came of it like this time.

So yesterday I had 0 days left and today it said I was't protected. I
had already dl'd AVG Free and I installed it, and then it said I was
fully protected, and the last update was 11:24 today. Okay fine.

But there was a bottom portion to the AVG box that said I had negative
one days until my trial version expired. and I should buy now to
continue my protection. Just what it's said for the last 20 days, but
now the number is negative.

I could wait for a month or two and see if it keeps decreasing the
number, but I thought you'd be interested and that you might have
helpful words for me. Tired of going this alone.

[badgolferman]

Why bother with AVG? Switch to Avast for superior protection and less
nags.

[Mark Warner]

On 04/30/2013 11:38 AM, micky wrote:
> Is AVG Free still available?

[...]

> I could wait for a month or two and see if it keeps decreasing the
> number, but I thought you'd be interested and that you might have
> helpful words for me. Tired of going this alone.

Get rid of it. Run the uninstall conventionally, then run the Removal
Tool to strip out all the residual crap:

http://www.avg.com/us-en/utilities

A pass with the CCleaner registry cleaner after that wouldn't hurt.

--
Mark Warner
MEPIS Linux
Registered Linux User #415318
...lose .inhibitions when replying

[mark lewis]

+ User FidoNet address: 1:3634/12.42
m> But there was a bottom portion to the AVG box that said I had
m> negative one days until my trial version expired. and I should buy
m> now to continue my protection. Just what it's said for the last 20
m> days, but now the number is negative.

sounds like you installed the trial version of the pay flavor of AVG instead of
installing the AVG Free version...

you might try uninstalling all AVGs and cleaning out your registry and the left
over directories and files related to AVG... don't forget the "Application
Data" directory and what it may have hidden in there for AVG... then make sure
you have the AVG Free version to install and see what happens with that...

)\/(ark
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ The FidoNet News Gate (Huntsville, AL - USA) +
+ The views of this user are strictly his or her own. +
+ All data is scanned for malware by Avast! Antivirus +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[micky]

On Mon, 30 Apr 2013 14:11:22 , "mark lewis"
<@p42.f12.n3634.z1[ASC46]fidonet[.]org> wrote:

>+ User FidoNet address: 1:3634/12.42
> m> But there was a bottom portion to the AVG box that said I had
> m> negative one days until my trial version expired. and I should buy
> m> now to continue my protection. Just what it's said for the last 20
> m> days, but now the number is negative.
>
>sounds like you installed the trial version of the pay flavor of AVG instead of
>installing the AVG Free version...

Your point about the registry and left over directories and files
sounds important and might be exactly right. I will check that out.
Thanks a lot.

But ftr, just to keep my reputation intact, I started at
http://free.avg.com/us-en/homepage , clicked on the download box and
got a choice between Free and Paid, with a list of features (Free
having only one feature) I clicked on Download in the Free column, and
got sent to
http://download.cnet.com/AVG-AntiVirus-Free-2013/3000-2239_4-10320142.html?part=dl-avg_free_us&subj=dl&tag=button
where the heading was Welcome AVG AntiVirus Free 2013 users (and
there were a bunch of ads trying to get me to upgrade to AVG Pro or
buy AVG Internet Security.)

I clicked on the big green Download box there, and it sent the file
avg_free_stb_all_2013_3272_cnet.exe .

Then when I started to install that file, it gave about 6 options,
and I chose Downgrade to AVG Free. (I've never seen an option like
that before, anywhere.)

And at the first installation screen, it was titled "AVG Anti-Virus
FREE" at the top.

I believe you, it still might be a trial version like you suggest, but
they did a good job of hiding it from me.

I waited a day to see what happened to the warning that it would
expire in negative one days. No more splash screens showed up on the
computer, and the warning at the bottom of the AVG central screen
isn't there anymore, just sketches of 4 things I'd get if I upgraded.
Plus it updated the definitions today at about 6PM.

>you might try uninstalling all AVGs and cleaning out your registry and the left
>over directories and files related to AVG... don't forget the "Application
>Data" directory and what it may have hidden in there for AVG..

Okay. Thanks again.

[shayb...@gmail.com]

If you go to uninstall it, there should be a option to downgrade to the regular free version.

[Juan Wei]

mark lewis has written on 4/30/2013 2:11 PM:

> + User FidoNet address: 1:3634/12.42
> m> But there was a bottom portion to the AVG box that said I had
> m> negative one days until my trial version expired. and I should buy
> m> now to continue my protection. Just what it's said for the last 20
> m> days, but now the number is negative.
>
> sounds like you installed the trial version of the pay flavor of AVG instead of
> installing the AVG Free version...

That's what I was going to say!

> you might try uninstalling all AVGs and cleaning out your registry and the left
> over directories and files related to AVG... don't forget the "Application
> Data" directory and what it may have hidden in there for AVG... then make sure
> you have the AVG Free version to install and see what happens with that...

Get it from http://free.avg.com/us-en/homepage

[Juan Wei]

micky has written on 5/1/2013 10:36 PM:

> On Mon, 30 Apr 2013 14:11:22 , "mark lewis"
> <@p42.f12.n3634.z1[ASC46]fidonet[.]org> wrote:
>
>>+ User FidoNet address: 1:3634/12.42
>> m> But there was a bottom portion to the AVG box that said I had
>> m> negative one days until my trial version expired. and I should buy
>> m> now to continue my protection. Just what it's said for the last 20
>> m> days, but now the number is negative.
>>
>>sounds like you installed the trial version of the pay flavor of AVG instead of
>>installing the AVG Free version...
>
> Your point about the registry and left over directories and files
> sounds important and might be exactly right. I will check that out.
> Thanks a lot.
>
> But ftr, just to keep my reputation intact, I started at
> http://free.avg.com/us-en/homepage , clicked on the download box and
> got a choice between Free and Paid, with a list of features (Free
> having only one feature) I clicked on Download in the Free column, and
> got sent to
> http://download.cnet.com/AVG-AntiVirus-Free-2013/3000-2239_4-10320142.html?part=dl-avg_free_us&subj=dl&tag=button

Try this:

<http://download.cnet.com/AVG-AntiVirus-Free-2014/3000-2239_4-10320142.html?part=dl-avg_free_us&subj=dl&tag=button>

[RayLopez99]

On Tuesday, April 30, 2013 11:38:26 PM UTC+8, micky wrote:
> Is AVG Free still available?

I've had AVG Free since a few months ago, which I prefer over Avast! since less resource intensive and seems to do just as good or nearly as good job (same thing these days, as most viruses are rare except the common ones).

So far so good, no nag screens. Maybe after a year or so it will silently change (since they always seem to have 'updates') but so far it's fine.

RL

[RayLopez99]

On Thursday, December 12, 2013 2:08:40 AM UTC+8, Dustin wrote:
> Which viruses by name would be common to you? I've noticed the opposite
>
> effect on systems here.

The ones that are common Dustin. You can Google it. What I say is also verified by Gizmo's Freeware site (they say the same thing, that most 'in the wild' viruses or malware are the 'common' varieties, and a 80% detection rate, such as currently found in Microsoft Security Essentials, is good enough protection).


> AVG usually chews more resources than Avast. Which
>
> versions have you compared?
>

The freeware versions.

RL

[FromTheRafters]

RayLopez99 presented the following explanation :

[...]

> Gizmo's Freeware site (they say the same thing, that most 'in the
> wild' viruses or malware are the 'common' varieties, and a 80% detection
> rate, such as currently found in Microsoft Security Essentials, is good
> enough protection).

http://securityspread.com/2013/09/04/antivirus-detection-rate-list-updated-rank/

Some interesting comments as well.

[Ant]

"FromTheRafters" wrote:

> RayLopez99 presented the following explanation :

>> Gizmo's Freeware site (they say the same thing, that most 'in the
>> wild' viruses or malware are the 'common' varieties, and a 80% detection
>> rate, such as currently found in Microsoft Security Essentials, is good
>> enough protection).
>
> http://securityspread.com/2013/09/04/antivirus-detection-rate-list-updated-rank/
>
> Some interesting comments as well.

That's for Apple Mac only. No mention of MSE.

[FromTheRafters]

Ant formulated on Thursday :

I was mostly following on the idea of 80% is good enough.

They've got an interesting methodology too. It looked to me like they
infect an environment with every malware they got, and then try out the
different AV programs on it. Doesn't that open the door for one malware
to alter another malware in such a way that it is no longer detected?
IOW *if* there was a virus, might it not infect some worms and trojans
and mess up the 'signature' that a detector looks for to identify them?

[Ant]

"FromTheRafters" wrote:

> Ant formulated on Thursday :

>> That's for Apple Mac only. No mention of MSE.
>
> I was mostly following on the idea of 80% is good enough.

I see. That wasn't clear.

> They've got an interesting methodology too. It looked to me like they
> infect an environment with every malware they got, and then try out the
> different AV programs on it. Doesn't that open the door for one malware
> to alter another malware in such a way that it is no longer detected?
> IOW *if* there was a virus, might it not infect some worms and trojans
> and mess up the 'signature' that a detector looks for to identify them?

Was the malware active or just sitting there as files? If it's active
then I suspect there were no viruses in that lot otherwise they might
have noticed and changed their methodology.

Also, I'm not sure you can conclude very much given their small sample
size. I know the Mac is not as popular a target as Win machines so
perhaps there isn't the variety of malware for it. By that, I really
mean how it's packed. The huge quantity of different samples available
for Windows is down to the exe-packer/obfuscator changing frequently
with the hidden payload staying much the same. If their samples are
representative of what's out there for the Mac then I'd expect a
higher detection rate.

[FromTheRafters]

Ant explained :

> "FromTheRafters" wrote:
>
>> Ant formulated on Thursday :
>>> That's for Apple Mac only. No mention of MSE.
>>
>> I was mostly following on the idea of 80% is good enough.
>
> I see. That wasn't clear.
>
>> They've got an interesting methodology too. It looked to me like they
>> infect an environment with every malware they got, and then try out the
>> different AV programs on it. Doesn't that open the door for one malware
>> to alter another malware in such a way that it is no longer detected?
>> IOW *if* there was a virus, might it not infect some worms and trojans
>> and mess up the 'signature' that a detector looks for to identify them?
>
> Was the malware active or just sitting there as files?

Perhaps I was confused again, here is their write-up on their
methodology:

http://securityspread.com/testing-methodology/

It reads to me like they make some bad assumptions, but I'm no expert.

> If it's active
> then I suspect there were no viruses in that lot otherwise they might
> have noticed and changed their methodology.

Could be. Couldn't a worm or a trojan also be capable of implementing a
'startup' or 'guardian' scheme by encrypting a program file and
assuming its name - you know, like encrypting Mac's equivalent of
notepad and putting a replacement program named 'notepad' that 'does
something' and then decrypts the original and passes program flow to
it? If another program altered the file and it was then encrypted by
this program - the AV has no chance of detecting the previous
modification.

I'm not saying this can happen on a Mac, and it's not important I
guess, but it just seems to me that each malware sample should be
detected in a 'playground' not shared with so many other active malware
programs.

> Also, I'm not sure you can conclude very much given their small sample
> size. I know the Mac is not as popular a target as Win machines so
> perhaps there isn't the variety of malware for it. By that, I really
> mean how it's packed. The huge quantity of different samples available
> for Windows is down to the exe-packer/obfuscator changing frequently
> with the hidden payload staying much the same. If their samples are
> representative of what's out there for the Mac then I'd expect a
> higher detection rate.

Good point, I don't usually draw any conclusions from tests with small
sample sets. I also tend to not agree that MSE is 'good enough' just
because it reaches the threshold of 80% detection rate as someone
suggested. I'm sure that a program that only detects the top 100 or
1000 malware programs sorted by prevalence has its uses, and *may*
achieve results nearing that 80% mark if the sample set is small enough
or 'cooked'.

[RayLopez99]

On Friday, December 13, 2013 1:10:32 AM UTC+8, Dustin wrote:
>
> Are they talking about actual viruses or trojans tho Ray? Malware is such..
>
> a fun catchy term, but not very descriptive on it's own.

I doubt anybody but you and Dave even care anymore about defining 'malware' vs a true 'virus'. Let's just call it "badware" for something you don't want on your system, including a Potentially Unwanted Program (PUP).

>
>
>
> I specifically asked you to list these common viruses. Now your telling me
>
> to google them? And some freeware site has verified this? With most in the
>
> wild viruses OR malware are the 'common' varieties? I'm sure you can
>
> understand my confusion here...

I'm not a psychologist Dustin, so no, I don't understand your confusion. Seems you get confused a lot in your dotage.

>
>
>
> > The freeware versions.
>
>
>
> I understand that, I really do. Unwilling to go ahead and pir8 av, but
>
> you'll pir8 the OS? I don't understand that, but whatever floats your boat.

Why would I trust a pirated version of an anti-virus program? Isn't that an invitation to allow a trojan into your system? Logic, old man, is not your forte.

>
> Aside from "the freeware versions" WHICH VERSION NUMBERS specifically did
>
> you test against each other for system resource hogging? I'll do my best to
>
> be so specific as to be anal with you in the future, ok?

You just answered your own question: none, "OTHER THAN" the freeware versions. Logic again...lacking.

RL

[RayLopez99]

On Friday, December 13, 2013 2:25:35 AM UTC+8, FromTheRafters wrote:

> Some interesting comments as well.

Yes, indeed. Below is one such comment. The 80% rule is "good enough" for 'most' situations, and it is speculated that criminals do most of their work with the remaining 20%, some of which is not even zero-day attacks but exploits that the black hats have discovered before the white hats have--a sort of 'arms race'. But unless you are an Iranian working on some nuclear project, or some high-profile corporation like Google targeted by that state-sponsored hacker group off of Hong Kong, I doubt (I could be wrong) that you have to worry about this 20% much, for casual home or ordinary office users like most of us. And if you're part of that high-profile Iranian/Google crowd, most commercial a/v s/w won't save you anyway (but better firewalls will, and prohibiting workers from using USB sticks unless they are from known sources)--though F-Secure was the exception to this rule (they pointed out the Stuxnet virus for the first time).

RL

comments section, on why McAfee falls below even the 80% threshold but does not seem to care much that they do:

I believe McAfee once said their clients are mostly corporate so they have to be a lot more careful with false positives. If their antivirus detects something as malicious and it isn’t, the implications are much more serious as there will be a lot of corporate users freaking out. While I understand that reasoning I do not find it an excuse for performing so poorly. If this really is their reasoning then they are being way to cautious as stuff that is obviously malware is not detected by them.

[FromTheRafters]

RayLopez99 formulated on Friday :

> On Friday, December 13, 2013 2:25:35 AM UTC+8, FromTheRafters wrote:
>
>> Some interesting comments as well.
>
> Yes, indeed. Below is one such comment. The 80% rule is "good enough" for
> 'most' situations, and it is speculated that criminals do most of their work
> with the remaining 20%,

That seems like a good reason to *not* settle for 80% to me.

> some of which is not even zero-day attacks but
> exploits that the black hats have discovered before the white hats have--a
> sort of 'arms race'.

Ummm, that makes me wonder what the writer thinks a zero-day exploit
is.

[mark lewis]

+ User FidoNet address: 1:3634/12.71
On Thu, 12 Dec 2013, RayLopez99 wrote to All:

R> From: RayLopez99 <raylo...@gmail.com>

R> On Friday, December 13, 2013 1:10:32 AM UTC+8, Dustin wrote:
>
> Are they talking about actual viruses or trojans tho Ray? Malware is
> such..
>
> a fun catchy term, but not very descriptive on it's own.

R> I doubt anybody but you and Dave even care anymore about defining
R> 'malware' vs a true 'virus'.

errrmmm... the entire industry is and has been trying to educate the masses on
these distinctions for years and they continue to do so... the differences
*are* important...

the main problem is trying to get the ignorant exposed to the training and
understanding... then you have those "mules" that have been lead to water and
forcibly shoved under it and they still refuse to see or drink and yet they
wonder why they are all wet :?

)\/(ark

Not only is the Universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can
think. - Werner Heisenberg

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ The FidoNet News Gate (Huntsville, AL - USA) +
+ The views of this user are strictly his or her own. +
+ All data is scanned for malware by Avast! Antivirus +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[albert]

I also mistakenly installed the non free version of AVG. I just wanted to uninstall this version (and install the free one) but when i clicked uninstall, the option to downgrade to the free version popped up. So that's even better.

Regards,

Albert

Op dinsdag 30 april 2013 17:38:26 UTC+2 schreef micky:

[filom...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, 17 October 2013 18:18:48 UTC-4, shayb...@gmail.com wrote:
> If you go to uninstall it, there should be a option to downgrade to the regular free version.

I insist on saying many thanks for your post here, I foillowed your advice and everything is working just fine.
Thank goodness for pepople like you that help people like me! LOL