AVG says "Protection is disabled" when auto updates are turned off

I just installed AVG today, which is owned by Avast (many of the same settings and the same engine), but there's something really annoying that I can't seem to solve. It insists that you set automatic virus definition updates to enabled. If you set it to manual, it insists on showing an exclamation point over the tray icon to alert me that there's an issue, and when I open the main window it says in large red letters "Protection is disabled" Except that's a lie, because it is still active - it's just mad that I set updates to manual. It says this even after I manually do an update.

I see no way to set it to not act like this. Am I missing something? If I have to constantly see an exclamation point on the icon and red letters trying to alert me every time I open the main window, this is coming right off my PC. I'm capable enough to do my own updates, and I don't need my antivirus software trying to mislead me to thinking there's something wrong when there isn't.

Is there a way to set it so that it doesn't say "Protection is disabled" when I set updates to manual? Very misleading to say protection is disabled when it isn't.

cereberus said:

Why would you want to disable automatic updates?

The whole point of an AV package is to keep it fully up to date at all times to minimise risk.

Why bother do it manually? Just let tool do its job.

Do I even need to ecplain this on a tech site like this?

Because it tends to do it when it's inconvenient for me - like when I'm in the middle of a backup or archiving or encoding. I'm plenty capable of clicking the update button once or twice a day when it's convenient.

TairikuOkami said:

Not really, it is meant for user's protection, most users do not understand, that an outdated AV = no AV, a malware could block updating as well. A few people, who do it manually, are not taken into the account.

You could try other AVs, but virtually every AV warns about it, though some not so aggressively.

Again, they give me the option to disable it - so if they allow that, then why lie in the interface and tell me I'm unprotected when the virus definitions have just been manually updated and protection is enabled? So you're saying it's a good idea for the anti-virus to lie and say I'm unprotected and have a permanent exclamation pint on the icon, resulting in me always ignoring it?

How is that a benefit?

Also, I used to have Avast, and the interface was very very close to this, since AVG is owned by Avast, and in Avast, there's an option you can check so that it won't alert you like this about auto updates turned off.

So I just want to know why AVG doesn't give you that choice, when the interface and options are almost identical. I'm trying this because Avast was becoming a resource hog with unwanted forced scanning, and AVG is a bit lighter.

swarfega said:

There's no point having an av if you start disabling vital parts of it.

Auto update is not a vital part of the software. All virus components are enabled and running. I simply check the virus definitions myself. I also have Windows 10 updates disabled. I update myself manually each month. I build my pwn PCs. I think I can manage to update my virus definitions.

Is this actually a tech forum or what? Anyone who's capable enough to register with a tech forum is able to click the "update" button in their virus program. I can't believe I have to explain this. There's a reason why they give you the option. So then why lie to you about your protection if you use that option? The fact is I am not unprotected just because I disable auto updates. I'm only unprotected if the definitions are old and haven't been checked recently.

This is the equivalent of programs that tell you "You're in danger!" because you haven't cleaned your registry recently. It's simply not true and it's misleading.

You can turn off automatic updates, as you have done. But there is nothing in this that implies there will be no warnings about it, particularly when it it isn't a recommended option. And in a very real sense you are unprotected when using an AV product with outdated virus definitions. Malware authors take full advantage of these situations.

Was this a good decision by AVG? Maybe. Maybe not. A case could be made either way.

I doubt you will get an authoritative reason for the decision. Software designers usually don't document the reasons as this would be time consuming and costly. In a highly competitive market that would be difficult to justify.

I read this a long time ago and it is very apt to this situation:

Software designers must make many decisions. Sometimes they are hard. Sometimes they are very hard.
Sometimes no matter what you choose somebody will say it was a stupid decision.

Fair enough. I just think it's puzzling and annoying how Avast and AVG are virtually identical other than some minor layout changes, yet Avast's version doesn't hassle you yet AVG's does. Avast owns both. The bottom line is falsely telling me I'm unprotected does me no good. It just trains me to ignore the warnings in the icon tray. Which is bad.

Apologies to forum management, but my ideas are directly related to this:

Notice: This is an old thread. The last post was 535 days ago. If your post is not directly related to this discussion please consider making a new thread.

In fact, using an older thread helps highlight another aspect to this ― that notice is still being used.

And the key point is that in many industries in many nations if a company were to blatantly try to scare by displaying false information so as to cause the customer to do as the company wanted, then there would be courts, judges, and fines getting involved.

If a government at the local level tried that technique the next higher level of government would eventually go after the lower-tiered government. In fact, somebody could get elected on that sort of thing, if the upper-tiered government didn't correct the situation.

I am trying to point out that it is not at all uncommon or weird to see such style of enforcement of an idea that scare tactics using falsehoods are unacceptable.

But we are still in the early days of this industry and so these Net company executives get away with some rather interesting styles.

Now there might be some interesting folks here that will offer great ideas as to how this weird alert is actually to our benefit and maybe those same individuals will try to make the case that the alert is not false, but let's look at this ― literally:



Now that is absolutely false! There can be no ifs-ands-or-buts about that!! It is false!!!

My virus definition had just been updated about 20 seconds or so before that wonderfully beautiful 21st century style Shakespearean lie was placed before my AreYouGullible eyes. (And, yes, he was a liar for the new Tudor King.)





So I am wondering if Social Justice can be extended to include Net Justice and whether I am going to now be vilified here in this TenForums Community, or possible given the benefit of the doubt that possibly there is some truth to what I write.

Thank you for reading to the end, especially if my words became increasingly painful as you moved down the post.

- - - Updated - - -

I have to apologize for using possibly misleading language in one phrase above.

This:

that notice is still being used.

The reference to a notice was the AVG notice, not the site's request to possibly start my own thread.

Sorry about that. Have pity on an old man. The brain doesn't work as well as it did before and "before" it wasn't really that great, anyway.