Author Topic: Round 1 Suggestion: Better classification of protection  (Read 2603 times)

Offline Xeset

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • Kudos +0/-0
Round 1 Suggestion: Better classification of protection
« on: October 30, 2015, 12:34:26 AM »
On the main UI, the top left side shows 'Fully Protected' even if Real-Time scanning, universal AV and offline AV is disabled. It even shows green ticks. The right side, under Universal AV Scan, "Universal AV is disabled" is written in red, but the left side says fully protected.

I think the green ticks should be changed to red crosses instead, or an intermediate option since some people opt for other AVs. Maybe it should be red crosses if other AVs are not installed and an intermediate option for those with other AVs installed.


Offline hendy

  • SecureAPlus Developer
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 303
  • Kudos +13/-0
Re: Round 1 Suggestion: Better classification of protection
« Reply #1 on: October 30, 2015, 09:23:12 AM »
Last time our user actually suggested that we set the security feature to be green if they manually disable all the AV components (Universal AV, Offline AV, and real time scanning). The reason that they do this is because they only want the Application Whitelisting feature from SecureAPlus, and they use it along with other third party AntiVirus.

Offline Xeset

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • Kudos +0/-0
Re: Round 1 Suggestion: Better classification of protection
« Reply #2 on: October 30, 2015, 11:30:50 PM »
Yes I understand, but what about those users who don't use a 3rd party AV?


Offline hendy

  • SecureAPlus Developer
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 303
  • Kudos +13/-0
Re: Round 1 Suggestion: Better classification of protection
« Reply #3 on: October 31, 2015, 12:10:25 PM »
When those AV components are disabled, SecureAPlus will also notify Windows Security Center. If Windows found that there is no other 3rd party AV registered, it will notify the user.

Offline Xeset

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • Kudos +0/-0
Re: Round 1 Suggestion: Better classification of protection
« Reply #4 on: October 31, 2015, 12:16:34 PM »
And then the user will think:

Oh but I already have secureaplus installed. Secureaplus must be faulty, since all are green ticks. What they do after that, nobody will know.

I don't think all users will actually know that Secureaplus is able to both complement other AVs and be an AV itself. Those using it as an AV wouldn't want the green ticks on when those options are off

Offline hendy

  • SecureAPlus Developer
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 303
  • Kudos +13/-0
Re: Round 1 Suggestion: Better classification of protection
« Reply #5 on: October 31, 2015, 06:02:37 PM »
You have a valid point though. Probably we should mark it as red for users who install the full installation, with offline av. For users that install without offline av, we will still mark it as green, since from the beginning it has shown that they are not opting for the offline av. Thank you very much for your suggestion, and you have given a good background for it.

Offline Xeset

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • Kudos +0/-0
Re: Round 1 Suggestion: Better classification of protection
« Reply #6 on: November 01, 2015, 12:35:47 AM »
You're welcome. I'm glad I could convince you of my point :)

Offline JohnStampede

  • Global Moderator
  • Jr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 64
  • Kudos +1/-0
Re: Round 1 Suggestion: Better classification of protection
« Reply #7 on: November 17, 2015, 04:25:08 PM »
This suggestion has been duly noted. We will see if we can take into account the SecureAPlus version installed (with or without Offline AV), features enabled or disabled (Offline AV, Universal AV, Real-Time Scanning), and, if possible, Windows Security Center's general assessment if any other software installed fulfils this role to protect the PC.

As there are no further comments on this for quite some time, this thread is now closed.