Firefox, AVG, and Infections
in [Windows Viruses]
|
From: David H. Lipman on 3 Sep 2009 19:09 From: "W. eWatson" <wolftracks(a)invalid.com> | David H. Lipman wrote: >> From: "W. eWatson" <wolftracks(a)invalid.com> >> | I'm having some trouble with Firefox, and have gotten to the phase where >> | I decided to run a virus checker on my C: HD. My basic difficulty is >> | what I would call herky-jerky operation. When I'm typing or scrolling, >> | things stop for many seconds, then start. It came after a the plug from >> | my PC accidentally pulled out. FF failed upon recovery. I put it back >> | together by re-installing and retaining e-mail, etc. For awhile it >> | worked fine, but then started halting as above. I did a cclean, and that >> | got it rolling again, only for the problem to return within 10 or so hours. >> | I did a diagnostic on the HD and it passed. I then began to try a virus >> | check with AVG, which I have never used before. I have question about >> | what it report. If I knew of a web site to temporarily post images of >> | the vault, I'd post it. >> | I posted the following in the FF support group. >> | ... >> | My virus scan with AVG proved very interesting. It found several >> | infections, three were trojans, several tracking cookies (associated >> | with FF and probably SeaMonkey, and a worm in >> | Doc&Settings/.../dialsys.exe. I took care of them. They are now in the >> | vault. That was all last evening. >> | Some hours of the scan I sat down at the PC to find AVG Resident Shield >> | had found two more Trojan Horses. Correcting thes matters last night >> | provided no change in the problem with FF that I reported. >> | What's quite surprising to me is the "infections". Apparently, AT&T >> | Yahoo s/w isn't doing its job, or AVG is much too sensitive to them. By >> | the latter, I mean are these infections dead on arrival anyway? In >> | almost a decade of internet use, I've contracted maybe 3 viruses. This >> | is certainly different. >> | Well, I'll continue to trouble shoot today as I can. Right now I'm just >> | using SeaMonkey. >> Please add to your scan, Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware >> http://www.malwarebytes.org/mbam/program/mbam-setup.exe >> PS: I doubt that AVG is "too sensitive" nor finding False Positives. | On what basis do you think I should try another virus checker. A five | star review somewhere? | What I'm suggesting is there's a potential for some bias for sales | purposes. That's not necessarily directed at AVG. Is there a standards | committee on viruses, worms, etc.? You are confused. Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware (MBAM) is not an anti virus. That is AVG. MBAM handles non viral malware and you in your own words have indicated AVG found several trojans. AT&T and Yahoo do NOT write anti malware software. At best what you have is an OEM product. The question is WHO is actually the vendor ? MBAM is a very good anti malware utility and is free to use to remove malware. Surely you jest about a standards comittee on malware. Do you really think malware authors will conform to a standard ? -- Dave http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp
From: W. eWatson on 3 Sep 2009 20:18 David H. Lipman wrote: > From: "W. eWatson" <wolftracks(a)invalid.com> > > | David H. Lipman wrote: >>> From: "W. eWatson" <wolftracks(a)invalid.com> > >>> | I'm having some trouble with Firefox, and have gotten to the phase where >>> | I decided to run a virus checker on my C: HD. My basic difficulty is >>> | what I would call herky-jerky operation. When I'm typing or scrolling, >>> | things stop for many seconds, then start. It came after a the plug from >>> | my PC accidentally pulled out. FF failed upon recovery. I put it back >>> | together by re-installing and retaining e-mail, etc. For awhile it >>> | worked fine, but then started halting as above. I did a cclean, and that >>> | got it rolling again, only for the problem to return within 10 or so hours. > >>> | I did a diagnostic on the HD and it passed. I then began to try a virus >>> | check with AVG, which I have never used before. I have question about >>> | what it report. If I knew of a web site to temporarily post images of >>> | the vault, I'd post it. > >>> | I posted the following in the FF support group. >>> | ... > >>> | My virus scan with AVG proved very interesting. It found several >>> | infections, three were trojans, several tracking cookies (associated >>> | with FF and probably SeaMonkey, and a worm in >>> | Doc&Settings/.../dialsys.exe. I took care of them. They are now in the >>> | vault. That was all last evening. > >>> | Some hours of the scan I sat down at the PC to find AVG Resident Shield >>> | had found two more Trojan Horses. Correcting thes matters last night >>> | provided no change in the problem with FF that I reported. > >>> | What's quite surprising to me is the "infections". Apparently, AT&T >>> | Yahoo s/w isn't doing its job, or AVG is much too sensitive to them. By >>> | the latter, I mean are these infections dead on arrival anyway? In >>> | almost a decade of internet use, I've contracted maybe 3 viruses. This >>> | is certainly different. > >>> | Well, I'll continue to trouble shoot today as I can. Right now I'm just >>> | using SeaMonkey. > >>> Please add to your scan, Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware >>> http://www.malwarebytes.org/mbam/program/mbam-setup.exe > >>> PS: I doubt that AVG is "too sensitive" nor finding False Positives. > > | On what basis do you think I should try another virus checker. A five > | star review somewhere? > > | What I'm suggesting is there's a potential for some bias for sales > | purposes. That's not necessarily directed at AVG. Is there a standards > | committee on viruses, worms, etc.? > > You are confused. A natural state. And an example of non-viral malware is what? > > Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware (MBAM) is not an anti virus. That is AVG. MBAM handles non > viral malware and you in your own words have indicated AVG found several trojans. > > AT&T and Yahoo do NOT write anti malware software. At best what you have is an OEM > product. The question is WHO is actually the vendor ? Of course not. Did I say they did? Whatever they use to protect e-mail and firewalls is likely written by someone else. They do provide such protection, right? > > MBAM is a very good anti malware utility and is free to use to remove malware. > > Surely you jest about a standards comittee on malware. Do you really think malware > authors will conform to a standard ? Shirley, I do to some extent. The question I pose is there a standard for what might generally called infections? You know, something that puts everyone on the same footing (s/w developers of infectious s/w), so that they don't slip in some crazy thing to demonstrate they are better than the other guys? I don't think it's an unfair question to ask who rates infection preventive software? Is PC magazine the arbiter. > > But let's not get confused here on side issues. The real question is interpreting the AVG messages. Can someone take a look at the messages via a temporary web site that I can post images to of the vault contents?
From: W. eWatson on 3 Sep 2009 20:20 Leythos wrote: > In article <h7n8b1$dd8$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > wolftracks(a)invalid.com says... >> I'm having some trouble with Firefox, and have gotten to the phase where >> I decided to run a virus checker on my C: HD. My basic difficulty is >> what I would call herky-jerky operation. When I'm typing or scrolling, >> things stop for many seconds, then start. It came after a the plug from >> my PC accidentally pulled out. FF failed upon recovery. I put it back >> together by re-installing and retaining e-mail, etc. For awhile it >> worked fine, but then started halting as above. I did a cclean, and that >> got it rolling again, only for the problem to return within 10 or so hours. >> >> I did a diagnostic on the HD and it passed. I then began to try a virus >> check with AVG, which I have never used before. I have question about >> what it report. If I knew of a web site to temporarily post images of >> the vault, I'd post it. >> >> I posted the following in the FF support group. >> ... >> >> My virus scan with AVG proved very interesting. It found several >> infections, three were trojans, several tracking cookies (associated >> with FF and probably SeaMonkey, and a worm in >> Doc&Settings/.../dialsys.exe. I took care of them. They are now in the >> vault. That was all last evening. >> >> Some hours of the scan I sat down at the PC to find AVG Resident Shield >> had found two more Trojan Horses. Correcting thes matters last night >> provided no change in the problem with FF that I reported. >> >> What's quite surprising to me is the "infections". Apparently, AT&T >> Yahoo s/w isn't doing its job, or AVG is much too sensitive to them. By >> the latter, I mean are these infections dead on arrival anyway? In >> almost a decade of internet use, I've contracted maybe 3 viruses. This >> is certainly different. >> >> Well, I'll continue to trouble shoot today as I can. Right now I'm just >> using SeaMonkey. > > You need something better than AVG, my experience with hundreds of > computers using AVG is that it's one of the least protective out on the > market. > Can you back that up with specific reviews that it rate it poorer than others? What do you do that requires hundreds of computers? What would you suggest that's free and better?
From: David H. Lipman on 3 Sep 2009 20:37 From: "W. eWatson" <wolftracks(a)invalid.com> | Can you back that up with specific reviews that it rate it poorer than | others? What do you do that requires hundreds of computers? What would | you suggest that's free and better? { Why does EVERYONE have to lean towards a free AV ? I don't know.... } The answer is Avira AntiVir - http://www.freeav.com/ -- Dave http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp
From: Leythos on 3 Sep 2009 21:42
In article <h7pmfl$nn7$2(a)news.eternal-september.org>, wolftracks(a)invalid.com says... > > Leythos wrote: > > In article <h7n8b1$dd8$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > > wolftracks(a)invalid.com says... > >> I'm having some trouble with Firefox, and have gotten to the phase where > >> I decided to run a virus checker on my C: HD. My basic difficulty is > >> what I would call herky-jerky operation. When I'm typing or scrolling, > >> things stop for many seconds, then start. It came after a the plug from > >> my PC accidentally pulled out. FF failed upon recovery. I put it back > >> together by re-installing and retaining e-mail, etc. For awhile it > >> worked fine, but then started halting as above. I did a cclean, and that > >> got it rolling again, only for the problem to return within 10 or so hours. > >> > >> I did a diagnostic on the HD and it passed. I then began to try a virus > >> check with AVG, which I have never used before. I have question about > >> what it report. If I knew of a web site to temporarily post images of > >> the vault, I'd post it. > >> > >> I posted the following in the FF support group. > >> ... > >> > >> My virus scan with AVG proved very interesting. It found several > >> infections, three were trojans, several tracking cookies (associated > >> with FF and probably SeaMonkey, and a worm in > >> Doc&Settings/.../dialsys.exe. I took care of them. They are now in the > >> vault. That was all last evening. > >> > >> Some hours of the scan I sat down at the PC to find AVG Resident Shield > >> had found two more Trojan Horses. Correcting thes matters last night > >> provided no change in the problem with FF that I reported. > >> > >> What's quite surprising to me is the "infections". Apparently, AT&T > >> Yahoo s/w isn't doing its job, or AVG is much too sensitive to them. By > >> the latter, I mean are these infections dead on arrival anyway? In > >> almost a decade of internet use, I've contracted maybe 3 viruses. This > >> is certainly different. > >> > >> Well, I'll continue to trouble shoot today as I can. Right now I'm just > >> using SeaMonkey. > > > > You need something better than AVG, my experience with hundreds of > > computers using AVG is that it's one of the least protective out on the > > market. > > > Can you back that up with specific reviews that it rate it poorer than > others? What do you do that requires hundreds of computers? What would > you suggest that's free and better? I back my statement with 20+ years of experience in securing systems against threats, and never having had a compromised managed network that we maintain for customers. The AVG failures were at Sororities over 2 years as well as many residential systems from different types of users - The most infected machines were running AVG, the second most were using McAfee products, the least infected machines were running Symantec Corporate AV and CA products. One thing to note - the least infected machines also included ones properly secured as per Microsoft's directions that have been available for many years. I don't suggest ANY free AV products, my time and data is valuable enough to PAY for better protection - if you spend 1 hour cleaning your machine of malware, and another hour just making sure it's not infected with KNOWN malware, you've paid for the cost of better protection. -- You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that. Trust yourself. spam999free(a)rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address) |