Prev: Laptop Hijacked by "Control Center Best PC Health components"; no safe mode, no task manager
Next: win32.pinfi`
From: FromTheRafters on 29 Nov 2009 14:52

"Tim923" <tws0923(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:heu6cv$m79$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
> Do virus scanners see what's in zip and rar files before they are
> uncompressed, or is it just after?

Just after. The difference is that they do the decompression for you,
behind the scenes, if you enable that option. Not only do they support
many archive types (most that you don't even use) but other types of
encoding - decoding schemes.


From: FromTheRafters on 29 Nov 2009 15:09
"Tim923" <tws0923(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hes990$akk$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>I see that it's an old version, Norton 2003, but I believe I was up to
>date
> in updates. It sure did detect win32.pinfi, but it was too late. It
> wasn't
> email related. I downloaded something that didn't come from a nice
> official
> webpage. So I'm partly to blame. I have to ask, would AVG free have
> done a
> better job? Tim

I don't think that there's an answer for that one.

Bottom line, they all suck - they can't be relied upon to make sure
executables that you download from untrusted sources are benign.

They *can* be useful in the "verify" part of "trust yet verify" when you
download from a source that you *do* trust.

I know, it sounds crazy, - why would anyone need to scan files obtained
from trusted sources?

Answer - viruses. Much of the rest can be avoided by policy.

Most of these so-called security programs are really just 'absence of
security' clean-up tools (some are very good at what they do). I
suggest, for those poeple feeling they must download and execute
untrusted programs from the internet, a good recovery plan (avoidance
won't work). When I was one of those, I used several computers (some
isolated) and disk images. Now, most people use virtual machines to test
in.


From: George Orwell on 29 Nov 2009 17:42

From David H. Lipman:
|
| Just about any other would be an improvement over Norton
| and Avira AntiVir stands above their shoulders.

HORSESHIT! Like most of the "expert" advice I've read from
you lately.

Avira is a good detector, but good detection isn't everything.
The fact that Avira spews out false positives like there's no
tomorrow has ALWAYS made it a VERY POOR choice.

Unless your PC emulates H.G. Wells' time machine, believing
in retrospective testing is about as intelligent as believing in
Scientology, so before you try to support your latest horseshit
with "But G DATA, Kaspersky and ESET NOD32 were all behind
Avira in AV Comparatives August/November 2009 test", let me
state unequivocally that their few percent lower detection is
preferable to Avira's perpetual false positive tsunami any day.

(alt.comp.anti-virus has degenerated into American Idol for AV
wannabes! Where have all the real antivirus experts gone???)



Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it

From: Dave Cohen on 1 Dec 2009 14:49
George Orwell wrote:
> From David H. Lipman:
> |
> | Just about any other would be an improvement over Norton
> | and Avira AntiVir stands above their shoulders.
>
> HORSESHIT! Like most of the "expert" advice I've read from
> you lately.
>
> Avira is a good detector, but good detection isn't everything.
> The fact that Avira spews out false positives like there's no
> tomorrow has ALWAYS made it a VERY POOR choice.
>
> Unless your PC emulates H.G. Wells' time machine, believing
> in retrospective testing is about as intelligent as believing in
> Scientology, so before you try to support your latest horseshit
> with "But G DATA, Kaspersky and ESET NOD32 were all behind
> Avira in AV Comparatives August/November 2009 test", let me
> state unequivocally that their few percent lower detection is
> preferable to Avira's perpetual false positive tsunami any day.
>
> (alt.comp.anti-virus has degenerated into American Idol for AV
> wannabes! Where have all the real antivirus experts gone???)
>
>
>
> Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
> non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
> reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
> di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
> Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
> https://www.mixmaster.it
>

I've been using Avira for a year or so and can recall 2 false positives.
I would hardly describe that as 'spewing', but there again, I'm not a
self professed expert. As regards 'spewing', I would certainly defer to
your demonstrated superior abilities in that area.
From: The Central Scrutinizer on 3 Dec 2009 00:26
Norton 2003 was 6 years out of date. Get the latest...

--



"Tim923" <tws0923(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hes990$akk$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>I see that it's an old version, Norton 2003, but I believe I was up to date
> in updates. It sure did detect win32.pinfi, but it was too late. It
> wasn't
> email related. I downloaded something that didn't come from a nice
> official
> webpage. So I'm partly to blame. I have to ask, would AVG free have done
> a
> better job? Tim
>
>
>


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Laptop Hijacked by "Control Center Best PC Health components"; no safe mode, no task manager
Next: win32.pinfi`