nasty bug

D-Dan · Jul 21, 2012, 20:09:41

Ahem: Penguins offer a pretty good form of protection against malware

Technical Ben · Jul 21, 2012, 22:36:36

Well, it still leaves the weakest link on the seat...

armadillo · Jul 23, 2012, 01:22:41

Quote from: Baz on Jul 21, 2012, 13:30:54
Hi Armadillo,

well I have to admit thats where I let myself down I know and was kicking my self for obvious reasons...I didnt back up regular enough to have a recent one that would have helped I know, slap wrist time

Yes I was using Acronis but I now use EaseUS Todo Backup which seems good but havent had a chance to actually re-install one....apart from this week

I was getting a bit bother with Acronis,cant remember what but it was just niggly stuff, wouldnt boot from disc I think, dont know.So I looked about and found this.

Might give Acronis another try,I found it a tad complicated to use

I can understand why you kicked yourself.

Acronis does have an unnecessarily complicated interface but it does the job once you get used to using only the features you need.

The big test of any Backup/recovery software is whether the recovery works. I hope EaseUS does.

armadillo · Jul 23, 2012, 01:24:36

Quote from: Simon on Jul 21, 2012, 15:57:31
A firewall won't protect you from malware, Baz, but something like the paid for version of Malwarebytes would offer real-time protection.

Malwarebytes real-time protection has a conflict with NOD32, which Baz uses.

armadillo · Jul 23, 2012, 01:30:06

Quote from: Baz on Jul 21, 2012, 17:12:06
thanks all

I used a long time back Outpost but was getting conflicts with something and as soon as I uninstalled it they stopped so didnt use it again, pity as it was ok.

So I keep going back to the good old windows firewall then not using it and relying on router one but when you get a tester like I just had it makes you more alert again.

There is still a conflict between NOD32 and Outpost.

I agree that a firewall will not protect against instrusions such as these. As Gary says, heuristics are your best hope but they do not help if a user explicitly gives permission to the malware.

armadillo · Jul 23, 2012, 01:35:07

Quote from: Technical Ben on Jul 21, 2012, 19:37:36
That and everyone (including virus scanners and a driver installer CD this week!!!) want's to add in "toolbars".

Those toolbar offers are a real pest. Shame on AV vendors for offering them. The installs are often pre-ticked too.

armadillo · Jul 23, 2012, 01:50:14

Quote from: Ray on Jul 21, 2012, 16:21:21
... Webroot SecureAnywhere Complete or Essentials and see what it finds, from here: - It also works with any other security software without causing any conflicts.

Or so they say.

I know a lot of people like it but I would be very, very cautious about installing more than one real-time protection software. And definitely only after taking a full backup from which the OS can be restored without recourse to Windows Restore. Kernel mode drivers can get into a terrific tangle which a simple uninstall cannot fix.

I prefer to carry out regular secondary scans with products that do not offer real-time protection, such as Trend Micro Housecall and Emsisoft, though the latter gives plenty of false positives.

Ray · Jul 23, 2012, 11:06:58

Quote from: armadillo on Jul 23, 2012, 01:50:14
Or so they say.

I know a lot of people like it but I would be very, very cautious about installing more than one real-time protection software. And definitely only after taking a full backup from which the OS can be restored without recourse to Windows Restore. Kernel mode drivers can get into a terrific tangle which a simple uninstall cannot fix.

Webroot SecureAnywhere is designed to work with other AV Security software, and I can confirm from my own experience that it will work without causing problems, I've been running it on 3 machine with KIS 2012 installed on them for over 5 months with no problems.
Webroot does most of it's work in the Cloud and installs very little on your PC the main executable is only around 680k and the service driver is 111k.

armadillo · Jul 23, 2012, 14:08:00

Quote from: Ray on Jul 23, 2012, 11:06:58
Webroot SecureAnywhere is designed to work with other AV Security software, and I can confirm from my own experience that it will work without causing problems, I've been running it on 3 machine with KIS 2012 installed on them for over 5 months with no problems.
Webroot does most of it's work in the Cloud and installs very little on your PC the main executable is only around 680k and the service driver is 111k.

I do not doubt this at all. This is your experience. But it is anecdotal evidence. All it confirms is that you have encountered no conflicts between Webroot SecureAnywhere and KIS on your three machines. There is a difference between "designed to work with..." and "proven to work with all security software in any possible environment".

I have recently been involved with an ESET problem, requiring memory dumps from various users over a period of some 9 months for its resolution. Conflicts arose only with certain service packs of certain versions of Windows and only when certain software drivers, not necessarily from security software, were present.

All I am saying is that it is virtually impossible for any vendor to test for conflicts with everything in all possible OSs with all possible combinations of drivers present. Hence, a vendor who claims that their product works with all security software is making an untested and untestable claim. Though the claim of "designed to work with all..." is a less extravagant claim. Even a 111k driver could cause havoc in some circumstances. And security software operates in very difficult regions of the OS.

Things that might be affected by conflicts include accessing external drives, printing, scanning, accessing cameras, internet access, joysticks, sound settings, defragmenting, writing to CDs and DVDs: in fact virtually anything that needs a driver.

I am not saying that carefully designed products cannot run in parallel. Just that it is prudent to have a full OS backup before installing any additional security software so that there is a regression path if it is needed. And after installation, as much functionality as possible should be immediately tested, not simply related to the performance of security software.

I was a beta tester for KAV. I lost count of the number of times I had to restore my OS from a backup after it reached about 50.

Baz · Jul 23, 2012, 17:22:22

Quote from: armadillo on Jul 23, 2012, 01:22:41
The big test of any Backup/recovery software is whether the recovery works. I hope EaseUS does.

ooooeerrrrrr you speak as though you doubt it will work Armadillo, I hope it does too.I could have found out if id been more thorough with my back ups

I know youve helped me many times in the past with problems like this

so I wouldnt question what you say about it, but you got me even more worried now that it doesnt work

Baz · Jul 28, 2012, 20:09:26

after this recent virus I had my computer is now,just today any way, running a chkdsk on start up which is making me think its dying

so I was wondering what would be the best way to install another HD which I already have, it has XP on it already with loads of software/documents/music etc.its just my sons old system that he doesnt need.

I want to use this second drive to replace mine so need everything that is on mine now putting on this other drive.Do I need to format and just install a backup that I now have of my original system or does it require a full OS re installing.

or any other way which I dont know.

pctech · Jul 29, 2012, 16:17:37

Quote from: D-Dan on Jul 21, 2012, 20:09:41
Ahem: Penguins offer a pretty good form of protection against malware

They taste nice with a cup of tea but I wouldn't use one to protect me against malware.

Gary · Jul 29, 2012, 18:22:21

Quote from: armadillo on Jul 23, 2012, 14:08:00
I do not doubt this at all. This is your experience. But it is anecdotal evidence. All it confirms is that you have encountered no conflicts between Webroot SecureAnywhere and KIS on your three machines. There is a difference between "designed to work with..." and "proven to work with all security software in any possible environment".

I have recently been involved with an ESET problem, requiring memory dumps from various users over a period of some 9 months for its resolution. Conflicts arose only with certain service packs of certain versions of Windows and only when certain software drivers, not necessarily from security software, were present.

All I am saying is that it is virtually impossible for any vendor to test for conflicts with everything in all possible OSs with all possible combinations of drivers present. Hence, a vendor who claims that their product works with all security software is making an untested and untestable claim. Though the claim of "designed to work with all..." is a less extravagant claim. Even a 111k driver could cause havoc in some circumstances. And security software operates in very difficult regions of the OS.

Things that might be affected by conflicts include accessing external drives, printing, scanning, accessing cameras, internet access, joysticks, sound settings, defragmenting, writing to CDs and DVDs: in fact virtually anything that needs a driver.

I am not saying that carefully designed products cannot run in parallel. Just that it is prudent to have a full OS backup before installing any additional security software so that there is a regression path if it is needed. And after installation, as much functionality as possible should be immediately tested, not simply related to the performance of security software.

I was a beta tester for KAV. I lost count of the number of times I had to restore my OS from a backup after it reached about 50.

I used to use Prevx as well and it did indeed work with two of my computers, they had a very active forum and released new versions to deal with issues in days at points if something arose, I used it because of Esets poor detection of malware and spyware, which is still a problem, yes having 100% VB is great but in the wild is where it counts and sadly it let me down, and the new version is not receiving glowing reports on detection and clean up either