virus software

Somewhere along the line, my real question got diverted.

Way too many questions in here about virus software finding something and then
questions about 'Now what do I do ?'

What sort of virus software leaves you hanging [other than the freebie at my
ISP] with that question ?

The free one I got 7 years ago, and have paid to upgrade with it twice since
has always found the problem, located, offered several options and eventually
cleaned the problem. All with nearly instant email support.

And till I saw the freebie at my isp, I'd never figured any business would cut
the program up into pieces just to make more money from the freebie that tells
you that you need xxxxx @ $29.95 ea. to clean / block this spam, virus, Trojan,
backdoor, etc..

Somehow the term, you get what you pay for comes to mind. And I have to ask why
people are taking this chance with their machines when they don't have to ?

--
more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

Husky

Some people when faced with a choice to quarantine or delete are not always
sure which option to take, hence the question..

--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/user

http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm





"Husky" wrote in message
...
Somewhere along the line, my real question got diverted.

Way too many questions in here about virus software finding something and
then
questions about 'Now what do I do ?'

What sort of virus software leaves you hanging [other than the freebie at
my
ISP] with that question ?

The free one I got 7 years ago, and have paid to upgrade with it twice
since
has always found the problem, located, offered several options and
eventually
cleaned the problem. All with nearly instant email support.

And till I saw the freebie at my isp, I'd never figured any business would
cut
the program up into pieces just to make more money from the freebie that
tells
you that you need xxxxx @ $29.95 ea. to clean / block this spam, virus,
Trojan,
backdoor, etc..

Somehow the term, you get what you pay for comes to mind. And I have to
ask why
people are taking this chance with their machines when they don't have to
?

--
more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 10:06:13 -0400, "Mike Hall \(MS-MVP\)"
wrote:

Husky

Some people when faced with a choice to quarantine or delete are not always
sure which option to take, hence the question..

That's just one of the questions that's been bantered about virus software
here.
The worst being that they really don't have enough info to know what to do with
an alert. And actually need to download something else to clean their machines.

that's a failure as a virus software goes to me.
--
more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

Husky wrote:
That's just one of the questions that's been bantered about virus
software here.
The worst being that they really don't have enough info to know what
to do with an alert.

I think that some software is pathetic in terms of how clear it explains
things, especially considering that most people are going to be "scared"
while dealing with a computer virus warning.

Of course, how much are people willing to *learn* what to do instead of just
asking? The other side of the coin from the above scenario (bad software) is
the user who is unwilling to read the instructions being presented to them.
Its my fault if I write instructions that nobody understands. Whose fault is
it if I write very clear instructions and people can't be bothered to read
them?

And actually need to download something else to
clean their machines.

that's a failure as a virus software goes to me.

I agree with this point in general, software which *only* scans and makes no
attempt to remove is a poor choice for a home user. However, there will
always be exceptions, cases previously unanticipated by current AV software
and the way it works, that can force you into this situation with even the
best AV software.

For "real" security in a business environment, a very strong case can be
made that AntiVirus software should *never* 'disinfect' an already active
infection for any number of reasons.

--
--
Rob Moir
Website - http://www.robertmoir.co.uk
Virtual PC 2004 FAQ - http://www.robertmoir.co.uk/win/VirtualPC2004FAQ.html
Kazaa - Software update services for your Viruses and Spyware.

"Robert Moir" wrote in message
...
....

I think that some software is pathetic in terms of how clear it explains
things, especially considering that most people are going to be "scared"
while dealing with a computer virus warning.
=== True, on both counts. Even sometimes the opposite; they have it, but
don't care and don't even know to keep it updated.
....
asking? The other side of the coin from the above scenario (bad software)
the user who is unwilling to read the instructions being presented to
them. Its my fault if I write instructions that nobody understands. Whose
fault is it if I write very clear instructions and people can't be
bothered to read them?
=== And the third side of that (the slim edge of that) coin is the newbie
who doesn't yet even know what questions to ask. They hardly know what a
keyboard really does, let alone what their "virus" is for?
I forget the name now, but I had one person ask me to help uninstall a
"game" that seemed to have installed itself for them. I was assured they
had never been "on the web". It turned out though, later, that they DID use
the "internet"; they knew so, because it told them so. I had rather
stupidly asked them if they were using the web just before it started
happening.

And actually need to download something else to
clean their machines.
=== Including their own viral definition files. Many also don't
distinguish between virus, worm, trojan for obvious reasons. NBD, but ...

that's a failure as a virus software goes to me.
=== Then there are the inbetwens who live off offering fixes only AFTER
someone else has done the work and they can grab its tail. Not very useful
much of the time.

I agree with this point in general, software which *only* scans and makes
no attempt to remove is a poor choice for a home user. However, there will
=== Well, that depends on how that's handled. If it's one of those bait &
switch (get it removed for only $39.95), they they should fail instantly
anyway. But if as most do, explain it can't be cleaned automatically, and
send you to a solution, then I can live with that as long as tech support
goes along with it.

For "real" security in a business environment, a very strong case can be
made that AntiVirus software should *never* 'disinfect' an already active
infection for any number of reasons.

=== I can't help but wonder if, for as many or more reasons, it -should- be
cleaned. Actually I can only think of a few exceptions.
I wonder if you'd clarify that statement somewhat? Perhaps my ignorance
is showing, but I'm curious. Perhaps I'm missing something intimated by
your " 'real' security in a business..." sentence?
What would you recommend instead?

Regards,

Pop

Pop wrote:

For "real" security in a business environment, a very strong case
can be made that AntiVirus software should *never* 'disinfect' an
already active infection for any number of reasons.

=== I can't help but wonder if, for as many or more reasons, it
-should- be cleaned. Actually I can only think of a few exceptions.
I wonder if you'd clarify that statement somewhat? Perhaps my
ignorance is showing, but I'm curious. Perhaps I'm missing something
intimated by your " 'real' security in a business..." sentence?
What would you recommend instead?

I'd recommend going back to a backup instead.

Its been well documented that there is no way to be 100% certain that a
virus scanner's "disinfection" process will remove all changes to a system
without also damaging code that is supposed to be there. So you've either
got a faulty file thats had something important removed, or you've got a
faulty file thats got something added which might not be "infectious" any
more but which isn't supposed to be there. Or it might by some fluke be 100%
fine... who knows?

At that point, while your virus may no longer be running, which is a good
thing, you've not got exactly the system that you thought you had, and if
you were to get any bugs appear on such a system at a later date you'd
always have a niggling question about whether or not the "disinfection"
process was involved somehow.

http://antivirus.about.com/library/g...def-disinf.htm


--
--
Rob Moir
Website - http://www.robertmoir.co.uk
Virtual PC 2004 FAQ - http://www.robertmoir.co.uk/win/VirtualPC2004FAQ.html
Kazaa - Software update services for your Viruses and Spyware.

Oh. No arguement whatsoever. For some reason I didn't think that was an
acceptable solution: Guess I was reading -between- the -between the lines-
stuff; wouldn't be the first time.

Regards,

Pop
--
---
I say what I mean and
I mean what I say

....
At that point, while your virus may no longer be running, which is a good
thing, you've not got exactly the system that you thought you had, and if
you were to get any bugs appear on such a system at a later date you'd
always have a niggling question about whether or not the "disinfection"
process was involved somehow.

http://antivirus.about.com/library/g...def-disinf.htm