A good free backup scanner!

Hi everyone! Have you seen this site,

http://www.bitdefender.com/bd/site/products.php?p_id=24

there you can download a good free backup scanner without on access scanner (as a backup you don't even need that!). It is totally free!

What else you can want from some free av with a reasonable unpacking engine (only KAV engined AV:s, McAfee and RAV have better unpacking capabilities), best possible archives scanning and autoupdate possibility! Besides BitDefender Free Edition v7 has quite good heuristics and enough wide virusbase that you can mark as a bonus!


"The truth is out there, but it hurts!"

Best Regards,
Firefighter!

 

Sounds good firefighter. I use McAfee as my main AV and I'm tring GAV as a back up. I might have to check out Bit Deffender and see how good it is.

 

Quiet aggressive marketing approach by this BitDefender guys again. But let's see: first disadvantage: Setting up two system services which might be conflicting with other av software running.

second disadvantage: the scanner will not work anymore if the system services are disabled.

Third disadvantage: If you close down the control centre you get a message that you are no longer protected against viruses but as this is only an on-demand scanner you are not protected against malware while this control centre is running either. This might lead unexperienced user to fell protected while they aren't.

Anymore for free as a backup scanner it might be a good choice as long the scanner service is not conflicting with the primary installed av. And for the moment it is of course far more reliable than the unfinished GAV.

wizard

 

Yes GAV is a little unreliable. It shows so called trojans when they aren't trojans. But it finds dialers pretty good. But i think spybot s&d finds some dialers also.

I was reading over Bit Defenders page and read the same thing you read and changed my mind on messing with it. I don't want a back up that's going to conflict with my main AV even though I turn it off when I scan with my back up anyway.

 

Perhaps another alternative might be to have one really top antivirus on your system and once a week zap up to trend micro for a free online scan ( If you were that worried about your anti virus choice)

 

To everyone from Firefighter!

When I said earlier that my resident is F-secure 5.41, I have again chanced my choice, my resident is now RAV 8.6 104 (because of smaller footprint), and when I had my RAV resident on all the time I scanned with BitDefenfer Free v7 my whole PC (without F-secure and RAV folders in the program files), there were no problems at all!

I'm using F-secure only with my download manager program as my choice to scan my downloaded files, the real backup is of course BitDefender Free v7.

Here are interesting test results about a sample of 95-113 trojans detecting from:

http://members.lycos.co.uk/scheinsicherheit/scanner.htm

96,4% McAfee 7.0.2.6000
90,3% F-Secure
90,3% KAV
72,3% RAV
69,5% AVK Pro 12
57,7% Drweb 4.29
51.3% TDS 3.21 (or 3.20)
49,0% BitDefender 6.5
23,2% Trojan Remover
20,4% AntiVir PE
19,6% Panda Platinum 7
15,5% PC-cillin 2002
15.0% F-Prot 312b
11,9% AVG 6
11,5% Norton 2003
10.7% Avast32
10,7% NOD32
7.1% Norman 5.4
7.1% Sophos 3.64
6,2% PestPatrol 4

After that I think BitDefender is not so bad choice at all, the whole virusbase is just now 73 421 and I think it is much more than for example Panda Platinum, DrWeb 4.29c or NOD32 has!

The best thing is that with only BitDefender, you have been able to scan so many files from your PC as possible!

"The truth is out there, but it hurts!"

Best regards,
Firefighter!

 

Do you have a example for this ?

 

Howdyyyy

Lemme tell you something friend Firefighter, with all my respect ofcourse.
If you are looking for a "Back Up" something you should consider looking for Norton´s "GHOST". Nope, it is not an antivirus but you could use it as an antivirus. You make just an image from partition C to partition whatever, and when necessary you copy the image on partion C, it is painless because Ghost works on M$ dos. So, you do not have to make format c or anything else .....it is really easy, COOL proggie I say and believe me ! As we finns use to say: helppoa kuin heinänteko !

Have a very nice weekend all of you at Wilders -Ari

 

Ahh I forgot to tell that Ghost version 7 and named as Enterprise.
Bootable from a floppy disk....

and the old saying....."Helppoa kuin heinänteko" = Easy as making hay lol

 

gav up in this mofo best reconize lol

dont be a hater you know gav good

i use it along side my norton it hasnt fail me once i wish i could say same about norton lol

any hoot try them all and make up your owen mind gav is just my prefrence not only does it find all badys no mater how you hide them but it looks awsome to

plus it free lol cant beat that with a bat

 

Xor I sent you a pm with the so called Trojan and a report. But I'll post it here also. It clain Weather Pulse was a Trojan but it's has been fixed in the latest update so it's all good. No false positives.

 

GAV is my choice..

If I need help, how far is the developer? LOL...

I never saw GAV identify a file as a trojan when it wasn't..

Service and support are VERY important to me, too.. It would be nice to know they are close by...

Besides, my heart goes out to Michael.. I heard he only sleeps 4 hours a month!!!

Cheers,
SS

 

I HEARD THAT MIKE ISNT REAL

That in fact he is a machine lol

 

firefighter (and anyone):

i recently tried RAV, cos it got some good reviews on here and other places. ive got a small personal collection of viruses safely stored on a cd. it contains various js and ie exploits, back orifice, some toher trojans, and about 10 viruses that i have encountered myself over the years.

anyway, my drweb,f-secure and kav detects them all. norton detects all viruses but none of the trojans (ok, my norton test was run ovr a year ago, i didnt touch norton since, mayeb they ahve improved)

but RAV... it found NONE of them. the resident scanner found none, the on-dmaned scanner found none. i copied and unzipped all the viruses to my hardisk and RAv still found none. i reinstalled rav but the results were the same. of course te vir defs were up to date.

i dont know why this happened, and of course this isnt a serious test, but i certainly dont trust RAV after this.

 

Bet the coffee bill is really high

 

Tahoma, can you send me the samples please to gladiator@gladiator-antivirus.com in a password protected ZIP File ?

Thanks in advance

 

xor: yes i can, i just gotta reboot with all my defenses turned off or ill hear the horrible KAV squeal

ps, therse nothing special about these samples. just very average common viruses and trojans. check your mail in a few mins

woho, im registered

 

Welcome aboard.....

Regards,

CrazyM

 

To Tahoma from Firefighter!

It looks like you had won on the "anti-lottery"!

Let's take an example. When those AV:s were tested last in av-test.org 2-2003, from 71 627 viruses here are those missed ones:

29 viruses - F-secure
43 viruses - AVK 12
76 viruses - KAV
231 viruses - Norton
354 viruses - RAV
681 viruses - F-Prot 3.12c
1 877 viruses - BitDefender 6.5
5 671 viruses - NOD32
5 961 viruses - DrWeb 4.29b

When you have found tens of viruses that only RAV couldn't detect, it's more than a first price!

I can't say anything but you surfing habits are the most anti-RAV ones. My suggest is to use any other AV than just RAV!

"The truth is out there, but it hurts!"

Best Regards,
Firefighter!

 

firefighter, yes, its strange, its nevertheless what happened. i even reinstalled rav to make sure that i somehow had a faulty installation.

i sent some of the virus samples to the gladiator-guy like requested above, and gav found all the samples. would be interesting if he could install rav to check if rav finds anything..

drweb doesent find many old/obsolete viruses i reckon, but finds most that u are likely to encounter. rav found none of these very common ones, such as back orifice.

or is it possible that rav didnt work properly cos i also had kav and drweb installed?

btw, regarding the rest results u found, f-secure is kav+f-prot isnt it (and orion) and avk is kav+rav, is that correct? assuming the kav engine found the same in both AV's, it looks like rav missed 14 viruses that f-prot must have found in the test...and i never rated f-prot..

cant wait for kav 5

 

To Tahoma from Firefighter!

About that F-Prot versus RAV, you can see from my last table that RAV is capable to find more viruses in the av-tast.org 2-2003 test as F-Prot.

The whole thing is that, the "universal virus field" is so large, that any av is not capable to cover it full. In this case only RAV covers more the same viruses as KAV. It is even possible, this is only an example, that with Ikarus av, F-secure is even better than it is now with F-Prot.

By the way, I think there have been some conflict with our many av:s, probably with DrWeb, because I have no problems with my RAV now when I have BitDefender, RAV and F-secure installed to my PC!

BitDefender is the only av of those three that has detected all my samples from my "infection collection disket" just now.

Some infections were detected at first by F-secure 5.40 almost a year ago. Now F-secure 5.41 doesn't detect those anymore but BitDefender did!

"The truth is out there, but it hurts!"

Best Regards,
Firefighter!



F-secure

 

"Let's take an example. When those AV:s were tested last in av-test.org 2-2003,"

Why do you Wilders people blindly believe in the sanctity of the av-test.org tests? Can you not read?

After years of blundering and fooling the public, ANDREAS MARX HAS PUBLICALLY ADMITTED HIS TEST FILES ARE NOT ALL VIRUSES. This makes his tests results into worthless garbage.

av-test.org tests are the products of a university student <No need for personal insults. Removed. Pieter> Ignore them.

SSP

 

To Stainless Steel Priest from Firefighter!

Unfortunately av-test.org and VirusP are almost only testers that have enough wide virusbase to get all programs collapse.

Besides there is any harm if there are some nonviral objects in the test, because after all the failure after that is only systematical, that means it belongs all those av:s.

About VirusP test there is only one minor problem, you can't completely thrust those detection rate numbers from those reference programs (commonly some of those, KAV, RAV, McAfee, F-Prot or NOD).

If we leave those two testers completely outside, what we have left? I think it is only VirusBulletin with those so called in the Wild viruses, which are far away from that wideness that those two have in their tests. Where are the trojans then?

We have read here in Wilders Forum how one infection was free several days before some very good in the Wild programs from VB updated it to it's virusbase!

I have had one infection for weeks, before those very good in the Wild scanners put that to their virusbase! The truth is really out there, but we have only to recognize that!

If we recognize the real danger of KaZaa network and every possible infections that you can get from there, you have to recognize the truth, in the Wild viruses are an illusion. If there are viruses only very few places in the net, they are still alive and free there!

"The truth is out there, but it hurts!"

Best Regards,
Firefighter!

 

Quantity unequals quality.

This is a huge problem. Over the time more and more av products included non-malware samples just to overperform other products in tests that have not been quality wise prepared. A good example are backdoor trojans. Did you now that av-test.org for example still included clients or edit servers (which are both harmless) in their testset?

You know anything about the testing procedures at VirusBulettin? You are a subscriber of their magazine where all tests are explaint in detail and not just a total 100% figure?

You fully translated the article of PC Welt or did you just read the (too short) summary over here? Again as you liked before to play around with statistics you will definitly know that one test does not give you indication if this behaviour applies to other outbreaks as well.

You should highlight here as well that you are not even have done the basic rules for malware protection. If you download and execute untrustworthy software no av software will protect you from such careless behaviour.

I think you have to recognize that you have to do some more homework before you throw figures around that you do not know on what details they are based.

I think only idiots believe that you can download software out of unsecure sources without having the risk of an infection.

Maybe you want some more research on the definiton of what an ITW virus is. Check out the site to learn more about it: http://www.wildlist.org

wizard

 

To Wizard from Firefighter!

You wrote: "Quantity unequals quality".

"This is a huge problem. Over the time more and more av products included non-malware samples just to overperform other products in tests that have not been quality wise prepared. A good example are backdoor trojans. Did you now that av-test.org for example still included clients or edit servers (which are both harmless) in their testset?"

Did you mean that those programs that were performing well in those in the Zoo tests, like F-secure, AVK 12, KAV, McAfee, F-Prot, Command AV, Norton, RAV, PC-cillin etc. are all fooling us? I thought that I was the only Don Quijote here!

You may have right, besides one of them has fooled the investors also, KAV has at least 6 "clones", can you mention one other company, that is so good to fool them all too?

And again you wrote: "You know anything about the testing procedures at VirusBulettin? You are a subscriber of their magazine where all tests are explaint in detail and not just a total 100% figure"?

I didn't mean those details behind those numbers, I meant only the numbers of so called in the Wild viruses, which in my mind are far too low in VB as it have to be to describe the real (KaZaa)net world!

And again: "You should highlight here as well that you are not even have done the basic rules for malware protection. If you download and execute untrustworthy software no av software will protect you from such careless behaviour".

"I think only idiots believe that you can download software out of unsecure sources without having the risk of an infection".

Direct to the target. I'm one of the biggest fool ever, unfortunately it seems to be so that I am not even alone in here! I think we fools are becoming a majority in the web world!

By the way, my infections were picked by F-secure and after several weeks they were among those "in the real Wild" infections. Maybe those were also so called nonsense after all!

"The truth is out there, but it hurts!"

Best Regards,
Firefighter!