Bit Defender 8 Free weird scan

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Mele20, Sep 12, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mele20

    Mele20 Former Poster

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2002
    Posts:
    2,495
    Location:
    Hilo, Hawaii
    I loved Bit Defender 7.2 free but this Bit Defender 8 I don't like. I just tried running a full scan and it only got 5% done in 20 minutes and estimated it would take 5 hours and 29 minutes to scan my drive. That is ridiculous! 7.2 scanned the same drive in about 40-50 minutes. Plus, CPU usage was at 80-100% much of the time during the 20 minutes I let it scan before I stopped it. Scan speed was 96 files per second.

    That is weird enough but what is even weirder is that it found emails from August 2004 in Mozilla mail that it claims have viruses. Some were in the inbox and some in the trash it claims. But I can't find them. I haven't used Mozilla mail since January 2005. It also found a bunch of eicar tests in the same email account, again way back in mid 2004 that I don't have.

    Does Mozilla not actually delete mail when you tell it to empty the trash?

    Why would BD 8 find this stuff and BD 7.2 NEVER found any of this?

    It "found" JS.Dword.dropper in one of these non-existent emails. I remember something about that...it was an FP I think and only BD found it?

    The other one it "found" is a nasty worm (win32.Bagle.Al@mm) but BD says the infection is in an email attachment in Mozilla mail Aug 9 2004. There is no mail in Mozilla for that date. Plus, it was obvious junk mail and I would never leave junk mail unopened in the inbox. I would trash it without opening. I open no mail ever that is from a sender I don't recognize and I never open attachments without first downloading and scanning and I would only open after that if the person had sent a separate email telling me to expect that email with an attachment. I'm not doubting that I got a piece of spam on that date that had an infected attachment but I don't understand how BD found this when it is NOT in my inbox.

    BD also found the same two from different dates in August 2004 in Mozilla trash. But when I looked there was nothing in the trash.

    It found a suspect one also from Aug 2004 non existent spam email called HTML.MediaTicket.A. I've never heard of that and a Google search turns up one hit ...BullDog forum. Probably an FP.

    So how can BD find something that isn't there? Plus, why is BD 8 so excruciatingly slow in scanning when BD 7.2 was very reasonable?

    I have KIS 2006 beta on my guest virtual PC. It's buggy but KAV 2006 beta is much less buggy. I may put it on the main box. I want to see if it would find non-existent emails with "infected" attachments and non-existent emails with eicar.

    I'm puzzled and I think I need to look for another AV. I wish I could continue to use 7.2 free but when I reinstalled it, it said my free year was up.
     
  2. nicM

    nicM nico-nico

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2004
    Posts:
    631
    Location:
    France
    I did install the free version 8 few days ago, just to see, and I had exactly the same issue: did scan during 15 mn, was at 6 % only ( estimated ), remaining time was more than 5 hours.... lot of of cpu too, plus when BD happens to scan the set-up file of another av, seems it's going mad :mad: ( was Panda 2006 beta file ), laptop became warmer than ever: had to stop BD scan to avoid blowing up; nearly serious !

    So I'm wondering too: who is patient enough to wait 5 hours for an AV scan ?
    Norton only needed 25-30 mn on this computer, AVG needs 35-40 mn, Avast 30 mn- 50 in maximum scan mode.

    I had a trial version of BD 7.2 on a old computer, one year ago, and I remember it was scanning a very small HD in more than 5 hours: I thought this slowness would have been improved !! :doubt:

    I've seen threads here where people tell to shut down other AV during BD scan: maybe that's the solution, I didn't do indeed ( shame on my if that's the proper way to use it :oops: ); but AVG, used as backup scanner, doesn't need to do that. Avast free neither ( just back-up too, on another computer ).

    So would BD free be more demanding than any other AV about that ?
    I think I'll make another try with BD when I've time ( may have to reserve a day :D lol ), but with resident av disabled: if scan time looks more sensible, I will keep it. Otherwise, think I've no choice but to remove :( .
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2005
  3. Mele20

    Mele20 Former Poster

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2002
    Posts:
    2,495
    Location:
    Hilo, Hawaii
    After I posted that, I shut down my virtual guest machine that was running as I decided that might have been causing the slowness. I just got VMWare about a month ago. I shut down browsers, etc. also. Started another scan. I watched it for awhile and it was going just as slow as the first time until it got to about 7% done and by that point that estimate of five and one-half hours had dropped to one hour, then went up to 2 hours, then down again, then up to 4 hours, then down again and finally seemed to stabilize on one hour and forty minutes. So that estimate is constantly being revised as it scans. I don't think much of that type of estimate.

    One hour and forty minutes (if it didn't change and I let it scan until it was about 70% done) isn't bad but it is a lot longer than what 7.2 took. Maybe it is the VMware files that makes the scan so much longer? Other than that I haven't added a bunch of files since I had 7.2.

    I don't see any way to stop it scanning my email files. I never let other AV scan email files. I did see how to stop it from scanning archived email files.

    I still don't understand how it can claim to find viruses in non-existent email especially since dslr email is scanned by
    amavisd-new and my ISP email is scanned by Symantec corporate. Neither would deliver infected mail. BD must be on hallucinogins.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.