NOD32- Inconsistent scan results

Discussion in 'ESET NOD32 Antivirus' started by Hollowstriker, Apr 4, 2010.

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

    Hollowstriker Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Posts:
    50
    I noticed this behaviour in NOD32 when I happened to scan the program Advanced Process Termination- apt.exe by Diamond Computer Systems (http://tds.diamondcs.com.au/). The file in question is a program which allows for the termination of processes using a variety of methods and hence, it is not unusual for NOD32 to flag it as Win32/APT (according to the result when uploaded to VirusTotal.

    The issue is that when a folder/ZIP file containing the executable or even the executable itself is scanned using the right-click context menu>> clean with ESET NOD32 Antivirus/Scan files, NOD32 reports that nothing is infected.

    However, when scanning the specific folder using the NOD32 GUI (Custom scan- In-depth scan), NOD32 flags it and logs the executable as:
    Code:
    Win32/APT potentially unsafe application - was a part of the deleted object
    Another case in which the executable is detected would be when it is directly accessed/copied/run and the Detect potentially unsafe applications option is enabled in real-time filesystem protection settings.

    My question would be is this behaviour by design- the context menu is not supposed to raise any alerts if a potentially unwanted/unsafe application is scanned? (I don't see any options to customize the context menu scan to detect these items- though I would expect it to follow the real-time filesystem protection settings; such as when I would want to scan files before burning them to a CD for a friend and expect NOD32 to alert me if there is a threat among the files.)

    Screenshots/Scan log: Resources.zip (does not contain apt.exe; that can be downloaded from Diamond CS)
     
  2. Brambb

    Brambb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Posts:
    411
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    You can alter the context-menu profile on the on-demand scan configuration. Seems PUA is disabled in that profile so you see these two different scan results.
     
  3. Hollowstriker

    Hollowstriker Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Posts:
    50
    @Brambb

    Thanks for the quick and concise reply! Found what I wanted in order to configure it properly:

    option01.png

    option02.png


    Just an additional question about this scan profile- when I do a context-menu scan, usually it is on a file/folder. However, in the settings below, there are additional options for operating memory, boot sectors, email files. I would presume operating memory would be the full system RAM, boot sectors to be that of which the file is located on (e.g. C: or F: ) and email files are files with extensions eml, emlx, msg, mbx); unnecessary to be checked if my only goal is to ensure all files which I scan from context menu are scanned/cleaned?


    option03.png
     
  4. Brambb

    Brambb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Posts:
    411
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Although I never tested this myself I guess if you tick 'Operating memory' and 'Boot sectors' it will scan the memory and boot files prior to the files selected in the context menu (Just like a normal on-demand scan). Which will make the scan time for just files a bit long.

    The e-mail files are a different thing, these are unchecked cause they are normally quite large archived files and should be scanned by the incoming and outgoing e-mail protocol engine. If you want to enable this for context-menu scanning if up to the user.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.