Question for Antivir gurus.

Heres an odd one.. I have a threat I found a few weeks back. At the time jotti or virus total showed no detections with any AV's other than Antivir and VBA32 with pure heuristics.

After sending it around, 5 detect it with signitures, including Antivir. VirusTotal and Jotti show Antivir detection of this threat. Yet on my PC with Antivir running, it will not detect this threat wither either on-demand or manual scanning.

I have checked most of the settings I can find, and have it set on what I believe would facilitate full scanning of it. Yet it doesn't get detected.

Any tips or clues as to why this would be?

 

Are you using free version of AntiVir? Coz this one doesn't detect AD-SPY category of threats. Is it classified like this on VirusTotal?

 

Ahh you are correct, I forgot to enter licensing info.

Thanks.

 

Am I missing how to set Antivir to "Silent" update without the dialogs?

 

To enable "invisible" Updates: Start AntiVir, open Scheduler page and uncheck (Activated) default Update schedule job.

Now click on the left icon and open the wizard to create a new job.

Name and Discription are your choice, Next and select Update job, Next select Daily, weekly, interval (interval minimum is 24 hours, so if you want more frequent, create as many "Daily" jobs as you need {between 8AM-5PM Central Europe Time Zone} for the frequency you desire).

If you use Dial-Up, just put a check in "Start job when connecting to the internet" and it will Update on each and every Dialup connection.

Next page gives you a choice of minimized (always on top) maximized (will hide behind active window) or invisible which would be "Silent".

Important not to try and 'edit' default jobs, just uncheck "Activated" and AntiVir usually needs a reload (happens on reboot or Update) for new job to be in effect, this is true if you so much as peek at the settings.

 

Can't I just edit the default one and select "Invisible" and have the same effect?

Or?

 

yes, you can change the default task. But there is a bug by doing it. That is why pilotart suggest not to edit the default. I am not sure whether avira has fixed it or not.

 

Well it was too late, I already was messing with the default. So I just created a new job, and set the interval to every 60 minutes and unchecked the default job.

Is this fine or did I disturb some magical balance in the program?

 

The regular update interval is set to min. 1440 minutes (24 hours), just to beware of the servers being too busy and giving a lot of trouble.

 

You can't set below 1440 minuts at all. That sux big time if you ask me...

 

Why does that suck? I just replied with the reason! I could live with that?

 

Does anyone know whether this feature/behaviour is any better in the Premium version?

 

I tested it today on 60 minute intervals and it works... This is with the premium edition though.

Who says 1440 is the limit?

 

Exactly, the free version limits updates to a 24 hour period. It isn't very hard to counter though, just keep on creating updates that occur at 10:00, then 11:00, then 12:00, etc. until you have 24 tasks that update at every hour on the clock. It takes about ten minutes to do, then you have hourly updates .

Alphalutra1

 

Not really. These tasks are not perfromed if missed and they also don't perform on established internet connection. They really crippled and excellent program. Bah...

 

The post you asked about tends to slam any AV that isn't Avast. Getting a high-frequency update is easy -- if you aren't more interested in being critical than in getting the job done.

 

I wish I had said that.......

 

You are not well informed enough, saying that the tasks are not performed when missed.........when you place a check mark in the right position.......they will be!!!!! Just have a closer look at the configuration possibilities.

 

Of course. And when you have 24 tasks and 23 of those are missed.
I tried not to think what happens when all of those 23 missed want to run at the same time. Try not to be in an important online FPS match. Coz you'll certanly lag out big time. Not to mention CPU overhead and stuff...
Ain't gonna work, trust me.

 

You'll have to be fair and not even think about configuring 24 update tasks.......come off it! If you just update through the standard procedure, it just works great.
It's very easy kicking a 'good' product's ass this way, but I don't think you should....

 

Buy it then, its $20.. Not what I would call an amount that would result in family hardship... Consider the funds going to a good cause, to better the product.

I find it hard to swallow when complaints are levied against free products though. Especially ones requiring a dedicated support team constantly updating databases.

 

No, i'd then rather use avast!. If they offer limited version for free which is already cut on all corners i don't see any reason why to limit users to whooping 24 hours interval. Unless they want to get them infected very fast.
24 hours is enough to spread a worm over entire globe. 3 times...
While AntiVir Free Edition users will be a sitting ducks waiting for update to come sometime ekhm someday soon... Not many really keep paranoidically clicking on Manual Update button...

 

Hi rejzor. I use dial up and whenevr I connect Antivir updates without missing any time and it updates just in few minutes.
If u are connected 24 hour, u can add about 4-8 update jobs and I don,t think they will not work as mine updates already about 5-6 times due to disconnect and reconnect of dial up in 24 hours.
Also u should not forget all software don,t work for all, there may be issues on different systems. Moreover personal liking also matters. U can omagine if everyone likes only one product what will be the future of others. Choices do vary and to me God has created human being like this.

 

When I used Antivir, the multiple task update trick worked PERFECTLY. I never missed a task an my ESTABLISHED connection, so I really don't understand what you are talking about. Once missed, they don't try to catch up either. Doesn't really matter for me now though...

Alphalutra1

 

Then go use Avast, and stop complaining about a product you apparently would rather not use? I can't stand Avast, and wouldn't use it if they PAID me to use it, but you don't see me here complaining about it incessantly. Especially about an issue where you've already been shown how to overcome, but still seem inclinded to complain about.

Maybe Antivir should go to a pay-only product. Certainly it seems more than capable in comparison to most commercial products, and $$ is the ultimate customer filter.