What do you recommend running AntiVir's heuristics at?

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by mvdu, Sep 14, 2008.

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

    mvdu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Posts:
    1,166
    Location:
    PA
    I run it at medium because high produced too many false positives. I would continue at medium unless enough recommend changing to high anyway.
     
  2. Arup

    Arup Guest

    I have all set to high........no issues with some occasional FPs.
     
  3. mvdu

    mvdu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Posts:
    1,166
    Location:
    PA
    Most of my false positives happened to be at websites (HTML/Malware,) though I haven't done a full scan on high.
     
  4. Arup

    Arup Guest


    Same here.............
     
  5. bellgamin

    bellgamin Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    5,936
    Location:
    Hawaii
    High detection level in all cases. FPs are VERY rare.
     
  6. entropism

    entropism Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Posts:
    449
    high detection in all cases, haven't had an FP in over a year now. I have to be honest, I browse some shady stuff, and I've never been infected or had an FP, I have to wonder if either I'm doing something very right, or very wrong. :p
     
  7. pykko

    pykko Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Posts:
    2,236
    Location:
    Romania...and walking to heaven
    Here also.
    Almost no FP.
     
  8. Someone

    Someone Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2008
    Posts:
    1,106
    I agree.
     
  9. virtumonde

    virtumonde Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2008
    Posts:
    503
    I ran the free version for almost an year on high.The only FP's i seen ware reported here by other users and not by my browsing activity,or from something from my pc.
     
  10. deanmartin

    deanmartin Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Posts:
    232
    Location:
    USA/KY
    Same Here.
     
  11. Waterfox

    Waterfox Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2008
    Posts:
    118
    Location:
    Sweden
    Heuristics at medium in both scanner and guard.
    Got some problems when I had them set on high (few FP's) and changed it back to the recommended settings. :)
     
  12. vijayind

    vijayind Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Posts:
    1,413
    I use medium... it works for me.
    Have a HIPS ( right now trying out Mamutu ) to ensure nothing gets past.
     
  13. Bunkhouse Buck

    Bunkhouse Buck Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Posts:
    1,058
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    I have used Avira for three years and I recommend you set heuristics to high for every module.
     
  14. Mongol

    Mongol Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2004
    Posts:
    1,581
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    Likewise and ditto here...:cool:
     
  15. Fajo

    Fajo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Posts:
    1,814
    I run on High here.. if I trust a website and it gets flagged I normally send a mail to Avira and add it to my exclusions if I trust it well enough.
     
  16. QBgreen

    QBgreen Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Posts:
    627
    Location:
    Queens County, NY
    Scheduled full scan at high, all other on access (guard, web, mail) at medium.
     
  17. ggf31416

    ggf31416 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    Posts:
    314
    Location:
    Uruguay
    Both Scanner and Guard to High.
     
  18. mnosteele

    mnosteele Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Posts:
    190
    Location:
    Chesapeake, VA USA
    I always set to the highest level and very few false positives.

    :)
     
  19. hex_614

    hex_614 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Posts:
    155
    Location:
    Manila, Philippines
    medium only for me.
     
  20. Macstorm

    Macstorm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,624
    Location:
    Sneffels volcano
    Just raised it to 'high' from my ever regular 'medium' setts. I'll see how it goes.
     
  21. Boost

    Boost Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Posts:
    1,294
    Set to HIGH with no false positives.
     
  22. Fajo

    Fajo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Posts:
    1,814
    Basically the only FP's I have ever seen is from Keygens or from Crackers. even tho they are not a virus the AV is somewhat right in detecting them due to the fact the programs normally have back door's into them because of how they are compiled. ;)

    And before its said. No I don't use illegal software but when my legal copy of the CD goes kaboom the torrent I find. Always has a damn kegen with it and my AV picks it up as a virus 90% of the time. :doubt:
     
  23. virtumonde

    virtumonde Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2008
    Posts:
    503
    True:).But if u want 99% FP's on keygens go with avg:).Sometimes i think that they have a special department to scare the users from illegal software and to write those silly detections.
     
  24. Fajo

    Fajo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Posts:
    1,814
    Norton used to flag stuff to crack its own program as No Good Hack tool. always found that funny.

    As said before a lot of it is in the way the Keygen is compiled same with cracks.
     
  25. JasSolo

    JasSolo Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2007
    Posts:
    414
    Location:
    Denmark
    If you want to get rid of those FP's, simply use Eset Smart Security. It's smart enough to see that keygens it's not viruses ;) . Or better yet, don't use keygens at all.....simply buy your favorite software and keep people in their jobs :)


    Cheers
     
Loading...
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.