Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Minimalist, Jan 28, 2015.
I totally agree.
Good Evening! I run one scan a week with WSA Security Plus...and a Windows System Directory scan and a Complete System Scan with Avira...and that's Enough. I believe your correct regarding WSA...and might go that way shortly. Sincerely...Securon
I scan once per week!
I thought the idea was, you could pick something up, before the update, then the on demand scan would/could find it, provided it made the AV's.
Also I thought running an on demand scanner (non-resident), provided a second opinion, independent of the AV, for greater assurance of cleanliness?
Also if 'on demand' scanning AV, is not so important, why do they keep testing this aspect?
Yes, but once the antivirus has been updated and does recognise the threat, it will be picked up by the real time protection if it accessed. If a threat is dorman then it poses no threat until it is actually run.
I like this answer. ESET NOD32 has Advanced heuristics/DNA/Smart signatures enabled by default in custom and Smart scans, but real-time protection just mentions advanced heuristics.
I have no real working idea what the difference amounts to in the above example, but it is also true that real-time detects upon execution whereas on demand detects if the file is on board.
BTW, about my question earlier in the thread, about the size of AV's nowadays compared to 10 years ago. I noticed that 360 IS, will let you download the "standalone virus database". What does this mean? I mean the app itself is 168MB big, and the database is 138MB, so does the standard download does not contain the virus signatures? Is this the case with all AV's?
I'm sure they contain old database. Most if not all AV products these days also offer a downloadable standalone signature database which is more up-to-date. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, please.
@GrafZeppelin you are correct
Dependent on whether the AV app is cloud or signature based. Many major players can be a combo of both, then its down to user preference’s to what modules are enabled / disabled along with regularity of update checks for new virus sigs & program versions when available.
Re the Scans topic in question we deploy a scheduled background scan on workstations system drives on a regular basis. When this kicks in from programs like Eset Endpoint the user does not even notice it running as there is negligible performance impact. Decent AV apps have a Scanned File Cache so the procedure only takes a few mins.
OK, so you're saying that the combination of old and new signature-database makes for the huge size? Then how come MBAM is only a 20MB download?
it used to be 8mb not so long ago. factor of increase is higher than most AV's. relatively young business.
I do a scan with Malwarebytes once a month and when the computer is acting a little funny I do a fast scan with a Anti-virus.
I was trying to figure out if MBAM is perhaps not as good as other AV's because of the small signature-database size?
@Rasheed187 MBAM is not an AV. It's designed to be used alongside AV software, not as alternative.
OK, I see. So probably that's why it's only a 20MB download. I'm currently using it as "on demand" scanner, it's not bloated at all.
Only if something misbehaves do I run a scan. Outpost pro, BD pro and malwarebytes pro, if something manages to sneak through this its time for a wipe and an image restore.
The only AV scans I'll do are Virus Total scans on new downloads. I stopped running an AV over 10 years ago. The last time I used something like HouseCall on my own PC was about 5 years ago. It deleted half of my batch files. Last week I was curious if anything had changed so I uploaded several of my batch files to Virus Total. Half of them were flagged, including one that makes registry backups. There's no way that I'll ever trust my system to another AV.
LOL, same over here. I wouldn't recommend this approach to "Average Joe", but if you know what you're doing you can indeed run without any AV, especially with the help of sandboxing and HIPS. I would still use AV's if they weren't so bloated and still had respect for your privacy.
Tho AV is not only one exclusive fail-safe, still AV is good one for that as it can save you when you did stupid thing for more than 90% probability (according to all tests). I mean, the benefit is not limited to "Avarage Joe". But I think you guys already employ layered protection and don't solely rely on your dicisions only.
What's a WSA ?
For me it was all paranoia all the time.
Not many people today run anti-virus on their pc's.
I was so worried that i was infected, which i was not, and now when i remember the old days i just laugh about it
Never in my life i will run anti-virus again on my Laptop and make it slower and battery drains much faster with anti-virus ON, but without it it's perfect
I understand that you may not be a fan of anti-virus programs, but this statement is incorrect.
More people run anti-virus programs than don't, and many of those that don't mistakenly think they are.
This is information readily available to anyone who chooses to search for it.
AV is not perfect, but at least it provides some protection against the more common malware families. For the average user it's still the main layer of defense against getting infected.
This is correct.
Yes, MBAM ditch sig once after many AVs detect the malware, and they don't detect exploit which most AV detects by file sig (other than IPS sig). But sig size is not a direct reflection of efficacy. If sig are more generic, sig size will reduce dramatically, but also cause FPs. Also sig format matters, I thought Avira changed their sig format and it reduced thier sig size.
Separate names with a comma.