Cannot remember the name of it, but anyone any ideas what It is I am thinking of?

 

Iirc it was around £60/£70, and it turns your computer off itself so that it can do a clean boot time scan.

 

(iirc my boot up scan is unable to scan everything).

 

I will do a search when time allows, but in the mean time anyone used these, recommend ????????????

Cheers.

 

And my laptop keeps indicating 'back up in progress', but will not finish. Any ideas???

Edited 3 November, 20169 yr by Tilt

Most decent antivirus/security suites will scan a device at boot or have an option too without spending £60.

 

As for the backup message, is the drive/cloud it's backing up to full?

Couldn't you write a scheduled task for that?

 

Some AV lets you schedule a safe-boot scan - https://www.avast.com/faq.php?article=AVKB19

 

And my laptop keeps indicating 'back up in progress', but will not finish. Any ideas???

 

Try "Safe Mode"; it may be trying to back up the page file - and as this changes all the time, it constantly has to restart the backup. The same thing used to happen with the M$ defrag tool.

 

BTW plenty of AV programs allow you to burn a start-up disc to boot and scan from, a lot cheaper than a £70 dongle.

I am perhaps a bit paranoid about my internet security, and possibly not being confident of knowing exactly what I am doing, makes this even worse.

 

I have now logged in as administrator and removed old back ups and backed up manually. I assumed back ups would automatically overwrite the old ones but now see there is a selection for this.

 

It is mostly a case of fingers crossed that logic and general intelligence sees me doing most things right, rather than pc knowledge.

 

As stated though, my boot time scans always show up as not being able to scan all files. I have asked you guys before on this but the outcome was still uncertain.

 

My Avast (free) and Malwarebytes (free) and WinDefender all show as clean, but have heard that a virus can get around these if you mistakenly let it in in the first place.

 

Cheers guys.

If you're that paranoid, why use Free security solutions?  None will have the enhanced scanning you're trying to achieve 

I am perhaps a bit paranoid about my internet security, and possibly not being confident of knowing exactly what I am doing, makes this even worse.

 

I have now logged in as administrator and removed old back ups and backed up manually. I assumed back ups would automatically overwrite the old ones but now see there is a selection for this.

 

It is mostly a case of fingers crossed that logic and general intelligence sees me doing most things right, rather than pc knowledge.

 

As stated though, my boot time scans always show up as not being able to scan all files. I have asked you guys before on this but the outcome was still uncertain.

 

My Avast (free) and Malwarebytes (free) and WinDefender all show as clean, but have heard that a virus can get around these if you mistakenly let it in in the first place.

 

Cheers guys.

 

A virus can get around a full HDD wipe and reinstall, but, hey!! I dont want to worry you!!

 

I had a similar issue a couple of months ago; it seems one of my security programs had locked several files it shouldnt have; not knowing which one was causing the issue, I downloaded new copies of each - went offline and uninstalled all three suspects, did a full reboot and then reinstalled them.

 

This solved the locked file issue.

 

I mention this because 2 of the 3 suspects were Avast and Malwarebytes.

Indeed. Rootkits can hide in memory, CPU cache and HDD/Ssd cache to reinfect a wiped system.

 why use Free security solutions?  

A. Because they're free and also because I used to have Norton (paid for) years ago and still had some issues with that.

 

Nothing bad has happened to me, or my laptop so far (fingers crossed) just some occasional glitches that concerned me at the time.

 

I would pay for some security if it was reasonable price and a doddle to set up (for a numpty) and it was known to be infallible but I think by the nature of internet security and hacking, phishing, virus's etc I do not think this is possible.

 

It is most likely that some things are not set up correctly on my computer.

If you're that paranoid, why use Free security solutions?  None will have the enhanced scanning you're trying to achieve 

 

 

Paid for means (in nearly every case), all the bells and whistles in one package - AV, AM, Firewall etc. Which means a virus only has to find ONE weakness to get in and subvert the program.

 

If you use the best free solutions from different developers, a virus has to find a weakness in EACH to get control without you knowing; even if only one program survives, it will be able to tell you there is an infection.

 

In the past I have had infections pwn both Norton and Mcafee all-in-one programs belonging to friends; I installed MWB on one PC and it picked up over 1400 different viri/malware installs, yet Norton insisted there was nothing wrong.

Some of the big enterprise vendors are free now as well.

 

https://www.sophos.com/en-us/products/free-tools.aspx

In the past I have had infections pwn both Norton and Mcafee all-in-one programs belonging to friends; I installed MWB on one PC and it picked up over 1400 different viri/malware installs, yet Norton insisted there was nothing wrong.

And I wouldn't doubt that, but neither of us knows how the infections got on there.

The user could have opened an attachment, clicked on one of those pop ups about a non infection, downloading infected p2p files or any number of tricks to get on board which the user either doesn't remember about or doesn't want to admit to.

Just because McAfee or Norton was installed doesn't stop any of the above methods if the user directly initiated the infection themselves. No security solution would protect against this.

Pretty much the first task every infection going is to either disable on board security software or replace DAT files with versions which don't include the infection, or tell the security software it's a known 'good' PUP/Malware/Virus.

So of course loading a new security software will likely expose infections.

And I wouldn't doubt that, but neither of us knows how the infections got on there.

The user could have opened an attachment, clicked on one of those pop ups about a non infection, downloading infected p2p files or any number of tricks to get on board which the user either doesn't remember about or doesn't want to admit to.

Just because McAfee or Norton was installed doesn't stop any of the above methods if the user directly initiated the infection themselves. No security solution would protect against this.

Pretty much the first task every infection going is to either disable on board security software or replace DAT files with versions which don't include the infection, or tell the security software it's a known 'good' PUP/Malware/Virus.

So of course loading a new security software will likely expose infections.

 

Actually, this is EXACTLY what Norton, Mcaffee etc claim their products do, real time scanning to stop malicious payloads. In this case the payload was a "game download" sent to the woman 14 y/o daughter by a "friend" on FB.

Actually, this is EXACTLY what Norton, Mcaffee etc claim their products do, real time scanning to stop malicious payloads. In this case the payload was a "game download" sent to the woman 14 y/o daughter by a "friend" on FB.

But no security suite will prevent the user installing something nasty.

They do protect by stopping stuff installing by itself or in email attachments IF Athens full payload is there. Most are harmless installs which then load in the payload and kill on board security.

If you don't already follow Chris Boyd AKA Paperghost who was at Malwarebytes last I saw, I would encourage you to do so.

Meh,

 

We've got full enterprise grade AV, multiple layers of military grade security devices and we've still been hit by a couple of zero day attacks.

 

We've got one guy in house catching things and custom writing av signatures.

 

Some of the uber expensive stuff claims to handle zero days based on behavioural analysis but that stuff is eye-wateringly expensive.

But no security suite will prevent the user installing something nasty.

They do protect by stopping stuff installing by itself or in email attachments IF Athens full payload is there. Most are harmless installs which then load in the payload and kill on board security.

If you don't already follow Chris Boyd AKA Paperghost who was at Malwarebytes last I saw, I would encourage you to do so.

 

Every free AV I have used has had the option to scan a file before executing it; doing so is common sense - however lab tests have shown that detection rates are NOT good, with some famous names picking up less than 30% of the threats few to it, even years old ones.

 

I run scans with three different programs before I will run a .exe, and preferably NOT on my main PC first.

Three scans!? Talk about paranoid. You must visit some dodgy sites if you're so worried about what you're downloading from them. If they get sent to you vie email then you must know some even more dubious characters.

I've checked a few downloads using https://www.virustotal.com/  . I can't remember why, but it might have been I just hadn't used the site I'd downloaded them from before. But i guess files from any site can be infected...

Would it be slightly safer to test / scan new stuff in a virtual machine? I thought that some viruses deliberately didn't run if they saw they were in a sandbox. But maybe attacks can break out

http://arstechnica.co.uk/security/2016/09/new-attack-steals-private-crypto-keys-by-corrupting-data-in-computer-memory/

Edited 7 November, 20169 yr by wonkyewok

Would it be slightly safer to test / scan new stuff in a virtual machine? I thought that some viruses deliberately didn't run if they saw they were in a sandbox. But maybe attacks can break out

http://arstechnica.co.uk/security/2016/09/new-attack-steals-private-crypto-keys-by-corrupting-data-in-computer-memory/

 

 

Newer things can not only detect a sandbox they can even pick up if you're running them inside a VM.

Three scans!? Talk about paranoid. You must visit some dodgy sites if you're so worried about what you're downloading from them. If they get sent to you vie email then you must know some even more dubious characters.

 

Even trusted sites get hacked , Ubuntu was punting out a malware laden version of its OS about 6 months ago, the BBC have had malicious ads added to their BBCNews.com website in the last 18 months; my local county council website was hosting pron, and didnt notice for 3 months - until someone from Private Eye contacted them for a response.

 

I get leery about allowing Adobe to do its own updates and installs after reading about fake Adobe installers a few months back.

 

As for email, I hope a good friend or family member gets hacked and a malicious email is sent to you via their account, perhaps then you wouldnt spout BS; my email goes through 2 different (automatic) scanners and opened as text only in a preview program before I will open it fully, regardless of who it says it is from.

Every free AV I have used has had the option to scan a file before executing it; doing so is common sense - however lab tests have shown that detection rates are NOT good, with some famous names picking up less than 30% of the threats few to it, even years old ones.

I run scans with three different programs before I will run a .exe, and preferably NOT on my main PC first.

Care to link to some of these lab tests, because the ones I've just looked up for up to Q3 2016 don't support your comments.

As I say most modern malware loads a harmless file which downloads the real payload so will show clean on many security softwares.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/blogs.sophos.com/2013/11/01/how-malware-works-anatomy-of-an-attack-in-five-stages-infographic/amp/?

I must admit I am talking about a review from last year, I seem to remember it was Panda that failed miserably; a quick punt around shows the current results to be much better, but some big name AV are still getting less than 75%  real life detection rate, although 100% of "standard lab" viri were being detected; gaming the test systems anyone??

 

https://www.av-test.org/en/news/news-single-view/win-xp-7-81-internet-security-suites-complete-an-endurance-test-lasting-6-months/

Kaspersky takes a lot of beating, and you can make a bookable USB to clean infected systems up. Isn't free, but it's £13 on ebuyer at the minute, which is far from expensive.

I must admit I am talking about a review from last year, I seem to remember it was Panda that failed miserably; a quick punt around shows the current results to be much better, but some big name AV are still getting less than 75% real life detection rate, although 100% of "standard lab" viri were being detected; gaming the test systems anyone??

https://www.av-test.org/en/news/news-single-view/win-xp-7-81-internet-security-suites-complete-an-endurance-test-lasting-6-months/

That's a 2 year old report. Current test, as I say, debunks your comments completely.