AVG Free Antispyware

[Andy]

I downloaded and update AVG Free Anti-Spyware and done a full disk scan
(Scan all files) and it found spyware and I chose to delete all. Immediately
afterwards I downloaded SpyBot Search & Destroy 1.4 and updated it and done
a full scan and it came up with another load of spyware ones that weren't
found on AVG anti spyware. they were Jupilites, Microsoft
windows.activedesktop, Microsoft.Windows.Explorer,
Microsoft.WindowsSecurityCenter.taskManager and SpySheriff.

Now why can you not seem to entrust one anti spyware program to get rid of
ALL spyware without having to check with another spyware program? - and why
were these spyware not picked up by AVG anti spyware program in the first
place?

Does anyone know?

Thanks,

Andy.

[Nick Skrepetos]

Andy wrote:
> I downloaded and update AVG Free Anti-Spyware and done a full disk scan
> (Scan all files) and it found spyware and I chose to delete all. Immediately
> afterwards I downloaded SpyBot Search & Destroy 1.4 and updated it and done
> a full scan and it came up with another load of spyware ones that weren't
> found on AVG anti spyware. they were Jupilites, Microsoft
> windows.activedesktop, Microsoft.Windows.Explorer,
> Microsoft.WindowsSecurityCenter.taskManager and SpySheriff.
>
> Now why can you not seem to entrust one anti spyware program to get rid of
> ALL spyware without having to check with another spyware program? - and why
> were these spyware not picked up by AVG anti spyware program in the first
> place?
>
> Does anyone know?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andy.

Andy,

What were the actual items shown for Jupilites and SpySherrif? Were
they files or registry keys? The other items really aren't threats -
Spybot just flags those indicating you may have Active Desktop enabled,
etc.

As for why a single anti-spyware program can't detect
everything......the answer is that the number of spyware infections
coming out daily is astounding and it is, and always will be impossible
for a single product, from a single vendor to catch everything on a
given day.

For instance, we receive thousands of unique samples per week in
addition to the thousands we harvest in-house - every other company is
harvesting and receiving their own set of samples - and many of the
samples are different that we receive - so there is really no way for a
single company to catch everyhing. Thus the requirement of using
multiple layers of anti-spyware and anti-virus solutions.

Nick Skrepetos
SUPERAntiSpyware.com
http://www.superantispyware.com

[cmsix]

"Nick Skrepetos" <nskrepetos@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163922151.107128.193890@m7g2000cwm.googlegro ups.com...
>
> Andy wrote:
>> I downloaded and update AVG Free Anti-Spyware and done a full disk
>> scan
>> (Scan all files) and it found spyware and I chose to delete all.
>> Immediately
>> afterwards I downloaded SpyBot Search & Destroy 1.4 and updated it
>> and done
>> a full scan and it came up with another load of spyware ones that
>> weren't
>> found on AVG anti spyware. they were Jupilites, Microsoft
>> windows.activedesktop, Microsoft.Windows.Explorer,
>> Microsoft.WindowsSecurityCenter.taskManager and SpySheriff.
>>
>> Now why can you not seem to entrust one anti spyware program to get
>> rid of
>> ALL spyware without having to check with another spyware program? -
>> and why
>> were these spyware not picked up by AVG anti spyware program in the
>> first
>> place?
>>
>> Does anyone know?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Andy.
>
> Andy,
>
> What were the actual items shown for Jupilites and SpySherrif? Were
> they files or registry keys? The other items really aren't threats -
> Spybot just flags those indicating you may have Active Desktop
> enabled,
> etc.
>
> As for why a single anti-spyware program can't detect
> everything......the answer is that the number of spyware infections
> coming out daily is astounding and it is, and always will be
> impossible
> for a single product, from a single vendor to catch everything on a
> given day.
>
> For instance, we receive thousands of unique samples per week in
> addition to the thousands we harvest in-house - every other company
> is
> harvesting and receiving their own set of samples - and many of the
> samples are different that we receive - so there is really no way
> for a
> single company to catch everyhing. Thus the requirement of using
> multiple layers of anti-spyware and anti-virus solutions.

Amen brother, testify.

I first realized that this was the case when I received two virus
laden emails in one day. I was using Norton 2002 at the time, it came
free with hard disk the place I worked for bought, and I was almost
sure the attachments were viruses even though Norton 2002 didn't
complain. I submitted them and they came back as nasty.

If I can get that sort of thing on dialup(all I had at the time)with
and address that was fairly new I figured that things were getting a
little crappy on the net.

"How did you keep from getting infected?" you might ask.

By not being clueless enough to read html email.

Is it fair to say that the best two single things you can do to
protecte youself are turn off reading html email and use a browser
that doesn't say Internet Explorer?

Inquiring cmsix wants everyone's opinion.

cmsix

>
> Nick Skrepetos
> SUPERAntiSpyware.com
> http://www.superantispyware.com
>

[Charani]

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 09:18:24 GMT, cmsix wrote:

> Is it fair to say that the best two single things you can do to
> protecte youself are turn off reading html email and use a browser
> that doesn't say Internet Explorer?
>
> Inquiring cmsix wants everyone's opinion.

Yes, probably, but not those alone. I don't use OE for mail either.

[Kerry Brown]

The single best thing you can do to stop malware from causing a problem with
your computer is to run as a standard user. Using a different browser or
different email program may help because the alternate programs you use may
not be targeted as much as OE or IE. All programs have bugs. Most programs
now access the Internet in some way. This gives malware many vectors to
attack your computer. Even anti-malware programs can be targeted and used as
a vector to install malware. Running as a standard user mitigates the
attacks by not allowing the malware access to system files or system
registry hives. It can still install but only in the context of the current
user. Most malware expects administrator access and fails when it isn't
available.

Unfortunately running as a standard user is not really an option with XP
because Microsoft has encouraged sloppy programming since Windows 95. Many
programs expect administrator privileges and fail without them. This is
where Vista is exciting. It allows, actually enforces via uac, programs to
run in the context of a standard user even if the user is logged on as an
administrator. This will help enormously in the fight against malware. If
you have ever worked in an environment where everyone runs as a standard
user you would know how easy it is to clean most malware infections in this
environment if they even succeed in installing at all.

--
Kerry Brown

Charani wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 09:18:24 GMT, cmsix wrote:
>
>> Is it fair to say that the best two single things you can do to
>> protecte youself are turn off reading html email and use a browser
>> that doesn't say Internet Explorer?
>>
>> Inquiring cmsix wants everyone's opinion.
>
> Yes, probably, but not those alone. I don't use OE for mail either.

[cmsix]

"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
news:ar%7h.338203$5R2.182657@pd7urf3no...
> The single best thing you can do to stop malware from causing a
> problem with your computer is to run as a standard user. Using a
> different browser or different email program may help because the
> alternate programs you use may not be targeted as much as OE or IE.
> All programs have bugs. Most programs now access the Internet in
> some way. This gives malware many vectors to attack your computer.
> Even anti-malware programs can be targeted and used as a vector to
> install malware. Running as a standard user mitigates the attacks by
> not allowing the malware access to system files or system registry
> hives. It can still install but only in the context of the current
> user. Most malware expects administrator access and fails when it
> isn't available.
>
> Unfortunately running as a standard user is not really an option
> with XP because Microsoft has encouraged sloppy programming since
> Windows 95. Many programs expect administrator privileges and fail
> without them. This is where Vista is exciting. It allows, actually
> enforces via uac, programs to run in the context of a standard user
> even if the user is logged on as an administrator. This will help
> enormously in the fight against malware. If you have ever worked in
> an environment where everyone runs as a standard user you would know
> how easy it is to clean most malware infections in this environment
> if they even succeed in installing at all.

Could you give me a hint how malware can be installed from email read
as text only? I'm just wondering, since I can't imagine any way that
can happen. No html email, no spyware, malware, or crapware from the
mail. Unless I'm wrong.

cmsix

>
> --
> Kerry Brown
>
> Charani wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 09:18:24 GMT, cmsix wrote:
>>
>>> Is it fair to say that the best two single things you can do to
>>> protecte youself are turn off reading html email and use a browser
>>> that doesn't say Internet Explorer?
>>>
>>> Inquiring cmsix wants everyone's opinion.
>>
>> Yes, probably, but not those alone. I don't use OE for mail
>> either.
>
>

[jeremy]

"cmsix" <cmsix@storiesonline.org> wrote in message
news:AjV7h.16805$B31.14487@newssvr27.news.prodigy. net...
>
> Is it fair to say that the best two single things you can do to protecte
> youself are turn off reading html email and use a browser that doesn't say
> Internet Explorer?
>
>

Move to an email provider that scans attachments for viruses before
depositing the emails into your inbox. My particular email provider scans
each item with two separate antivirus systems. My own computer then scans
all items in my inbox with AVG Anti-Virus, making three separate scans of
all inbox attachments before I can open them.

While no solution is bullet-proof, I have not had an email virus in two
years. Before I changed to my current email provider, AVG was neutralizing
email-borne viruses at a rate of at least one per week, sometimes more.

These days, email providers offer anti-virus scanning so routinely that one
should not even bother to consider using any email provider that doesn't
offer that protection.

[cmsix]

"jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:i848h.2581$mM1.1582@trndny08...
> "cmsix" <cmsix@storiesonline.org> wrote in message
> news:AjV7h.16805$B31.14487@newssvr27.news.prodigy. net...
>>
>> Is it fair to say that the best two single things you can do to
>> protecte youself are turn off reading html email and use a browser
>> that doesn't say Internet Explorer?
>>
>>
>
> Move to an email provider that scans attachments for viruses before
> depositing the emails into your inbox. My particular email provider
> scans each item with two separate antivirus systems. My own
> computer then scans all items in my inbox with AVG Anti-Virus,
> making three separate scans of all inbox attachments before I can
> open them.
>
> While no solution is bullet-proof, I have not had an email virus in
> two years. Before I changed to my current email provider, AVG was
> neutralizing email-borne viruses at a rate of at least one per week,
> sometimes more.
>
> These days, email providers offer anti-virus scanning so routinely
> that one should not even bother to consider using any email provider
> that doesn't offer that protection.

Since I have a virus checker, if I consider opening an attachment, I
can scan it myself. Changing ISP is not an option for me since I live
in a small town and the only broadband available is from SBC, now
calling itself AT&T, and I wouldn't trust their scanning in the first
place.

I still haven't heard anything about how I could possibly get infected
from a plain text email.

cmsix

>
>

[Gaz]

"Andy" <andy@indigo.ie> wrote in message
news:ejokde$hui$1@news.datemas.de...
>I downloaded and update AVG Free Anti-Spyware and done a full disk scan
>(Scan all files) and it found spyware and I chose to delete all.
>Immediately afterwards I downloaded SpyBot Search & Destroy 1.4 and updated
>it and done a full scan and it came up with another load of spyware ones
>that weren't found on AVG anti spyware. they were Jupilites, Microsoft
>windows.activedesktop, Microsoft.Windows.Explorer,
>Microsoft.WindowsSecurityCenter.taskManager and SpySheriff.
>
> Now why can you not seem to entrust one anti spyware program to get rid of
> ALL spyware without having to check with another spyware program? - and
> why were these spyware not picked up by AVG anti spyware program in the
> first place?
>
> Does anyone know?

I dont know if it picks up everything, but it seems more aggressive then
spybot and adaware, superantispyware.....

Gaz

[Nick Skrepetos]

Gaz wrote:
> "Andy" <andy@indigo.ie> wrote in message
> news:ejokde$hui$1@news.datemas.de...
> >I downloaded and update AVG Free Anti-Spyware and done a full disk scan
> >(Scan all files) and it found spyware and I chose to delete all.
> >Immediately afterwards I downloaded SpyBot Search & Destroy 1.4 and updated
> >it and done a full scan and it came up with another load of spyware ones
> >that weren't found on AVG anti spyware. they were Jupilites, Microsoft
> >windows.activedesktop, Microsoft.Windows.Explorer,
> >Microsoft.WindowsSecurityCenter.taskManager and SpySheriff.
> >
> > Now why can you not seem to entrust one anti spyware program to get rid of
> > ALL spyware without having to check with another spyware program? - and
> > why were these spyware not picked up by AVG anti spyware program in the
> > first place?
> >
> > Does anyone know?
>
> I dont know if it picks up everything, but it seems more aggressive then
> spybot and adaware, superantispyware.....
>
> Gaz

Gaz, I am curious as to how you can assess the aggressiveness of the
various anti-spyware products, can you elaborate? We often detect and
remove infections that AVG and others don't even see, and they find
things we don't find - I am not sure if you can say one product is more
"aggressive" than another. I believe some of the products are falling
behind a little on the "new" infections, but with the rate they are
coming out, I don't think anyone can stay "on top" of all the
infections.

Nick Skrepetos
SUPERAntiSpyware.com
http://www.superantispyware.com