Which virus/spyware scanners?

[rodney.usenet@gmail.com]

On 9 mei, 06:36, Straight Talk <b__n...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I go tohttp://housecall65.trendmicro.com/
>
> You really can't rely on online scanners.
>
> Online scans are a joke.

Hi ST,

Could you explain why online scanners are not reliable ?
TIA

[Kayman]

On Thu, 8 May 2008 23:48:56 -0700 (PDT), rodney.usenet@gmail.com wrote:

> On 9 mei, 06:36, Straight Talk <b__n...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I go tohttp://housecall65.trendmicro.com/
>>
>> You really can't rely on online scanners.
>>
>> Online scans are a joke.
>
> Hi ST,
>
> Could you explain why online scanners are not reliable ?

On-line scanners are the most unsafe and next to useless. Because by the
time you've started your infected Windows and connected to the
Internet via this infected code base, and start to look for scanning sites
through infected DNS, you are almost certain to have the malware
perfectly positioned to overrule your attempts to clean it.
What happens if active malware is found? Don't expect that the on-line
scanner will do anything about it. Most of them are just just marketing
tools for selling you their products. Quite often, malware removal on the
NT based OS (Win 2K and XP) is far from easy. Sometimes a (good) resident
AV can deal with it in Safe Mode.

David's Multi-AV is *better and safer*, because you don't have to be
on-line to use it (it has no dependencies on using a web browser to perform
its function), and it can be used in Safe Mode.

Download David H. Lipman's MULTI_AV.EXE from the URL:
http://www.pctipp.ch/ds/28400/28470/Multi_AV.exe
http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp
English:
http://www.raymond.cc/blog/archives/...irus-for-free/
When the menu is displayed hitting 'H' or 'h' will bring up a more
comprehensive PDF help file.
Additional Instructions:
http://pcdid.com/Multi_AV.htm

It's safer still if you can avoid running any code from the infected system
at all, and that can be done by working from Bart CDR boot.
But that means having a clean system to build the Bart disk, and more to
the point, a fair bit of effort and technical fiddling.

Bart's Preinstalled Environment (BartPE) bootable live windows CD/DVD
http://www.nu2.nu/pebuilder/

Good luck

[rodney.usenet@gmail.com]

On 10 mei, 03:07, Kayman <kaymanDeleteT...@operamail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 May 2008 23:48:56 -0700 (PDT), rodney.use...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On 9 mei, 06:36, Straight Talk <b__n...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> You really can't rely on online scanners.
>
> > Could you explain why online scanners are not reliable ?
>
> On-line scanners are the most unsafe and next to useless. Because by the
> time you've started your infected Windows and connected to the
> Internet via this infected code base, and start to look for scanning sites
> through infected DNS, you are almost certain to have the malware
> perfectly positioned to overrule your attempts to clean it.

that makes sense

> David's Multi-AV is *better and safer*, because you don't have to be
> on-line to use it (it has no dependencies on using a web browser to perform
> its function), and it can be used in Safe Mode.
>
> http://pcdid.com/Multi_AV.htm

Thanks, already use that. I'm almost dissappointed that none of the
AV's ever find anything.

[Kayman]

On Sat, 10 May 2008 00:32:45 -0700 (PDT), rodney.usenet@gmail.com wrote:

> On 10 mei, 03:07, Kayman <kaymanDeleteT...@operamail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 May 2008 23:48:56 -0700 (PDT), rodney.use...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On 9 mei, 06:36, Straight Talk <b__n...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> You really can't rely on online scanners.
>>
>>> Could you explain why online scanners are not reliable ?
>>
>> On-line scanners are the most unsafe and next to useless. Because by the
>> time you've started your infected Windows and connected to the
>> Internet via this infected code base, and start to look for scanning sites
>> through infected DNS, you are almost certain to have the malware
>> perfectly positioned to overrule your attempts to clean it.
>
> that makes sense
>
>> David's Multi-AV is *better and safer*, because you don't have to be
>> on-line to use it (it has no dependencies on using a web browser to perform
>> its function), and it can be used in Safe Mode.
>>
>> http://pcdid.com/Multi_AV.htm
>
> Thanks, already use that. I'm almost dissappointed that none of the
> AV's ever find anything.

Don't be, consider yourself as 'bloody good and safe' operater :-)

[Kayman]

On Sat, 10 May 2008 15:41:55 +0700, Kayman wrote:

> On Sat, 10 May 2008 00:32:45 -0700 (PDT), rodney.usenet@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On 10 mei, 03:07, Kayman <kaymanDeleteT...@operamail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 8 May 2008 23:48:56 -0700 (PDT), rodney.use...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On 9 mei, 06:36, Straight Talk <b__n...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You really can't rely on online scanners.
>>>
>>>> Could you explain why online scanners are not reliable ?
>>>
>>> On-line scanners are the most unsafe and next to useless. Because by the
>>> time you've started your infected Windows and connected to the
>>> Internet via this infected code base, and start to look for scanning sites
>>> through infected DNS, you are almost certain to have the malware
>>> perfectly positioned to overrule your attempts to clean it.
>>
>> that makes sense
>>
>>> David's Multi-AV is *better and safer*, because you don't have to be
>>> on-line to use it (it has no dependencies on using a web browser to perform
>>> its function), and it can be used in Safe Mode.
>>>
>>> http://pcdid.com/Multi_AV.htm
>>
>> Thanks, already use that. I'm almost dissappointed that none of the
>> AV's ever find anything.
>
> Don't be, consider yourself as 'bloody good and safe' operater :-)

Oh, I almost forget; In case you didn't know, David's Multi-AV version 6.0
is out and has added an A-S scanning in the Trend Micro module.