When I scan a zip file, if it is infected, AVG 2011 (paid for version)
will not catch the infected file inside the archive until I extract
the files from the zip. I *do* have it set to scan archives.

????

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 09:47:02 -0500, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>When I scan a zip file, if it is infected, AVG 2011 (paid for version)
>will not catch the infected file inside the archive until I extract
>the files from the zip. I *do* have it set to scan archives.
>
>????

Got an answer from AVG phone support. AVG will not catch an infected
file in a zip archive. When the setting says Scan Archives, it is
useless for finding crap inside an archive file.

What has to be done - I found on my own after hanging up with AVG, is
that one must have it set in the Shell Scan Settings to Thorough Scan.
That does it. The AVG person missed this.

The reason I did not try AVG first before posting to the group is that
it always ends up that they give you a pin number that is good for
only fifteen minutes toward a free support call. This is after you
jump through the hoops on their support pages.

Anyway, I just changed my mind and thought I'd try their support -
which didn't catch the problem, and in itself was thoroughly
misleading.

Problem solved.

On 20/03/2011 14:47, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> When I scan a zip file, if it is infected, AVG 2011 (paid for version)
> will not catch the infected file inside the archive until I extract
> the files from the zip. I *do* have it set to scan archives.
>
> ????

....Not Catching Maleware in Archives...

Infected jockstraps, Y-fronts and boxer shorts? Shudder.

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 09:47:02 -0500, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>
>> When I scan a zip file, if it is infected, AVG 2011 (paid for version)
>> will not catch the infected file inside the archive until I extract
>> the files from the zip. I *do* have it set to scan archives.

That doesn't make sense. Scan archives is *exactly* what the scan
archives setting is supposed to enable it to do.

Of course, if it is passworded it won't *shouldn't* work.

....and of course, a zip file cannot be infected as it is a data filetype.

>> ????
>
> Got an answer from AVG phone support. AVG will not catch an infected
> file in a zip archive. When the setting says Scan Archives, it is
> useless for finding crap inside an archive file.

Hmmm, ... still doesn't make sense.
>
> What has to be done - I found on my own after hanging up with AVG, is
> that one must have it set in the Shell Scan Settings to Thorough Scan.
> That does it. The AVG person missed this.

I haven't used AVG for years.

Must be something peculiar in the way AVG names features.

Scan archives *should* scan archives, or the feature selection (Scan
Archives) should be disabled until the prerequisite "Thorough Scan" has
been chosen.

It is silly to have that feature selectable if it is not functional
until another feature is also selected.

[...]

> Anyway, I just changed my mind and thought I'd try their support -
> which didn't catch the problem, and in itself was thoroughly
> misleading.
>
> Problem solved.

So, am I right to assume that it was a difference between the on-demand
context menu (shell extension/right click) that wasn't scanning within
archives until you set the "Thorough Scan" on the shell extension scan?
Did the "Scan Archives" setting in the regular scheduled full scan work
as designed all along and it was only the right click scan a file that
didn't?

You're right, it does sound misleading. If I right click and choose to
scan an individual file - it *should* do its best most thorough scan by
default.

Hello, FromTheRafters!

"FromTheRafters" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message:
im63kf$vua$(E-Mail Removed)
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 19:46:22 -0400:

> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 09:47:02 -0500, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>> Got an answer from AVG phone support. AVG will not catch an infected
>> file in a zip archive. When the setting says Scan Archives, it is
>> useless for finding crap inside an archive file.
>
> Hmmm, ... still doesn't make sense.
>>
>> What has to be done - I found on my own after hanging up with AVG, is
>> that one must have it set in the Shell Scan Settings to Thorough Scan.
>> That does it. The AVG person missed this.

> I haven't used AVG for years.

Me erither, I went to Avira.. Seem's to work good here.

--
With best regards, gufus. E-mail: (E-Mail Removed)

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:37:12 -0600, "gufus"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Hello, FromTheRafters!
>
>"FromTheRafters" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message:
>im63kf$vua$(E-Mail Removed)
>On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 19:46:22 -0400:
>
> > (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> >> On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 09:47:02 -0500, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>
> >> Got an answer from AVG phone support. AVG will not catch an infected
> >> file in a zip archive. When the setting says Scan Archives, it is
> >> useless for finding crap inside an archive file.
> >
> > Hmmm, ... still doesn't make sense.
> >>
> >> What has to be done - I found on my own after hanging up with AVG, is
> >> that one must have it set in the Shell Scan Settings to Thorough Scan.
> >> That does it. The AVG person missed this.
>
> > I haven't used AVG for years.
>
>Me erither, I went to Avira.. Seem's to work good here.

As I posted sometime back -
>| The reason I'm using AVG now is because Avast cheated me out of about
>| 6 months of my two year purchase. I then went with Avira. They
>| cheated me out of the entire 2nd year of my purchase. Those bastards
>| expired my license early. When I complained to each of those
>| companies, they essentially said, TS!

Hello, (E-Mail Removed)'t.suck.net!

<(E-Mail Removed)'t.suck.net> wrote in message:
(E-Mail Removed)
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 19:52:53 -0500:

>> Me erither, I went to Avira.. Seem's to work good here.

> As I posted sometime back -
>|> The reason I'm using AVG now is because Avast cheated me out of about
>|> 6 months of my two year purchase. I then went with Avira. They
>|> cheated me out of the entire 2nd year of my purchase. Those bastards
>|> expired my license early.

Really? Not good eh. I guess when it comes to customers, we're just a
number. I can see why your bitter, it's not really a lot of $$$, just the
point of it.

>|> When I complained to each of those companies, they essentially said,
>|> TS!

So did you pick something your happy with now?

--
With best regards, gufus. E-mail: (E-Mail Removed)

On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 12:48:43 -0600, "gufus"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Hello, (E-Mail Removed)'t.suck.net!
>
><(E-Mail Removed)'t.suck.net> wrote in message:
>(E-Mail Removed)
>On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 19:52:53 -0500:
>
>>> Me erither, I went to Avira.. Seem's to work good here.
>
>> As I posted sometime back -
>>|> The reason I'm using AVG now is because Avast cheated me out of about
>>|> 6 months of my two year purchase. I then went with Avira. They
>>|> cheated me out of the entire 2nd year of my purchase. Those bastards
>>|> expired my license early.
>
>Really? Not good eh. I guess when it comes to customers, we're just a
>number. I can see why your bitter, it's not really a lot of $$$, just the
>point of it.
>
>>|> When I complained to each of those companies, they essentially said,
>>|> TS!
>
>So did you pick something your happy with now?

I've been using it for about 6 months. It 's doing the job. Every AV
product has certain aspects of the way it works that one doesn't care
for, including AVG. The menus are a bit too many and some not too
clear, but I'm satisfied with it. As long as they don't also cheat me
out of license time, as did Avast and Avira, I'll subscribe again
when due.

Hello, (E-Mail Removed)'t.suck.net!

<(E-Mail Removed)'t.suck.net> wrote in message:
(E-Mail Removed)
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:47:11 -0500:

> clear, but I'm satisfied with it. As long as they don't also cheat me
> out of license time, as did Avast and Avira, I'll subscribe again
> when due.

Yep.

--
With best regards, gufus. E-mail: (E-Mail Removed)