How often will a full scan find malware that a quickscan didnt' find.

[mm]

How often will a full scan find malware that a quick scan didn't find?

What are the chances that a quickscan in most antimalware programs
will find malware, versus a full scan?

My impression has been that almost all the problems are found in the
part that the "quickscan" covers. Since my friend is having to run
these programs more than once, and would like to run more than one
program** in the same day, if running the quickscan was likely to find
the problems, especially problems since she ran the full scan with the
same program, that would work much better for her.


She ran BitDefender last night for at least the second time, and found
two more pieces of malware.


Gen:Trojan.Heur.LP.dy4@aa6zyimG (the 6 might be a d)

Trojan.generic.KD38274

 

[gufus]

Hello, mm!

You wrote on Mon, 20 Sep 2010 15:37:34 -0400:

m>
m> What are the chances that a quickscan in most antimalware programs
m> will find malware, versus a full scan?

Why don't you try: http://www.malwarebytes.org/

 

[FromTheRafters]

How often will a full scan find malware that a quick scan didn't find?

What are the chances that a quickscan in most antimalware programs
will find malware, versus a full scan?

That all depends on exactly how quick scan is implemented. Sometimes the
only difference might be related to change detection, and sometimes to
other factors.

My impression has been that almost all the problems are found in the
part that the "quickscan" covers. Since my friend is having to run
these programs more than once, and would like to run more than one
program** in the same day, if running the quickscan was likely to find
the problems, especially problems since she ran the full scan with the
same program, that would work much better for her.

Yes, if I understand you correctly, quickscan is adequate - but just
remember to do normal and/or deep scans occasionally too. A lot depends
on the robustness of the change detection mechanism or the soundness of
whitelisting certain areas for being bypassed by the scanner.

She ran BitDefender last night for at least the second time, and found
two more pieces of malware.


Gen:Trojan.Heur.LP.dy4@aa6zyimG (the 6 might be a d)

Trojan.generic.KD38274

Remember, knowing *where* malware was found can be as important as
knowing *what* malware was found.

 

[mm]

That all depends on exactly how quick scan is implemented. Sometimes the
only difference might be related to change detection, and sometimes to
other factors.

Thanks for your reply.

I'll have to look more closely and see if they say. I thought it was
usually which files got tested.

Yes, if I understand you correctly, quickscan is adequate - but just
remember to do normal and/or deep scans occasionally too. A lot depends
on the robustness of the change detection mechanism or the soundness of
whitelisting certain areas for being bypassed by the scanner.

Yes, I run full scan's once in a while, and in this case, she's run
full scans with each of several products last week, and while some
problems have gone away, others remain. So if she could run
quickscan's she could start and finish one and start another, before
she went to sleep, always early.

Remember, knowing *where* malware was found can be as important as
knowing *what* malware was found.

I've never been there when a scan finishes, but she says she is
reading me the whole line from the report, and on more than one
occasion, she gave me no indication of where. Maybe those were
both BitDefender and maybe it didn't say.

The Symantic virus removal tool for magistr stopped part of the way
through, my friend's other friend ran it twice more and each time it
got a little further but it wouldn't complete.