Anti-virus question

[jkneese]

Is it OK to continue to work while an anti-virus (in this case, Norton) is
running, or should the anti-virus be given full access to the computer?

Thanks for any help.

 

[Unknown]

It's ok to continue working.

 

[thanatoid]

Is it OK to continue to work while an anti-virus (in this
case, Norton) is running, or should the anti-virus be given
full access to the computer?

This makes no sense, because both alternatives mean the same
thing - to me, at least.

Nonetheless, to sort of reply, the ONLY time it is necessary to
run an AV program is to do an on-demand scan of everything you
have dl'd during your last online session *AFTER disconnecting*.

Running it all the time (on- or off-line) just slows down the
computer. THINK before you do anything on the web. No AV program
can think for you. Besides a properly set-up machine is quite
safe, generally. Of course, part of a properly set-up machine is
NOT using IE/OE, but I'll leave that to you to research/think
about.

If you are one of the people who are connected to the net 24/7,
you have other problems (no offense).

 

[Hot-text]

it's OK
It will show your work down some at time to save the work
but it will not stop you from working and you can always pause Norton to
save work
And Restart Norton after save!

 

[Peter Foldes]

thanatoid
And you are a complete fool for answering as to what you just did in your post. Go
and discuss your knowledge with your partner Twayne. You are another Andrew E for
giving bad advice and suggestions

 

[David H. Lipman]

From: "jkneese" <[email protected]>

| Is it OK to continue to work while an anti-virus (in this case, Norton) is
| running, or should the anti-virus be given full access to the computer?

| Thanks for any help.


A poorly worded question.

An anti virus application that is fully installed is always working in the "On Access"
mode and thus of course it is OK to continue to do work.

However if you decide the initiate an "On Demand" scan of a hard disk, folder or some
media then NO, stop doing any work until the "On Demand" scan has finished what it was
doing.

Now REMOVE the norton anti virus as has one of the lowest catch rates in the anti virus
industry and (depending on the version) one of the highest resource hogs as well.

Suggested replacement; Avira AntiVir.

Note questions like this one is best served in microsoft.public.security.virus

 

[thanatoid]

thanatoid
And you are a complete fool for answering as to what you
just did in your post. Go and discuss your knowledge with
your partner Twayne. You are another Andrew E for giving
bad advice and suggestions

**** you. Why don't you apply for an MVP status while you're at
it?

(A few English classes wouldn't hurt either. Read that first
"sentence".)

 

[The Real Truth MVP]

BD said he was an idiot, now you know why.


--
The Real Truth http://pcbutts1-therealtruth.blogspot.com/
*WARNING* Do NOT follow any advice given by the people listed below.
They do NOT have the expertise or knowledge to fix your issue. Do not waste
your time.
David H Lipman, Malke, PA Bear, Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Leythos.

 

[Twayne]

In

thanatoid
And you are a complete fool for answering as to what you just did in
your post. Go and discuss your knowledge with your partner Twayne.
You are another Andrew E for giving bad advice and suggestions

And there goes the childish name calling again. All because of not being
sure enough to answer the post but wishing he was. So you resort to trolling
instead.

 

[Twayne]

In

Is it OK to continue to work while an anti-virus (in this case,
Norton) is running, or should the anti-virus be given full access to
the computer?
Thanks for any help.

You didn't indicate which AV your'e using, so the only possible answer is a
"usually" kind of thing that applies to most of the known better AV
programs. If you aren't to use the computer while It's running, I know one
that just turns off the keyboard and mouse, while another says not to use
the computer but does nothing to help you remember not to use it.
Basically, check the docs that came with the AV if you're not sure.


Usually and for all the better ones:
Yes, you can continue to work. The only "downside" is that the AV will not
be able to check any files you may have "in use", but those are seldom an
issue for viruses.

I think most people run deep scans with their AV, hopefully keep it fully
updated, and leave the machine to run on its own, just to get the most
thorough scan possible. It just seems logical to me.
Mine for instance, runs at night after the nightly backups complete.
But you're very unlikely to have any problems as a result of using the
computer while it runs unless you get something that locks up the machine;
in which case the scan might be thrown away and have to be done again. In
such a case, check the AV in Task Manager and if it's still running, try to
let it complete before you shut the machine down. You might glance at the
backup folder too, to make sure it's creating the files properly.

HTH,

Twayne

 

[Twayne]

In

A poorly worded question.

An anti virus application that is fully installed is always working
in the "On Access" mode and thus of course it is OK to continue to do
work.

However if you decide the initiate an "On Demand" scan of a hard
disk, folder or some media then NO, stop doing any work until the "On
Demand" scan has finished what it was doing.

Now REMOVE the norton anti virus as has one of the lowest catch rates
in the anti virus industry and (depending on the version) one of the
highest resource hogs as well.

Norton AV (Symantec now) never had a low catch rate; catch rates for all of
them vary over time but Norton has always had a good record. Their
heuristics outperform most other packages too.

Resource Occupation: Was partially true once, depending on which of the
services you used. The actual AV was not part of that, however. You seem to
be mising up different products. Not true for anything being sold today.
2009 and 2010 are little darlings that way.

lol, I saw what I'll bet you're basing that on. Do you beleive everything
you read?

http://internet-security-suite-review.toptenreviews.com/

And this one looks interesting for spyware:
http://anti-spyware-review.toptenreviews.com/

The internet's like the bible: You can find any positive or negative you
wish with the proper searching, spam or accidental discovery. The only
"proof" is to listen to what other reasonable people have to say and then
test the products in their trialware and make up your own mind. It's not
rocket science and since most AV vendors all use the same sources for their
data, they all do pretty well at most things. The cowboys that reinvent the
wheel seldom work out well.

Suggested replacement; Avira AntiVir.

Note questions like this one is best served in
microsoft.public.security.virus

I have to take a couple minor exceptions here, namely Avira. They like to
use their installed base for covert BETA testing and does some of its
"detection" by seeing what folder certain files live in. As an example, I
had a setup.exe in a folder called "hospital test" for a VB program I was
developing. Avira detected it as a rogue and wanted to delete it. I moved
the file to a more expected location and Avira no longer found it. Moved it
back, and it was detected again. Zipped it with a different name, and Avira
didn't find it. They were not relying on the contents of files or even the
names, but only WHERE some names were located. AFAICT by looking at their
forums just now they're still covertly beta testing by their users. In other
words, false positives are excessive in Avira's ware.
I can think of several other programs though, who could have been
recommended.

 

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Twayne" <[email protected]>

| Norton AV (Symantec now) never had a low catch rate; catch rates for all of
| them vary over time but Norton has always had a good record. Their
| heuristics outperform most other packages too.

| Resource Occupation: Was partially true once, depending on which of the
| services you used. The actual AV was not part of that, however. You seem to
| be mising up different products. Not true for anything being sold today.
| 2009 and 2010 are little darlings that way.

| lol, I saw what I'll bet you're basing that on. Do you beleive everything
| you read?

| http://internet-security-suite-review.toptenreviews.com/

| And this one looks interesting for spyware:
| http://anti-spyware-review.toptenreviews.com/

| The internet's like the bible: You can find any positive or negative you
| wish with the proper searching, spam or accidental discovery. The only
| "proof" is to listen to what other reasonable people have to say and then
| test the products in their trialware and make up your own mind. It's not
| rocket science and since most AV vendors all use the same sources for their
| data, they all do pretty well at most things. The cowboys that reinvent the
| wheel seldom work out well.


| I have to take a couple minor exceptions here, namely Avira. They like to
| use their installed base for covert BETA testing and does some of its
| "detection" by seeing what folder certain files live in. As an example, I
| had a setup.exe in a folder called "hospital test" for a VB program I was
| developing. Avira detected it as a rogue and wanted to delete it. I moved
| the file to a more expected location and Avira no longer found it. Moved it
| back, and it was detected again. Zipped it with a different name, and Avira
| didn't find it. They were not relying on the contents of files or even the
| names, but only WHERE some names were located. AFAICT by looking at their
| forums just now they're still covertly beta testing by their users. In other
| words, false positives are excessive in Avira's ware.
| I can think of several other programs though, who could have been
| recommended.

Twayne I have been researching malware for quite a long time and have seen the market
change over the years. I remember Norton AV prior to Symantec buying their software and I
KNOW how there detection increased greatly when Peter Norton puchased Central Point
Software and their product Central Point AV. For those who don't know, long before
Microsoft bought RAV they oem'd CPAV for short while and called it MSAV.

But over the years their software has lost it luster. NAV became bloatware and would be a
major resource hog. Symantec noted that and yes, they reworked their product and starting
with 2009 their software becaem less of a resource hog.

However, Symantec still has a poor detection rate. PERIOD!
I don't base that on reading 3rd party articles but personal research.

 

[Hot-text]

Twayne I believe you!

For I run a Server and I do not stop my Server from working so it can run a
anti-virus I can not be down 6 hours or more for that!
If a anti-virus can not work at the same time as my Server it be time to get
a new anti-virus!
and my AVAST work hard Scanning incoming and outgoing at the same time as it
Scanning for virus...
For I do not need a virus on my Server or give out a virus to my viewer PC
And Yes I WORK My HTML EDITOR AT THE SAME TIME!
and it check my files at Save!

Yes yes it Post on Top ......
I have Windows Live Mail Not a NEWS READER!!

 

[Twayne]

In

Twayne I have been researching malware for quite a long time and have
seen the market change over the years. I remember Norton AV prior to
Symantec buying their software and I KNOW how there detection
increased greatly when Peter Norton puchased Central Point Software
and their product Central Point AV. For those who don't know, long
before Microsoft bought RAV they oem'd CPAV for short while and
called it MSAV.

But over the years their software has lost it luster. NAV became
bloatware and would be a major resource hog. Symantec noted that and
yes, they reworked their product and starting with 2009 their
software becaem less of a resource hog.

However, Symantec still has a poor detection rate. PERIOD!
I don't base that on reading 3rd party articles but personal research.

Then I'm sure you're aware that everyone, especially geographically
separated, will get differing results from running such tests.
That said, personal research is THE BEST indicator of effectiveness there
is, as long as one realizes that others may get different results.
Unfortunately most people aren't capable of it.

 

[Unknown]

Of course, part of a properly set-up machine is
NOT using IE/OE,

Another absolutely stupid comment. When are you going to quit making an ass
of yourself?

 

[Unknown]

Well Twayne------Is your computer set up properly??
Are you NOT using IE and OE??? Do you side with thanatoid?

 

[thanatoid]

Another absolutely stupid comment. When are you going to
quit making an ass of yourself?

It's not stupid, it's one of the most important things you can
do to have a well-running and safe computer.

And I will quit making an ass of myself (in other ways than
giving priceless advice) when you get a brain.

So it might be a while. Brain transplants are not yet common
practice.

I think you're a good candidate for my next plonk. Your posts
aren't even entertaining in their stupidity, they're just
stupid, dull, and boring.

 

[Peter Foldes]

(plonk)

 

[Unknown]

Do you honestly believe you impress people with your feigned stupidity?
As for my posts, don't read them..

 

[Rick Merrill]

Is it OK to continue to work while an anti-virus (in this case, Norton) is
running, or should the anti-virus be given full access to the computer?

Yes; it is ok. Norton will grab the resources it requires.