Avast Boot Time Scan on Win98SE - not

[Sam]

I've discovered that, having installed Avast! 4.1 free version (and I
really like it compared with AVG6), Avast does not perform a boot time
scan (like NAV and AVG do) on my Win98SE system. Avast! can only do such
a scan on Win2000 onward. So, my question is, does it matter? i.e. how
important is it to perform a scan of system files on booting? I could
also install AVG and _only_ use it for this purpose (i.e. with it not
running in windows at all except when I want to do an update) although I
don't really want to have the two systems installed.

What are people's views? Is this necessary?

 

[FromTheRafters]

I've discovered that, having installed Avast! 4.1 free version (and I
really like it compared with AVG6), Avast does not perform a boot time
scan (like NAV and AVG do) on my Win98SE system. Avast! can only do such
a scan on Win2000 onward. So, my question is, does it matter?

I would say - yes. An AV would only be as trustworthy as
the foundation it is built upon.

i.e. how important is it to perform a scan of system files on booting?

I think that the OS needs to be at least partially loaded in order
to switch from real mode to protected mode operation. This
means that the on-access part of the AV program must trust
this foundation to be secure. Without the system files being
scanned before they are loaded, you have no assurance that
they are trustworthy (and no on accesss scanning as yet).

I could
also install AVG and _only_ use it for this purpose (i.e. with it not
running in windows at all except when I want to do an update)

Sure, I don't think it matters *how* you fill in this scanning gap as
long as you are thorough.

 

[Dave Cohen]

I run NAV on my main computer which is down for hardware problem. I went
back to my old win98se machine and installed AVG, but this machine won't be
used much once the other one is fixed. I have juist downloaded avast but
haven't done anything with it. I thought AVG looked good, what are the pros
and cons of the two. I'm thinking of when my NAV runs out.
Dave Cohen

 

[Sam]

Dave Cohen wrote ...

I thought AVG looked good, what are the pros
and cons of the two. I'm thinking of when my NAV runs out.
Dave Cohen

I think AVG (free version) is pretty good, but I just like the "look and
feel" of Avast better. I hated the trial version of AVG7 (the paid-for
version). Avast also is clever about its updates; it checks regularly
and on connection whereas AVG just has a fixed timer and if you're not
online, then tough. Avast overall seems to have a more "professional"
feel to it. I'd guess they are each as good as one another, however good
that may be. Avast is also better, in my view, at scanning incoming and
outgoing emails. The AVG plugin for OE isn't great in my view.

 

[Sam]

Sam wrote ...

Dave Cohen wrote ...

I think AVG (free version) is pretty good, but I just like the "look and
feel" of Avast better. I hated the trial version of AVG7 (the paid-for
version). Avast also is clever about its updates; it checks regularly
and on connection whereas AVG just has a fixed timer and if you're not
online, then tough. Avast overall seems to have a more "professional"
feel to it. I'd guess they are each as good as one another, however good
that may be. Avast is also better, in my view, at scanning incoming and
outgoing emails. The AVG plugin for OE isn't great in my view.

oh, and another thing - Alwil / Avast give very rapid email support and
via their forum, even to free users. AVG give no support if you're not
paying (fair enough IMO, but well done Alwil).

 

[polly tito]

Sam wrote ...

avast at least allows you to get an update without farting about re-writing
the url.ini file. I've also had two instances where AVG could detect but not
heal/remove virii

netsky and java/byteverify

it appears that whenever there is a ruch of new virii the avg update server
falls over, just what you need!

go with avast, it seems to be very grown up!

polly

 

[Dale Simmons]

Dave Cohen wrote ...

I think AVG (free version) is pretty good, but I just like the "look and
feel" of Avast better. I hated the trial version of AVG7 (the paid-for
version). Avast also is clever about its updates; it checks regularly
and on connection whereas AVG just has a fixed timer and if you're not
online, then tough. Avast overall seems to have a more "professional"
feel to it. I'd guess they are each as good as one another, however good
that may be. Avast is also better, in my view, at scanning incoming and
outgoing emails. The AVG plugin for OE isn't great in my view.

Hey, Sam... speaking of scanning incoming emails....I run a spam blocker
(spam inspector) and am unable how to figure out how to get it to work with
avast (or visa vis).... they don't like cooperatin... would you happen to
have any ideas?

thanks

 

[Sam]

Dale Simmons wrote ...

Hey, Sam... speaking of scanning incoming emails....I run a spam blocker
(spam inspector) and am unable how to figure out how to get it to work with
avast (or visa vis).... they don't like cooperatin... would you happen to
have any ideas?

actually, although I don't run spam inspector, I do run K9 which performs
a similar function. The email chain is OE - K9 - Avast - My pop server.
K9 listens on port 9999 of localhost (127.0.0.1) so in outlook express
you set the incoming port to 9999 instead of 110. I pass information to
K9 that it needs to pass on to Avast thus: The username instead of being
set to myusername#myserver (as Avast requires) is set to
127.0.0.1/110/myusername#myserver and then K9 passes the relevant info.
on to port 110 of 127.0.0.1

You must be able to do something similar for spam inspector. But ... I
tried to install spam inspector but it only seems to listen on port 110
and so it seems to conflict with Avast. Maybe someone else can tell you
how to configure spam inspector to listen on a different port?

This is a bit garbled but it may help!!!

K9 is great for catching spam - maybe you should try it instead - it's
free and at least I know how to use that with Avast!