J
JOe
Hi there,
Just got infected by above. Spyware Doctor couldn't fix. Ewido
Anti-Malware saved my ass.
J
Just got infected by above. Spyware Doctor couldn't fix. Ewido
Anti-Malware saved my ass.
J
B
Bill
JOe said:
and your point is?
D
David H. Lipman
From: "JOe" <[email protected]>
| Hi there,
|
| Just got infected by above. Spyware Doctor couldn't fix. Ewido
| Anti-Malware saved my ass.
|
| J
Nothing new here. Some products catch what another may miss. That's why I put four
different AV vendors command line scanners in my Multi AV Scanning Tool.
| Hi there,
|
| Just got infected by above. Spyware Doctor couldn't fix. Ewido
| Anti-Malware saved my ass.
|
| J
Nothing new here. Some products catch what another may miss. That's why I put four
different AV vendors command line scanners in my Multi AV Scanning Tool.
J
JOe
The point is quite simple. In case anyone else get infected by
ciadoor, then don't waste time and effort on Spyware Doc. Go get
ewido (trial version).
What's your problem with the understanding of a simple heads up to
users of this group????
J
D
David H. Lipman
From: "JOe" <[email protected]>
|
| The point is quite simple. In case anyone else get infected by
| ciadoor, then don't waste time and effort on Spyware Doc. Go get
| ewido (trial version).
|
| What's your problem with the understanding of a simple heads up to
| users of this group????
|
| J
What Ciadoor Variant ?
There may be variants that NEITHER catch.
|
| The point is quite simple. In case anyone else get infected by
| ciadoor, then don't waste time and effort on Spyware Doc. Go get
| ewido (trial version).
|
| What's your problem with the understanding of a simple heads up to
| users of this group????
|
| J
What Ciadoor Variant ?
There may be variants that NEITHER catch.
A
Art
Except that it would be extremely rare that the other three would
catch anything the last one you included misses
Art
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
D
David H. Lipman
From: "Art" <[email protected]>
| On Tue, 30 May 2006 20:51:59 GMT, "David H. Lipman"
| Except that it would be extremely rare that the other three would
| catch anything the last one you included misses
|
| Art
| http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
|
Me thinks you have a favourite
| On Tue, 30 May 2006 20:51:59 GMT, "David H. Lipman"
|| said:
| Except that it would be extremely rare that the other three would
| catch anything the last one you included misses
|
| Art
| http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
|
Me thinks you have a favourite
A
Art
From: "Art" <[email protected]>
| On Tue, 30 May 2006 20:51:59 GMT, "David H. Lipman"
|
| Except that it would be extremely rare that the other three would
| catch anything the last one you included misses
Me thinks you have a favourite
Yep. Based on long comparative testing experience, I do. Is your
experience any different?
I feel sorry for those users who grind through all four scanners with
all the data base updating, and hours of wearing out their drives when
it doesn't buy them much at all, if anything, over just using
KAVDOS32.
Art
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
D
David H. Lipman
From: "Art" <[email protected]>
| On Tue, 30 May 2006 21:20:05 GMT, "David H. Lipman"
| Yep. Based on long comparative testing experience, I do. Is your
| experience any different?
|
| I feel sorry for those users who grind through all four scanners with
| all the data base updating, and hours of wearing out their drives when
| it doesn't buy them much at all, if anything, over just using
| KAVDOS32.
|
| Art
| http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
KAVDOS32 *only* works on files, not on the Registry since it is a for DOS program. Sophos,
McAfee and Trend Micro are Win32 apps.
There are advantages and disadvantages of each scanner and they could NOT just be replaced
by KAVDO32.
| On Tue, 30 May 2006 21:20:05 GMT, "David H. Lipman"
|| said:|> On Tue, 30 May 2006 20:51:59 GMT, "David H. Lipman"
|>
|> Except that it would be extremely rare that the other three would
|> catch anything the last one you included misses
| Yep. Based on long comparative testing experience, I do. Is your
| experience any different?
|
| I feel sorry for those users who grind through all four scanners with
| all the data base updating, and hours of wearing out their drives when
| it doesn't buy them much at all, if anything, over just using
| KAVDOS32.
|
| Art
| http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
KAVDOS32 *only* works on files, not on the Registry since it is a for DOS program. Sophos,
McAfee and Trend Micro are Win32 apps.
There are advantages and disadvantages of each scanner and they could NOT just be replaced
by KAVDO32.
A
Art
So you're saying that these other scanners are effective with registry
cleaning? I was under the impression that many av are ineffective in
that regard.
A problem I see far too often with McAfee and some other scanners
is their growing tendency to not be able to distinguish variants, even
to the point of misidentification in some cases. That puts those
scanners in a poor position to do a malware cleanup, it would seem.
Perhaps not, but if KAVDOS32 finds nothing, I see no point in scanning
entire drives with the others. Only if KAVDOS32 fails to do a cleanup
would I see a purpose in trying a different scanner which could be
aimed at a limited number of folders/files.
Art
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
J
JOe
It was the ciadoor.13 and quite a nasty one. My regedit and task
manager were disabled and though I learned from some websites
that certain registry entries/processes should be deleted I could
not do a thing.
Spyware doctor actually detected it but even though I pressed "fix"
the problem persisted. And as mentioned in my original post Ewido was
the one that saved my ass. I was about to reformat and re-install
WinXP and that would have taken hours.
The scary thing about this ciadoor.13 is that it kept trying to
connect to a website (something to do with ciadoor, forgot actual
URL). Fortunately, I have Sygate firewall installed, but I was too
careless to let its initial attempt get through.
There may be variants that NEITHER catch.
You're probably right.
J
D
David H. Lipman
From: "Art" <[email protected]>
| On Tue, 30 May 2006 22:06:06 GMT, "David H. Lipman"
| So you're saying that these other scanners are effective with registry
| cleaning? I was under the impression that many av are ineffective in
| that regard.
|
| A problem I see far too often with McAfee and some other scanners
| is their growing tendency to not be able to distinguish variants, even
| to the point of misidentification in some cases. That puts those
| scanners in a poor position to do a malware cleanup, it would seem.
||
| Perhaps not, but if KAVDOS32 finds nothing, I see no point in scanning
| entire drives with the others. Only if KAVDOS32 fails to do a cleanup
| would I see a purpose in trying a different scanner which could be
| aimed at a limited number of folders/files.
|
| Art
| http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
|
It is my understanding they do. However, with non-viral malware, there are so many Registry
changes that the anti spyware applications exceed in that area.
| On Tue, 30 May 2006 22:06:06 GMT, "David H. Lipman"
|| said:
| So you're saying that these other scanners are effective with registry
| cleaning? I was under the impression that many av are ineffective in
| that regard.
|
| A problem I see far too often with McAfee and some other scanners
| is their growing tendency to not be able to distinguish variants, even
| to the point of misidentification in some cases. That puts those
| scanners in a poor position to do a malware cleanup, it would seem.
||
| Perhaps not, but if KAVDOS32 finds nothing, I see no point in scanning
| entire drives with the others. Only if KAVDOS32 fails to do a cleanup
| would I see a purpose in trying a different scanner which could be
| aimed at a limited number of folders/files.
|
| Art
| http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
|
It is my understanding they do. However, with non-viral malware, there are so many Registry
changes that the anti spyware applications exceed in that area.