Annoying Virus

ACPCUP · 9 Feb 2006 at 10:23

What antivirus program uses the least amount of resources?

Jeff Crawly · 9 Feb 2006 at 15:24

stoofa said:
The only reason Norton is failing to clear the problem on this PC is because the detection of the infection is being done when Windows has been booted normally - the files are locked by the OS so of course they can't be cleared.
Any software would have run into the same problem clearing this infection.

Just mentioning this to dispell the usual BS about Norton being "rubbish".
But hay - it's like telling people to stop saying M$, Micro$oft and bashing AOL.
It appears to be the fashion to do so even by the uneducated...

I think it is safe to say that at some stage this machine has been online without any AV software running or outdated definitions.
Either prior to Norton being installed or due to it being turned off by the user so that they can get those important 10 or so more 3DMarks (or similar) as Norton's constant checking (as all AV software does) would have detected the infection as it was coming in.

The key to removal these days is doing the full scans in safe mode as this is the only way you can be sure that the infected files won't be locked by the OS.
System restore should also be turned off - however I would recommend you do not do this until you are sure that your machine is clean.
It maybe that using System Restore is the only way to get your machine back into operation and switching System Restore off will delete all of your restore points.

At last an informed post from someone who actually knows what they are talking about

Symantec (aka Nortons) Corp. Edition v9 > ALL

Nortons Virus defs are second to none so blaiming Nortons for this problem is lame!! As stated the virus has infected the PC because: User error, incorrectly setup, out-of-date virus defs, AV disabling...etc

ACPCUP said:
What antivirus program uses the least amount of resources?

Symantec Corp. Edition 9 (Configured to: Modified: Scan On Create)
Gonna cost you though (£150+) :eek:

AJUK · 9 Feb 2006 at 15:30

^
I know very well that certain files cannot be cleaned because they are in use whilst running the scan which was why I recommended Avast which can do a boot time scan before Windows fires up.

As for Norton, it is a bag of crap, sorry.

NathanE · 9 Feb 2006 at 15:37

The thing is, a decent anti-virus (and there aren't many) can get around the fact that the file is locked by the OS. It is trivial for any system level program to release locks on a file and gain exclusive ownership over the file. That way the AV can do whatever it wishes with the file.

Considering the fact that Norton AV is basically one giant kernel rootkit that commandeers what you can and cannot do on your system - I am surprised that the developers of it haven't implemented this simple functionality.

So yes, AJUK is correct in saying Norton is rubbish. Because it is.

TripleT · 9 Feb 2006 at 18:44

Well the virus has gone now thankfully

The virus probably came in because norton WAS out-of-date since September.

So what does everyone recommend that I do? Kepp norton and pay for the subscription update (I won't be paying by the way

). Or get avast and use this?

I'm going to try and get rid of that startup error.

Could anyone shed anymore light on which startup's I can bin?

Cheers again for everyones input

leezer3 · 9 Feb 2006 at 19:05

There are two sides to the coin TBH

Yes, Norton does have good defs, and isn't bad considering. However, it is incredibly bloated, slows the system down and is overpriced compared to competitors. I personally use Avast on my main machine, and this has never let me down (Unlike the McAffee crud the uni makes me use on the lappy), but a lot of virus prevention comes down to common sense & not downloading dodgy stuff.

If you like the convienience of Norton, then carry on. Personally, I would change.

-Leezer-

AJUK · 9 Feb 2006 at 19:27

TripleT, just go for Avast and all will be well.

There are many decent AVs out there - Avast, NOD32, Kaspersky, AntiVir or Bitdefender are probably the best of the bunch, that said AVG is still good. Just avoid Norton (and MacAfee) and you won't go far wrong. I use Avast and Ewido in combination and laugh in the face of the virus writers.

ACPCUP · 10 Feb 2006 at 07:49

Which Anti-Virus software uses the least amount of resources though?

AJUK · 10 Feb 2006 at 08:32

ACPCUP said:
Which Anti-Virus software uses the least amount of resources though?

NOD32 or AntiVir but in the overall scheme of things in resource use versus protection Avast.

ACPCUP · 10 Feb 2006 at 10:07

Is Avast a resource hog?

leezer3 · 10 Feb 2006 at 11:01

Total resource usage for Avast on my system is just over 10mbs when running, nearer 20mbs when scanning. I don't consider that bad.

-Leezer-

ACPCUP · 10 Feb 2006 at 12:44

What about load up times of windows etc? Is it as bad as Norton or AVG etc? These ones cause a bit of a lag.

AJUK · 10 Feb 2006 at 14:13

I have never found WIndows load times to be affected adversely by Avast. I only boot once a day and nothing is so important that I can't wait an extra 20 seconds for Windows to boot.