This was my short attempt at running a full scan, since there's no options to do such a thing in the menu I had to right click the C
drive and do it that way. More or less attempting to test the waters if it could pick up anything the others missed.
I say full scan, I have multiple drives in this system and only went for the C drive, but hey ho.
I quit long before it was finished. I patiently gave it around 20 minutes, at which I believe it sat at around 30-40% complete (Bearing in mind this is a small SSD with only about 30GB taken up on it). It's difficult to tell on the free version because it lacks any kind of percentage figure, just a thin blue bar around the edge of the work order box.
My connection is even more shitty than yours xD Being in the UK n' all - Highest I ever see it go is about 420KB/s.
I would put it down to that had it not been for the Panda version completing the
entire system in around the same time period.
Is this with the free version in your case? I don't think the paid equivalent uses cloud scanning.
When I ran a full scan, I right clicked the tray icon, and selected "Full System Scan." Scanning your entire hard disk will always take longer, as it has to comb through every single file. If you select to run a
system scan, it will only search your OS files/folders. There's a significant difference between the two. I tried the same method you tried, except on a 320 GB HDD, and it did take a long time; but, that's also because it had to search through everything on that drive.
When you typed out your connection speed, you typed it out in kilobytes; I typed mine in kilobits. If you're implying you get 420 KB/s, and not 420 Kb/s, that would be a huge difference, and you'd have a much speedier connection than I.
And yes, my scans have all been done with the free version. I have yet to personally run a paid security software. I have only recently found some that I might be willing to pay for, but I don't like yearly subscriptions; I find them a waste of money, as I tend to switch software often when testing.
thetechnoobguy :
Yeah I know about not using two AV programs at once. Many people, including in this forum have said Malwarebytes is good and doesn't interfere, if it's worth it I'll use it.
My last experience with bitdefender was pretty horrible, this was a couple years ago, maybe it's improved over the years. I remember it was extremely buggy and would quarantine viruses but wouldn't remove them or something like that, it was extremely frustrating. Going by AV Comparatives wouldn't Trend Micro or Avira be the best to use? I had used Norton before and it seemed great, AV Comparatives didn't even test it though is it that bad?
Even though many people claim Malwarebytes doesn't interfere, I've seen zero proof of it. Would I do it? Hell no; I'd rather use IE than run two security wares at once. Call it a bit paranoid, but that's how likely it is for these wares to get in the way of each other. The way these programs are designed to work should cause red flags when they are run simultaneously. When they don't, I have to wonder what is being missed. Unless I see an IT expert condone using two live security wares simultaneously, on the record, with some sort of proof that it is safe, I won't consider it okay.
I've heard some spotted history with Bitdefender, but recent testing shows it's improved significantly. Avira would be a decent choice, though the number of false positives and false alarms from AV Comparatives makes me a little uneasy. The reason I don't like false positives is because it leave a lot of room for doubt. When an on-the-fly decision is made to ignore a red flag, that opens up Pandora's box; and with software that is known to have false alarms, the likelihood of an on-the-fly acceptance of a contaminated file would be increased (from a psychological perspective). I'd rather have a lower detection rate, with zero false positives, and take extra precautions to avoid the other small percentage of infections to begin with. Also, Avira had two false alarms from AV-C that were above a level two, out of six alarms in total. There was a level 4, and a level 5 false alarm. While it's a minimal number, it leaves me plenty of room for questions. Trend Micro had 4/5 FA's over level 2, with two of them at level 3, and one at levels 4 and 5. Trend Micro also has a very big impact on system resources; the second highest score on system impact, actually (which is bad). Trend also has a unique way of letting the user accept/deny the last .6% of infections, which worries me for the user's sake; even though it has only one false positive. I prefer to air on the side of caution, and pick something that does not allow a user to allow/deny upfront, as the context of the situation could cause an infection.
Really, it comes down to what you're willing to deal with. Are you willing to trade a marginal amount of protection from real-world threats for higher false alarm counts? Do you want to trade performance for a more customisable program? Do your research, and make a decision with what you're willing to deal with; I can't make that decision for anyone else but me. I've made my case for backing up Bitdefender quite clear; it's the best compromise that I find overall. Everything else, when you look at the detailed reports, seems to be somewhat worrisome from a sceptical security aspect. I'm willing to trade in my customisation for a program that performs [what I find to be] nearly perfect in the results published. If you're not, then figure out what you're willing to sacrifice.
Remember, I'm a very paranoid user, and I have seen people get infected with many different accept/allow methods, and by overriding what they think is a false alarm/positive when it isn't; so I am quite biased with this stuff. Hell, I've watched many people ignore blatant warnings of potential threats, and pursue whatever they were doing without any security software; so my recommendations are tailored more for the people who don't question everything like they should. If you do question everything, then take my opinion as the guy who doesn't want to spend extra time researching every alert that pops up. If you're okay with spending the extra time to figure out if something is safe/harmful, then be my guest; I've simply become tired of it, and I expect more from security companies these days than what most tend to expect.
thetechnoobguy :
Ran Hitman Pro, found over a hundred tracking cookies, and 1 Malware "not-a-virus
ownloader.NSIS.Mazel.f" (Kaspersky symbol) false positive? Some "Conduits" etc too, not sure what those were.
Tracking cookies are relatively harmless; I always eliminate those from scans, as I take care of them myself (I block them from most sites). As far as your malware search, it looks like a version of some crapware that was installed with another program. It could also be some form of Malware, according to Nictasoft (no idea who they are)-
http://www.nictasoft.com/ace/md5/4C03A217AD0BE77682DAF6F2F80182F4. I wouldn't consider it a false positive, unless you talked to Kaspersky about the file (due to the symbol next to it). Conduit is a toolbar search, so that may be what was found?
Facebook
Twitter