Avast ver 9.xx

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by Robert Baer, Dec 29, 2013.

  1. Robert Baer

    Robert Baer Guest

    For the last 3-4 days i have seen pop-up nags to install the ver 9x
    program update.
    Have "ignored" them so far (have not allowed install).
    They are getting more often and more irritating.
    Can they be blocked?
    Robert Baer, Dec 29, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Robert Baer

    Paul Guest

    Robert Baer wrote:
    > For the last 3-4 days i have seen pop-up nags to install the ver 9x
    > program update.
    > Have "ignored" them so far (have not allowed install).
    > They are getting more often and more irritating.
    > Can they be blocked?


    There are controls mentioned in this thread.

    http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=97227.0

    But sooner or later you're going to have to update.
    They won't support your version forever.

    Paul
    Paul, Dec 29, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Robert Baer

    Robert Baer Guest

    Paul wrote:
    > Robert Baer wrote:
    >> For the last 3-4 days i have seen pop-up nags to install the ver 9x
    >> program update.
    >> Have "ignored" them so far (have not allowed install).
    >> They are getting more often and more irritating.
    >> Can they be blocked?

    >
    > There are controls mentioned in this thread.
    >
    > http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=97227.0
    >
    > But sooner or later you're going to have to update.
    > They won't support your version forever.
    >
    > Paul

    Thanks.
    Do you have any idea as to when they will remove the posting & e-mail
    spam message?
    Robert Baer, Dec 29, 2013
    #3
  4. Robert Baer

    VanguardLH Guest

    Robert Baer <> on 29/12/2013 wrote:

    > Do you have any idea as to when they will remove the posting & e-mail
    > spam message?


    That's configurable by you. It is on by default whenever you include
    the Mail Shield module but the user can disable that spammy promotional
    option. It's up to the user to alter the default settings. Of course,
    if you don't bother to install the superfluous Mail Shield then the
    option isn't applicable.
    VanguardLH, Dec 29, 2013
    #4
  5. Robert Baer

    Robert Baer Guest

    VanguardLH wrote:
    > Robert Baer<> on 29/12/2013 wrote:
    >
    >> Do you have any idea as to when they will remove the posting& e-mail
    >> spam message?

    >
    > That's configurable by you. It is on by default whenever you include
    > the Mail Shield module but the user can disable that spammy promotional
    > option. It's up to the user to alter the default settings. Of course,
    > if you don't bother to install the superfluous Mail Shield then the
    > option isn't applicable.

    Oh. Thanks. Did not know that Mail Shield did that.
    Naturally, disabling that results in Avast complaining..
    Robert Baer, Dec 30, 2013
    #5
  6. Robert Baer

    VanguardLH Guest

    Robert Baer <> on 29/12/2013 wrote:

    > VanguardLH wrote:
    >
    >> Robert Baer<> on 29/12/2013 wrote:
    >>
    >>> Do you have any idea as to when they will remove the posting&
    >>> e-mail spam message?

    >>
    >> That's configurable by you ... Mail Shield ...
    >> ... don't bother to install the superfluous Mail Shield ...

    >
    > Did not know that Mail Shield did that. Naturally, disabling that
    > results in Avast complaining..


    Disabling an installed module has Avast claim that protection is
    incomplete as though such a condition is severe. So don't install the
    Mail Shield module. As I recall, you have to uninstall all of Avast and
    then do a *custom* install. That's when you deselect all the fluff.
    Assuming the following image showing the custom install options for
    Avast Free 2013 is still applicable to Avast Free 2014:

    http://www.ghacks.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/avast-custom-installation.png

    then don't bother to install the following fluff and gimmicks:

    - Mail Shield
    - Browser Protection (was called Webrep, same function as WOT [Web Of
    Trust] and McAfee SiteAdvisor plugins with users ranking sites - oh
    yes, those highly expert users telling you if a site is good or bad,
    uh huh).
    - SecureLine (lureware that becomes payware).
    - Software Updater (like SecuniaPSI, nags there are newer versions of a
    program but hasn't a any clue if the new version or updates are for
    actual security updates or for bug fixes or feature changes or
    enhancements). Only knows a new version is available. Not a clue if
    the new version provide better security, especially new code
    introduces new flaws and may not address the old flaws that are
    appropriate and evidenced on your platform.
    - avast! Remote Assistance (you really want to allow someone changing
    your computing platform who is idemnified from damaging your
    platform?)
    - Browser Cleanup (fluffware, other tools work just as well or better,
    like CCleaner).
    - avast! Gadget (monitor and UI access but just use the tray icon, adds
    10 seconds to Windows startup, just eye candy bloatware).

    Other than File Shield and Web Shield, the only other option I grant for
    installation are Rescue Disk.
    VanguardLH, Dec 30, 2013
    #6
  7. Robert Baer

    Robert Baer Guest

    VanguardLH wrote:
    > Robert Baer<> on 29/12/2013 wrote:
    >
    >> VanguardLH wrote:
    >>
    >>> Robert Baer<> on 29/12/2013 wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Do you have any idea as to when they will remove the posting&
    >>>> e-mail spam message?
    >>>
    >>> That's configurable by you ... Mail Shield ...
    >>> ... don't bother to install the superfluous Mail Shield ...

    >>
    >> Did not know that Mail Shield did that. Naturally, disabling that
    >> results in Avast complaining..

    >
    > Disabling an installed module has Avast claim that protection is
    > incomplete as though such a condition is severe. So don't install the
    > Mail Shield module. As I recall, you have to uninstall all of Avast and
    > then do a *custom* install. That's when you deselect all the fluff.
    > Assuming the following image showing the custom install options for
    > Avast Free 2013 is still applicable to Avast Free 2014:
    >
    > http://www.ghacks.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/avast-custom-installation.png
    >
    > then don't bother to install the following fluff and gimmicks:
    >
    > - Mail Shield
    > - Browser Protection (was called Webrep, same function as WOT [Web Of
    > Trust] and McAfee SiteAdvisor plugins with users ranking sites - oh
    > yes, those highly expert users telling you if a site is good or bad,
    > uh huh).
    > - SecureLine (lureware that becomes payware).
    > - Software Updater (like SecuniaPSI, nags there are newer versions of a
    > program but hasn't a any clue if the new version or updates are for
    > actual security updates or for bug fixes or feature changes or
    > enhancements). Only knows a new version is available. Not a clue if
    > the new version provide better security, especially new code
    > introduces new flaws and may not address the old flaws that are
    > appropriate and evidenced on your platform.
    > - avast! Remote Assistance (you really want to allow someone changing
    > your computing platform who is idemnified from damaging your
    > platform?)
    > - Browser Cleanup (fluffware, other tools work just as well or better,
    > like CCleaner).
    > - avast! Gadget (monitor and UI access but just use the tray icon, adds
    > 10 seconds to Windows startup, just eye candy bloatware).
    >
    > Other than File Shield and Web Shield, the only other option I grant for
    > installation are Rescue Disk.

    I do not fiddle with a "Rescue Disk" (since about 30 years ago).
    I have never been able to find them useful.
    They are worse than not having one at all, because of the (false)
    illusion that it is useful (anyone for a miniature Frisbee?).
    Robert Baer, Dec 31, 2013
    #7
  8. Robert Baer

    VanguardLH Guest

    Robert Baer <> on 31/12/2013 wrote:

    > VanguardLH wrote:
    >> Robert Baer<> on 29/12/2013 wrote:
    >>
    >>> VanguardLH wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Robert Baer<> on 29/12/2013 wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Do you have any idea as to when they will remove the posting&
    >>>>> e-mail spam message?
    >>>>
    >>>> That's configurable by you ... Mail Shield ...
    >>>> ... don't bother to install the superfluous Mail Shield ...
    >>>
    >>> Did not know that Mail Shield did that. Naturally, disabling that
    >>> results in Avast complaining..

    >>
    >> Disabling an installed module has Avast claim that protection is
    >> incomplete as though such a condition is severe. So don't install the
    >> Mail Shield module. As I recall, you have to uninstall all of Avast and
    >> then do a *custom* install. That's when you deselect all the fluff.
    >> Assuming the following image showing the custom install options for
    >> Avast Free 2013 is still applicable to Avast Free 2014:
    >>
    >> http://www.ghacks.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/avast-custom-installation.png
    >>
    >> then don't bother to install the following fluff and gimmicks:
    >>
    >> - Mail Shield
    >> - Browser Protection (was called Webrep, same function as WOT [Web Of
    >> Trust] and McAfee SiteAdvisor plugins with users ranking sites - oh
    >> yes, those highly expert users telling you if a site is good or bad,
    >> uh huh).
    >> - SecureLine (lureware that becomes payware).
    >> - Software Updater (like SecuniaPSI, nags there are newer versions of a
    >> program but hasn't a any clue if the new version or updates are for
    >> actual security updates or for bug fixes or feature changes or
    >> enhancements). Only knows a new version is available. Not a clue if
    >> the new version provide better security, especially new code
    >> introduces new flaws and may not address the old flaws that are
    >> appropriate and evidenced on your platform.
    >> - avast! Remote Assistance (you really want to allow someone changing
    >> your computing platform who is idemnified from damaging your
    >> platform?)
    >> - Browser Cleanup (fluffware, other tools work just as well or better,
    >> like CCleaner).
    >> - avast! Gadget (monitor and UI access but just use the tray icon, adds
    >> 10 seconds to Windows startup, just eye candy bloatware).
    >>
    >> Other than File Shield and Web Shield, the only other option I grant for
    >> installation are Rescue Disk.

    > I do not fiddle with a "Rescue Disk" (since about 30 years ago).
    > I have never been able to find them useful.
    > They are worse than not having one at all, because of the (false)
    > illusion that it is useful (anyone for a miniature Frisbee?).


    There is malware that cannot be removed by running user-mode programs
    within the instance of the OS that has been infected. You have to boot
    to a CD or USB thumb drive or something OTHER than the infected OS to
    clean that infected OS. I'm not just talking about rootkits but also
    malware that prevents you from fixing the OS from within the OS. Do you
    really trust that an infected OS will fix itself using tools ran under
    the control of that infected OS? For less robust malware, yes,
    disinfection under a running instance of the OS might work. For the
    real nasties, the OS must be quiescent (not running, not even loaded) to
    repair it.

    Yes, you could rely on backups to restore your OS partition back to a
    prior state. I do daily image backups. But malware may not be exposed
    for a long time which means all your backups are also infected. Just
    reverting to an image prior to when you happen to notice behavior by
    malware doesn't mean the backup is clean. Most folks only have so much
    room to store their backups. If they infrequently do backups then they
    have a far more coarse granularity to what they can restore. If they do
    regular backups for more granular recovery then eventually they run out
    of room and have to delete the oldest backups. Since malware may not be
    exposed for a long time, all your backups might be infected. Your only
    choice then is to do a fresh install of the OS, get all its updates, do
    fresh installs of all your apps, get all their updates, and restore your
    data files (since they're not executable but watch out for docs that
    have macros in them). That's a lot more work than booting from an AV
    bootable disc to disinfect the OS. Not everyone has the luxury to do a
    fresh setup of OS, apps, and data restores to eliminate malware,
    especially those that use their computers for work rather than just for
    playing games and reading e-mails.

    You can use Avast to try to thwart entry of malware onto your host. You
    can use Avast to clean out malware that it can recognize later (i.e.,
    for those zero-day pests that it won't catch). You can use Avast's
    boot-time AV manager to disinfect the OS without the OS running (i.e.,
    while it is quiescent). That requires usurping the bootstrap area of
    the MBR but the user may need other tools to usurp the MBR bootstrap,
    like for Acronis TrueImage recovery backup manager, or tools to allow
    the use of hard disks larger than the BIOS can handle, etc. If the MBR
    bootstrap area is already inuse by something you don't want to sacrifice
    for Avast's boot-time scan then use Avast's bootable media instead.

    If you trust an installed copy of Avast to protect and disinfect your
    computer within a running instance of the OS, why do you not also trust
    Avast's bootable media to scan your OS while it is quiescent? You trust
    it but you don't trust it. A bit at war with yourself on your choice of
    security software.

    When you use Avast's, or any AV maker's, bootable scanner media, you
    prevent the malware from loading because you didn't load the infected
    OS. Resistant malware cannot protect itself when it isn't running.
    VanguardLH, Dec 31, 2013
    #8
  9. Robert Baer

    Robert Baer Guest

    VanguardLH wrote:
    > Robert Baer<> on 31/12/2013 wrote:
    >
    >> VanguardLH wrote:
    >>> Robert Baer<> on 29/12/2013 wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> VanguardLH wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Robert Baer<> on 29/12/2013 wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Do you have any idea as to when they will remove the posting&
    >>>>>> e-mail spam message?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> That's configurable by you ... Mail Shield ...
    >>>>> ... don't bother to install the superfluous Mail Shield ...
    >>>>
    >>>> Did not know that Mail Shield did that. Naturally, disabling that
    >>>> results in Avast complaining..
    >>>
    >>> Disabling an installed module has Avast claim that protection is
    >>> incomplete as though such a condition is severe. So don't install the
    >>> Mail Shield module. As I recall, you have to uninstall all of Avast and
    >>> then do a *custom* install. That's when you deselect all the fluff.
    >>> Assuming the following image showing the custom install options for
    >>> Avast Free 2013 is still applicable to Avast Free 2014:
    >>>
    >>> http://www.ghacks.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/avast-custom-installation.png
    >>>
    >>> then don't bother to install the following fluff and gimmicks:
    >>>
    >>> - Mail Shield
    >>> - Browser Protection (was called Webrep, same function as WOT [Web Of
    >>> Trust] and McAfee SiteAdvisor plugins with users ranking sites - oh
    >>> yes, those highly expert users telling you if a site is good or bad,
    >>> uh huh).
    >>> - SecureLine (lureware that becomes payware).
    >>> - Software Updater (like SecuniaPSI, nags there are newer versions of a
    >>> program but hasn't a any clue if the new version or updates are for
    >>> actual security updates or for bug fixes or feature changes or
    >>> enhancements). Only knows a new version is available. Not a clue if
    >>> the new version provide better security, especially new code
    >>> introduces new flaws and may not address the old flaws that are
    >>> appropriate and evidenced on your platform.
    >>> - avast! Remote Assistance (you really want to allow someone changing
    >>> your computing platform who is idemnified from damaging your
    >>> platform?)
    >>> - Browser Cleanup (fluffware, other tools work just as well or better,
    >>> like CCleaner).
    >>> - avast! Gadget (monitor and UI access but just use the tray icon, adds
    >>> 10 seconds to Windows startup, just eye candy bloatware).
    >>>
    >>> Other than File Shield and Web Shield, the only other option I grant for
    >>> installation are Rescue Disk.

    >> I do not fiddle with a "Rescue Disk" (since about 30 years ago).
    >> I have never been able to find them useful.
    >> They are worse than not having one at all, because of the (false)
    >> illusion that it is useful (anyone for a miniature Frisbee?).

    >
    > There is malware that cannot be removed by running user-mode programs
    > within the instance of the OS that has been infected. You have to boot
    > to a CD or USB thumb drive or something OTHER than the infected OS to
    > clean that infected OS. I'm not just talking about rootkits but also
    > malware that prevents you from fixing the OS from within the OS. Do you
    > really trust that an infected OS will fix itself using tools ran under
    > the control of that infected OS? For less robust malware, yes,
    > disinfection under a running instance of the OS might work. For the
    > real nasties, the OS must be quiescent (not running, not even loaded) to
    > repair it.
    >
    > Yes, you could rely on backups to restore your OS partition back to a
    > prior state. I do daily image backups. But malware may not be exposed
    > for a long time which means all your backups are also infected. Just
    > reverting to an image prior to when you happen to notice behavior by
    > malware doesn't mean the backup is clean. Most folks only have so much
    > room to store their backups. If they infrequently do backups then they
    > have a far more coarse granularity to what they can restore. If they do
    > regular backups for more granular recovery then eventually they run out
    > of room and have to delete the oldest backups. Since malware may not be
    > exposed for a long time, all your backups might be infected. Your only
    > choice then is to do a fresh install of the OS, get all its updates, do
    > fresh installs of all your apps, get all their updates, and restore your
    > data files (since they're not executable but watch out for docs that
    > have macros in them). That's a lot more work than booting from an AV
    > bootable disc to disinfect the OS. Not everyone has the luxury to do a
    > fresh setup of OS, apps, and data restores to eliminate malware,
    > especially those that use their computers for work rather than just for
    > playing games and reading e-mails.
    >
    > You can use Avast to try to thwart entry of malware onto your host. You
    > can use Avast to clean out malware that it can recognize later (i.e.,
    > for those zero-day pests that it won't catch). You can use Avast's
    > boot-time AV manager to disinfect the OS without the OS running (i.e.,
    > while it is quiescent). That requires usurping the bootstrap area of
    > the MBR but the user may need other tools to usurp the MBR bootstrap,
    > like for Acronis TrueImage recovery backup manager, or tools to allow
    > the use of hard disks larger than the BIOS can handle, etc. If the MBR
    > bootstrap area is already inuse by something you don't want to sacrifice
    > for Avast's boot-time scan then use Avast's bootable media instead.
    >
    > If you trust an installed copy of Avast to protect and disinfect your
    > computer within a running instance of the OS, why do you not also trust
    > Avast's bootable media to scan your OS while it is quiescent? You trust
    > it but you don't trust it. A bit at war with yourself on your choice of
    > security software.
    >
    > When you use Avast's, or any AV maker's, bootable scanner media, you
    > prevent the malware from loading because you didn't load the infected
    > OS. Resistant malware cannot protect itself when it isn't running.

    Avast has/can make bootable media scanner?
    Where / how?
    Robert Baer, Jan 1, 2014
    #9
  10. Robert Baer

    Paul Guest

    On 1/1/2014 12:56 AM, Robert Baer wrote:
    > VanguardLH wrote:
    >> Robert Baer<> on 31/12/2013 wrote:
    >>
    >>> VanguardLH wrote:
    >>>> Robert Baer<> on 29/12/2013 wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> VanguardLH wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Robert Baer<> on 29/12/2013 wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Do you have any idea as to when they will remove the posting&
    >>>>>>> e-mail spam message?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> That's configurable by you ... Mail Shield ...
    >>>>>> ... don't bother to install the superfluous Mail Shield ...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Did not know that Mail Shield did that. Naturally, disabling that
    >>>>> results in Avast complaining..
    >>>>
    >>>> Disabling an installed module has Avast claim that protection is
    >>>> incomplete as though such a condition is severe. So don't install the
    >>>> Mail Shield module. As I recall, you have to uninstall all of Avast and
    >>>> then do a *custom* install. That's when you deselect all the fluff.
    >>>> Assuming the following image showing the custom install options for
    >>>> Avast Free 2013 is still applicable to Avast Free 2014:
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.ghacks.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/avast-custom-installation.png
    >>>>
    >>>> then don't bother to install the following fluff and gimmicks:
    >>>>
    >>>> - Mail Shield
    >>>> - Browser Protection (was called Webrep, same function as WOT [Web Of
    >>>> Trust] and McAfee SiteAdvisor plugins with users ranking sites - oh
    >>>> yes, those highly expert users telling you if a site is good or bad,
    >>>> uh huh).
    >>>> - SecureLine (lureware that becomes payware).
    >>>> - Software Updater (like SecuniaPSI, nags there are newer versions of a
    >>>> program but hasn't a any clue if the new version or updates are for
    >>>> actual security updates or for bug fixes or feature changes or
    >>>> enhancements). Only knows a new version is available. Not a clue if
    >>>> the new version provide better security, especially new code
    >>>> introduces new flaws and may not address the old flaws that are
    >>>> appropriate and evidenced on your platform.
    >>>> - avast! Remote Assistance (you really want to allow someone changing
    >>>> your computing platform who is idemnified from damaging your
    >>>> platform?)
    >>>> - Browser Cleanup (fluffware, other tools work just as well or better,
    >>>> like CCleaner).
    >>>> - avast! Gadget (monitor and UI access but just use the tray icon, adds
    >>>> 10 seconds to Windows startup, just eye candy bloatware).
    >>>>
    >>>> Other than File Shield and Web Shield, the only other option I grant for
    >>>> installation are Rescue Disk.
    >>> I do not fiddle with a "Rescue Disk" (since about 30 years ago).
    >>> I have never been able to find them useful.
    >>> They are worse than not having one at all, because of the (false)
    >>> illusion that it is useful (anyone for a miniature Frisbee?).

    >>
    >> There is malware that cannot be removed by running user-mode programs
    >> within the instance of the OS that has been infected. You have to boot
    >> to a CD or USB thumb drive or something OTHER than the infected OS to
    >> clean that infected OS. I'm not just talking about rootkits but also
    >> malware that prevents you from fixing the OS from within the OS. Do you
    >> really trust that an infected OS will fix itself using tools ran under
    >> the control of that infected OS? For less robust malware, yes,
    >> disinfection under a running instance of the OS might work. For the
    >> real nasties, the OS must be quiescent (not running, not even loaded) to
    >> repair it.
    >>
    >> Yes, you could rely on backups to restore your OS partition back to a
    >> prior state. I do daily image backups. But malware may not be exposed
    >> for a long time which means all your backups are also infected. Just
    >> reverting to an image prior to when you happen to notice behavior by
    >> malware doesn't mean the backup is clean. Most folks only have so much
    >> room to store their backups. If they infrequently do backups then they
    >> have a far more coarse granularity to what they can restore. If they do
    >> regular backups for more granular recovery then eventually they run out
    >> of room and have to delete the oldest backups. Since malware may not be
    >> exposed for a long time, all your backups might be infected. Your only
    >> choice then is to do a fresh install of the OS, get all its updates, do
    >> fresh installs of all your apps, get all their updates, and restore your
    >> data files (since they're not executable but watch out for docs that
    >> have macros in them). That's a lot more work than booting from an AV
    >> bootable disc to disinfect the OS. Not everyone has the luxury to do a
    >> fresh setup of OS, apps, and data restores to eliminate malware,
    >> especially those that use their computers for work rather than just for
    >> playing games and reading e-mails.
    >>
    >> You can use Avast to try to thwart entry of malware onto your host. You
    >> can use Avast to clean out malware that it can recognize later (i.e.,
    >> for those zero-day pests that it won't catch). You can use Avast's
    >> boot-time AV manager to disinfect the OS without the OS running (i.e.,
    >> while it is quiescent). That requires usurping the bootstrap area of
    >> the MBR but the user may need other tools to usurp the MBR bootstrap,
    >> like for Acronis TrueImage recovery backup manager, or tools to allow
    >> the use of hard disks larger than the BIOS can handle, etc. If the MBR
    >> bootstrap area is already inuse by something you don't want to sacrifice
    >> for Avast's boot-time scan then use Avast's bootable media instead.
    >>
    >> If you trust an installed copy of Avast to protect and disinfect your
    >> computer within a running instance of the OS, why do you not also trust
    >> Avast's bootable media to scan your OS while it is quiescent? You trust
    >> it but you don't trust it. A bit at war with yourself on your choice of
    >> security software.
    >>
    >> When you use Avast's, or any AV maker's, bootable scanner media, you
    >> prevent the malware from loading because you didn't load the infected
    >> OS. Resistant malware cannot protect itself when it isn't running.

    > Avast has/can make bootable media scanner?
    > Where / how?
    >


    This is the first reference my search engine found.

    "avast! Rescue Disc"
    http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2384916,00.asp

    The article is a couple years old, so check what the
    current pricing or licensing requirement is.

    *******

    Some companies give away perfectly free tools of that sort.
    Kaspersky has one I use, for on-demand scans where
    Windows is not running. I've tested it, by leaving
    a copy of EICAR sitting around, and at least it could
    detect that.

    (The "237MB file" is not 237MB :) They have re-issued
    that file many times, and it's over 300MB now. They don't
    update the size info.)

    http://support.kaspersky.com/8092

    EICAR, if you're curious. To make a thing like this actually
    "work", you make the file extension .COM and give it a go.
    An AV scanner will likely catch this, no matter what extension
    is on the end of the file. But if you want to try executing it,
    you'll need to convince the OS that it is loadable. The idea
    is, it's an assembler file.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EICAR_test_file

    The article says it uses self-modifying code, and
    on a modern OS, there are protections against
    self-modification (read-only code segment). So if you
    wanted to test that such a thing can actually execute,
    you might want to try an MSDOS boot floppy as a
    runtime environment. The program is sorta the
    equivalent of a "Hello World" program.

    The assembler listing is at the bottom of this page.

    http://thestarman.pcministry.com/asm/eicar/eicarcom.html

    In other words, if it was a "virus design", it's a pretty poor
    one. And the intention is, to have something that is easy to
    flag, to help prove an AV tool "hasn't had its teeth pulled".
    If you have an AV, and it doesn't catch EICAR on the disk,
    you'd be justified to be a bit concerned.

    Back when Trend Micro had a "web scanner" you could
    run, I could never be sure it was doing anything. If
    only I'd had EICAR at the time, to test that with... :)

    Paul
    Paul, Jan 1, 2014
    #10
  11. Robert Baer

    VanguardLH Guest

    Robert Baer <> on 31/12/2013 wrote:

    > VanguardLH wrote:
    >
    >> Robert Baer<> on 31/12/2013 wrote:
    >>
    >>> VanguardLH wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Other than File Shield and Web Shield, the only other option I grant for
    >>>> installation are Rescue Disk.
    >>>
    >>> I do not fiddle with a "Rescue Disk" (since about 30 years ago).

    >>
    >> There is malware that cannot be removed by running user-mode programs
    >> within the instance of the OS that has been infected. You have to boot
    >> to a CD or USB thumb drive or something OTHER than the infected OS to
    >> clean that infected OS.
    >>
    >> You can use Avast's boot-time AV manager to disinfect the OS without
    >> the OS running (i.e., while it is quiescent). That requires
    >> usurping the bootstrap area of the MBR ... If the MBR bootstrap
    >> area is already inuse by something you don't want to sacrifice for
    >> Avast's boot-time scan then use Avast's bootable media instead.

    >
    > Avast has/can make bootable media scanner? Where / how?


    What was it you said you did not "fiddle with"?

    http://www.avast.com/faq.php?article=AVKB114#articleContent
    VanguardLH, Jan 1, 2014
    #11
  12. Robert Baer

    Robert Baer Guest

    VanguardLH wrote:
    > Robert Baer<> on 31/12/2013 wrote:
    >
    >> VanguardLH wrote:
    >>
    >>> Robert Baer<> on 31/12/2013 wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> VanguardLH wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Other than File Shield and Web Shield, the only other option I grant for
    >>>>> installation are Rescue Disk.
    >>>>
    >>>> I do not fiddle with a "Rescue Disk" (since about 30 years ago).
    >>>
    >>> There is malware that cannot be removed by running user-mode programs
    >>> within the instance of the OS that has been infected. You have to boot
    >>> to a CD or USB thumb drive or something OTHER than the infected OS to
    >>> clean that infected OS.
    >>>
    >>> You can use Avast's boot-time AV manager to disinfect the OS without
    >>> the OS running (i.e., while it is quiescent). That requires
    >>> usurping the bootstrap area of the MBR ... If the MBR bootstrap
    >>> area is already inuse by something you don't want to sacrifice for
    >>> Avast's boot-time scan then use Avast's bootable media instead.

    >>
    >> Avast has/can make bootable media scanner? Where / how?

    >
    > What was it you said you did not "fiddle with"?
    >
    > http://www.avast.com/faq.php?article=AVKB114#articleContent

    Oh. Avast 2014; the ver 9.x one; the one i cannot use because the
    "minimum" OS it can be installed on is WinXP (am using Win2K).
    Robert Baer, Jan 2, 2014
    #12
  13. Robert Baer

    VanguardLH Guest

    Robert Baer <> on 01/01/2014 wrote:

    > VanguardLH wrote:
    >
    >> Robert Baer<> on 31/12/2013 wrote:
    >>
    >>> Avast has/can make bootable media scanner? Where / how?

    >>
    >> http://www.avast.com/faq.php?article=AVKB114#articleContent

    >
    > Oh. Avast 2014; the ver 9.x one; the one i cannot use because the
    > "minimum" OS it can be installed on is WinXP (am using Win2K).


    A criteria (system requirement) not specified in this thread until now.

    http://www.oldapps.com/avast_antivirus.php?supported_systems=true
    http://www.avast.com/release-history

    So you must be back on Avast v6 (circa 2011), or even older. Does it
    still retrieve new virus signatures? Avast back to version 5 required
    its customers to register the program which gave them just 1 year to use
    its license. That was to ensure users would move forward not just to
    get virus signature updates but new heuristics and features in later
    versions of the program. Since that old version's 1-year license
    expired, is it actually enabled on your Windows 2000 host?
    VanguardLH, Jan 2, 2014
    #13
  14. Robert Baer

    Robert Baer Guest

    VanguardLH wrote:
    > Robert Baer<> on 29/12/2013 wrote:
    >
    >> VanguardLH wrote:
    >>
    >>> Robert Baer<> on 29/12/2013 wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Do you have any idea as to when they will remove the posting&
    >>>> e-mail spam message?
    >>>
    >>> That's configurable by you ... Mail Shield ...
    >>> ... don't bother to install the superfluous Mail Shield ...

    >>
    >> Did not know that Mail Shield did that. Naturally, disabling that
    >> results in Avast complaining..

    >
    > Disabling an installed module has Avast claim that protection is
    > incomplete as though such a condition is severe. So don't install the
    > Mail Shield module. As I recall, you have to uninstall all of Avast and
    > then do a *custom* install. That's when you deselect all the fluff.
    > Assuming the following image showing the custom install options for
    > Avast Free 2013 is still applicable to Avast Free 2014:
    >
    > http://www.ghacks.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/avast-custom-installation.png
    >
    > then don't bother to install the following fluff and gimmicks:
    >
    > - Mail Shield
    > - Browser Protection (was called Webrep, same function as WOT [Web Of
    > Trust] and McAfee SiteAdvisor plugins with users ranking sites - oh
    > yes, those highly expert users telling you if a site is good or bad,
    > uh huh).
    > - SecureLine (lureware that becomes payware).
    > - Software Updater (like SecuniaPSI, nags there are newer versions of a
    > program but hasn't a any clue if the new version or updates are for
    > actual security updates or for bug fixes or feature changes or
    > enhancements). Only knows a new version is available. Not a clue if
    > the new version provide better security, especially new code
    > introduces new flaws and may not address the old flaws that are
    > appropriate and evidenced on your platform.
    > - avast! Remote Assistance (you really want to allow someone changing
    > your computing platform who is idemnified from damaging your
    > platform?)
    > - Browser Cleanup (fluffware, other tools work just as well or better,
    > like CCleaner).
    > - avast! Gadget (monitor and UI access but just use the tray icon, adds
    > 10 seconds to Windows startup, just eye candy bloatware).
    >
    > Other than File Shield and Web Shield, the only other option I grant for
    > installation are Rescue Disk.

    What about Network Shield, Script Shield and Behavior Shield?
    Robert Baer, Jan 2, 2014
    #14
  15. Robert Baer

    Robert Baer Guest

    VanguardLH wrote:
    > Robert Baer<> on 01/01/2014 wrote:
    >
    >> VanguardLH wrote:
    >>
    >>> Robert Baer<> on 31/12/2013 wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Avast has/can make bootable media scanner? Where / how?
    >>>
    >>> http://www.avast.com/faq.php?article=AVKB114#articleContent

    >>
    >> Oh. Avast 2014; the ver 9.x one; the one i cannot use because the
    >> "minimum" OS it can be installed on is WinXP (am using Win2K).

    >
    > A criteria (system requirement) not specified in this thread until now.
    >
    > http://www.oldapps.com/avast_antivirus.php?supported_systems=true
    > http://www.avast.com/release-history
    >
    > So you must be back on Avast v6 (circa 2011), or even older. Does it
    > still retrieve new virus signatures? Avast back to version 5 required
    > its customers to register the program which gave them just 1 year to use
    > its license. That was to ensure users would move forward not just to
    > get virus signature updates but new heuristics and features in later
    > versions of the program. Since that old version's 1-year license
    > expired, is it actually enabled on your Windows 2000 host?

    Nope' Am using ver 8.0.1501; the most recent non-9.x .
    Robert Baer, Jan 2, 2014
    #15
  16. Robert Baer

    VanguardLH Guest

    Robert Baer <> on 02/01/2014 wrote:

    > VanguardLH wrote:
    >
    >> http://www.oldapps.com/avast_antivirus.php?supported_systems=true
    >> http://www.avast.com/release-history
    >>
    >> So you must be back on Avast v6 (circa 2011), or even older.

    >
    > Nope' Am using ver 8.0.1501; the most recent non-9.x .


    Hmm, looks like Oldversion's table of which OS version was last
    supported in an Avast version is incorrect. At:

    http://www.oldapps.com/avast_antivirus.php?old_avast=12219

    they list Windows 2000 as supported by Avast 8. So it looks like that
    is the last version you can use of Avast on Windows 2000. When you look
    at the registration of Avast, when does it say that it will expire? You
    could do fresh installs to lengthen when its license expires but I
    suspect eventually their servers won't deliver signature updates to v8.

    Someone else using an old version (even older than yours) in the Avast
    forums might be able to tell you how long after a new version comes out
    of when updates for old unsupported versions quit being available. That
    would give you a window of usability afterwhich you'll have to use
    something else.

    Of course, you could look at running Windows 2000 inside a virtual
    machine with no security software. Any infection would get discarded
    when you revert to the baseline or prior snapshot of that VM.
    VanguardLH, Jan 3, 2014
    #16
  17. Robert Baer

    VanguardLH Guest

    Robert Baer <> on 02/01/2014 wrote:

    > What about Network Shield, Script Shield and Behavior Shield?


    They got rolled into the other shields; however, it looks like they
    dropped the Network Shield. If was never considered effective against
    malware and hacking from the outside into your host isn't really a
    function to be handle by an AV program but by a firewall program.

    Since you're still using Windows 2000 then any discussion of Avast v9
    2014 is nor relevant. You are stuck with Avast v8 for use on Windows
    2000 until v8 no longer retrieves signature updates and will then have
    to move to something else.
    VanguardLH, Jan 3, 2014
    #17
  18. Robert Baer

    Robert Baer Guest

    VanguardLH wrote:
    > Robert Baer<> on 02/01/2014 wrote:
    >
    >> VanguardLH wrote:
    >>
    >>> http://www.oldapps.com/avast_antivirus.php?supported_systems=true
    >>> http://www.avast.com/release-history
    >>>
    >>> So you must be back on Avast v6 (circa 2011), or even older.

    >>
    >> Nope' Am using ver 8.0.1501; the most recent non-9.x .

    >
    > Hmm, looks like Oldversion's table of which OS version was last
    > supported in an Avast version is incorrect. At:
    >
    > http://www.oldapps.com/avast_antivirus.php?old_avast=12219
    >
    > they list Windows 2000 as supported by Avast 8. So it looks like that
    > is the last version you can use of Avast on Windows 2000. When you look
    > at the registration of Avast, when does it say that it will expire? You
    > could do fresh installs to lengthen when its license expires but I
    > suspect eventually their servers won't deliver signature updates to v8.
    >
    > Someone else using an old version (even older than yours) in the Avast
    > forums might be able to tell you how long after a new version comes out
    > of when updates for old unsupported versions quit being available. That
    > would give you a window of usability afterwhich you'll have to use
    > something else.
    >
    > Of course, you could look at running Windows 2000 inside a virtual
    > machine with no security software. Any infection would get discarded
    > when you revert to the baseline or prior snapshot of that VM.

    Presently good to Nov 9; might be renewable then as it is a paid version.
    **
    Alternate: IF i could alter WinXP to have the look and feel of Win2K,
    i could "migrate".
    Any pointers available for that?
    Robert Baer, Jan 5, 2014
    #18
  19. Robert Baer

    VanguardLH Guest

    VanguardLH, Jan 5, 2014
    #19
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. R Parker

    Linksys WUSB11 ver 2.6 driver issue

    R Parker, Sep 4, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    8,678
    R Parker
    Sep 6, 2004
  2. Bryan
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    4,913
  3. moyung

    USB ver 1.1 -> ver 2.0

    moyung, Aug 18, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    616
    moyung
    Aug 18, 2006
  4. Steve King

    Photoshop Elements ver. 2 versus ver. 4

    Steve King, Jun 11, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    690
    Stephen Henning
    Jun 12, 2006
  5. jot

    Easyshare ver 6.2 vs. ver 7.1

    jot, Nov 13, 2008, in forum: General Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    839
Loading...

Share This Page