OnePlus 5 review
As a user of FSecure I wondered how you know if it actually works, and what happens when it does and what your options are.
FSecure have a harmless file "EICAR test file"
I won't put a link in at the moment as it makes folk nervous, but I have tried this and it works.
If you google "test fsecure" you'll find it.
Copied and pasted the file into notepad and gave it a .com extension. Instant virus found result.
What I don't quite understand is this. It re names it to a Oom extension so is "safe" If you scan that file again it says "1 Virus detected" Fair enough. Send that file to an SD card and put it in a folder along with other stuff and scan that folder and the result is "No Malware". Scan that file on the SD card individually and the result is "1 Virus found" I would have expected it to still show, or is it because it's "non executable" now that it gives the all clear on a general scan.
Why ? Two reasons to be honest.
1st, experience tells me not to take everything on trust.
2nd, It's interesting to see what happens, and what the options are to deal with it. If and when it happens for real I know now what to do and what the different options do. Where the infected file's destination was etc. That scanning a folder with that renamed file shows as clean, but scan the renamed file itself within that folder and it isn't.
Have had two instances in two years of being warned of malware when clicking on a link etc, not the deep dark corners of the web either.
I think FSecure does a brilliant job on the whole, and like you have not had malware infect my PC but I have had it try and get in !
Yes I have, thats why I stick with Avast, coz I know it works.
As they say, "If it ain't broke...." you know the rest.
If you are really paranoid you can do a Shieldsup test on your firewall free and without using any particular software .Oh and the use the same eicar test
SB23... absolutely agree, stick with what works for you.
eedcam, thanks, tried shields up in the past, perfect stealt rating, totally invisible, but malware still tries to make it in, unsucessfully touch wood up to now.
I have a friend (apparently normal intelligence, able to survive in the modern world without supervision) who believes that anti-virus software is a nuisance invented by geeks to make her life a misery. As a result I have several times found viruses on her computers when she complained that they had started sulking. She has at last reluctantly agreed not to switch off the update feature on AVG (AVG because she refuses to pay good money for something she still views with suspicion). The feature mooly describes could be useful in dealing with such people.
I did a test on this ages ago and found some Antimalware and Antivirus programs did not detect it,
But after a bit of research on there forums they said it was not detected because its not a virus so they would not add it too there signature database
Malwarebytes was one of them.
I know someone like that to. She said that she even ignores all windows updates, and that as the laptop worked OK "out of the box" why risk adding "updates" that might break something.
Wonder how many are like that, or don't realise a lot of free stuff doesn't work in real time etc. and needs a manual scan.
Done a bit more playing around with the test file. If it has the .com extension (have to switch off real time scanning to do this) and hide it somewhere, either on the PC or external device, re enable scanning, then it's found OK.
If FSecure then doesn't approve of what I am trying to do with the file I just get layers of "confirm" and "higher priveledges required" notices, so it's very good... I'm impressed.
The EICAR test is good because it shows you what your AV software will do if it finds a virus. It also shows that your system is working overall (we all know of odd computer bugs that stop software working). Call it a tutorial!
All anti virus manufacturers should (do?) know about it and, in my view, are foolish if they don’t include its signature. The downside to this test is that, just because your AV software detects it, does not mean it is much good; it could miss 90% of real viruses and you would not know.
As to people not believing in such things, perhaps surprisingly, I have a great deal of sympathy with that view.
Some time ago I spent many hours deleting a couple of viruses from my computer. I got infected in spite of, at that time, running Norton. Having found the virus file I actually scanned it directly with Norton, and it came up clean. That was the point I stopped using their products (Note: This was a long time ago and the latest Norton is supposed to be much better).
However, over the years I have spent literally hundreds of hours trying to make my computers work with bug ridden software, mostly Microsoft, but only because I use M$ products so much.
So in terms of lost productivity, M$ has cost me many, many times more than malware.
I NEVER, use automatic updates as a big crash in the middle of working could be a disaster. I wait until I have some free time, then heart in mouth, look for the latest upgrades.
Re Auto updates. Have set mine to notify but not install. If it looks like a major update release I'll take an image backup first. Been caught before with that one.
When you think of all the links and sites you visit in the course of a year, to say I have only been caught (or warned by FSecure) twice, perhaps makes me question the "connect a new PC to the web and it's unusable after an hour" theory. But that twice would have been two times to many had it crashed my PC or caused other problems, data theft etc.
I was "persuaded" by many on here to install "Superantispyware" and did run a full scan twice with that but it found nothing the first time (I had run CCleaner first) and a couple of days later did another scan and that time it found 20 odd items, 16 cookies and 4 "unknown" items that it could provide no details on. I suspect either cookies or "harmless" temporary files. Had I run CC first I think the result would have been clean anyway.
When talking of viruses and spyware I know they are different things really but no... I have no reason to have any lack of confidence in FS, just the opposite in fact, and have just this one program running.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.