Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 98802	2009-04-07 22:37:00	What File-Types Can Become Infected??	gkar (5215)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
763055	2009-04-08 06:49:00	Don't install Webguard and Crawler. Spam is you ask me! McAffee site advisor is the only content toolbar I would use... Spybot and Ad-Aware are just antispyware programs. One AntiSpyware program never gets em all, so having Spybot too is good. Ad-Aware on the other hand sucks, don't even bother installing it! Blam	Blam (54)
763056	2009-04-08 08:09:00	Absolutely ANY and EVERY file is vulnerable to being infected and harbouring malware. However, not all files are so likely to activate / reactivate or spread the malware. Spreading is most likely if files with .com .exe .bat .scr .doc .dll (and others I forget) are involved. And also if the registry is affected. All the above file types have potential to be easily accessed (activated), and are also given wider powers to misbehave within Windows. They are files that can one way or another be 'run'. However, a miscellaneous file with an extention that is less widely recognised by Windows, and unique to a particular ap (eg .bak) is unlikely to re-activate malware on its own, but can be used to store malware which could then called up by the registry, the Run / Startup settings, or some other app to re-trigger it. First step is to get the registry and startup files clean. Then at least the likelihood of it getting re-activated or spreading is strongly reduced. Malware sitting in a file that is never used is completely harmless. This is why simply renaming the file can cut down on the chances of it being accessed via other references elsewhere in your system. But you do need to be sure that you, your apps and your OS will not be disturbing that file.	Paul.Cov (425)
763057	2009-04-08 09:54:00	Reply to: @ Wainuitech -it is extremely curious how the very magazine this forum is aligned with always seem to rate Norton either at the top or very near the top of every test comparison compiled over the last decade-odd; including the suite test in the March, 2009 edition. Even though they are independently conducted by AV-Test.org in Germany. I would suggest you read the MANY posts in this forum, regarding Nortons, as well as hundreds of other places that will all confirm the same thing - Nortons doesn't do what it says it does. There are quite a few people who are members of this forum, who work in the IT business, either running their own IT business ( like I do) or work in IT repair places, and see it on a daily basis - PC's riddled with infections that have Nortons. Its been brought up many times about the LAB tests, all over the world - they are completely different to "real world" events. The so called controlled LAB tests - what would you rather believe - what you read in a magazine or the real results that hundreds of other people see and can vouch for and PROVE that a product actually is failing. If some one said to me the PC in not infected and has Nortons because some magazine said its the best - yet its obviously riddled with infections - I know what I believe. Search through the forums, there are several pictures posted that clearly show a PC is infected, yet Nortons says its clean.	wainuitech (129)
763058	2009-04-08 19:48:00	I think Nortons execs must pass some large brown envelopes around on a regular basis	gary67 (56)
763059	2009-04-08 22:25:00	I love Norton, it makes me look good, and provides a good source of income. Remove it from any PC and replace with NOD32, even if there are no infections, the computer is normally more responsive/faster and does not bother the user with popups all the time. But there are plenty of times when the computer is riddled with virus etc. My next fav would be McAfee.	Rob99 (151)
763060	2009-04-08 22:45:00	Ha nice one Rob, yeah make us all look good. yell at the top of you lungs " I am Spatacus!!!" maybe not too loud so people will hear you....	Gobe1 (6290)
1 2