How long to run a complete virus scan

dod

OK I know that this is subject to a zillion variables like disk speed, memory, background tasks etc., but I ran a complete system scan on my Compaq laptop yesterday, started before 12 noon and didn't finish until after 9pm. It's a 12GB disk with 9.5GB used, 128MB RAM, running Win2k and nothing too exciting running in the background.

The full Norton Antivirus 2002 scan took 9hrs 36mins, anybody have comparably protracted scan times or is this the sort of time that should be expected? It seems a little excessive to me.

<edit>
Sorry I should have mentioned P3 800Mhz
</edit>

blackgold>>

Thats very insane.
Anti virus is an excuse to make money my friend.
Just don't open an email you don't recognise and you won't need no stupid virus scanner.

P.s. if they were no viri then their would be no anti virus companies.

Ying yang:)

oneweb

Much like the Norton Antivirus for Palm OS - came out spookily soon after the first virus to hit Palm OS. But it's no longer available - 'cos Palm OS doesn't get very many virus issues.

Anyway, took me 'bout 14 hours (AFAIR) not too long ago for a complete system scan (including checking within zip files - which all need to be extracted) on a PIII800, 256MB Ram, 12Gigs disk used (>100,000 files).

Cake Fiend

Originally posted by blackgold>>
Thats very insane.
Anti virus is an excuse to make money my friend.
Just don't open an email you don't recognise and you won't need no stupid virus scanner.

What a f&cking stupid attitude. Have you heard of the recent Blaster worm? That didn't need to be sent by email. Hundreds of new viruses are created every month, antivirus software is an essential companion to modern computers, no matter how careful you are :rolleyes:

That sounds like a seriously long scan dod, make sure you defragment your drive regularly, disable task scheduling during the scan, make sure you don't have anything else running at the same time that might access the hard drive (screensaver, seti, etc). A scan with Norton AV 2003 on a Win98 P3 450 machine with a 10GB HDD (9.5 gigs used) takes less than an hour in my experience.

blackgold>>

What a f&cking stupid attitude. Have you heard of the recent Blaster worm? That didn't need to be sent by email. Hundreds of new viruses are created every month, antivirus software is an essential companion to modern computers, no matter how careful you are

Hmm
lol

The blaster worm is still around yes.
Mainly because of bad secuity in windows.
Theirs a big difference between a worm and a virus.
If you are a normal home user then you should learn the basics of security and you wont need a virus scanner.
Viri and worms are 99% windows related.
Have you ever seen a virus on linux?
The worm caused alot of damage but it woke up ppl also.
It is all microsoft's problem .

Capt'n Midnight

THE MYTH OF IF I DON'T CLICK I'LL BE SAFE:

The point about the MSblaster worm is that it infects Windows NT/2K/XP by remote procedure calls. In other words if you have not Hardened the default installation you are wide open - the virus is pushed directly onto your machine - eg: this would happen on an NT4 box even without Outlook/OE or IE installed....
In fairness many antivirus packages did not pick it up until too late.

BUT Even if you are fully patched, there are other utils out there (eg: the "AT" command) that allow people to run commands on your machine once they know your username and password. Just how many home users have NO password in XP ....

So keep using a firewall eg: zonealarm to block all incoming access from any non-local IP and start a campaign to get ISP's to block ports 135-139 etc.

Giblet

I have a 233 here that took 55 mins to do a scan with using Norton 2003. Over 100,000 files.

Took 3 mins to scan my 1.4ghz using AVG.

Cake Fiend

I think this forum would benefit from a charter similar to the Technology board, advising people who don't know what they're talking about (blackgold, I'm looking at you...) not to post.

"bad security in windows" or not, the point is that you can be infected by a worm (a worm is generally accepted as a subcategory of a virus by the way, kids) whether or not you open any emails at all, never mind ones from people you don't know. And what if someone gets an infected email from an address they do recognize? Anyone involved in computer security would advise users connected to untrusted networks (especially common home users who wouldn't have the time or interest to keep up to date on security matters) to run both antivirus software and a firewall/IDS.

Every OS and service running on said OS has potential vulnerabilities. Yes, even Linux.

"It is all microsoft's problem ." - I would have thought it was the problem of the owners of the infected computers. And I don't see how every single casual home user is supposed to be able to keep a hawk's eye on security websites to make sure they patch any vulnerabilities in their OS.

No matter how careful you are, you are always potentially vulnerable.

ecksor

Originally posted by Sico
I think this forum would benefit from a charter similar to the Technology board, advising people who don't know what they're talking about (blackgold, I'm looking at you...) not to post.

The best we can do for you is disable posting on this forum. If you disagree with someone, then please offer your reasons why. Anyone reading can make up their own mind.

(a worm is generally accepted as a subcategory of a virus by the way, kids)

Kids? A virus or a worm are both considered two categories of malware in my experience. One spreads under its own steam, the other spreads with the aid of a user.

MoosemaN

What is the difference between a computer virus and a computer worm?

Viruses are computer programs that are designed to spread themselves from one file to another on a single computer. A virus might rapidly infect every application file on an individual computer, or slowly infect the documents on that computer, but it does not intentionally try to spread itself from that computer to other computers. In most cases, that's where humans come in. We send e-mail document attachments, trade programs on diskettes, or copy files to file servers. When the next unsuspecting user receives the infected file or disk, they spread the virus to their computer, and so on.

Worms, on the other hand, are insidious because they rely less (or not at all) upon human behavior in order to spread themselves from one computer to others. The computer worm is a program that is designed to copy itself from one computer to another over a network (e.g. by using e-mail). The worm spreads itself to many computers over a network, and doesn't wait for a human being to help. This means that computer worms spread much more rapidly than computer viruses.

ego

I think this forum would benefit from a charter similar to the Technology board, advising people who don't know what they're talking about (blackgold, I'm looking at you...) not to post.

I'm not sure if that's something suitable for this forum. However, if you feel there are certain best practices one should subscribe to, perhaps you should stick to them yourself.

sci0x

9 hours scanning your computer is bloody awful. I have Norton 2003 and it alwayz scans in less then an hour. When i had Norton 2002 i remmember it used spend a lot of time scanning certain files. Did u try scanning again after the 9 hours? Maybe it was a once off and it might take less time the 2nd time.

Zaph

It only takes 20-25 minutes for Norton 2003 to run a complete scan on my PC. 9 hours sounds a bit excessive.