[Multibooter]

wsxedcrfv, on 22 February 2010 - 09:00 AM, said:

Any executables I download on my systems I generally submit to VirusTotal. Why run a dedicated AV app on your system

It's the volume of downloads. My eMule computer has been up and downloading now for 5 days 14 hours, under Win98, without crashing.

Quote

I remove the drive from the system and attach it as a slave

Since I have several operating systems on my computer, I can scan under Win98 the WinXP partition (FAT32), and under WinXP the Win98 partition, which should be just as effective as removing the HDD, but more convenient.

Quote

Do people post comments when they discover that a download is viral?

Basically no, because most of the stuff is infected anyway

Quote

ED2K vs bittorrent - along what lines do they differ?

Different content. Bittorrent has mainly new stuff, the Mule has also a lot of new stuff, but about 100 times more older and rare/hard to find stuff than Bittorrent. The Mule uses ed2k and Kademlia; ed2k accounts for only about 20% of the titles, Kad for about 80%.

BTW, the emule software has been downloaded 500 million times, with the last version 0.49c alone 32 million times http://sourceforge.n...ts/emule/files/ At this very moment there are 1.2 million people connected to the 4 eMule servers in my pruned server list. It may be that the Mule is past its peak, v0.49b had 48 million downloads. http://sourceforge.n...A9-4C7B08C10000

This post has been edited by Multibooter: 22 February 2010 - 07:28 PM

[risk_reversal]

On 98SE, I still run Norton 2003 AV which works well. I know that there was reference to the 2002 version earlier on in this thread.

In respect of malware SuperAntiSpyware works great up to v4.24.1004. The definitions file is getting a bit big now and load times slow down but there is a right click context menu entry to scan individual files.

Quote

wsxedcrfv said:

I remove the drive from the system and attach it as a slave to the trusted system and scan it

You could also try one of the following for on-demand scanning.

1. Run the AntiVir AV Rescue boot CD. It's Linux based and will see all the partitions on the HD (hidden partitions also).
The AV definitions are updated regularly.

2. Alternatively, install Linux on a small partition and then you can install and run Avast to scan other partitions.

3. I used to use the ESET (NOD32) on line scanner but although some say that it still works for 98SE, I have found it difficult to access it lately (perhaps my Java is not recent enough).

Good Luck

This post has been edited by risk_reversal: 25 February 2010 - 09:32 AM

[ojn]

wsxedcrfv, on 15 February 2010 - 09:56 AM, said:

If you want an AV application that still runs on 98 and still has current definition files, go find Norton AntiVirus 2002, and then periodically download the Symantec Intelligent Updater package.

Hello:

As I understand it, Norton Antivirus 2002 is no longer supported with new definition updates. It appears that Norton AV 2003 is the earliest version that is still receiving updates, and it seems that it doesn't support Windows 98/ME. (See: http://www.symantec....ail.jsp?gid=n95 .)

Cheers,
Jerry

[bpalone]

ojn, on 28 February 2010 - 02:48 AM, said:

wsxedcrfv, on 15 February 2010 - 09:56 AM, said:

If you want an AV application that still runs on 98 and still has current definition files, go find Norton AntiVirus 2002, and then periodically download the Symantec Intelligent Updater package.

Hello:

As I understand it, Norton Antivirus 2002 is no longer supported with new definition updates. It appears that Norton AV 2003 is the earliest version that is still receiving updates, and it seems that it doesn't support Windows 98/ME. (See: http://www.symantec....ail.jsp?gid=n95 .)

Cheers,
Jerry

Don't believe everything you read on the internet. It still updates or at least gives the indication that it does. I know it states that it doesn't, but it still does. In fact upon completion of the update it it mentions that if you have older products you still need to use a different updater. Just thought I would pass it on, since it is being discussed.

[the xt guy]

Although I haven't used any Norton AV for nearly 4 years, I have a copy of Norton AV 2006. That version needs a minimum of Win 2K, but it came with a copy of Norton AV 2005 on the same CD for 9x systems. Apparently AV 2005 is the last version to run on 9x.

This post has been edited by the xt guy: 01 March 2010 - 02:30 PM

[jds]

Beware! I have Symantec 9.0 (copyright is 2004) and it APPEARS to still update its virus definitions. However, in reality, new definitions (manually or updates via LiveUpdate) SILENTLY break it! Check with the EICAR test signature file, don't assume that because all appears well, that it actually is!

Joe.

PS. I wonder is KernelEx will solve the Avast 5 problem (I'm staying with 4.8 for the time being)?

bpalone, on 01 March 2010 - 12:42 AM, said:

ojn, on 28 February 2010 - 02:48 AM, said:

wsxedcrfv, on 15 February 2010 - 09:56 AM, said:

If you want an AV application that still runs on 98 and still has current definition files, go find Norton AntiVirus 2002, and then periodically download the Symantec Intelligent Updater package.

Hello:

As I understand it, Norton Antivirus 2002 is no longer supported with new definition updates. It appears that Norton AV 2003 is the earliest version that is still receiving updates, and it seems that it doesn't support Windows 98/ME. (See: http://www.symantec....ail.jsp?gid=n95 .)

Cheers,
Jerry

Don't believe everything you read on the internet. It still updates or at least gives the indication that it does. I know it states that it doesn't, but it still does. In fact upon completion of the update it it mentions that if you have older products you still need to use a different updater. Just thought I would pass it on, since it is being discussed.

[North of Watford]

cyberformer, on 21 February 2010 - 12:38 PM, said:

I've had Avast on this machine for some time now, and just the other day the license key ran out. I submitted all the usual info, and was sent a new license key.
I installed the new license key.
When I go to update, the following occurs:
Everything starts to work as usual---one file after another showing that it is being down loaded, until...
a bloody box appears, which reads:
not enough storage space is available to process this command.

My guess is that it was some time since you previously let that box update from Avast. For some reason they have taken recently to putting everything into one file on your PC. Doesn't matter if you have an NT5 or later machine as there is no limit to file size. But for Windows 98SE of course there is the 4GB limit imposed internally by the Win98 architecture.

You have got more than 4GB of file update to install, and it cannot do it. The only solution is to reinstall Avast with an updated installation file. And of course that cannot now happen. Sorry, you are looking for another anti-virus solution.

How do I know? It happened to me as well!

[bpalone]

Just tried the test file and it worked, so it appears to be working properly. Thanks for the heads up though.

jds, on 08 April 2010 - 03:29 AM, said:

Beware! I have Symantec 9.0 (copyright is 2004) and it APPEARS to still update its virus definitions. However, in reality, new definitions (manually or updates via LiveUpdate) SILENTLY break it! Check with the EICAR test signature file, don't assume that because all appears well, that it actually is!

Joe.

PS. I wonder is KernelEx will solve the Avast 5 problem (I'm staying with 4.8 for the time being)?

bpalone, on 01 March 2010 - 12:42 AM, said:

ojn, on 28 February 2010 - 02:48 AM, said:

wsxedcrfv, on 15 February 2010 - 09:56 AM, said:

If you want an AV application that still runs on 98 and still has current definition files, go find Norton AntiVirus 2002, and then periodically download the Symantec Intelligent Updater package.

Hello:

As I understand it, Norton Antivirus 2002 is no longer supported with new definition updates. It appears that Norton AV 2003 is the earliest version that is still receiving updates, and it seems that it doesn't support Windows 98/ME. (See: http://www.symantec....ail.jsp?gid=n95 .)

Cheers,
Jerry

Don't believe everything you read on the internet. It still updates or at least gives the indication that it does. I know it states that it doesn't, but it still does. In fact upon completion of the update it it mentions that if you have older products you still need to use a different updater. Just thought I would pass it on, since it is being discussed.

[dencorso]

This has been posted in another thread, but I think it's quite relevant here, so I decided to quote it here:

RetVet, on 10 April 2010 - 07:30 PM, said:

I am using Avast for my Win 98Se computer. I found out that they will continue to update the definations for Win98SE. But will no longer upgrade the program for Win9SE. So I set the program Auto upgrade to Manual. Because it was continuesly looping the upgrade downloaad. So far have been getting the new definations daily w/no problems.

Don

[aru]

dencorso, on 10 April 2010 - 09:36 PM, said:

This has been posted in another thread, but I think it's quite relevant here, so I decided to quote it here:

RetVet, on 10 April 2010 - 07:30 PM, said:

I am using Avast for my Win 98Se computer. I found out that they will continue to update the definations for Win98SE. But will no longer upgrade the program for Win9SE. So I set the program Auto upgrade to Manual. Because it was continuesly looping the upgrade downloaad. So far have been getting the new definations daily w/no problems.

Don

Yes. The definitions for the old version Avast 4.8 will be updated until the end of the year.

bye,
aru

[North of Watford]

Steven W, on 16 February 2010 - 07:41 AM, said:

aru, thanks this is something Clam A/V has needed for a while.

Agreed.

aru, on 16 February 2010 - 09:21 AM, said:

The ClamWin team is working on an official real-time scanner but that will not work on Win98SE/Me.

Shame that they have turned their back on Win98.

In the meantime, thanks a million for the work you put into getting Clam Sentinel working, especially for Win98. For me, this add-on is what makes ClamWin usable. Without it, I would probably not bother with ClamWin at all.

[Multibooter]

While I was repairing my computer from an infection with Tenga.a (see this topic http://www.msfn.org/...us-t142726.html ) I had installed Avast under WinXP. The main reason for selecting Avast was that about 13 years ago, when I was more knowledgeable about this subject, Avast was very good at detecting hard-to-detect viruses. Avast was then kind of complementary to Kaspersky, which I am using now under Win98.

After having used Avast for a while under WinXP to find out how this Tenga.a infection came about, I can confirm that Avast is still complementary to Kaspersky and a good second choice. But Avast, in contrast to Kaspersky, gives a lot of false positives. When Kaspersky identifies something as a virus, it most likely is one. Kaspersky still updates fine under Win98, but the difficulty is how to buy a valid key for the version 6 which runs under Win98.

Using a virus scanner in a problematic case like the Tenga.a infection could be compared to using a "telephone joker" in the game "Who wants to be a millionaire": there is a good chance that the opinion is right, and a good chance that the opinion is wrong. At www.virustotal.com you can submit suspicous files, and they get checked by 40+ virus checkers. But what do you do if 20 virus checkers say that the file is infected, and 20 say that the file is good?

[herbalist]

Quote

At www.virustotal.com you can submit suspicous files, and they get checked by 40+ virus checkers. But what do you do if 20 virus checkers say that the file is infected, and 20 say that the file is good?

If I got results like that at VT scanning a file, I'd get rid of that file. IMO, 20 AVs missing a detection is more believable than 20 false positives. There could be exceptions to this, such as utilities that are used maliciously as much as they are for legitimate purposes or software that big money industries would have issues with. Even then, if you need to keep a file where the scans give mixed results, open it on a test system that's isolated from all the others and set up to detect malicious and unusual activities. With the problem you've had, the first tool I'd put on that test system is an integrity checker. Better yet, put the integrity checker and other investigative tools on read-only media so they can't be compromised and check the system before and after opening each suspicious file. I'd also use a flash drive or small hard drive to transfer the files to the test unit and overwrite/erase the whole thing after each transfer.

[jds]

Oh BTW, I forgot to mention one more detail : The real-time scan breaks first, so run or open the EICAR test file to be sure, don't just trust the manual scan as your test.

Joe.

bpalone, on 08 April 2010 - 11:17 PM, said:

Just tried the test file and it worked, so it appears to be working properly. Thanks for the heads up though.

This post has been edited by jds: 21 April 2010 - 05:57 AM

[jds]

Update - After trying Kaspersky 6.0.3.837 for a while, and finding this made my PC extremely unstable, I've now re-installed Symantec Antivirus 9.0 and can confirm that indeed, when the virus definitions of about September 2009 or later are installed, what breaks is the real-time scanning (Symantec seem to call this "auto-protect"). Manual scanning (eg. Explorer context menu) still seems OK, yet you can copy the Eicar test pseudo-virus onto your hard drive, and you can execute it (as eicar.com), yet SAV doesn't detect this. So a real virus would also go undetected as it gets copied onto your hard drive and/or executed!

Joe.

jds, on 21 April 2010 - 05:53 AM, said:

Oh BTW, I forgot to mention one more detail : The real-time scan breaks first, so run or open the EICAR test file to be sure, don't just trust the manual scan as your test.

Joe.

bpalone, on 08 April 2010 - 11:17 PM, said:

Just tried the test file and it worked, so it appears to be working properly. Thanks for the heads up though.

[jds]

Update - After trying Kaspersky 6.0.3.837 for a while, and finding this made my PC extremely unstable, I've now re-installed Symantec Antivirus 9.0 and can confirm that indeed, when the virus definitions of about September 2009 or later are installed, what breaks is the real-time scanning (Symantec seem to call this "auto-protect"). Manual scanning (eg. Explorer context menu) still seems OK, yet you can copy the Eicar test pseudo-virus onto your hard drive, and you can execute it (as eicar.com), without SAV detecting it. So a real virus would also go undetected as it gets copied onto your hard drive and/or executed!

Joe.

jds, on 21 April 2010 - 05:53 AM, said:

Oh BTW, I forgot to mention one more detail : The real-time scan breaks first, so run or open the EICAR test file to be sure, don't just trust the manual scan as your test.

Joe.

bpalone, on 08 April 2010 - 11:17 PM, said:

Just tried the test file and it worked, so it appears to be working properly. Thanks for the heads up though.

[Lastime]

Dr.Web Antivirus OS Supported
Windows 95/98/Me/NT/2000/XP/Vista (32-bit uniquement).

[JorgeA]

Lastime, on 20 August 2010 - 03:35 AM, said:

Dr.Web Antivirus OS Supported
Windows 95/98/Me/NT/2000/XP/Vista (32-bit uniquement).

That's correct, and the last time I checked they even had a version that works on MS-DOS and Windows for Workgroups 3.11 !

--JorgeA