• Welcome to Tux Reports: Where Penguins Fly. We hope you find the topics varied, interesting, and worthy of your time. Please become a member and join in the discussions.

MSE slow?

J

Jose

Flightless Bird
On Feb 28, 1:42 pm, "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nosp...@Verizon.Net>
wrote:
> From: "glee" <gle...@spamindspring.com>
>
> < snip >
>
> | I too have been a long-time Avira fan (also an Avast fan), but am now
> | testing MSE on some systems because of Avira's recurrent problem
> | connecting for updates, and because of the excellent reviews of MSE I am
> | seeing, not only in the web pages above, but from trusted colleagues who
> | are handlers in respected malware removal forums.
>
> | YMMV!  :)
>
> You said "testing MSE on some systems".
>
> OK you are deliberately going to malicious URLs ?
>
> You are deliberately trying infect the PC and if infected trying to remove malware
> infections using MSE ?
>
> --
> Davehttp://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
> Multi-AV -http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp


I do that (deliberately try to infect PCs) frequently.

If I help somebody remove an infection, I would like to know how they
got it so I can hopefully get it too.

When I find something to do that causes a problem, I will see which
protection methods prevent (or warn) about the problem, then I will do
my best to get the infection and see what methods are best to resolve
it - and which ones will miss it or not be able to fix it.

This helps me decide which tools are best to prevent the infection in
the first place, detect it and treat it afterwards.

Microsoft is not in the malicious software detection and removal
business and (IMHO and experience) their products only care about the
files that, in their humble opinion, are important to Windows (3498 at
my last count). But, they HAD to some out with something or the world
would probably be screaming. Some folks have 100% faith and
reliability with anything that says Microsoft on it and think MS has
the answer to everything.

Other companies are in the prevention and removal business - that is
all they do, so it makes sense to me to stick with products where that
is the company specialty.

Sometimes the simplest things out of the ordinary are not even
acknowledged by MS products and will at least generate some kind of
warning with other products like the - hey this doesn't look right and
what do you want to do about it kind of things. They might not always
be malicious, but sometimes curious and at least they get flagged
somehow.

Plus this whole malicious terminology I overuse, but it is generic and
nondescript enough to fit all situations. The bad software you get on
your computer is hardly as malicious as it could be if the authors had
a mind to be, it is all (so far) merely an annoying and temporary
inconvenience.

The people that write the bad code - they know all about the detection
and removal tools and when they know that, they will write their funny
code to do things you can't figure out. Break Task Manager, the
command prompt, regedit, System Restore, Explorer, Safe Mode, Userinit
- it is just a game for them. "I will not really do anything bad to
your system but I will fix it so you can't log in anymore - that's
easy!"

Then someone that is not smart enough to outsmart the software and
unable to figure out the problem will tell you that you have to
reinstall Windows...
 
U

Unknown

Flightless Bird
The solution is very simple.
1. Have an external backup for your system.
2. If you are the type that clicks on every URL you receive or download a
lot of trash
then, by all means keep Avira.
3. If you play safe hex and do not click on URLs that you don't know then
use MSE
and your system will be much less prone to problems.


"Teflon" <spambaitmeister@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9f8c891d-3a25-49fc-884e-cbcadb627d83@c34g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 27, 2:28 pm, "Peter Foldes" <ok...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I would leave Avira and not bother with MSE. Avira will do a better job
>
> --
> Peter
>


That settles it, I have no idea which way to go, but thanks to all for
responding.
 
G

glee

Flightless Bird
"Jose" <jose_ease@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d6b5f1a1-706a-426b-b4d6-c92e9734ab9b@t41g2000yqt.googlegroups.com...
>On Feb 28, 1:42 pm, "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nosp...@Verizon.Net>
>wrote:
>> From: "glee" <gle...@spamindspring.com>
>>
>> < snip >
>>
>> | I too have been a long-time Avira fan (also an Avast fan), but am
>> now
>> | testing MSE on some systems because of Avira's recurrent problem
>> | connecting for updates, and because of the excellent reviews of MSE
>> I am
>> | seeing, not only in the web pages above, but from trusted
>> colleagues who
>> | are handlers in respected malware removal forums.
>>
>> | YMMV! :)
>>
>> You said "testing MSE on some systems".
>>
>> OK you are deliberately going to malicious URLs ?
>>
>> You are deliberately trying infect the PC and if infected trying to
>> remove malware
>> infections using MSE ?
>>

>
>Jose wrote:
>I do that (deliberately try to infect PCs) frequently.
> snip


So, have you actually tested MSE and Avira, and done a comparison,
recording the detections and failures?
Your long reply was merely your opinion about what business Microsoft is
in and what their anti-malware products focus on, with no facts based on
actually testing either product, which is what David and I were briefly
discussing.
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009
A+
http://dts-l.net/
 
T

Teflon

Flightless Bird
On Feb 27, 11:23 am, "PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABear...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You must uninstall your current AV app & reboot prior to installing MSE.
>


Sorry, been out of the loop for several days, but want to thank all
who offered their advise and opinions.

Just for clarification, my informed(?) decision to not uninstall
AntiVir (prior to installing MSE) was based on a comment by Ken Blake
(MVP) in an end of Sept 2009 thread. He recommended keeping
SuperAntiSpyware and MalwareBytes installed (along with MSE) so they
could be used to run independent scans. Another poster to that thread
also suggested that Avast (with active protection turned off) be kept
on a system for the same purpose.

Equating a disabled AntiVir to be the same as a disabled Avast, I
thought turning the Active Guard feature off and leaving AntiVir
installed would not cause any problems. As suggested by the ensuing
discussions, that may (or may not) be true.

Whichever, to eliminate any possible conflict, I will be using Revo
Uninstaller to uninstall both MSE and Avira to start over.

Thanks again for your contributions. Always enjoy the 'debates'.
Could do without the attitudes.
 
G

glee

Flightless Bird
"Teflon" <spambaitmeister@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9533fe83-fbc2-4906-bf1e-85129c2f1010@s36g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>On Feb 27, 11:23 am, "PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABear...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You must uninstall your current AV app & reboot prior to installing
>> MSE.
>>

>
>Sorry, been out of the loop for several days, but want to thank all
>who offered their advise and opinions.
>
>Just for clarification, my informed(?) decision to not uninstall
>AntiVir (prior to installing MSE) was based on a comment by Ken Blake
>(MVP) in an end of Sept 2009 thread. He recommended keeping
>SuperAntiSpyware and MalwareBytes installed (along with MSE) so they
>could be used to run independent scans. Another poster to that thread
>also suggested that Avast (with active protection turned off) be kept
>on a system for the same purpose.
>
>Equating a disabled AntiVir to be the same as a disabled Avast, I
>thought turning the Active Guard feature off and leaving AntiVir
>installed would not cause any problems. As suggested by the ensuing
>discussions, that may (or may not) be true.
>
>Whichever, to eliminate any possible conflict, I will be using Revo
>Uninstaller to uninstall both MSE and Avira to start over.
>
>Thanks again for your contributions. Always enjoy the 'debates'.
>Could do without the attitudes.


Some A-V apps are more tolerant than others. There were a few that
would exist concurrently with another, as long as only one's resident
scanner was active. But are others that detect another A-V installed,
and either complain, won't install, or have interference issues due to
the other AV and its database being on the system. Your installation
issues raise an immediate red flag as to this being a case of the
latter.

Uninstall via Add/Remove, then remove any Avira traces using their
removal tool, which is designed for that one purpose, rather than using
Revo:
http://dlpro.antivir.com/package/removaltool/win32/en/removaltool-win32-en.exe

MSE does not have a removal tool, other than downloading the MSE
installer and running it from the command line with the /u switch, such
as:
mssefullinstall-x86fre-en-us-xp.exe /u

AppRemover is specifically designed to remove anti-virus and
anti-malware apps and their leftovers:
http://www.appremover.com/opswat-appremover-thoroughly-remove-your-security-applications

Avira and MSE are included among the apps they have tested and support
for removal:
http://www.appremover.com/supported-applications

These would be a better choice than Revo, IMHO.
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009
A+
http://dts-l.net/
 
T

Teflon

Flightless Bird
On Mar 3, 12:38 pm, "glee" <gle...@spamindspring.com> wrote:
>
> Some A-V apps are more tolerant than others.  There were a few that
> would exist concurrently with another, as long as only one's resident
> scanner was active.  But are others that detect another A-V installed,
> and either complain, won't install, or have interference issues due to
> the other AV and its database being on the system.  Your installation
> issues raise an immediate red flag as to this being a case of the
> latter.


I guess so. Perhaps sometime in the future, someone (MS - perhaps?)
will provide an online resource that specifically lists those AV's
which cause MSE to have coexistence problems, versus the current
innuendos that some do and some don't.

> MSE does not have a removal tool, other than downloading the MSE
> installer and running it from the command line with the /u switch, such
> as: mssefullinstall-x86fre-en-us-xp.exe /u
>
> AppRemover is specifically designed to remove anti-virus and
> anti-malware apps and their leftovers:http://www.appremover.com/opswat-appremover-thoroughly-remove-your-se...
>
> Avira and MSE are included among the apps they have tested and support
> for removal:http://www.appremover.com/supported-applications
>
> These would be a better choice than Revo, IMHO.


Is there a known problem with Revo, that you are aware of? Just
curious. It has always worked like a charm for me.

I used AppRemover to completely remove MSE and everything is back to
the way it was before the MSE installation. AntiVir update has its
usual server-delay problems, BOTT, BAU.

Thanks for the pointer to that utility.
 
G

glee

Flightless Bird
"Teflon" <spambaitmeister@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b83b3d93-8168-4eb2-a66b-1e7ec12672ed@k36g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 3, 12:38 pm, "glee" <gle...@spamindspring.com> wrote:
>
> Some A-V apps are more tolerant than others. There were a few that
> would exist concurrently with another, as long as only one's resident
> scanner was active. But are others that detect another A-V installed,
> and either complain, won't install, or have interference issues due to
> the other AV and its database being on the system. Your installation
> issues raise an immediate red flag as to this being a case of the
> latter.


I guess so. Perhaps sometime in the future, someone (MS - perhaps?)
will provide an online resource that specifically lists those AV's
which cause MSE to have coexistence problems, versus the current
innuendos that some do and some don't.

> MSE does not have a removal tool, other than downloading the MSE
> installer and running it from the command line with the /u switch,
> such
> as: mssefullinstall-x86fre-en-us-xp.exe /u
>
> AppRemover is specifically designed to remove anti-virus and
> anti-malware apps and their
> leftovers:http://www.appremover.com/opswat-appremover-thoroughly-remove-your-se...
>
> Avira and MSE are included among the apps they have tested and support
> for removal:http://www.appremover.com/supported-applications
>
> These would be a better choice than Revo, IMHO.


Is there a known problem with Revo, that you are aware of? Just
curious. It has always worked like a charm for me.

I used AppRemover to completely remove MSE and everything is back to
the way it was before the MSE installation. AntiVir update has its
usual server-delay problems, BOTT, BAU.

Thanks for the pointer to that utility.
_____________________________

No, nothing bad to say about Revo, I just thought an app designed to
specifically remove AV apps might be a little more thorough.

BTW...a BIG oops! in my last reply. I linked a removal tool for Avira,
but it's not a tool to remove Avira. It's an Avira tool to remove a
certain malware. They *could* have given it a less confusing name than
Avira Removal Tool! :)

They do have a tool they call the Avira AntiVir RegistryCleaner, which
is NOT a registry cleaner, but a tool that finds Avira entries in the
Registry after you uninstall, and removes them. Everything in the tool
is in German, and there are a few Avira Registry keys it can't remove.
It's probably only useful after a failed uninstall.
http://www.avira.com/en/support/support_downloads.html
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009
A+
http://dts-l.net/
 
D

David H. Lipman

Flightless Bird
From: "Teflon" <spambaitmeister@gmail.com>

| On Mar 3, 12:38 pm, "glee" <gle...@spamindspring.com> wrote:

>> Some A-V apps are more tolerant than others. There were a few that
>> would exist concurrently with another, as long as only one's resident
>> scanner was active. But are others that detect another A-V installed,
>> and either complain, won't install, or have interference issues due to
>> the other AV and its database being on the system. Your installation
>> issues raise an immediate red flag as to this being a case of the
>> latter.


| I guess so. Perhaps sometime in the future, someone (MS - perhaps?)
| will provide an online resource that specifically lists those AV's
| which cause MSE to have coexistence problems, versus the current
| innuendos that some do and some don't.

NO !

It is contraindicated to have two fully installed anti virus application performing both
"On Demand" and "On Access" scanning. It is also wasteful on resources.

You can however have one fully installed anti virus application performing both "On
Demand" and "On Access" scanning and multiple "On Demand" scanners.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp
 
G

glee

Flightless Bird
"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
news:eOvFp1WvKHA.1984@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> From: "Teflon" <spambaitmeister@gmail.com>
>
> | On Mar 3, 12:38 pm, "glee" <gle...@spamindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>> Some A-V apps are more tolerant than others. There were a few that
>>> would exist concurrently with another, as long as only one's
>>> resident
>>> scanner was active. But are others that detect another A-V
>>> installed,
>>> and either complain, won't install, or have interference issues due
>>> to
>>> the other AV and its database being on the system. Your
>>> installation
>>> issues raise an immediate red flag as to this being a case of the
>>> latter.

>
> | I guess so. Perhaps sometime in the future, someone (MS - perhaps?)
> | will provide an online resource that specifically lists those AV's
> | which cause MSE to have coexistence problems, versus the current
> | innuendos that some do and some don't.
>
> NO !
>
> It is contraindicated to have two fully installed anti virus
> application performing both
> "On Demand" and "On Access" scanning. It is also wasteful on
> resources.
>
> You can however have one fully installed anti virus application
> performing both "On
> Demand" and "On Access" scanning and multiple "On Demand" scanners.


You might want to put a "usually" modifier in the second statement,
David... I recall a number of times in the past, users having
installation issues as well as co-existence issues with certain AV apps
installed together, even when only one was set to be On Access/Resident.

Don't ask me to remember which ones! :) I recall some versions on NAV
making it nearly impossible to even install another AV. On the other
hand, I remember AVG being very good about co-existing. It wasn't just
the On Access scanner that was the issue, as I recall, but the various
drivers and system hooks that the apps used, that interfered with each
other.

I haven't seen multiple AV apps installed on a lot of machines in recent
times ....perhaps they've gotten better at co-existence? I'd be
surprised though......
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009
A+
http://dts-l.net/
 
T

Teflon

Flightless Bird
On Mar 6, 12:41 pm, "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nosp...@Verizon.Net>
wrote:
> From: "Teflon" <spambaitmeis...@gmail.com>


> >> Some A-V apps are more tolerant than others.  There were a few that
> >> would exist concurrently with another, as long as only one's resident
> >> scanner was active.  But are others that detect another A-V installed,
> >> and either complain, won't install, or have interference issues due to
> >> the other AV and its database being on the system.  Your installation
> >> issues raise an immediate red flag as to this being a case of the
> >> latter.

>
> | I guess so.  Perhaps sometime in the future, someone (MS - perhaps?)
> | will provide an online resource that specifically lists those AV's
> | which cause MSE to have coexistence problems, versus the current
> | innuendos that some do and some don't.
>
> NO !
>
> It is contraindicated to have two fully installed anti virus application performing both
> "On Demand" and "On Access" scanning.  It is also wasteful on resources..


David, I love your big word (it's actually spelled correctly), but I
fear you may have misunderstood some of this thread's discussion. If
you re-read this thread, you will see that neither Glee nor I were
ever in doubt regarding the need to have only one resident AV actively
doing "On-Access" scanning. The question/discussion has always been
about having multiple resident non-active AV's to do "On-Demand"
scanning, and the ability of MSE to co-exist with multiple resident
non-active AV's.

> You can however have one fully installed anti virus application performing both "On
> Demand" and "On Access" scanning and multiple "On Demand" scanners.


So, of those multiple "On-Demand" AV apps (installed, non-active), are
there any that you know of that could cause MSE (and the system) to
have a performance problem?

Thanks for your input.
 
D

David H. Lipman

Flightless Bird
From: "Teflon" <spambaitmeister@gmail.com>

| On Mar 6, 12:41 pm, "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nosp...@Verizon.Net>
| wrote:
>> From: "Teflon" <spambaitmeis...@gmail.com>


>> >> Some A-V apps are more tolerant than others. There were a few that
>> >> would exist concurrently with another, as long as only one's resident
>> >> scanner was active. But are others that detect another A-V installed,
>> >> and either complain, won't install, or have interference issues due to
>> >> the other AV and its database being on the system. Your installation
>> >> issues raise an immediate red flag as to this being a case of the
>> >> latter.


>> | I guess so. Perhaps sometime in the future, someone (MS - perhaps?)
>> | will provide an online resource that specifically lists those AV's
>> | which cause MSE to have coexistence problems, versus the current
>> | innuendos that some do and some don't.


>> NO !


>> It is contraindicated to have two fully installed anti virus application performing
>> both
>> "On Demand" and "On Access" scanning. It is also wasteful on resources.


| David, I love your big word (it's actually spelled correctly), but I
| fear you may have misunderstood some of this thread's discussion. If
| you re-read this thread, you will see that neither Glee nor I were
| ever in doubt regarding the need to have only one resident AV actively
| doing "On-Access" scanning. The question/discussion has always been
| about having multiple resident non-active AV's to do "On-Demand"
| scanning, and the ability of MSE to co-exist with multiple resident
| non-active AV's.

>> You can however have one fully installed anti virus application performing both "On
>> Demand" and "On Access" scanning and multiple "On Demand" scanners.


| So, of those multiple "On-Demand" AV apps (installed, non-active), are
| there any that you know of that could cause MSE (and the system) to
| have a performance problem?

| Thanks for your input.

I will admit that my spelling S U C K S on Usenet. It is my ADHD getting in the way.

I have to use those polysyllabic words or I'll have to go idiot. U no wut I mean. :)

Anyway...

I know of NO "On Demand" scanners that interfere with fully installed AV application.
This includes BitDefender free which is an installed GUI prouct not just a command line
scanner (CLS).

The published version of Multi-AV Scaning Tool provides four command line scanners.

The problem is the language used; "...multiple resident non-active AV's."

One can presume that resident non-active AVs means a fully installed AV application that
performs both "On Access" and "On Demand" scanning where the "On Access" scanner has been
disbaled. This is contraindicated.


--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp
 
G

glee

Flightless Bird
"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
news:%23Rmp74hvKHA.4752@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
> snip
>
> I know of NO "On Demand" scanners that interfere with fully installed
> AV application.
> This includes BitDefender free which is an installed GUI prouct not
> just a command line
> scanner (CLS).
>
> The published version of Multi-AV Scaning Tool provides four command
> line scanners.
>
> The problem is the language used; "...multiple resident non-active
> AV's."
>
> One can presume that resident non-active AVs means a fully installed
> AV application that
> performs both "On Access" and "On Demand" scanning where the "On
> Access" scanner has been
> disbaled. This is contraindicated.


Bingo! Well said, David....that's a good explanation.
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009
A+
http://dts-l.net/
 
T

Teflon

Flightless Bird
On Mar 7, 9:47 am, "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nosp...@Verizon.Net>
wrote:

> I know of NO "On Demand" scanners that interfere with fully installed AV application.
> This includes BitDefender free which is an installed GUI prouct not just a command line
> scanner (CLS).
>
> The published version of Multi-AV Scaning Tool provides four command linescanners.
>
> The problem is the language used;  "...multiple resident non-active AV's."
>
> One can presume that resident non-active AVs means a fully installed AV application that
> performs both "On Access" and "On Demand" scanning where the "On Access" scanner has been
> disbaled.  This is contraindicated.


Well that certainly puts a different light on it. Just so I fully
understand, are you saying that any resident AV app that has an "On
Access" scanning option, even if that option is not activated, would
present a coexistence problem for MSE? If so, it would seem most
resident AV apps would be a potential conflict, since most seem to
offer an "On Access" scanning option.

Do you know of any 'resident' AV apps that are strictly "On Demand"
scanning only? I'm aware that SuperAntiSpyware has an "On Access"
option (can only be enabled in the paid-for version), yet it doesn't
seem to cause MSE any perceptible problems..

I wonder if MSE conflicts with those online scanning services, like
Panda, that do the scan from within the browser?

Thanks for the clarification Dave.
 
D

David H. Lipman

Flightless Bird
From: "Teflon" <spambaitmeister@gmail.com>


| Well that certainly puts a different light on it. Just so I fully
| understand, are you saying that any resident AV app that has an "On
| Access" scanning option, even if that option is not activated, would
| present a coexistence problem for MSE? If so, it would seem most
| resident AV apps would be a potential conflict, since most seem to
| offer an "On Access" scanning option.

| Do you know of any 'resident' AV apps that are strictly "On Demand"
| scanning only? I'm aware that SuperAntiSpyware has an "On Access"
| option (can only be enabled in the paid-for version), yet it doesn't
| seem to cause MSE any perceptible problems..

| I wonder if MSE conflicts with those online scanning services, like
| Panda, that do the scan from within the browser?

| Thanks for the clarification Dave.

The only resident "On Demand" scanner I know is BitDefender Free which had (has ?) a GUI
component and gets installed.

SuperAntiSpyware is not anti virus and doesn't have the same restrictions. Same goes for
Malwarebytes' Anti Malware.

The Online scanners are "On Demand" scanners.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp
 
Top