Not saying anything about anybody being infected but if you want to be really sure about being virus free, you have to boot from a CD with an app that downloads the latest definitions live before scanning.  Some viruses, known as Stealth viruses, can avoid detection if they are running.  But if you boot from a CD, nothing on your computer is loaded allowing Stealth viruses to be detected.

Quoting Giga Wizard:

Quote:
adware is not realy a virus

True dat.

Quoting Dr. Killpatient:

Quote:
Not saying anything about anybody being infected but if you want to be really sure about being virus free, you have to boot from a CD with an app that downloads the latest definitions live before scanning.  Some viruses, known as Stealth viruses, can avoid detection if they are running.  But if you boot from a CD, nothing on your computer is loaded allowing Stealth viruses to be detected.

That' why good AV software starts with a scan from CD, and only afterwards installls it's own policeman hooked into the OS to watch for worms. Each one of my machines has had active AV software monitoring and periodiic scanning since the day was purchased. The scan I posted was from a web site that bypasses all in memory and harddrive resources and relies on its own ActiveX controls downloaded over a secure session.

I use AD-Aware SE Plus for adware detection and removal.

Quoting ya_shin:

Quote:
After all, false positives are not necessirily an entirely bad thing, at least it's better than missing out on a real one...

I am with you on the first point - being aware. But not so sure on the latter. I'm asking myself, do I trust a doctor more if he/she gives false positives vs. one who always gets it right?

The "big boys" such as Symantec monitor virtually millions of computers via their corporate contracts and server connections into end-user machines. There is a CERT (Computer Emergency Response Team) in all companies of any reasonable size, and also at the Government level. They share information, real-time. The shareware guys are not as likely to be linked into this vast pool of knowledge and alerts. So, false positives are not necessarily an indicator of better security, but rather, may indicate poorer understanding and analysis.

yup, Norton usually doesn't win any comparisons, especially in the detection rate department

Quoting ritchf:

Quote:
Hi MD

Whilst I agree with you in principal I  personally find Symantec to be one of the worst of the "Big Boys" (I run the CERT for my 85,000 node company) they have one of the worst false positive and detection rates of the big boys.

I got a couple of licenses about to expire - I'm open for a suggestion what to buy instead ...

(Oops sorry about the double post - thought I was quoting two different people ...)

Quoting ritchf:

Quote:
Well personally from a "big boys" perspective I've always favoured McAfee. However that said in the less-traditional based detection Prevx is one of the best I have come across (especially for root kit detection).
Ritch

Ok, you get your greenie tomorrow. Got a "CLEAN" from Prevx.

Nothing found with:
- Norton Internet Security 2008
- Threat Fire 4.0.0.8
- Spybot S&D
- Kapersky Online Scanner