Jump to content

Scoop

Honorary Members
  • Posts

    111
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral

Profile Information

  • Location
    Dallas TX
  • Interests
    Astronomy, Jazz music, older pop sounds, DVD Collector, primarily older TV Shows, HDD backup tools (Cloning/Imaging)

Recent Profile Visitors

2,763 profile views
  1. Rosalie Li I don't have the scan logs from 06/10 U.S. CDT time, sorry. I purge those logs daily but I did look at my "Flash" Scan MBAM log when the detections were quarantine'd. It basically contained the location of the files. The interesting thing about this for me is that MBAM didn't detect the objects a few hours earlier during the unattended "Quick" Scan at 1:30am. I have a Windows Task that wakes my PC from Standby ("Sleep") Mode at 1:25am, just before my nightly MBAM (and AV) scans begin. When the scans complete, my AV returns the PC to Standby Mode. I wake up my PC around 4:30am daily to begin interactive activates (IE surfing, etc). The "Flash" Scan detected the objects at about 5:11am, after the PC had been awake and in use for about 45 minutes. I usually begin my morning PC use (surfing with IE, etc) at 4:30am. That seems to indicate that I picked up the objects between 1:30am and the time when the Flash Scan completed at 05:11am. During the time between 4:30am and 5:11am, I was visiting my usual daily 'net sites (reputable, etc) and didn't download any updates, apps, plug-in's, etc. No e-mail attachments were opened. That's why I mentioned a possible drive-by, adware bundle, exploit path, etc. It's just a guess since I hadn't clicked on any download/install items during that 45-minute time frame while browsing. I guess it's possible that the PC picked up the objects sometime when the MBAM and AV scans were running (the scans run sequentially, not at the same time) unattended since my 'net connection is enabled 24/7 . Thanks for your interest in the object detection relative to MBAM products and members here regarding the issue.
  2. I have a question about the CompuClever detection. I detected this issue this morning on both of my home PC's. I wasn't sure if this was something that has occurred with numerous MBAM users or an isolated incident with my PC's. Here's my info: Timezone: U.S. CDT (Dallas) Desktop PC: Built - Win 7x64 Home Premium OEM version Laptop: Toshiba L655 Win 7x64 Home Premium OEM version AV: Norton N360 Ver 21.7.0.11 (2014 ver) MBAM Pro 1.175.0.1300 Current Database info: Date: 6/10/2015 4.50.25AM Database version: v2015.06.10.02 Fingerprints loaded: 436239 I run overnight unattended Quick Scans on both PC's at 01:30am. Nothing was detected at that time in the logs. During an hourly Flash Scan/update at about 05:11am, the scan detected the following PUP's: They're quarantine'd. I left them there for now. The empty folder "CompuClever" is still located at %userprofile%\AppData\Roaming . Are these false-positives or just typical PUP detections? I had a question about this particular PUP detection due to the Registry Cleaning part of the discussion. I'm not sure when I picked up this PUP. I don't run any Registry Cleaners (never have on either PC). Since I haven't downloaded/updated any programs/apps, etc during the last 24 hrs, I'm not sure where I picked up this PUP. Perhaps it was one of those drive-by things that get picked up during routine surfing. Should I treat this as a typical PUP detection (leave in in quarantine for a few days before removing) ?
  3. It appears that I was seeing the same symptoms as TheQuickFox . I was editing my post and refreshed in another tab to see that it's fixed. That's amazing "fix" response time
  4. needhelp1 If you're running one of the Norton AV products, check out this thread over at the Norton Forum site: https://community.norton.com/en/forums/tonights-update-crashing-ie11 Firefox and Chrome weren't affected. I used Firefox for a couple of hours Sat morning (U.S. CT) until the issue was fixed. The problem began when Symantec issued a routine LiveUpdate definitions download, apparently sometime during the evening of Fri 02/20 U.S. time. The update affected the main AV suites, N360, NIS, and NS, and affected most IE versions (if not all). The symptoms appear similar to your description in your post here. For almost all users, the problem began to be fixed yesterday 02/21 ~6am U.S. CT when Symantec begin distributing a repair update. That's when I download their update fix for the issue. There may be a few Norton customers that either haven't received (or downloaded) the repair update or perhaps the rollout hasn't yet reached their geographical locations.
  5. bru I'm still running Win 7 x64 and MBAM Ver 1.75 (Pro) and am using the Windows Task Scheduler to wake my PC up a couple of minutes before my daily overnight Quick Scan begins on my PC's. This method has been working very well since I installed MBAM Pro in Sept 2012. I haven't installed Ver 2.xx yet, waiting a while longer as I read the forum about its progress. I'm hoping the Ver 2.xx scheduled scans will run without issues overnight after my PC's have been awakened by the Task Scheduler. Regarding your question about the "wake from sleep" option with the new Premium version, I believe that it was removed because of the numerous problems being reported by other MBAM users in the past relating to the different settings in the PC's "Power Plan/Management" setups. Since PC setup's are diverse regarding Power Option settings, "hibernate", "sleep", etc, I think that's the reason the "Wake" option was removed with the new Premium version. If you're interested in setting up a task in the Windows Task Scheduler to wake up the PC unattended prior to the Scheduled Scan start time, this may help. I posted some screencaps over at the Norton Forum when another member asked about the topic. The thread is here . It's just one example on how to wake up the PC with Task Scheduler as there are other methods that will accomplish the same result. Your other question about the Ver 2 "Next Scheduled Scan" time issue is a known bug that will be fixed with a future release version. I think this is accurate, someone here will correct if it's not accurate.
  6. I'm having one of my frequently visited sites being blocked. Here's my info: - OS: Windows 7 x64 - Browser: IE10 - AV: Norton 360 (2013 ver) - MBAM Pro 1.75.0.1300 - Site address: http://ctva.biz/ When I un-check my "Enable malicious website blocking" protection in MBAM, I can access the site. I contacted a friend and he's able to access the site ok. He's not an MBAM user and is running Firefox browser on Win 7x64 . He's also running Norton AV. Screencap 1 is my MBAM Sys Tray popup notification. Screencap 2 is a Google search page capture info about the site.
  7. Hi As Firefox mentioned, this topic is a very diverse one, where you'll often read opposite pov's about a recommendation for or against a mainline brand AV. Here's my 2¢ (or perhaps only 1¢ ) take on this based on one's experience with 3 name-recognition AV's over the years. Before continuing, none of this should be construed as a "downer" about these AV products or the companies involved since we know that this topic is dependent on a host of other factors, what's the OS on the PC, what's the user's browser or "safe 'net" practice habits, etc. When I began home 'net use in 2004, I started out with Win '98 and "Trend Micro" AV. I kept that when upgrading to XP a couple years later. My experience with Trend Micro was not too good. I'd grade that one a "D" based on the # of malicious intrusions that it didn't block from my PC. When I bought a new PC with Win 7 x64, I bought "ESET" AV at the advice of the PC store's recommendation and after reading some info about the AV. My 1st year with Win 7 and ESET went smooth, no intrusions penetrated ESET's defenses. During the 2nd year, I was affected by a few malicious intrusions that required cleanups or restorations. Grade: "D". I recall being disappointed since one of ESET's selling points was that it wasn't a resource hog. Based on that, I read about some alternatives, and chose between MacAfee, BitDefender, or Norton. I chose Norton and have been running Norton 360 with MBAM pro for about 15 months on 2 Win 7x64 PC's with no issues seen as yet. I was cautious about selecting Norton before asking some friends about it. Norton also revamped their product a couple of years ago, resulting in a more streamlined scanner which uses less resources than its earlier-generation products. The deciding factor for me, to drop ESET and go with Norton was interesting. I was at one of my daily 'net site visits, a reputable site, at the same time as a friend. We were on the phone at the time. He's been running Norton AV for years without experiencing any known malicious issues with his (win 7x64) PC. I was still running ESET at that time. I got hit with one of those "FBI" variants of malicious infection while his PC was protected with Norton. - I installed MBAM Pro in Sept 2012 when I was still running ESET. One thing I've learned from personal 'net experience: Safe 'net practices are always something that all should follow, as well as the usual things, don't open unknown e-mail attachments, keep your OS and plug-in updates current. Even doing all of that, there's no guarantee of complete protection with any AV product. My advice is always "backups", including cloning and/or full-HDD imaging, in addition to some kind of daily backups for those frequently-edited/changed items. Every day, we read posts from members here, and at other forums (for me, the Norton Forum and "Bleepingcomputer.com") where the poster are dead in the water with their PC's, helpless to use the PC's due to malicious infections or in some cases, user errors which we all do, I know I do . If they had backups available, they could save themselves considerable time and headache by recovering their PC's without spending time in the cleanup modes. This is coming from one that learned the hard way... me . I had to reinstall Windows once years ago since I didn't have the expertise or full-HDD backups available. I didn't lose the "must-have" items but after that I said "never again" and with the help of a friend and learning myself, I got up to speed with this HDD-backup scene. It's paid off twice in the last 2-3 years, pop in that spare HDD and running the PC within minutes, no seeking online cleanup help, no Win reinstalls, etc. Don't want anyone to misinterpret my opinions here; the online expert help here and over at BleepingComputer's Forum is golden for many many PC'ers seeking help. The alternate method interests me, learning about HDD backups and cleaning infected HDD's, etc, so that's just another angle of looking at the methods of recovering one's PC from malicious incidences.
  8. Hi anecaj3 to the forum. I've read about "scorpion" at other forums and it is indeed a stubborn headache to remove and deal with on one's PC. I wish you the best in your cleanup and legal endeavors. I'd say that this is a safe statement to make on behalf of everyone here: If we could, we'd prosecute any and all malicious authors and their associates. My personal fantasy about this is to magically create a "boomerang" tool that would route all malicious code back to its original authors and "brick" their systems I know, impossible, but wouldn't it be great if that could happen? As one that's been hit by a couple of malicious infections in past years that required cleanup actions, I'll give my 2¢ advice about this topic. The best way to accomplish 3 things, one of which would have helped your situation, - Fast recovery from virtually every malicious infection - Protection from HDD failure - Protection from user mistakes, ie, downloading something in error, Registry edit, or wanting to restore a HDD state to a previous status , is to begin and maintain a backup plan, which includes a full-HDD backup, including a daily or multi-daily specific backup which will copy the "must-have" items that we all have on our PC's, those items that are frequently edited or changed daily. By having and periodically maintaining a full-HDD backup, either by cloning or imaging, one can restore the entire HDD with a bootable spare HDD that includes all of their data and installed programs. With the daily backup plan, you can then restore those must-have items quickly to the installed spare HDD. Believe me, I'm no expert about this scene but I have recovered my PC twice in the past 3 years by installing my cloned HDD. Just my opinion about it, but I prefer this method to cleaning up the infected PC as, for me, it was faster than the alternative which requires downloading specific malicious-cleanup tools and seeking online advice from experts. The most important advice I'd offer, if you choose to pursue a backup plan similar to an idea that's offered here, is to test and verify your full-HDD recovery methodologies. When I clone periodically, I test the cloned HDD by booting up on the newly-cloned HDD, and giving it a fast "workout", launch the usual items, 'net browser, e-mail client, a few apps or programs, open some Office items (Word, Excel files). I also test some of my full-HDD images with my "Rescue" CD's, boot up to RAM outside of Windows, and restore the image to a spare HDD and then boot up on it and do a similar test as with a cloned HDD.
  9. I'll volunteer for photographer duty when those Target hackers are incarcerated:
  10. Hi, I asked this question shortly after I joined this forum and received from good advice. I used to run overnight full scans but have changed that to quick scans. I still run a weekly full scan but from what I've read here, that's not necessary. I guess it's one of those left-over "feel-good" things that I still do for now . As Firefox mentioned, I prefer to run the scans at a time when I'm not using my PC so they run unattended overnight so they will run when my PC is idle. I also have my updates scheduled once an hour as Firefox mentioned.
  11. As a Norton user, I can say that you're 100% right about the AV forums maintain that position, non-compatibility. I've asked for test data at the Norton forum as well as an Admin here, and the Norton forum mods/members have not provided any test data to substantiate their recommendation. They're certain about it too over there.
  12. That's an excellent list and an post about backup safety.
Back to top
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This site uses cookies - We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.