I have a few questions about scanning in safe mode. Weekly I do a full scan in safe mode with Norton and the Free Malwarebytes , updated and disconnected from the internet.
1. When going into safe mode there are 2 names for signing in. 1. Administrator and 2. My name. Which one do I click on, or does it matter? (I am the administrator)
2. Can you have both free programs (Malwarebytes & SUPERAntispyware) installed at the same time on one computer?
3. Is there a Best of the above programs, or would I be wasting my time running both Malwarebytes and SUPERAntispyware?
I have a few questions about scanning in safe mode. Weekly I do a full scan in safe mode with Norton and the Free Malwarebytes , updated and disconnected from the internet.
1. When going into safe mode there are 2 names for signing in. 1. Administrator and 2. My name. Which one do I click on, or does it matter? (I am the administrator)
2. Can you have both free programs (Malwarebytes & SUPERAntispyware) installed at the same time on one computer?
3. Is there a Best of the above programs, or would I be wasting my time running both Malwarebytes and SUPERAntispyware?
Yogesh...I just tried MalwareBytes myself. I did a quickscan in a normal boot and it was clean except for a cookie. It only took 15 minutes. I tried a full scan and at 2 hours it was still on Program files! My system is not slow, but I wonder if not booting into safe mode is slowing Malware Bytes down. I am sure SuperAnti Spyware was much faster when I used to use it. I may have to d/l it again. Any idea how long this should take? I know while running MakwareBytes it sure almost locks up my system!
I don't think that system speed(slow or fast) has anything to do with the time taken for scanning from Malwarebytes. The only thing that affects the time for scan is the number of files in your computer through which the scan needs to run. As I posted earlier, the scan engine and heuristic technology may vary between different security programs. So, we can't tell exactly which program is best on the basis of time consumption. Although Malwarebytes takes more time for scanning, if it detects more threats than any other security programs, you have to accept it as best. This will be same for other security products also. You can also notice that the total number of files scanned by each security program in the same computer may differ. So, better don't hurry with scan, let it run on it's normal way so that it can provide you maximum protection.
If you go in normal mode, there will be lots of services running in backend while the scanning going on and it won't allow to scan some files in proper way. The safe mode only has the adsolute minimum programs running, with all the other components disabled. In safe mode, all unwanted application will stop working and it will able to scan all files without any hinderance. This allows a file to be deleted/cleaned that would otherwise be identified as "in use" during the scan. Thus the speed of scanning will be more in Safe mode than normal mode.
MPSAN wrote: Yes, I set them both to full scan. However I also ran them from a normal startup.
I meant more whether they had different criteria -- like whether not to scan inside compressed files, which is an optional setting for example with NIS or whether both define Full Scan as all drives connected to the system or just the operating system drive.
I just don't know but it seems unlikely that two programs doing the same job would be so different?
yogesh, thank you for the reply. You stated that in safe mode on the administrators side all files would be scanned on all accounts. I did a full Norton scan administrator side (safe mode) nothing found. Then I did a full scan (safe mode) my account and found tracking cookies. When I did the full scan on the administrators side shouldn’t all the tracking cookies on all account show up since all files were to be checked ? (I know tracking cookies are nothing to be concerned about). If Norton skips over the tracking cookies on administrators side (safe mode), I am wondering how many other files it skips over?
When you run the scan from Administrator account for any Security program, it will scan all the files and folders related to all the User accounts present in that computer. Not sure whether this is a bug related to Norton program. There is a similar issue reported in the forum where Idle quick scan not detecting the tracking cookies, but manual quick scan detects and removes the tracking cookies.
MPSAN wrote: Yes, I set them both to full scan. However I also ran them from a normal startup.
I meant more whether they had different criteria -- like whether not to scan inside compressed files, which is an optional setting for example with NIS or whether both define Full Scan as all drives connected to the system or just the operating system drive.
I just don't know but it seems unlikely that two programs doing the same job would be so different?
OK, well, I did not install NIS2009 yet. I was talking about Malware Bytes vs. SuperAntispyware. I only check drive C: and do check inside compressed files.
<< I was talking about Malware Bytes vs. SuperAntispyware. >>
So was I -- I mentioned NIS 2009 only as an example of how a setting could result in a "Complete Scan" taking different times because certain files were not checked.
yogesh_mohan wrote: When you run the scan from Administrator account for any Security program, it will scan all the files and folders related to all the User accounts present in that computer. Not sure whether this is a bug related to Norton program. There is a similar issue reported in the forum where Idle quick scan not detecting the tracking cookies, but manual quick scan detects and removes the tracking cookies.
Did a scan with SUPERAntispyware on Administrators account (safe mode) and it scanned all accounts finding about 90 Adware hits. So it does look like it's a bug in Nortons scanning. Maybe the Norton officials can reply if this will get fixed with NIS 2010 ?
Did a scan with SUPERAntispyware on Administrators account (safe mode) and it scanned all accounts finding about 90 Adware hits. So it does look like it's a bug in Nortons scanning. Maybe the Norton officials can reply if this will get fixed with NIS 2010 ?
PT -- Without reading through the entire thread at one go and digesting it I don't know the details of what is or is not being detected, but you raise an important point there and that is not "looks like there is a bug in Norton" but rather "who and what defines that a specific adware is malicous enough for security software to flag or delete it?"
Sort of "one man's commercial necessity" is "another man's poison" ! Or they way different people, and different software, regards tracking cookies ....
If it were a known trojan then that would be a totally different matter but, with adware, unless it's known things like AntiVirus 2009 or known ads that place specific malware on you cokmputer I don't think we can regard differences as bugs or defects even.
Did a scan with SUPERAntispyware on Administrators account (safe mode) and it scanned all accounts finding about 90 Adware hits. So it does look like it's a bug in Nortons scanning. Maybe the Norton officials can reply if this will get fixed with NIS 2010 ?
PT -- Without reading through the entire thread at one go and digesting it I don't know the details of what is or is not being detected, but you raise an important point there and that is not "looks like there is a bug in Norton" but rather "who and what defines that a specific adware is malicous enough for security software to flag or delete it?"
Sort of "one man's commercial necessity" is "another man's poison" ! Or they way different people, and different software, regards tracking cookies ....
If it were a known trojan then that would be a totally different matter but, with adware, unless it's known things like AntiVirus 2009 or known ads that place specific malware on you cokmputer I don't think we can regard differences as bugs or defects even.
Did a scan with SUPERAntispyware on Administrators account (safe mode) and it scanned all accounts finding about 90 Adware hits. So it does look like it's a bug in Nortons scanning. Maybe the Norton officials can reply if this will get fixed with NIS 2010 ?
PT -- Without reading through the entire thread at one go and digesting it I don't know the details of what is or is not being detected, but you raise an important point there and that is not "looks like there is a bug in Norton" but rather "who and what defines that a specific adware is malicous enough for security software to flag or delete it?"
Sort of "one man's commercial necessity" is "another man's poison" ! Or they way different people, and different software, regards tracking cookies ....
If it were a known trojan then that would be a totally different matter but, with adware, unless it's known things like AntiVirus 2009 or known ads that place specific malware on you cokmputer I don't think we can regard differences as bugs or defects even.
FWIW
Hi Huwyngr, I totally agree with you. But what I was asking is why when scanning with Norton in safe mode under administrator, Norton does not pick up the adware/tracking cookies as if scanning in normal mode by account? This makes me wonder if Norton is scanning all of computer in safe mode administrator account. Maybe I should of clarified about the 90 Adware/tracking cookies SUPERAntispyware picked up. I kept my setting on Norton to ask about tracking cookies (to build up cookies). Scanned with Norton both accounts normal mode (Mine and my wife). Got over 90 adware/tracking cookies but kept them. Went to safe mode administrator for full scan with Norton, CLEAN. Did a full scan in safe mode with SUPERAntispyware and found all the hits that Norton found in normal mode. Maybe "bug" was the wrong word to use? Maybe Norton was designed this way? But don't you think that if it hits on normal mode, it should hit on Administrators safe mode and ask to keep or remove?
When it comes to Administrative or SAFE modes I'm happy to let others deal with them and as for explaining, or even thinking about, why Norton does anything I'm more than happy to leave that to the folk who wrote it!
I often wonder if Microsoft knows how Windows works .... or is supposed to.
