Avast or Norton. Who should I trust?

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> fatsteve wrote:
>
>> Since seeing many people recommend Avast I decided to check it out.
>> It said I had a virus, Norton 2009 finds no such virus. Which
>> program should I believe?
>
> Neither. Submit the file to an online checker, such as:
> http://virusscan.jotti.org/
>
> Were both of these a-v apps running/active at the same time? Have you
> considered getting rid of Bloated Norton?
>

Yes that was my reason for trying Avast as I thought Norton was a little
heavy on system resources. I uninstalled Norton before I tried Avast so
I would only be running one A/V program at one time. I have since gone
back to using Norton.

Thanks for the link, what a cool site. Here are the results from the site.

File: FlyDS.exe
Status: POSSIBLY INFECTED/MALWARE (Note: this file has been scanned
before. Therefore, this file's scan results will not be stored in the
database) (Note: this file was only classified as malware by scanners
known to generate more false positives than the average scanner. Do not
consider these results definately accurate. Also, because of this,
results of this scan will not be recorded in the database.)
MD5: ded73c71c7d4998809d6ff90eeb46169
Packers detected: PE_PATCH, UPX

Scanner results
Scan taken on 18 Oct 2008 18:53:31 (GMT)
A-Squared Found nothing
AntiVir Found nothing
ArcaVir Found nothing
Avast Found Win32:Oliga
AVG Antivirus Found nothing
BitDefender Found nothing
ClamAV Found nothing
CPsecure Found nothing
Dr.Web Found nothing
F-Prot Antivirus Found nothing
F-Secure Anti-Virus Found nothing
G DATA Found nothing
Ikarus Found nothing
Kaspersky Anti-Virus Found nothing
NOD32 Found nothing
Norman Virus Control Found nothing
Panda Antivirus Found nothing
Sophos Antivirus Found nothing
VirusBuster Found nothing
VBA32 Found nothing

fatsteve wrote:

> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> fatsteve wrote:
>>> Since seeing many people recommend Avast I decided to check it out.
>>> It said I had a virus, Norton 2009 finds no such virus. Which
>>> program should I believe?
>>
>> Neither. Submit the file to an online checker, such as:
>> http://virusscan.jotti.org/
>>
>> Were both of these a-v apps running/active at the same time? Have
>> you considered getting rid of Bloated Norton?
>
> Yes that was my reason for trying Avast as I thought Norton was a
> little heavy on system resources. I uninstalled Norton before I
> tried Avast so I would only be running one A/V program at one time. I
> have since gone back to using Norton.

Sorry to see you went back to Norton.
http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/tsgeninfo.nsf/docid/2005033108162039

> Thanks for the link, what a cool site. Here are the results from the
> site.
>
> File: FlyDS.exe
> Status: POSSIBLY INFECTED/MALWARE (Note: this file has been scanned
> before. Therefore, this file's scan results will not be stored in the
> database) (Note: this file was only classified as malware by scanners
> known to generate more false positives than the average scanner. Do not
> consider these results definately accurate. Also, because of this,
> results of this scan will not be recorded in the database.)
> MD5: ded73c71c7d4998809d6ff90eeb46169
> Packers detected: PE_PATCH, UPX
>
> Scanner results
> Scan taken on 18 Oct 2008 18:53:31 (GMT)
> Avast Found Win32:Oliga

A google for flyds.exe seems to indicate it is some sort of video/audio
software. Perhaps that is a false positive, as the text above might
indicate.

--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Windows

On Oct 18, 1:19 pm, fatsteve <inter... RemoveThis @sky.com> wrote:
> Since seeing many people recommend Avast I decided to check it out.  It
> said I had a virus,  Norton 2009 finds no such virus.  Which program
> should I believe?

Neither would be your best choice. Avast has poor detection rates and
Norton is bloatware.

On Oct 28, 8:49 pm, "Little Charlie" <littlechar....TakeThisOut@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

> NAV 2009 is very light on resources and very speedy as well as testing very high in detection and cleaning.

NAV has decent detection, but it's still bloatware. The exception
being their Corporate version.
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On Oct 28, 10:07 pm, Dick Ballard <balla....DeleteThis@att.net> wrote:

> Reports from other sources also suggest that the 2009 version of
> Norton has been improved dramatically regarding resource use and
> speed.


Long overdue.