Sayonara

Believe me, it's not a burden on my resources.

Yes, that's precisely why I use Sophos. With the Intercheck client running, they can't do anything. Agreed.

You'll probably regret asking that...

That doesn't answer his question.

That doesn't answer his question.

Yeah, you're talking to scientists. This is an astronomy forum, not an unfounded bollocks and ad hominem smarminess forum.

I think it might be more useful to you to read about this on sites dedicated to the subject, Albert

How should we know, it's your crazy brain.

Or, like I mentioned earlier in the thread, a forced-writer. Or a boot sector infection. Good luck with that one.

That sounds like an awful lot of work to me, and I don't believe you can identify an infection and locate the affected files without reference to external documentation.

Out of curiosity, how are you expecting to be able to identify and remove the viruses that are described by those definitions? [edit] This would have made a good debate!

Why? It won't help the argument one iota. I am not claiming that AV programs should only remove viruses (imo, they ought to remove other nasties too, however we have to appreciate that the software is generally going to be a product owned by a business with specific interests). I am simply stating that this is the case. Not to devalue your knowledge or dismiss your opinions, but I think I'll stick with the industry's definitions rather than random internet guy's. If there was an AV product that tackled spyware as well as the line-blurring hijackers et al, perhaps with a selection of different interfaces aimed at different user competencies, do you think you'd use it?

No, I don't have to make any such distinction. We were discussing the virtues of using an AV against hand-removal; my opinion is not relevant to how an AV program functions. Anything you claim an AV ought to do in your opinion, but no AV actually does, is immaterial to that discussion.

It doesn't matter what my definition is, this isn't some random semantic argument. What matters are the programs and codelets the industry considers to be in-scope for their products.

If it's not a virus, it's not up to anti-virus vendors to have their software tackle it. It's out of scope. You aren't going to make it look like AV software doesn't work by saying "some of program type X are a bit like viruses, therefore software that doesn't tackle any program of type X is not a good anti-virus tool". It's strawman and special pleading.

I've encountered all sorts of IE hijackers, but they weren't viruses. In fact, out of the 6 known hijackers on sophos's list (which is verified by message labs and others) two were removed from the detection scope specifically because they are not viruses. The others are not common. http://www.sophos.com/search/index.cgi?scope=whole_site〈=english&terms=hijack&x=0&y=0

Yes, which is true. But you said "well it can't [be used as a reservoir]", whereas what you were describing sounded pretty much like a reservoir.

Because it's a browser hijack, which is a different ball game altogether. I don't know what sort of wacky viruses you get but I've never seen any that do those things.

Norton is terrible for LANs. Spyware applications are not 'borderline viruses". The vast majority of any kind of spyware or adware is installed by users when they install other software, or visit dubious web sites. On a LAN it's up to the network administrator to prevent this, sure, but that has nothing at all to do with AV software. AV software doesn't stop koala bears from pooing in your CD-ROM either, but nobody is going to claim that's a reason to not use them. If it works best for you to do it by hand then that's great, but I don't see any justification for claiming your way is super and everyone else is just stupid. At least we can agree most of the problems PCs face are due to user ignorance, or the unwillingness of some users to co-operate with network admins?

A firewall doesn't 'stop' things from getting on your system if they're downloaded through an allowed port, so I don't see how a user being able to use Kazaa to download something can be considered failure of a firewall to perform. That's like saying a police officer on the beat isn't working properly because he didn't spot someone fiddling figures in a bank somewhere. If the AV program was up-to-date and didn't spot viruses on the network, then there's either something wrong with the way the deployment was implemented, or it's a fundamentally flawed piece of software; so you're quite right to look down on it if the latter turns out to be true.

Yes. You can't have your cake and eat it.

Yeah, it's a berry that exists on its own without any kind of ecosystem.