Please excuse ManyQs’s low IQ related problems. One of which is checking perceived advice read in user manuals.
Does ManyQs understand correctly that unless ManyQs is using an “I-paid-for-it” version of avast ManyQs cannot save or print the “Last Scan Results”?
Thank you.
Essentially yes.
In the home version the Last Scan Results are only available during that on-demand scan session, once you close the Simple User Interface they are dis-guarded. The Pro version has a greater flexibility in scan logging, with results being saved that can be saved and viewed at a later time.
Thank you, DavidR.
There seems something available about saving results in a file called C:\Program Files\Alwil Software\Avast4\DATA\rep, right?
Of course, I could just do a “Print Screen” type of save in Paint, right.
But this time there was a list of 143 files that couldn’t be scanned, and that is far too much for the Paint stlye saving.
I really don’t know why you would want to save this stuff.
The location C:\Program Files\Alwil Software\Avast4\DATA\report is of little use as the home version can’t save. Reports that can/are be saved are already in that location.
All files that can’t be scanned by avast, also have the reason they can’t be scanned, you may need to expand the window but more so the column width. Position the cursor between the column headings until the pointer changes to a double arrow left click and drag to the right.
Many programs (usually security based ones) password protect their files for legitimate reasons such as AdAware and Spybot Search & Destroy, there are others (and avast doesn’t know the password or have any way of using it even if it did know it).
When you run scans with the above programs and you delete harmful entries that they detect, a copy is kept (in quarantine/restore/backup) in case you need to reverse what you did. These are usually password protected, you should do some housekeeping and delete old backup/recovery/quarantine entries (older than two weeks or so), this will reduce the numbers of files that can’t be scanned.
By examining 1) the reason given by avast! for not being able to scan the files, 2) the location of the files, you can get an idea of what program they relate to. You may need to expand the column headings to see all the text.
Files that can’t be scanned are just that, not an indication they are suspicious/infected, just unable to be scanned.
Thank you for your feedback, DavidR. Please excuse the step-by-step response.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////\
It never hurts to keep a history file on hand in case it “appears” something is repeating.
And there are other reasons.
For example, how about I don’t have time now to analyze the results? I want to come back to the list later.
Actually, it does. And I just solved my problem. I guess now I can finally repay some of the help you’ve provided ManyQs in the past by offering info I guess you did not know. Home Version (freeware[?]) will allow a user to keep a copy of files that could not be scanned for one reason or another.
Thank you, but I know how to manipulate column width in such windows. That is a standard style for many such information windows. But thank you.
“… , there are others …” is my concern. Actually, even reputable companies such as SpyBot S&D need to be used with an eye for accountability, don’t you think? And if you have no record you cannot hold anyone accountable for anything.
This relates to my earlier point about not having time to research all the items and wishing for a list to access later.
I covered that a few lines up.
In my humble opinion, DavidR, you should be careful with that style thinking. It’s not safe.
If a file has not been scanned it has the potential to be just as dangerous as an infected one.
True, some files that can’t be scanned are password protected and may be safe. But what if a hijacker has password protected a file?
Some can’t be scanned because they are corrupted, but there could still be danger lurking there.
And there are a few other reasons why a file may not have been able to be scanned, and those are certainly still a potential problem.
In my humble opinion a 99.5% scan is just as bad as a 50% scan.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////\
Again, that step-by-step style (a bit of of quote, a bit of quote) response is irritating to some folks, so I apologize if you’re one of them folks, DavidR, but it seemed the best style this time.
And, thanks again for offering help to me all the time.
It is a statement of fact, a file that can’t be scanned is just that as avast can’t indicate it is suspect or infected. You have to check the reason why it couldn’t be scanned and if you don’t feel it is acceptable then you take other steps, virustotal, jotti, etc. assuming you are able to upload them the reason they couldn’t be scanned was permission/password, etc.
If a virus had password protected a zip, etc. to unpack or run that password would have to be used and then the Standard Shield should be able to scan it.
If a file was corrupt and couldn’t be scanned the same could be true at VT/Jotti and then what do you do.
The resident on-access scanner has to be the fall back as executable or files that can be infected and executed or intercepted by standard shield and scanned, so there is another level of protection. Yes they may be a potential problem but don’t discount the standard shield.
The main reason for making the statement is you would be surprised the number of topics in the forums where people want to know how to delete the files that can’t be scanned.
Any advice I give assumes no specific level of experience so if I insult your intelligence by teaching you to suck eggs in expanding the columns it isn’t my intention and for the most part it just avoids the how do I do that response.
You are entitled to your opinion and after all it is your system.
Why did you hesitate? Home version is a freeware.
I disagree of you and agree with David. A file that cannot be scanned is not, just by this reason, as dangerous as an infected one. If the leak of scanning is ‘solved’ by the virus itself, it will be scanned by Standard Shield. Any other antivirus, serious one, reports files like these. Some ‘unfair’ antivirus just let the user without this information.
When it is ‘unpassworded’ the antivirus, resident, should take care of it…
Not all the times… not even in the most cases… a corrupted file must be ‘corrected’ to be useful as a malware file.
Well… you won’t find any antivirus, any software that will fulfill the 100% of perfection.
avast is reporting the truth, not like other antivirus that just ‘omit’ this info in the reports.
Keep cool 8)
With all due respect, Tech, I did not write that a file that cannot be scanned is just as dangerous as an infected one.
I wrote that there was a potential for danger.
I believe there is enough difference between the two statements to justify my posting this.
In fact, in DavidR’s response to that post I cannot seem to find a disagreement to my assertion to the potential for danger.
Thank you.
Maybe I’ve misunderstood you as I’m not an English-native speaker…
But, really, potential here, in security field, could be difficult to define…
What you can be sure is that when the potential file becomes a ‘real’ one, it should be detected 8)
Thanks for the response, Tech.
The language factor explains it. In the context of how I used the word “potential” it means “possible”.
In other words, I was simply stating that until a file has been cleared with the suffix “{+} is okay” it has the possibility of being infected. (Can’t use the square brackets around the + symbol, or it messes up the php script.)
And I look upon the possibility of being infected as actually being infected, just to be on the safe side.
My view is that with a tendency toward pessimistic thinking and common sense a Net user can better help himself/herself stay clear of trouble rather than if he or she lets the avasts and spybots of the world do all the work and thinking for them. I think a lot of folks that use the Net are very lackadaisical about security.
Of course, some might think I’m a bit too paranoid.
And not very polite, eh? You confess, Tech, that English is a second or third language for you, and I go and post a response using strange language as I did up there. Sorry about that.
I wrote that there was a potential for danger.There is also a potential danger when I get out of bed in the morning that still doesn't stop me from getting up. There are potential dangers to your system every time you turn it on. Does that mean we should leave our computer off ? All that Dave meant by his correctly worded statement is that if a protected or encrypted file can't be scanned, it also can't be executed and therefore can't be dangerous till that occurs.
What exactly is YOUR problem, bob3160!?
Why be impolite like that?
And get it straight, eh man!!
It was Tech that I was requesting he accurately quote me, not DavidR.
I obviously having taken extreme offense to the taunting tone of your post!!!
Back off, Mister. I ain’t never done no wrong to you!!!
ManyQs
??? :
???
Chill down guys… :-\
Okay.
Sorry.