FREE Dr.WEB CureIt! Utility

bob3160 · 2007-01-21T00:28:19.000Z

This is a FREE anti-virus and anti-spyware utility based on Dr.Web Anti-virus scanner,
which will help you quickly scan and cure, if necessary, a computer operated by MS Windows 95OSR2/ 98/Me/NT 4.0/2000/XP/2003
without installation of the Dr.WEB Anti-virus.
http://www.freedrweb.com/cureit/

Has any one tried this ? What results have you received?

polonus · 2007-01-21T01:22:46.000Z

Hi bob3160,

This free non-resident scanner has been around for quite some time now, real decent product, and nice to have as an additional.
It has the only hick-up of the DrWeb scanner’s heuristics, that is an additional FP have to be taken into the bargain, so always evaluate the scan results.
I use it a lot, download a recent version though. I can say nothing wrong about this one, good memory scanning to start off, then quite profound scan of all files.

polonus

Lisandro · 2007-01-21T13:18:13.000Z

bob3160 post:1:

Has any one tried this ? What results have you received?

I’ve tried sometimes… Good as a 2nd opinion (or second, non-resident antivirus).
Heuristic and good detection.
The bad: needs full download each time

system · 2007-01-28T14:11:01.000Z

Able to clean Jeefo infected files.

system · 2007-01-28T14:27:38.000Z

Be extra carefull with it. It has good detection rates, but many false positives.
Solution:

go to “Options”
select “Change settings”
select “Actions”
choose “report” in all
scan your PC
If it finds something, search google to see if it is legit or not

I’ve found stuff undetected by avast with CureIT, but it has also removed legitimate files which made me have problems with my OS. Just follow the above steps and you’ll be OK.

Lisandro · 2007-01-28T14:33:41.000Z

I second Spyros’ opinion completely here… Not only with Dr. Web but any other non-resident scanner. Better and safer will be ‘reporting and researching’ before ‘removing and sorry’…

polonus · 2007-01-28T17:28:11.000Z

Hi Spyros and Tech,

Is not this the best policy with all AV scanners? Always be aware that a find could be a FP, always check and double-check, and put systems files into the chest or quarantine. It is like the first rule on operations: “Never do harm or at least do everything not to harm!”. If you cannot find the anwers to establish whether it is a FP or not with the many sources for this on the web, go to this forum and ask: questions shared is knowledge gained, at least that is my experience.

polonus

system · 2007-01-28T21:30:32.000Z

polonus post:7:

Hi Spyros and Tech,

Is not this the best policy with all AV scanners? Always be aware that a find could be a FP, always check and double-check, and put systems files into the chest or quarantine. It is like the first rule on operations: “Never do harm or at least do everything not to harm!”. If you cannot find the anwers to establish whether it is a FP or not with the many sources for this on the web, go to this forum and ask: questions shared is knowledge gained, at least that is my experience.

polonus

It’s the only behavior to have, even though it isn’t the best one as we should be able to trust the Antivirus and not doubt that it is a False Possitive.

Al968

bob3160 · 2007-01-28T23:26:49.000Z

The more an AV program depends on Heuristic detection, the greater the chances are of
false positives.
It is also more likely to catch a new strain than an AV that doesn’t use Heuristic detection.

system · 2007-01-29T00:03:40.000Z

bob3160 post:9:

The more an AV program depends on Heuristic detection, the greater the chances are of
false positives.
It is also more likely to catch a new strain than an AV that doesn’t use Heuristic detection.

My opinion on this is that AV shoudl use Heuristics but don’t rely on it to the point where they make a new Heuristic detection for every thing that could possibly be used in malware without thinking of all the things it can be useful for.

I believe in a mix between Heuristic and Generic detection. Example: Detect a program that tries to add the entry 127.0.0.0 Symantec.com to the host file( That would cause symantec.com to be inaccesible from that computer)
This might Actually be good ;D

Al968

bob3160 · 2007-01-29T00:07:20.000Z

Unfortunately this is one of these situations where “you can’t have your cake and eat it to”.

Announcements