HOWTO: Deep Scan for Malware - Comments Page 1

Your advice, at least as it pertains to Malwarebytes, is not what I've come to believe from reading I've done. Here's a recent entry on the subject:

"Hello all! I was indeed serious when I said that, the full scan is really only there to find potential old archives of non-resident malware on your computer. You can definitely run a full scan once a week and be very safe. The quick scan finds 99.99999999% of all infections and our researchers never have to use a full scan to remove any malware.

We've completely removed the full scan out of 2.0 and named it the custom scan for this very reason. We've also renamed the quick scan to be a threat scan so it's more clear."

This appears to be from a Malwarebytes techie. There's reference on the same thread to this position being approved by Marcin Kleczynski, the founder of Malwarebytes. One of the entries I remember reading long ago from a senior Malwarebytes executive was along the lines of "I myself never run a deep scan; it's unnecessary."

A full scan does come up with a few items; according to Malwarebytes, as I understand it, these items are insignificant fragments of possible malware that are incapable of doing harm.

I use Avast and I've always used Boot-time Scan as I've been under the impression that it's easier to catch baddies if you can get them before they become active. It only takes an hour and a bit, so I let it run while I'm working out. By the time I'm done, so is the scan.
Would anyone know if a Boot-time Scan is actually more effective than a Full System Scan?

On the Avast Free software, it has an option that I have found very useful, Boot scan. It will do a deep scan on your next boot up before loading Windows. After the scan has finished, it continues on to load windows. My advise at this point is to reboot Windows from the options on the sign in window because Windows seems to get cranky if you go on to sign in. I have XP Pro.

My antivirus provider (Trend Titanium) had me remove MBAM from my W8 telling me it interfered with their product's operation. Is this true as you have always implied that MBAM could be used with other security software. Thanks in advance for your response.

EDITOR'S NOTE: If you mean the paid version of MBAM that runs in "always on" mode, then MAYBE. But if you had the free MBAM that only runs on-demand scans, then you got wrong info.

I use free Avast and do a full scan once a week. I had 2 viruses one week and Avast recommended that I do a boot-time scan. The same 2 viruses were picked up on boot-time scan that had been quarantined on the full scan.I do quick scan twice a week which takes about 8 minutes, full scan once a week which takes about 40 minutes and boot-time scan once a month which takes more than an hour.

Just letting you know that I actually run two programs together in real time- the free version of Bitdefender and the paid-for version of Malwarebytes. They seem to work very well together with no noticable hit on the processor and each seems to catch something the other doesn't. Malwarebytes seems to catch more however.

I run a complete FULL deep scan (every box checked) a couple of times a week, and a quick scan every day using MBAM (free) in addition to the real-time scanner provided by my ISP. It seems that MBAM feels that many of the 'free' downloads you get from CNET and other sites (some streaming video and PDF files) have PUP's (Potentially Unwanted Programs) bundled in with their download. These PUP's can do things like install unwanted toolbars, and some are felt to have the potential to put ". . .deep hooks into your system files . . ." and open up your computer to adware you might not want.

MBAM says that they are often not an immediate threat, but may leave your computer open to other programs downloading themselves without your permission or knowledge.

A full scan DOES take a long time, so I do it when I'm out of the house and running my dogs each evening. It's not something you want to do if you are doing any kind of serious work (intensive cpu cycles) on your computer -- you may go insane.

I don't care if it takes all night, I trigger the full Malwarebytes scan before light's out and deal with the results (almost always clean) the next morning. I do the same with MSE, but trust Malwarebytes more.

I upgraded to MBAM v. 2.0 (free) when it was first released. Tried it and didn't like how much longer it took to run even the "quick" threat scan. It took about twice as long as the previous version. As a result of that as well as not liking the new, "improved" UI, I uninstalled the new version and reinstalled the old one. I'm still able to get several updates each day, get the familiar interface, and enjoy much faster scans.

I have always run a full scan with MBAM and NOD32, never a "quick" scan!
Why would I?

I have Kasersky installed on my machine and I guess that I must be super-paranoid. I run a Quck Scan every morning and a Full Scan every evening. I shut the machine down at night and start it in the morning when I am back. I run the Vulnerability scan once per week.

Seems like Bob would consider this to be crazy overkill, no?

One other thought about MBAM - I have run it under Windows and found a few threats, then re-run it in Windows "Safe Mode" and found MANY more. Any system I suspect is infected gets MBAM and SuperAntiSpyware run in Safe Mode. (I am a Tech)

I recently had an issue that the program -Super Anti Spyware-was able to find and delete. All the others did not see the issue. I also only run these types of programs "on demand."

Good luck.

I had to pay to have my laptop hard disk totally stripped of all data and the operating system reinstalled, and after that the stripped data reloaded. Why? Somehow this program got installed: "mysearch dot avg dot com" got loaded. It prevented access to the internet, so I could not fix even update my avast program. And I don't have any "AVG" programs on my machine. We are still reloading the programs that got removed.

Really a follow up question. How would you rate the emergence of the 'Whitelist' virus etc. protection compared with the normal 'Blacklist' system used by most?

Basically I use Kaspersky (provided free by my Bank - weirdly British?) and also have PC Matic without their anti-virus activated, and wonder if I should just delete Kaspersky.

Thanks for the info but the more info I get the more I hide in 'senior moments' .

EDITOR'S NOTE: I think a combination of blacklist and whitelisting, along with signature scanning and heuristics offers the most comprehensive protection. PC-Matic does use a whitelist, so I thnk you'd be fine to use that and drop Kaspersky.

I had Avast free and SpybotSD on my XP Pro for a long time and now I have MSE and MBAM Free also. They seem to coexist without much trouble.

@DataDoc

Sounds like fine advice as it makes sense.

I thank you for the tip of running MBAM in "Safe Mode" for a more Thorough scan!

@DataDoc
https://helpdesk.malwarebytes.org/entries/42699408-Should-I-scan-with-Malwarebytes-Anti-Malware-in-Safe-Mode-

Like I recommend to anyone I talk with: do system backups regularly, preferably with a reliable imaging tool. I'm still baffled that in 2014 computer users still have to reinstall their OS after a disaster. There are lots of tools out there to help you prevent having to do that. Bob has talked about them.

I use Bitdefender as my active scanner, Clamwin as my static scanner and MBAM Free. It all works quite well.

Here's what I have and what I do: I have Hitman Pro, Malwarebytes Pro, Avast Internet Security-with the free version of their virus scanner.

I run Malwarebytes Pro and Avast full time-they do not interfere with each other. I use Hitman Pro only on demand. All my security utilities are nested on my task bar for quick activation when needed.

If I suspect something strange, I activate a scan from one, or all the scanners. Also, if I feel that I have been online too long, and while still online, I activate Hitman Pro for a quick scan. This set-up has kept my computer clean for months-each has caught something at different times.

Thanks for your time.