In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Dierk Haasis [DH] wrote:'
>> Nowadays, it's a good idea to keep a realtime scanner running.
DH> Not for me (since this is a matter of taste I won't go into it
DH> any further).
Hmmm. It's my personal preference not to run one as well, and I did
just this for quite some time. Though, the resource part is an
important aspect, I'm even more wary of the interference an A-V
real-time scanner can cause when running other applications.
However, times are changing and virus writers get smarter. Deciding
to keep the real-time scanner going is like deciding to run A-V
Software in the first place. Especially if you use IE's engine, as I
do. I'd prefer not to, but it has the rendering engine that works
best for me.
DH> With my old machine - still up and running - it wasn't an option
DH> at all as it slowed down opening files noticeably, couldn't
DH> really work anymore.
Some real-time scanners are resource hungry and some aren't. Not all
require a lot of resources.
DH> On my new machine it doesn't seem to matter.
Yes. The newer machines are really powerful.
DH> BTW, the default to not include archives in real-time scanning
DH> is counterproductive. As they are often used to download files,
DH> and are also used to hide the vectors, users who rely on the
DH> defaults of a virus scanner ("normal" users) will get infected.
DH> They won't even know how to scan files manually.
This isn't true. If you have archive scanning disabled, and you try
to unpack an infected file from an archive, the real-time scanner
will nab it at that point.
If they get infected, then manual scanning or any other scanning
wouldn't have helped, since the A-V Scanner cannot detect the virus.
--
Allie C Martin \ TB! v1.62/Beta7 & WinXP Pro (SP1)
List Moderator / PGP Key - http://pub-key.ac-martin.com
________________________________________________
Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
