Amazon.com infected?

[Bruce Page]

I'm getting a "Threat Detected! Virus found HTML/Framer" from my AVG virus software when I go to Amazon. Anyone else have a problem

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Bruce I am not getting anything. I am using McAfee.

[Bruce Page]

Thanks Ken. I installed several updates last night from Microsoft. I wonder if that has any connection. I'm running a scan right now.

[Scott Shepherd]

Bruce, also be aware that some virus' take over google searches, so you search, it lists everything like normal, but every single link is fake and corrupt. Not sure how you navigated to amazon, but if it was through a google search, I'd be really careful. I had to remove that type of virus from a relatives computer and it was nasty. Took me many hours.

[Phil Thien]

I'm also getting it on AVG free. Probably a false positive. Perhaps Amazon is coding something that makes AVG think they're up to something.

[Chris Harry]

Looks to be a false positive from the newest update/definitions:

http://forums.avg.com/gb-en/avg-free-forum?sec=thread&act=show&id=98327

[Bruce Page]

I ran my AVG security scan last night and it found and quarantined 12 instances of the HTML/Framer virus. I have no idea where it came from but all is well now.

[paul cottingham]

It appears that they pushed an update last night which mistakenly classified ALL Java applets as being dangerous, including streamers.

Reports are that they've realized their mistake and pushed a fix. Thus, if your AVG is still barking streamers, a manual update should resolve the issue.

Good old AVG....

[Don Alexander]

i also use AVG free and mostly it works very well once in awhile i get the false positives like after the latest update in the overall scheme of things its not a big deal and they always fix the problem promptly

stop and think about the complexity of an antivirus program and appreciate getting a quality product for free especially when you could easily be paying Symantec prices for a lesser much more intrusive program to do the same job

just my opinion FWIW

[Bruce Page]

It appears that they pushed an update last night which mistakenly classified ALL Java applets as being dangerous, including streamers.

Reports are that they've realized their mistake and pushed a fix. Thus, if your AVG is still barking streamers, a manual update should resolve the issue.

Good old AVG....


That's basically what I found out investigating the problem. Stuff happens, I'll take AVG over Norton or McAfee any day. :)

[paul cottingham]

In my business we call people who use AVG "customers.":D

Use Avast....

[Phil Thien]

In my business we call people who use AVG "customers.":D

Use Avast....

The last time I tested avast I had the machine infected to the hilt in ten minutes. It was pathetic.

[Cliff Rohrabacher]

Norton 360 has a penchant for insisting that some web site or other is dangerous. Unless I'm on an Eastern European site or a place where malicious children are won't to play, I usually ignore the warning.

[Norberto Coutinho]

I am running it ( and AVG too ) in my PC...
.
http://www.microsoft.com/security_essentials/default.aspx?mkt=en-us

[Eric DeSilva]

Good old AVG....


I still remember the day that AVG was reporting all google results as threats. Although I think, for some reason, that may actually have had something to do with a Google problem.

[Scott Shepherd]

Here's a graph done of 12 years of virus testing on "in the wild" viruses. The number is how many times an in the wild virus got past that package.

That's exactly why I use eset's security suite.

[Larry Browning]

Here's a graph done of 12 years of virus testing on "in the wild" viruses. The number is how many times an in the wild virus got past that package.

That's exactly why I use eset's security suite.

Bet you found that graph on eset's website. Just a guess.

[Scott Shepherd]

Actually, the study with the data came from Virus Bulletin, a site that tests all sorts of Virus programs. It wasn't a eset study. Your point?

[paul cottingham]

Sorry, when I was recommending avast, it was because there is a free version. Eset is excellent.

[Phil Thien]

Here's a graph done of 12 years of virus testing on "in the wild" viruses. The number is how many times an in the wild virus got past that package.

That's exactly why I use eset's security suite.

So that graph is saying that, in twelve years, not a single virus ever got past eset?

[Scott Shepherd]

So that graph is saying that, in twelve years, not a single virus ever got past eset?

I think it's saying that in twelve years, a "in the wild" virus has not gotten through under the conditions in which they apply their testing. It's my understanding there were two different tests run.

If you don't update your virus signature database, don't run daily scans, and don't have it setup right, I'm sure a virus in the wild could get through. You'd have to research the report to find out the specifics of how they test all of them.

[Phil Thien]

I think it's saying that in twelve years, a "in the wild" virus has not gotten through under the conditions in which they apply their testing. It's my understanding there were two different tests run.

If you don't update your virus signature database, don't run daily scans, and don't have it setup right, I'm sure a virus in the wild could get through. You'd have to research the report to find out the specifics of how they test all of them.

I figured I'd give ESET a shot.

I own a computer shop. We routinely get customers that bring us machines infected to the hilt. So we pull the drives, and toss them in a dedicated "virus cleaning machine."

That dedicated machine has current antivirus software, and MBAM.

We use MBAM to scan the target (infected drive). For each file MBAM opens, the antivirus software that is running in the background has a shot at the file, as well.

This has served us pretty well. It cleans the drives up to the point where we can get them to boot in the original PC, run MBAM again (to clean the local registry), etc.

Before going any further, I'll just say that the machines that come in that are infected have every imaginable antivirus package on them. Symantec, McAfee, Trend, avast!, Kaspersky, etc., they'll all being use on these infected machines. The viruses get around them.

Of course, no product can catch every new virus out there. New variants need to be analyzed and added to the definitions. Until your antivirus product has the defs updated to catch a new virus, you're somewhat wide open to it. Of course, there is heuristics, but the guys writing the viruses are going their best to work around that sort of analysis. They actually test their viruses against various antivirus products.

ANYWAY... I installed ESET on one of the dedicated machines and (drum roll please) it didn't find much. This is not a scientific analysis, by any stretch, but when I was done w/ the scan the user's \AppData\Local\Temp was still full of EXE's. At least sixty of them.

I tossed the drive over on another machine running AVG and it nailed every single executable in that temp folder.

Finally, I would like to add that ESET's user interface is pretty awful. When AVG detects multiple infections, it gives you a nice table listing all it has detected "on open." With ESET, you get one detection per window. What a pain in the rear. If there are forty infected files, you have to click on a button forty times.

I could be much more scientific about this. Perhaps some day I will start accumulating infected files on drives and testing them against the different products. If I have more time.

In the meantime, I don't recommend relying on antivirus software at all. I've previously posted instructions on running as a limited user. So far this has proven nearly fool-proof. Coupled w/ something like AVG, I don't know how you can go wrong.