7 Replies Latest reply on Nov 24, 2011 4:32 PM by exbrit Branched from an earlier discussion.

    Artemis!116749E2F595

      How is it that a McAfee Moderator is recommending other AntiSpyware software when people already paid for a product (McAfee!) to protect them???????

      I too have Artemis!116749E2F595 constantly being found despite Quarantining it each time.  Further that McAfee's website does not have any info on it is strange.

      How do I get rid of this or find out if it is legit?

        • 1. Re: Artemis!116749E2F595
          exbrit

          Moved from a  more than 2-year old thread.  A lot of stuff changes in that time.   Also transferred to the Artemis Forum which didn't exist back then.  But in answer to your question there is no such thing as perfect protection.  It is always wise to have one or two extra anti-malware tools handy just in case.

           

          Someone from the Artemis section will be here soon hopefully, to help you.

           

          Message was edited by: Ex_Brit on 21/11/11 8:10:34 EST PM
          • 2. Re: Artemis!116749E2F595

            I never expected the software to be perfect but I do consider when I send usage data, quaratined items, etc. to McAfee that they take action with an update.  It does not seem that the Artemis issue is a new one.  That said, I am still surprised to read your suggestion.  Do you suppose my secondary software should be Norton Antivirus?!  I would be curious if Symantec would make the same recommendation.

            • 3. Re: Artemis!116749E2F595
              exbrit

              New variants of old infections appear almost daily so it isn't surprising at all.  The fact that is reappearing is what matters which means you never got rid of it.  Try disabling System Restore temporarily to see if that gets rid of it.   Try disconnecting anything that is attached externally.   Regarding the Artemis detection itself I can't tell you anything about it and am waiting for that department to spot this.

               

              No of course I do not suggest you get a second antivirus, in fact that would be dangerous.  Did you read the link I gave in my previous post or not?  It doesn't suggest any such thing.   Antivirus applications generally can only go so far at protecting you and do so for millions of infections, but there are some pretty clever ones out there that demand additional weapons, plus due care when surfing, downloading etc. and it's a good idea to keep all aspects of your system totally up date, even parts you may not use (such as Internet Explorer for instance), to prevent vulnerabilities.

               

              Message was edited by: Ex_Brit on 22/11/11 7:35:57 EST AM
              • 4. Re: Artemis!116749E2F595
                Hayton

                The only results (8) from a Google search for Artemis!116749E2F595 are all from this thread. Is the Artemis identifier correct? If it is then I would suggest that the poster contact the labs to clarify this.

                 

                If the poster thinks this might be a false positive then he should follow the steps in  https://community.mcafee.com/docs/DOC-1265

                • 5. Re: Artemis!116749E2F595
                  SamSwift

                  when did you last see a detection for this? We've not seen a hit on that file signature for nearly two weeks.

                   

                  It looks to be a variant of this: http://vil.nai.com/vil/content/v_140927.htm

                   

                  Kind regards,

                  Sam

                   

                  Message was edited by: SamSwift on 24/11/11 20:26:36 GMT
                  • 6. Re: Artemis!116749E2F595
                    Hayton

                    Ask the poster, Sam. I reckoned it might be a typo.

                    • 7. Re: Artemis!116749E2F595
                      exbrit

                      This was originally tacked on to a rather old thread so I branched it to it's own and altered the title/header, however, I checked the Artemis number was the same as they mention in the text of the first post.