1 2 Previous Next 15 Replies Latest reply: Feb 20, 2009 6:13 AM by Ex_Brit RSS

    How good is Mcafee

      mcafee WILL have to up there game a bit - seriously

      File New_WinRAR_ZIP_archive.zip received on 02.20.2009 11:38:45 (CET)
      Current status: Loading ... queued waiting scanning finished NOT FOUND STOPPED


      Result: 34/39 (87.18%)


      Antivirus Version Last Update Result
      a-squared 4.0.0.93 2009.02.20 Trojan-DDoS.Win32.Agent.bv!IK
      AhnLab-V3 2009.2.20.1 2009.02.20 -
      AntiVir 7.9.0.85 2009.02.20 TR/Crypt.XPACK.Gen
      Authentium 5.1.0.4 2009.02.20 -
      Avast 4.8.1335.0 2009.02.19 Win32:Agent-AABV
      AVG 8.0.0.237 2009.02.19 Worm/Generic.IRR
      BitDefender 7.2 2009.02.20 Trojan.Autorun.TE
      CAT-QuickHeal 10.00 2009.02.20 TrojanDownloader.Agent.pdl
      ClamAV 0.94.1 2009.02.20 Worm.Autorun-970
      Comodo 984 2009.02.19 Worm.Win32.AutoRun.KS
      DrWeb 4.44.0.09170 2009.02.20 Win32.HLLW.Autoruner.2339
      eSafe 7.0.17.0 2009.02.19 Suspicious File
      eTrust-Vet 31.6.6367 2009.02.20 Win32/Hamweq.CF
      F-Prot 4.4.4.56 2009.02.19 -
      F-Secure 8.0.14470.0 2009.02.20 Worm.Win32.AutoRun.dui
      Fortinet 3.117.0.0 2009.02.20 W32/LdPinch.CDS!tr.pws
      GData 19 2009.02.20 Trojan.Autorun.TE
      Ikarus T3.1.1.45.0 2009.02.20 Trojan-DDoS.Win32.Agent.bv
      K7AntiVirus 7.10.637 2009.02.19 Trojan-DDoS.Win32.Agent.bv
      Kaspersky 7.0.0.125 2009.02.20 Worm.Win32.AutoRun.dui
      McAfee 5530 2009.02.19 -
      McAfee+Artemis 5530 2009.02.19 Generic!Artemis
      Microsoft 1.4306 2009.02.20 VirTool:Win32/Obfuscator.BH
      NOD32 3871 2009.02.20 Win32/AutoRun.KS
      Norman 6.00.06 2009.02.19 BAT/AutoRun.AE
      nProtect 2009.1.8.0 2009.02.20 Trojan.LdPinch.NCT
      Panda 10.0.0.10 2009.02.20 Suspicious file
      PCTools 4.4.2.0 2009.02.19 -
      Prevx1 V2 2009.02.20 1-5
      Rising 21.17.42.00 2009.02.20 Trojan.Win32.Undef.klh
      SecureWeb-Gateway 6.7.6 2009.02.20 Trojan.Crypt.XPACK.Gen
      Sophos 4.38.0 2009.02.20 W32/HostInf-A
      Sunbelt 3.2.1855.2 2009.02.17 INF.Autorun (v)
      Symantec 10 2009.02.20 Trojan Horse
      TheHacker 6.3.2.3.261 2009.02.20 Trojan/Small.autorun
      TrendMicro 8.700.0.1004 2009.02.20 Mal_Otorun1
      VBA32 3.12.10.0 2009.02.20 Trojan-DDoS.Win32.Agent.bv
      ViRobot 2009.2.20.1616 2009.02.20 INF.Autorun.274
      VirusBuster 4.5.11.0 2009.02.19 INF.Autorun.Gen
        • 1. RE: How good is Mcafee
          Ex_Brit
          It's not unusual for something to be unknown to McAfee, that's why you see Generic!Artemis right underneath the one you highlighted. VirusScan heuristically detected something.

           

          McAfee 5530 2009.02.19 - [/B]
          McAfee+Artemis 5530 2009.02.19 Generic!Artemis

          You'll find something in the Quarantine section which should then be forwarded to McAfee.

          No anti-virus application, no matter what brand, is perfect and you should keep some up-to-date anti-spyware applications onboard also.

          See: http://community.mcafee.com/showthread.php?t=136913
          • 2. RE: How good is Mcafee
            Doesnt help much bud....my mcafee isnt picking it up - uploaded to webimmune....they also "inconclusive"

            Still.....how good is mcafee??
            • 3. RE: How good is Mcafee
              Ex_Brit
              It WAS detected. It IS inconclusive, therefore they are working on it. I don't understand what your point is.

              I don't know of any anti-virus in the entire universe that knows exactly what every detection is first time around. Hence heuristic detection engines which are present in any reputable A/V application.
              • 4. RE: How good is Mcafee
                MY point IS that if 87% of all other engines can do it then WHY can't mcafee do it.
                • 5. RE: How good is Mcafee
                  Ex_Brit
                  In this particular case McAfee generically detected something instead of knowing exactly what it was. In another case I'm willing to bet the bank that any of the other A/V would behave in exactly the same manner.
                  They all fail at some stage to give a detection a name, hence the invention of heuristic detection.

                  If they didn't all do that then they wouldn't have any need of heuristic detection, and they all have that.

                  Ask any major anti-malware forum for their opinion and I'm sure that they will agree.

                  At least it was stopped, whatever it was. If you are so anti-McAfee that you feel you need to give it some misplaced bad publicity why are you using it?
                  • 6. RE: How good is Mcafee
                    Don't say "At least it was stopped" it wasn't stopped - I have tested this on a VM and mcafee DID NOT STOP INFECTION!!!
                    And me being anti-Mcafee - I'm not - the forums are the only way to get other people to see/know what's happening. Without anyone knowing - how will they prevent this!
                    Come on be realistic - Money = Service and thats the bottom line. i pay for a prioduct and at this stage it's not up to scratch.
                    The reason I am posting is because I have received numerouse complaints about this and I want to share this with other people and a great place to start is here.
                    • 7. RE: How good is Mcafee
                      Ex_Brit
                      What is that Generic!Artemis then, a figment of my imagination?
                      • 8. RE: How good is Mcafee

                        Upon analysis the file submitted does not appear to contain one of the 200,000 known threats in the AutoImmune database. The file may contain a new threat, or no code capable of being infected. Your submission is being forwarded to an Avert Labs Researcher for further analysis. You will be contacted by AVERT through e-mail with the results of that analysis.
                        • 9. RE: How good is Mcafee
                          Ex_Brit
                          Well, that means it was detected as inconclusive and has been sent for further testing.

                          As I have already said, on another occasion the same thing could happen with any of those other A/V applications.

                          We could continue this argument until the cows come home and get absolutely nowhere.

                          Be thankful it was detected as Generic!Artemis at least. If they subsequently find that it is a bad object then it'll be given a name.

                          That line you higlighted in your first post was only the first part of the whole detection.

                          It should have been...
                          McAfee 5530 2009.02.19 -
                          McAfee+Artemis 5530 2009.02.19 Generic!Artemis

                          The following found nothing as there is no "next line"......

                          AhnLab-V3 2009.2.20.1 2009.02.20 -

                          Authentium 5.1.0.4 2009.02.20 -

                          F-Prot 4.4.4.56 2009.02.19 -

                          PCTools 4.4.2.0 2009.02.19 -

                          Prevx1 V2 2009.02.20 1-5

                          Also 2 of them only detected a "suspicious file" but at least they detected something.

                          I think you're giving VirusScan a bum rap.
                          1 2 Previous Next