Re[2]: NOD32 anti-virus and The Bat!

>> A test message with Eicar string attached in a txt file is sent >> without AMON shouting about it but picked up by IMON on receipt. M> And that was a big surprise to me because I was sure (without actually M> testing it) that AMON would detect it. But no, you are right, I have M> been testing

Re[2]: NOD32 anti-virus and The Bat!

M>>> or *.tmp is not in the list of file extensions to scan. >> >> Where do you have a list of file extensions to scan? I only see a(n empty) >> list of extensions NOT to be scanned... M> In the 'Extensions Editor', try deselecting the 'Analyse all files' tick M> box at the bottom and it will now

Re[2]: NOD32 anti-virus and The Bat!

>> Having said that, a situation could arise where I receive an >> infected e-mail which NOD32's IMON module does not yet recognize >> (as happened to me last week with the Fuclip.A worm). That >> infected e-mail would sit undiscovered in my inbox despite several >> NOD32 on-demand scans. ASK>

Re[2]: NOD32 anti-virus and The Bat!

>> Having said that, a situation could arise where I receive an >> infected e-mail which NOD32's IMON module does not yet recognize >> (as happened to me last week with the Fuclip.A worm). That >> infected e-mail would sit undiscovered in my inbox despite several >> NOD32 on-demand scans. Since NO

Re[2]: NOD32 anti-virus and The Bat!

C2>> ...a situation could arise where I receive an infected e-mail C2>> which NOD32's IMON module does not yet recognize (as happened to C2>> me last week with the Fuclip.A worm). That infected e-mail would C2>> sit undiscovered in my inbox despite several NOD32 on-demand C2>> scans. Since NOD32's

Re[2]: nod32 plugin for The Bat!?

Hello Clive, Sunday, February 1, 2004, 10:05:59 AM, you wrote: CT> Not for v2 If I remember this right, NOD32 developers already have the BAV specification... Anyway, nothing was changed here comparing to v1 CT> — and you don’t need one anyway, because NOD32 will intercept CT> infected mail at

Re[2]: nod32 plugin for The Bat!?

At 6:53 AM on 2/1/2004, Clive Taylor typed ... C> What do you mean "NOD32 does not detect new viruses"? It's one of the C> best out there at detecting viruses and updating itself against new C> threats. It's proven - especiall“ here in the past few days with the C> MyDoom worm. NO antivirus progr

Re[2]: nod32 plugin for The Bat!?

Hello Carsten, Sunday, February 1, 2004, 10:13:53 AM, you wrote: CT> I don't believe you because even NOD32 does not detect /new/ CT> viruses. IMHO this is an important fact many users seem to forget CT> these days. Of course it is possible that I am mistaken, or that there is something that I

Re[2]: NOD32 v2 question

Hello ravi, Friday, July 11, 2003, 11:23:18 AM, you wrote: r> As I said, one could have received a virus before the virus r> signature was updated to detect it. Yes, I got it. That would be possible, but likely for me. I would really have to be out of my mind to forward a message to some

Re[2]: NOD32 v2 question

Hello ravi, Friday, July 11, 2003, 10:14:43 AM, you wrote: r> How about forwarding an an infected message including the r> attachment? r> A virus could have been received and not detected prior to a r> signature update. Assuming you are forwarding a message that has already been scanned, it sho

Re[2]: NOD32 v2 question

On Friday, July 11, 2003 at 2:22 PM, Marck wrote: > It seems to work for incoming mail, just not for outbound. That's > why I was asking the question in the first place. It wasn't clear to me that you were using the old plug-in. Wishful thinking on my part that there was a new one. :) Thanks fo

Re[2]: NOD32 v2 question

Hello Marck, Friday, July 11, 2003, 7:27:38 AM, you wrote: MDP> It's not for me - I use AVG. It's for someone who wants his MDP> outbound messages certified virus free by NOD. NOD is saying that MDP> the attachment is not valid and stalling the mail send. I see. Interesting. This has never ha

Re[2]: NOD32 v2 question

On Friday, July 11, 2003 at 11:52 AM, Marck wrote: >>> NOD32 have just released v2, but the TB plug-in isn't working >>> right when using it to check outbound mail with attachments. Is >>> there a way to configure it to work correctly? Is there a new plug-in for v2? If so, do you know where I ca

Re[2]: NOD32 v2 question

Hello Marck, Friday, July 11, 2003, 6:51:54 AM, you wrote: MDP> Yes, it's working well for inbound mail. It's the outbound mail MDP> check that's failing. Sorry about that. You still don't need the plug in. The AMON will catch the virus infected file if you try to attach the file using the BAT

Re[2]: Nod32

David, On Wednesday, March 19, 2003, David Calvarese wrote in : DC> however, it doesn't scan outgoing emails... FWIW, I think that scanning outgoing e-mail is a complete waste of resources and time. If I take sufficient precautions, the chances are slim that I as a send

Re[2]: NOD32

Hi William, Saturday, March 15, 2003, 6:31:55 AM, you wrote: WM> Pardon? What has that got to do with using a plug-in? Sorry, I misread your comment and thought you were questioning the use of AV mail checking. -- Best regards, Mike _

Re[2]: NOD32

Hi David, Friday, March 14, 2003, 9:29:15 PM, you wrote: D DC> Do me a favor would you? Go to pandasoftware.com and run the free DC> active scan. If you don't turn up any viruses, then you can toot DC> Norton's horn... Guess what? No viruses. And in scientific tests carried out for the defenc

Re[2]: NOD32

Hello Allie, Friday, March 14, 2003, 10:46:23 PM, you wrote: WB>> All this talk of NOD32 lately has convinced me to switch to it WB>> instead of renewing my virus subscription to NAV. I set up the WB>> plug-in (NOD32.bav) in TheBat and all seems to work well. Do I also WB>> have to use the "pop3s

Re[2]: NOD32

Hi William, Thursday, March 13, 2003, 8:52:56 AM, you wrote: WM> I still fail to understand why people bother with the AV plug-ins Because those people are responsible and would rather not: a) Catch a virus themselves and, b) pass it on to anyone else. WM> It just introduces more complexities

Re[2]: NOD32 (was: Grisoft AVG)

Thanks for everybodies frank and honest replies!!, perhaps its time this kettle of fish was closed! :) Steve Current version is 1.62 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: NOD32 (was: Grisoft AVG)

Hello John, There are a number of good AV programs in the market. You don't have to knock one down in order to make yours look better. I use NOD since it's one of the fastest in scanning my system. It has also won the 2003 Power Tools Forum award, and I have to say there are many programs in t

Re[2]: NOD32 (was: Grisoft AVG)

Hello Steve, Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 3:22:31 PM, you wrote: SF> Sorry - new to list and having difficulty following this thread, what SF> is NOD?? Nod32 is a very fine anti-virus program. Tests conducted by virus bulletin have indicated that nod32 detects more virii than any other current ant

Re[2]: NOD32

Hello Ladies and Gents, On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, at 16:42:07 [GMT +0100] (which was 16:42 in my TimeZone) you wrote: WM> Hello Anne WM> Thank you for your email dated Tuesday, October 15, 2002, 1:40:51 PM, in which you wrote: A>> I use Kaspersky AV and this does scan webpages as we view them

Re[2]: NOD32

Tuesday, October 15, 2002, 7:37:39 AM,William wrote: WM> Pages from the net, as WM> such, are not scanned as far as I'm aware by any AV. Viruses only do WM> their thing if the file containing them are executed. If I'm wrong on WM> this I'm sure I'll be corrected :-) I use Kaspersky AV and this

Re[2]: NOD32

On Monday, October 14, 2002, Chris Weaven wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: CW> What exact part of the program scans internet downloads/pages CW> downloaded from the net? There's no separate web module, nor any need for the extra resource use. The "Amon" module, which is t

Re[2]: NOD32

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Wednesday, October 09, 2002 7:22:10 PM RE: "NOD32" Greetings Marck, On Tuesday, October 8, 2002, 5:13:17 AM, you wrote: MDP> Why would you need that? AVG will catch trojans. Geez Marck. I use AVG Pro AND Trojan Defence Suite here. What one may mis

Re[2]: NOD32 Plugin

Running The Bat! Version 1.60m on Windows 98 Build Marck, > You'll have to temporarily turn it off. It is completely *unnecessary* > to have the interactive scanner running for the plug-in to work. You're right. Apparently there was an argument going on as to which was getting to examine

Re[2]: NOD32 Plugin

Marck, I'm a bit confused. I'm running AVG, and it's doing *really* well at trapping the Eicar test virus (maybe too well ;). Whenever I click on the .com version to attach it to an e-mail, the low-level portion of AVG turns my screen black and gives me what looks like a DOS-generated message ask

Re[2]: NOD32 Plugin

This is a question more on NOD32 than on TB!, but, since there are other Eset aficionados here, I thought I'd pose the question: Amon's range of options include scanning on "open" and scanning on "execute." What is the difference between them? JN __

Re[2]: NOD32 Plugin

Hi Allie, On Wednesday, June 05, 2002, at 12:26 AM you had written: ACM> Have you configured NOD32 to scan archives. It doesn't do this by ACM> default. Yep. Under "Settings - Diagnostic Methods" "Archives" is checked. In fact, I have everything checked! -- Best Regards, Ravi -- " Be the cha

Re[2]: NOD32 Plugin

Hi Nick, On Tuesday, June 04, 2002, at 9:35 PM you had written: NA> That wasn't my experience Allie. Using TB 1.60p, the NOD32.bav, and NA> sending myself the Eicar test ZIP file didn't prompt the Plugin to do NA> anything. Nothing happened until I tried to open the Archive, then the NA> Plugin

Re[2]: NOD32 Plugin

Replying to your message of Tuesday, June 4, 2002, 12:23:36 PM: RO> (Mailscan for RO> Mailservers) That's one of ours. Actually I use that, I will have to look into that, I have not heard of that happening before. -- Pete Tuesday, June 4, 2002 2:18:37 PM This e-mail is b

Re[2]: NOD32 Plugin

Allie, It sounds like you've chosen the BAV plug-in for NOD32 over Eset's POP scanner. Why? When I tried it out, I chose to stay with NOD32's own scanner, partly because of speed and partly because an AV plug-in didn't seem like a good place to test a Beta. I also remember something about one

Re[2]: NOD32 Plugin

Replying to your message of Tuesday, June 4, 2002, 9:14:44 AM: RO> I've used something that sounds like that for my mailserver. It turned RO> out to change the sending ip-address to 127.0.0.1 as soon as large RO> attachments were received (and therefore needed to be scanned), RO> wreaked havoc

Re[2]: NOD32 Plugin

Replying to your message of Tuesday, June 4, 2002, 8:18:23 AM: Hey Johnathan, This can be had for the home user or as big as an ISP. I am not sure what others costs can be but this is fairly reasonable. Actually, I was working with my ISP but the 'higher ups' were set on Postini...which use