Jump to content

Avast 5 out, no more 9x support


Steven W
 Share

Recommended Posts

I don't think that anyone can make a good case as to why win-98 systems need anti-virus support these days.
I only use an anti-virus for checking stuff downloaded with eMule under Win98. I have a dedicated eMule computer, running continuously (current uptime: 4 days, 15 hrs). The incoming downloads are processed on another computer, so the virus-check could indeed be done there under WinXP. Running a virus-check under Win9x may eventually become just as unnecessary as running a virus-check under DOS. I haven't run a complete virus-check under Win98 for about a year, with no ill effects.

Nevertheless it's re-assuring to know that I could run a virus checker under Win98.

the new stuff has a very poor detection rating with AV apps.
Kaspersky currently detects in 100 software files downloaded with eMule about 60 infected files. When Kaspersky is run a month later again, on the ??clean?? 40 files, it will detect another 5-10 infected files which it didn't detect a month earlier. Anti-virus software is indeed far behind in their detection of new malware.

The infection rate of eMule software downloads has jumped from about 20% to currently about 60-70% over the last 6 months. 6 months ago the largest eMule server had links to about 25 million files, today it links to 83 million different files. This sudden jump by about 60 million files corresponds to the jump in the infection rate. Perhaps some organization has been trying to poison the eMule network by pumping 60 million different infected files into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Guest wsxedcrfv

I only use an anti-virus for checking stuff downloaded with eMule under Win98.

Any executables I download on my systems I generally submit to VirusTotal. Why run a dedicated AV app on your system when you have virtual access to 40 apps at the same time?

I haven't run a complete virus-check under Win98 for about a year, with no ill effects.

I have access to several good/trusted XP machines with several AV apps installed on them. When I feel like running a virus scan on any system (XP, NT4, win-98, etc) I remove the drive from the system and attach it as a slave to the trusted system and scan it. Much more reliable than a system scanning itself while it's running. Doing that is like trying to repair your car while you're driving it. Doesn't make sense - too much malware these days knows how to hide itself during a scan - or even sabotage the scan such that it's not really running but you think it is. The only way to scan a drive correctly is when it's slaved to a second machine.

The infection rate of eMule software downloads has jumped from about 20% to currently about 60-70% over the last 6 months.

Do people post comments when they discover that a download is viral?

On a side-track, I'm curious about people that use ED2K vs bittorrent, or more specifically if people fall into two catagories (those that do ED2K and those that do bittorrent) and if so - along what lines do they differ? (geography, content, age, computing platform, etc). And what's the correct term to use when you're running an ED2K client? Are you "mule-ing" (as opposed to torrenting) ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for trying to help multibooter!

I will endeavor to use the info you gave me to see if I can get things working.

wsxedcrfv,

I think your idea of slaving the win 9x hard drive, to an XP machine,

so that it can be checked for viruses---is an excellent idea,

but tedious to have to do.

I will try it out using one of my 9x machines.

It would not work well for "heavy handed" people though, being that taking hard drives from one pc to another always risk the chance of breaking a pin---or putting extra stress and wear on the pins.

Perhaps someone from this very forum, will one day solve our problems by coming up with their own AV just for 9x----! ....along with that special IPV6 patch too!

Not as unlikely or improbable as many might think!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any executables I download on my systems I generally submit to VirusTotal.  Why run a dedicated AV app on your system when you have virtual access to 40 apps at the same time?

The old VirusTotal Uploader 1.0 runs on 98SE if you can still find a download site offering that version. It allows the user to submit the file for analysis by right clicking and selecting Send To from the context menu. It will then open the users default browser on the VirusTotal website with the scanned results.

I saved a copy of this early version when V.2.0 was released as that does not run on 98SE. No doubt if one trawls through Google search results V.1.0 will still be offered by someone.

HTH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any executables I download on my systems I generally submit to VirusTotal. Why run a dedicated AV app on your system
It's the volume of downloads. My eMule computer has been up and downloading now for 5 days 14 hours, under Win98, without crashing.
I remove the drive from the system and attach it as a slave
Since I have several operating systems on my computer, I can scan under Win98 the WinXP partition (FAT32), and under WinXP the Win98 partition, which should be just as effective as removing the HDD, but more convenient.
Do people post comments when they discover that a download is viral?
Basically no, because most of the stuff is infected anyway
ED2K vs bittorrent - along what lines do they differ?
Different content. Bittorrent has mainly new stuff, the Mule has also a lot of new stuff, but about 100 times more older and rare/hard to find stuff than Bittorrent. The Mule uses ed2k and Kademlia; ed2k accounts for only about 20% of the titles, Kad for about 80%.

BTW, the emule software has been downloaded 500 million times, with the last version 0.49c alone 32 million times http://sourceforge.net/projects/emule/files/ At this very moment there are 1.2 million people connected to the 4 eMule servers in my pruned server list. It may be that the Mule is past its peak, v0.49b had 48 million downloads. http://sourceforge.net/?=PHPB8B5F2A0-3C92-11d3-A3A9-4C7B08C10000

Edited by Multibooter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 98SE, I still run Norton 2003 AV which works well. I know that there was reference to the 2002 version earlier on in this thread.

In respect of malware SuperAntiSpyware works great up to v4.24.1004. The definitions file is getting a bit big now and load times slow down but there is a right click context menu entry to scan individual files.

wsxedcrfv said:

I remove the drive from the system and attach it as a slave to the trusted system and scan it

You could also try one of the following for on-demand scanning.

1. Run the AntiVir AV Rescue boot CD. It's Linux based and will see all the partitions on the HD (hidden partitions also).

The AV definitions are updated regularly.

2. Alternatively, install Linux on a small partition and then you can install and run Avast to scan other partitions.

3. I used to use the ESET (NOD32) on line scanner but although some say that it still works for 98SE, I have found it difficult to access it lately (perhaps my Java is not recent enough).

Good Luck

Edited by risk_reversal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want an AV application that still runs on 98 and still has current definition files, go find Norton AntiVirus 2002, and then periodically download the Symantec Intelligent Updater package.

Hello:

As I understand it, Norton Antivirus 2002 is no longer supported with new definition updates. It appears that Norton AV 2003 is the earliest version that is still receiving updates, and it seems that it doesn't support Windows 98/ME. (See: http://www.symantec.com/business/security_response/definitions/download/detail.jsp?gid=n95 .)

Cheers,

Jerry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want an AV application that still runs on 98 and still has current definition files, go find Norton AntiVirus 2002, and then periodically download the Symantec Intelligent Updater package.

Hello:

As I understand it, Norton Antivirus 2002 is no longer supported with new definition updates. It appears that Norton AV 2003 is the earliest version that is still receiving updates, and it seems that it doesn't support Windows 98/ME. (See: http://www.symantec.com/business/security_response/definitions/download/detail.jsp?gid=n95 .)

Cheers,

Jerry

Don't believe everything you read on the internet. It still updates or at least gives the indication that it does. I know it states that it doesn't, but it still does. In fact upon completion of the update it it mentions that if you have older products you still need to use a different updater. Just thought I would pass it on, since it is being discussed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I haven't used any Norton AV for nearly 4 years, I have a copy of Norton AV 2006. That version needs a minimum of Win 2K, but it came with a copy of Norton AV 2005 on the same CD for 9x systems. Apparently AV 2005 is the last version to run on 9x.

Edited by the xt guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Beware! I have Symantec 9.0 (copyright is 2004) and it APPEARS to still update its virus definitions. However, in reality, new definitions (manually or updates via LiveUpdate) SILENTLY break it! Check with the EICAR test signature file, don't assume that because all appears well, that it actually is!

Joe.

PS. I wonder is KernelEx will solve the Avast 5 problem (I'm staying with 4.8 for the time being)?

If you want an AV application that still runs on 98 and still has current definition files, go find Norton AntiVirus 2002, and then periodically download the Symantec Intelligent Updater package.

Hello:

As I understand it, Norton Antivirus 2002 is no longer supported with new definition updates. It appears that Norton AV 2003 is the earliest version that is still receiving updates, and it seems that it doesn't support Windows 98/ME. (See: http://www.symantec.com/business/security_response/definitions/download/detail.jsp?gid=n95 .)

Cheers,

Jerry

Don't believe everything you read on the internet. It still updates or at least gives the indication that it does. I know it states that it doesn't, but it still does. In fact upon completion of the update it it mentions that if you have older products you still need to use a different updater. Just thought I would pass it on, since it is being discussed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've had Avast on this machine for some time now, and just the other day the license key ran out. I submitted all the usual info, and was sent a new license key.

I installed the new license key.

When I go to update, the following occurs:

Everything starts to work as usual---one file after another showing that it is being down loaded, until...

a bloody box appears, which reads:

not enough storage space is available to process this command.

My guess is that it was some time since you previously let that box update from Avast. For some reason they have taken recently to putting everything into one file on your PC. Doesn't matter if you have an NT5 or later machine as there is no limit to file size. But for Windows 98SE of course there is the 4GB limit imposed internally by the Win98 architecture.

You have got more than 4GB of file update to install, and it cannot do it. The only solution is to reinstall Avast with an updated installation file. And of course that cannot now happen. Sorry, you are looking for another anti-virus solution.

How do I know? It happened to me as well!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just tried the test file and it worked, so it appears to be working properly. Thanks for the heads up though.

Beware! I have Symantec 9.0 (copyright is 2004) and it APPEARS to still update its virus definitions. However, in reality, new definitions (manually or updates via LiveUpdate) SILENTLY break it! Check with the EICAR test signature file, don't assume that because all appears well, that it actually is!

Joe.

PS. I wonder is KernelEx will solve the Avast 5 problem (I'm staying with 4.8 for the time being)?

If you want an AV application that still runs on 98 and still has current definition files, go find Norton AntiVirus 2002, and then periodically download the Symantec Intelligent Updater package.

Hello:

As I understand it, Norton Antivirus 2002 is no longer supported with new definition updates. It appears that Norton AV 2003 is the earliest version that is still receiving updates, and it seems that it doesn't support Windows 98/ME. (See: http://www.symantec.com/business/security_response/definitions/download/detail.jsp?gid=n95 .)

Cheers,

Jerry

Don't believe everything you read on the internet. It still updates or at least gives the indication that it does. I know it states that it doesn't, but it still does. In fact upon completion of the update it it mentions that if you have older products you still need to use a different updater. Just thought I would pass it on, since it is being discussed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been posted in another thread, but I think it's quite relevant here, so I decided to quote it here:

I am using Avast for my Win 98Se computer. I found out that they will continue to update the definations for Win98SE. But will no longer upgrade the program for Win9SE. So I set the program Auto upgrade to Manual. Because it was continuesly looping the upgrade downloaad. So far have been getting the new definations daily w/no problems.

Don

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been posted in another thread, but I think it's quite relevant here, so I decided to quote it here:

I am using Avast for my Win 98Se computer. I found out that they will continue to update the definations for Win98SE. But will no longer upgrade the program for Win9SE. So I set the program Auto upgrade to Manual. Because it was continuesly looping the upgrade downloaad. So far have been getting the new definations daily w/no problems.

Don

Yes. The definitions for the old version Avast 4.8 will be updated until the end of the year.

bye,

aru

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...