Sign in to follow this  
JerryM

Slow Scan A-suared free

Recommended Posts

I have posted about what I considered FP, and I appreciate the help provided. I agree that they were not FP in the true sense.

Tonight I decided to run another complete scan.

After slightly more than 2 hours the scan was at 41%. The risks identified were such that I am sure they pose no risk.

Considering the time required to scan, and the fact that I am using on XP, KIS 2010, Win Patrol Pro, SAS Pro, and MBAM paid, I am not willing to try to get a-squared to perform better.

Accordingly, I have removed it from my main computer.

I do thank all for the help provided, and the timeliness of that advice.

I thought I would post this for whatever it might be worth.

Regards, and Happy New Year to All.

Jerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jerry,

Removing a-squared that has much higher detection rate that all security you've mentioned is your personal choice - nothing anybody can do about it...

(see many different test results... and sure you aware of the latest

MRG On Demand and System Rescue test: a-squared wins! )

... but having all you mentioned "KIS 2010, Win Patrol Pro, SAS Pro, and MBAM paid" with real-time residents is definitely overdone security.

(I would even bluntly say that such setup is simply unacceptable and even dangerous)

Expect clashes and conflicts in the future (coming with Software(s) updates/upgrades) probably you are having them already (especially knowing KIS and IP blocking by MBAM)

In addition the scan with a2 would be 3 times faster when residents are disabled prior to scanning (recommended when using any security... and not only because of the "time-factor").

Keep in mind that you have the same situation currently scanning with the security left

My regards and Happy New Year!

P.S. what was the reason placing the post about a-squared Free into Anti-Malware section?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have to agree whole-heartedly with Lynx. Also, as Lynx remarks, did you try scanning with the plethora of other security product's real-time guards disabled?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to you both for the reply. Posting in the wrong forum was carelessness. My apology.

I do appreciate the assistance that I have received here.

Happy New Year.

Regards,

Jerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was not a big mistake.

Since you confirmed that the postings were about the Free edition, I moved the thread here

My regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Lynx,

I would like to make another comment regard layering, and the reason I am running MBAM and SAS realtime.

A couple of weeks ago a friend, using Norton latest and updated, got infected with antivir rogue. Norton did not detect to prevent, and also did not detect when scanned after the infection. Every test I have seen this year finds that Norton is at or near the top in detection.

The rogue blocked his attempts to download MBAM so I loaded it along with SAS on a CD and took it to him.

SAS did not fully remove it, but MBAM did on the first quick scan.

I do not have anywhere near your expertise, but from comments and this limited experience I conclude that AVs are not designed to detect and remove all malware. Antivir happened to be one of those. I believe that if he had been using MBAM alongside Norton he would have not experienced the infection.

Hence I have decided to run it real time. I may change SAS to on-demand. MBAM has blocked a couple of sites when I googled for a site, and chose a site that at first looked to be the correct one, but after it was blocked I examined it and found it was not. Although I know that KIS is a top notch AV suite I do not think it is any better overall than Norton, and am not at all sure it would have detected antivir at that time.

My rationale may be incorrect, but I guess I'll have to give it a shot.

Thanks again for the help and advice.

Regards,

Jerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for reply Jerry

Please feel free and create new thread in OffTopic.

We were discussing (directly or indirectly) issues regarding setting up layered security.

I hope that many may join.

In brief - the security that is capable of identifying and especially cleaning all possible variants of infections never exited and will never be born... until the paradigm of delivering the code (any) to the client computers will change.

Getting caught by the rogue is basically 99.999% users' fault anyway. As one of the examples - many even don't realize that the “already running scan” that they are seeing before their eyes is not the real scan yet but just a “<>.GIF” animation... and from the security point of view that's nothing wrong with it, which is true,.... etc... and so on...

Well, the discussion (although being extremely interesting) can go forever and that is definitely Offtopic.

Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike,

First, Happy New Year!

Then – you are not a newbie here in the a-squared Forum and unfortunately I have to pointed out that the remark you made just diplomatically speaking is more than “not nice”

Please do not use such epithets especially applying to the person you never talked to previously. Well, probably the latter doesn't really matter – I may not remember your conversations with Firzen771

Why would you be in such mood is simply surprizing.

I hope that was just “something” that will not be repeated any more.

My regards

=======

Firzen771,

As for your statement , I may say that indeed that would be better to provide some prove rather than just a declaration

The scan speeds can vary and “it depends”. That is not true that a-squared is the slowest among “all others”.

But most importantly, even if it is slower than some others the difference is not so dramatic.

E.g. On a fresh Win 7 x64 Avira scanned ~ 90Gig for ~25 min;

a-squared spent 45 min. But we have to consider that Avira is not the one that is easy to “kill” completely (the guard was disabled though)

On XP Pro – BitDefender v10 – 1hour 42 min and AVG v9 57min... and BitDefender according to my knowledge is one of the fastest from what I was reading

{added} a2 Deep Scan - 1hour 27min (~500000 files). I forgot that AVG has a filter and is not set to scan all files.

I know that a-squared will Deep Scan here ~ 1hour 15 min (I posted that few times already)

Please ask, and I will attach all images regarding the above tests from today any time

(and I can run several other AVs here as well)

If you can provide some similar comparisons please do.

So basically that is not a slowest … but within a normal range and faster than some.

Then, I personally cannot not care less whether the Full scan will take 15- 20 min more than some other. The detection rate is more important factor for my taste.

I do not run the full scan every day. I may run a-squared's Deep Scan once in 2 - 3 months and I did not run AVG full scan for more than 3 years already. Today was a special day because of the "popular demands" :)

Sure, the scan speed can be improved but that is not a major factor as far as I am concerned

Finally, as we were discussing that previously individual parameters of the systems (Hardware / Software Environment / etc. ... many of them ) do matter a lot, when you are measuring scanning performance.

My regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering the time required to scan, and the fact that I am using on XP, KIS 2010, Win Patrol Pro, SAS Pro, and MBAM paid, I am not willing to try to get a-squared to perform better.

Accordingly, I have removed it from my main computer.

Just to endorse what others are saying - to have all that real-time resident protection is almost certain to pose problems.

If you're not convinced, set asquared to do a scan and monitor the processes using Task Manager. All those real-time monitors will be following every move that asquared makes while it's scanning. This will slow down the scan significantly, and furthermore you run the risk that if an infection is found, you'll have (at least potentially) not one program trying to deal with it, but probably several, all at once. The potential for trouble is clear.

Please try what Lynx and HD have suggested. Switch off all other real-time residents before you run a scan, not just with a2, but with any scanner.

Happy New Year, everyone. May your false positives be few and your clear scans many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this is not a very scientific test of scan speeds, but it is what I have to live with.

I did a complete scan with all applications on my latop with XP.

1. a-squared free. KIS 2010, Win Patrol Pro, MBAM paid all running.

scan time - 98 minutes

2. SAS Pro with the same applications running.

scan time - 53.5 minutes

difference (a squared) - 44.5 minutes

3 MBAM with KIS, Win Patrol, and SAS Pro running.

scan time - 50.75 minutes.

difference (a squared) - 47.25 minutes

Whether the differences are important to you only you can determine, but there is a large percentage difference between a-squared and the other two scanners in time required to do a complete scan.

I may do the same test with other applications disabled.

Regards,

Jerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well it culd be that A2 is much slower on scanning certain file types (i think A2 scans all files) since i have a VERY large amount of videos and other media files so that culd be the issue, im not sure if A2 scans video files or not but if it does, this could be the problem since on about 450gb of data on this HD, it took about an hour for the scan to only get to 4%...

while other scanners ive used have never had this issue. thats why i said what i did. and btw A2 is the only security software running.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for reply, Firzen771,

According to my tests a2 is definitely not the slowest, but yes you are right - if in addition to all filters that are usually set by other security by default you will not scan all files - that will make a difference too.

And another confirmation to what you were saying: the scanning of some media files is an issue.

There were several discussions about that in the old forum (I can find them). Some video encoded as MPG/MPEG and some types of AVIs (which is not the encoding type but just a container) depending on encoder are scanned really slow due to attempt of decompressing as far as I understand.

I hope that will be fixed... but I do keep those separately on a partition that is never intended to be scanned (on a regular basis for sure)

My regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may do the same test with other applications disabled.

This proposed test would be much more illuminating, since what is being recommended, both by myself and others, is to switch off all the other real-time residents when any one of them is scanning (MBAM, for instance, scans very noticeably more slowly if I leave the AVG resident shield switched on.) If scan times really bother you, then switching off the real-time residents while you scan would bring a smile to your face, I should think. I know of no good reason for leaving them all to battle it out between them. Also, I have no idea whether a2's scan is more or less affected than SAS or MBAM when it's battling against other residents, and the results of your proposed test would be interesting - it would be a more properly controlled experiment.

To look at this a different way: a-squared's 'Quick scan' is the fastest 'ready-made' scan of all my scanners (takes less than 2 minutes), and I use it every day. As a quick but sensitive check with a virtually instant result, none of my other scanners can compete with that (though I'm aware that this isn't a level playing field either, for different reasons). Like Lynx, I hardly ever use a2's 'deep scan', so whether it's fast or slow isn't really an issue for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Alan,

Thanks. A somewhat different application, but KIS just scanned in 42 seconds for its Quick Scan. :)

Normally scanning speed does not bother me, but when it approaches 2 hours or longer it does. I do not leave my computer on all the time, and sometimes I decide to use it when scanning. I realize it is usable even then.

But when it get down to it there are various good applications out there. I consider MBAM as good as anything and better than most. I partially base that on the number of people who use it for cleaning infected computers.

In addition, it works well as far as updates, scanning speeds, and runs in harmony with my AVs. The cost of a lifetime license is less than $25 if I remember correctly.

These things go into a decision as to what to use, as I do agree that security can be overdone.

In the past, and my recent experience with slow updates, scanning speeds, and the identification of safe "risks" makes me inclined not to use a-aquared. For me there are more disadvantages than advantages. I am a long way from being a "geek" and don't want to spend much time tweaking an application.

I have never had an infection in over 10 years of owning computers. I have had several attempts to infect, but in every case the AV caught it.

I do thank the folks here for the willingness to help.

I plan to do another round of scans within the next couple of days with everything except the application scanning disabled. If so I will report the results here. I am curious about that myself.

Best Regards,

Jerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for reply, Firzen771,

According to my tests a2 is definitely not the slowest, but yes you are right - if in addition to all filters that are usually set by other security by default you will not scan all files - that will make a difference too.

And another confirmation to what you were saying: the scanning of some media files is an issue.

There were several discussions about that in the old forum (I can find them). Some video encoded as MPG/MPEG and some types of AVIs (which is not the encoding type but just a container) depending on encoder are scanned really slow due to attempt of decompressing as far as I understand.

I hope that will be fixed... but I do keep those separately on a partition that is never intended to be scanned (on a regular basis for sure)

My regards

is ther somewer in the setting wer u can see what filetypes A2 scans? or is that not an adjustable setting? and does A2 scan EVERY file by default? since most scanners have a designated list of file types to scan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Firzen771,

You can achieve that by using Scan Settings section of the Custom Scan including the configuration subsection for Extensions Filter when checked.

My regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a follow-up today I ran complete scans with A squared and MBAM. The scans were conducted with all other security applications off.

Scan times were,

a squared - 79 minutes vs 98 minutes with other applications running. Approx 80% of the previous time.

MBAM - 47.5 minutes vs 50.75 minutes with other applications running. Approx 94% of the previous time.

So although the times are somewhat shorter A-squared is still significantly slower than MBAM percentage wise. No malware was found by either scan.

Thanks, again for the help and advice. This is a great forum.

Regards,

Jerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys,

Leaving aside the background processes (I don't mean other Guards being active or disabled)...

sorry for the repetition, but do not forget the default filters I mentioned. They all (the other scanners) have them.

The only one that doesn't tell “openly” so to speak is MBAM. I cannot see those options.

But have a look at SAS:

- ignore files larger than 4MB (Recommended);

- ignore non executables (Recommended);

- scan only known file types (exe, com,dll)

Only the 1st one will reduce the time enormously.

Therefore, I am basically using Custom Scans, having many different scan-sets.

It is probably a matter of a discussion whether new filters can or should be introduced in addition to what a-squared currently offering ... but again “all means all” and reduces/restricted scan always means less time.

Sure that is more to that than just a number of files: the algorithm itself / the programming language / the compiler(s) optimization / etc... but anyway the conditions are not precisely equal when such tests are performed in or “home based labs” :)

Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the conditions are not precisely equal when such tests are performed in or “home based labs” :)

Yes that's true Lynx - though I suppose what is being tested by JerryM is the situation that, in practice, a 'typical user' will experience on running a deep/complete scan - so in that sense it's a fair test 'in the field' because it's what most users will in fact encounter when they scan without further enquiry. You're very right to point out though, that SAS achieves its fast scan time primarily by not scanning big files (in default mode)!

There's another 'silent' factor in all this, that can't be quantified. When I run a scan with asquared and get a zero result, I feel more confident that my machine is clean than I do when scanning with anything else. One can grumble from time to time about 'too many fps' (as I have done), or about slow scan times, but through all this, I stick with a2 because it is exceedingly reassuring when it gives a clean scan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi H_D,

I did not check that, but both were complete scans without any changes.

I would not argue that the tests are not precisely equal, but as Alan stated that is what I have to work with.

Regards,

Jerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well then my answer to this is A2 should have its scan filterset more out in the open, like in the setting instead of having to make u do a custom scan which most people wont do because they dont expect those settings to only be there anyways.

kinda like how Avira's is in the main settings, Avast's is, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well then my answer to this is A2 should have its scan filterset more out in the open, like in the setting instead of having to make u do a custom scan which most people wont do because they dont expect those settings to only be there anyways.

kinda like how Avira's is in the main settings, Avast's is, etc.

Hi Firzen771,

Probably some sort of a link could be introduced so user can “jump” into Custom settings from the main screen. But that is only because of the introduction of a new feature, where the Custom Scan can be set as a default type of scan in Anti-Malware Suite edition for the Scheduled Scan

At the same time the similar suggestions were discussed previously.

The developers pointed that the GUI as it is designed now have more than enough buttons and links and on the contrary some users can find that confusing.

Then, I don't know why “most people wont do” the Custom Scan, since the said feature for The Scheduled Scan was implemented by popular demands. Users requested that.

As for your example with other security that is not necessarily “out in the open” at all in the 1st place (see P.S.)

Despite the obvious attempts by the developers of any Software to design the GUI so it's user friendly / transparent / etc. that's very hard to predict what and where users “expect or don't expect” to see and set/change something.

What is definitely expected and necessary for sure – any user must read and know the features of the Software. That's “must do” at least to observe and familiarize yourself with the functions and areas where options can (sometimes should) be amended.

Below are few comments in small font :) , since I don't want to go OffTopic here, but that is related to the options and settings that are not very “out in the open”

Cheers!

P.S. You know well that many options that has to be changed at the very beginning (before you start using the Software) are quite hidden and spread all over the place in different security packages.

Avira – Expert mode; AVG – Tools /Advanced... ; Avast... hmmm – remember the very recent disaster with files deletion and many systems being crashed since users are leaving the default “auto-” quarantine /healing. The unneeded and dangerous real-time e-mail scanning... you have to go through reinstallation in many cases in order to disable it or user “expected to know” (?) that initially it is necessary to use Custom Setup, but not the default Install, that most do... and so on and so forth...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.