Virus in official pcsx2 1.2.1 download???

[nosisab Ken Keleh]

There are two main possibilities.

May be a false positive, having automatic actions harms more than helps in this case.

You may have already a virus or worm infecting new files in your computer. Is STRONGLY advised you do a full and complete scan in your whole computer.

A third and somewhat lesser possibility is the file is indeed infected but somehow is managing to escape most antivirus over there inclusive online scans (as I did just in case after seeing your report). Needless to say no one found anything wrong inside the whole PCSX2 folder (with lots of PCSX2 versions, installed or in 7z/exe format) and games utilities.

[jesalvein]

I don't want to start an argument, but if you're suggesting he keeps his AV, which picked up a false positive that doesn't make sense, is crazy;

that actually happened with every AV I tried. they all gave me 1 to sveral false positive

yeah, there is no perfect AV in the world, but let's say he's using McAfee or Norton, those two are the absolute worst in the AV world,

source ? any interesting link to back up what you're stating as if it was the absolute truth ?

resource hogs and act more like malware themselves than proper AV.

I agree with you on the resource hog thing even though they both really improved this aspect in the laetst versions.

Zonealarm is great for the one thing they actually focus on, Firewall protection and they have an advanced armada of options so one can create truly insane protection, but Zonealarm for AV?, no way

why ? anything to back up your statement ?

[Arcadius]

Misleading tests, there are several articles that shoot down how matousec does their tests. Also, we're looking specifically at AV performance, matousec does quite a bit more and I'd suggest most of it is simulated, I doubt malware will ever be that advanced. http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php anyone in the world can find tests that support or make claims that certain things are bad or good. I can link several others that would show Avast in pretty good light, http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/RAP/RAP-qu...4-1200.jpg another chart. The best way to figure out the AV one needs would be to go out, and use every single AV software for 3 months or something, a long period of time, and see how they do on your normal computer behaviors, thing is, no one has time for that crap and it'd be much easier going on a tech forum and asking nicely what AV do the people there use.

[jesalvein]

The best way to figure out the AV one needs would be to go out, and use every single AV software for 3 months or something, a long period of time, and see how they do on your normal computer behaviors, thing is, no one has time for that crap and it'd be much easier going on a tech forum and asking nicely what AV do the people there use.

probably.
but those tests you linked was exactly what I was waiting for to back your statements up .
thanks

[Arcadius]

I'll admit, jesalvein, that my findings are anecdotal, but then again, anecdotal evidence is the only way to find these things out. Sure, I may not have white papers built by college professors as to why these AV are bad, but for our purpose, on one does. To gather experience is to live through it or read about it. I have never seen tech forums recommend McAfee or Norton and it's generally the first thing people are told to uninstall when found out, that is, reputable tech forums.

Why do I feel that Zonealarm is better for Firewall protection?, simple, Zonealarm was acquired by Check Point who specialized in Firewall protection. From their website "Check Point first pioneered the industry with FireWall-1 and its patented stateful inspection technology." It's the ground on which Zonealarm was built upon, so that's all I see Zonealarm being useful for. The acquisition http://www.checkpoint.com/press/2004/zla...32904.html .

[axlffx2forever]

I just downloaded the latest release from pcsx2 website and my antivirus software scanned it and found a trojan (see image below). Can it be true?

Isn't the program.I have checked pcsx2.exe (all build i have in my pc from the latest svn 5932) with Avast Antivirus and appear to be a clean file....No infection at all.....Which antivirus you used for scanning file?

[Coornio]

Misleading tests, there are several articles that shoot down how matousec does their tests. Also, we're looking specifically at AV performance, matousec does quite a bit more and I'd suggest most of it is simulated, I doubt malware will ever be that advanced. http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php anyone in the world can find tests that support or make claims that certain things are bad or good. I can link several others that would show Avast in pretty good light, http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/RAP/RAP-qu...4-1200.jpg another chart. The best way to figure out the AV one needs would be to go out, and use every single AV software for 3 months or something, a long period of time, and see how they do on your normal computer behaviors, thing is, no one has time for that crap and it'd be much easier going on a tech forum and asking nicely what AV do the people there use.

True, but i think it says something when in a protected environment under simulated threats the aforementioned AV is unable to pass the first test level. For all i know, it could ace the next levels, had it passed the first, but if i'm not mistaken they're in order of danger level? If that's the case, i wouldn't feel very safe behind it :o

I've used COMODO for years and i can say that practically nothing goes by it undetected. However as they said themselves, they achieve such high scores because they crank the protection to the maximum, something the average user won't do. I'd like to see more of it compared to other vendors, if anyone has any recent articles they know of.
The only other vendor i would consider for protection is Kaspersky. They seems to have picked up the ball in the last years and really stepped up to the game in protection suites.

[nosisab Ken Keleh]

True, but i think it says something when in a protected environment under simulated threats the aforementioned AV is unable to pass the first test level. For all i know, it could ace the next levels, had it passed the first, but if i'm not mistaken they're in order of danger level? If that's the case, i wouldn't feel very safe behind it :o

The rule #1 on security: (I took the day to make up rules )

Never rely you are secure.

Edit: rely more on your intuition and inner feelings/perceptions... if for any reason you think something is not working as usual or as should, try several different tests, sometimes that small and obscure utility will be the one detecting something the big dogs missed.

Ah, and this is meant as general, not as a direct answer to you Your post makes total sense.

[Arcadius]

The thing with those tests are, you could always develop for them, especially since they're simulated, like the leaks and packet inspections. If we told Avast! or whomever we'd like to see them ace those tests, they could very easily update their program to look for those specific types of intrusions on a computer, but it doesn't generally mean that the AV is top-notch and secure from everything. At some point the AV will take up too much resources to make sure nothing bad happens and it cripples computers. Remember, most people have pretty poopy comps to begin with. I agree with Nosisab, never rely, or think you're secure, but trade offs must be made. If we look at what Avast! can do, have about no impact on performace keep it safe through most real world tests, that's pretty astounding. I've been reading up into masuotec, and it looks like they have some special monopoly for high end AV tests, and may be disregarded in certain environments.

Even if the masoutec threats are in an order of danger or complexity, doesn't mean the AV that didn't pass 1, couldn't pass the others, and because of that, Masoutec, in my books, should be disregarded as not doing full AV tests.

[Qaddafi]

I use my ISP provided anti-virus software (Charter Security Suite). It's probably not the best, but I switched to it when I switched over from ATT which used to provide Norton for free , as long as you keep their internet service.