PDA

View Full Version : Antivirus



dianne pierce
25-10-2011, 08:01 PM
Need a very good reliable anti virus for a business computer. My son purchased Kaspersky last time but despite keeping it updated 2 viruses came through. Can you please recommend a really good one - either free or paid - many thanks

Speedy Gonzales
25-10-2011, 08:32 PM
Microsoft's AV program, is good enough. I wouldnt use Mcafee, Kaspersky or Nortons/Symantec.All cause probs or crash a system

CliveM
25-10-2011, 08:36 PM
NOD32 is the best paid one and is preferred by most of the more experienced members on this forum. MSE is the recommended free one.

WarNox
25-10-2011, 08:58 PM
I'd recommend nod32 for a standalone machine but Sophos or McAfee if you want to manage all your computers from a central console.

Nhashon
25-10-2011, 10:35 PM
Persoanally I would choose this - http://www.symantec.com/business/products/sysreq.jsp?pcid=pcat_security&pvid=prot_suite_sbe_1

, to me norton does best at prevent intrusions and being accurate .


Plus these guys have won awards -symantec

dianne pierce
25-10-2011, 10:36 PM
Many thanks everyone. Since Security Essentials is free we have downloaded that one. Will keep Nod32 in mind also

wainuitech
25-10-2011, 10:42 PM
to me norton does best at prevent intrusions and being accurate .


Plus these guys have won awards -symantec :lol: :lol:

Well that made my day --- lab tests prove nothing, in the real world is where it matters -- Just ask anyone who sees the so called results all the time, and its exactly opposite to the "awards" -- the award they should get is "total rip off" :D

pctek
26-10-2011, 06:39 AM
Many thanks everyone. Since Security Essentials is free we have downloaded that one. Will keep Nod32 in mind also

Come on, you just said it's a business computer, why you basing it on price? Get NOD32, it's not exactly expensive, and it's claimable!!

And in addition get at least two antispywares. Spybot, malwareBytes.

Most people lump all malware in as viruses, your AV won't find spyware.

Chilling_Silence
26-10-2011, 08:19 AM
Yeah for the minimal amount it costs to get AV for a year, get your business to buy NOD32. It's well worth the investment, top-notch AV!

lakewoodlady
26-10-2011, 08:45 AM
Persoanally I would choose this - http://www.symantec.com/business/products/sysreq.jsp?pcid=pcat_security&pvid=prot_suite_sbe_1

, to me norton does best at prevent intrusions and being accurate .

Plus these guys have won awards -symantec

Who are you trying to convince? Yourself? :lol::lol::lol:

LL

1101
26-10-2011, 09:58 AM
Need a very good reliable anti virus for a business computer. My son purchased Kaspersky last time but despite keeping it updated 2 viruses came through. Can you please recommend a really good one - either free or paid - many thanks

OK, I'll be absolutely blunt here.
NO ANTIVIRUS PRODUCT WILL STOP EVERY VIRUS EVER WRITTEN

you need to look at what you are doing, many virus infections are caused by user stupidity, ie going to bogus websites, opening bogus emails, P2P & pirated softawre downloads, clicking on popups.
Even NOD32 & MSSE will & do let some viruses through.
we have clients with NOD32 , some still get infected. Most dont.

Also, if its a work business PC, you need to decide if its a tool or a toy.
Many small business's let there kids (& staff) 'play' on the PC (ie games, facebook, P2P etc etc etc) . The consequences are obvious . Just saying, may not be the case for you.

KAV is a very good product for detecting viruses & malware.
Nod32 is a very good product as well. Neither are perfect, but are better than most.

pctek
26-10-2011, 11:23 AM
Amazing how many people think their business stuff isn't important and skimp on IT.

1)Have the BEST protection you can get
2)Have backups - more than one, one offsite and done frequently
3)Use decent hardware

1101
26-10-2011, 12:16 PM
Amazing how many people think their business stuff isn't important and skimp on IT.

...

Yep, scary stuff the way some business owners view their PC's.
Accountants (who should know better) , with their clients data & files on the PC. Yet they let their kids use these PC's
for gaming after hours . PC's were loaded with pirated games,cracks, P2P etc. Cleaned & then re-infected several times.
Its like giving your kids the chequebook & Visa card to play with.
or PC's in a shared office, allways left on & logged in overnight. :groan:

CYaBro
26-10-2011, 12:45 PM
OK, I'll be absolutely blunt here.
NO ANTIVIRUS PRODUCT WILL STOP EVERY VIRUS EVER WRITTEN

you need to look at what you are doing, many virus infections are caused by user stupidity, ie going to bogus websites, opening bogus emails, P2P & pirated softawre downloads, clicking on popups.
Even NOD32 & MSSE will & do let some viruses through.
we have clients with NOD32 , some still get infected. Most dont.

Also, if its a work business PC, you need to decide if its a tool or a toy.
Many small business's let there kids (& staff) 'play' on the PC (ie games, facebook, P2P etc etc etc) . The consequences are obvious . Just saying, may not be the case for you.

KAV is a very good product for detecting viruses & malware.
Nod32 is a very good product as well. Neither are perfect, but are better than most.

Agree with everything said here :D

Agent_24
26-10-2011, 01:00 PM
OK, I'll be absolutely blunt here.
NO ANTIVIRUS PRODUCT WILL STOP EVERY VIRUS EVER WRITTEN

But team it up with Comodo's Defense+ and your protection will be greatly improved, provided you know what you're doing, and can understand what to allow and what not to.

Chilling_Silence
26-10-2011, 05:22 PM
1)Have the BEST protection you can get
2)Have backups - more than one, one offsite and done frequently
3)Use good quality hardware and software (Even if it costs more)

Just tidied that up a little, even though you covered it in #1, but it's worth reiterating. Definitely agree with you! :)

waldok
26-10-2011, 06:40 PM
I was skimming through the latest Security Intelligence Report (http://www.microsoft.com/security/sir/story/default.aspx) the other day, it has a detailed section about how malware gets on computers based on ~3 billion anti-malware scans. I'm curious how it stacks up against people's experiences.

My take on the results:

The largest category (49% of malware) was a result of people not patching their computers with available security updates.

Of the updates, the most important one over the last six months was the Windows update to restrict AutoRun (a configuration change back in February), and after that vulnerabilities in Oracle Java were the most common target of attacks. Keeping up to date with patches turns out to be very effective in preventing attacks in this category (despite the hype zero days don't seem to show up much in mainstream malware).

The second largest category (45% of malware) required user interaction to be installed. I don't think the anti-malware scan data gives many hints but I'd take a guess that most of this is installed by people thinking it's something useful or fun - in other words, because of scams.

The first category seems simple to fix with automatic updates and Secunia PSI.

The second category is trickier, that seems to be a combination of training and anti-malware. The universal application download reputation (http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2011/05/17/smartscreen-174-application-reputation-in-ie9.aspx) feature (in IE9) would probably help too. And a "standard user" account if it really needs to be locked down.

cheers
W

ps. And yes of course backups and the other suggestions are important too. I was just interested to read what the two most common causes of malware had been in this particular study.

Greven
26-10-2011, 08:00 PM
The patch to turn off autorun did a world of good - stopped people being reinfected by their phone or digital camera. I wish common software updates could be included in Windows update & installed by default (but with the option to not automatically install 3rd party updates) - I have never seen an up to date java version come through my workshop.

I am starting to see more infections get past NOD32, but so many people in Southland run really old computers that can barely handle 1 realtime scanner let alone 2 so I stick with the best single program for protecting them. It still catches more than any other anti-virus & does it without killing your computer.

williams_john
03-11-2011, 08:46 PM
Well, Nice comments from all you guys....
I use avast anti virus, working so good.......
I use usb with my PC which almost carry virus, But avast always stop them.....

chumscrubber
03-11-2011, 10:14 PM
I'd like to recommend bitdefender total security 2012, I don't understand why nobody mentioned this great AV program.
I have been using it for a while and its is just great. You also can use trial version to see how it works.

p.s. nod32??? lol

wainuitech
04-11-2011, 01:20 PM
I'd like to recommend bitdefender total security 2012, I don't understand why nobody mentioned this great AV program.
I have been using it for a while and its is just great. You also can use trial version to see how it works.

p.s. nod32??? lolBit Defender -- :lol: You can stick that - it’s far from good.

Since your comment on Nod32 is basically bad --- Please explain why Bit Defender so damn good.


After reading your post last night, and being open minded, thought I'd give it a go on a known badly infected drive I have (I made an image of this drive as well, so I can replicate the same infections whenever I want)
Bit Defender, if you go to their site, the trial, it will only allow you to download an installer of 847KB, that then downloads the program -- Completely hopeless if the infected PC doesn't have a working Internet connection due to infections. (1st Fail)

I downloaded it on a clean, freshly imaged PC, updated it, Bit Defender scans as it downloads/installs and since this was a clean install, obviously nothing to detect.

Then slaved the infected drive and scanned -- BD found 49 infections. Removed the drive, uninstalled Bit Defender, after a reboot installed Nod32 - Nod32 found 2 infections while it was installing --- so Bit defender let the host PC become infected.(2nd Fail)

I then re-imaged the host PC so I had a clean install (which takes about 5 minutes) installed nod32 again - slaved the other drive, and instantly nod32 detected 3 active infections as the computer was starting up, which were Trojans that bit Defender Missed.

Rescanned the so called clean drive that Bit defender had previously scanned and Nod32 discovered and removed a further 9. (3rd Fail)

So Bit defender going by those simple basic tests failed at least 3 times.

And slow -- oh my god, takes for ever.

So to repeat the question asked at the beginning, "Please explain why Bit Defender so damn good"

1101
04-11-2011, 03:39 PM
The second largest category (45% of malware) required user interaction to be installed. I don't think the anti-malware scan data gives many hints but I'd take a guess that most of this is installed by people thinking it's something useful or fun - in other words, because of scams.


unfortunately, this is what I see out there in the real world .
You just cant protection against stupidity , one piece of malware required the user to click on its popups 4x to get the PC infected. 4x !!!!
Locking down the user to a limited a/c doesnt help either, malware easily gets past that.
:badpc:

wainuitech
04-11-2011, 04:30 PM
unfortunately, this is what I see out there in the real world .
You just cant protection against stupidity , one piece of malware required the user to click on its popups 4x to get the PC infected. 4x !!!!
Locking down the user to a limited a/c doesnt help either, malware easily gets past that.
:badpc:

All oh so true, in fact I would say at a guess, 45% is a bit on the light side.

Greven
04-11-2011, 09:15 PM
Running as a limited user will make it a lot easier to clean out the infection if it wasn't for the fact that most users would just elevate everything anyway every time they are prompted. You can't really take away admin privileges when you are dealing with home PCs.

kahawai chaser
04-11-2011, 09:27 PM
Bit Defender -- :lol: You can stick that - itís far from good.

Since your comment on Nod32 is basically bad --- Please explain why Bit Defender so damn good.


After reading your post last night, and being open minded, thought I'd give it a go on a known badly infected drive I have (I made an image of this drive as well, so I can replicate the same infections whenever I want)
Bit Defender, if you go to their site, the trial, it will only allow you to download an installer of 847KB, that then downloads the program -- Completely hopeless if the infected PC doesn't have a working Internet connection due to infections. (1st Fail)

I downloaded it on a clean, freshly imaged PC, updated it, Bit Defender scans as it downloads/installs and since this was a clean install, obviously nothing to detect.

Then slaved the infected drive and scanned -- BD found 49 infections. Removed the drive, uninstalled Bit Defender, after a reboot installed Nod32 - Nod32 found 2 infections while it was installing --- so Bit defender let the host PC become infected.(2nd Fail)

I then re-imaged the host PC so I had a clean install (which takes about 5 minutes) installed nod32 again - slaved the other drive, and instantly nod32 detected 3 active infections as the computer was starting up, which were Trojans that bit Defender Missed.

Rescanned the so called clean drive that Bit defender had previously scanned and Nod32 discovered and removed a further 9. (3rd Fail)

So Bit defender going by those simple basic tests failed at least 3 times.

And slow -- oh my god, takes for ever.

So to repeat the question asked at the beginning, "Please explain why Bit Defender so damn good"

Interesting, a good read your tests...but then how is an infection defined? Or it's severity? I think if accumulated, in some cases, over a few months then typical malware type symptoms are likely to occur, which I have seen, and fixed on some PC's. I got rid of super-anti spyware which it claimed it found infections (can't recall exactly) - it found a series of the same files repeatedly everyday (I posted about this a while back). Then it linked to their pro version - which I have read is helpful, but generally for heavily infected PC's. The intent I think was to buy it.

Thing is, I have never had a virus, malware, spyware, type symptoms...though may that mean infections are present? Maybe - but how can one gauge the seriousness of it? It's like the errors you get in event viewer - riddled with warnings (which I presume resolve themselves)- but perhaps low key - maybe the same with a batch of infections? I run avast - sometimes I forget it's present...but if I decide to install/run another AV it might find infections - that may not have any real effect or significance.

chumscrubber
05-11-2011, 03:18 AM
wainuitech

First of all if system is infected so bad that you can't access internet, it won't let you install any antivirus either.
p.s. BD lets you to do free online scan, without installing a program.

Ok now about your tests: first of all there is no antivirus that will catch all the viruses, some catch the ones that others can't and so on.
if i got it right when you tested both AV-s, first you used BD and then nod right? now try to scan your drive first with nod and then with BD, there also might be some viruses which skipped from nod.

I have been using BD total security 2012 for about 3 month and i tested it how it really works, I must mention firewall which blocked all network attacks from one angry "hacker". I visit lots of web pages which are infecting the system and none of the malware programs managed to skip BD.
All i'm trying to say is that while i was using BD it worked 100% perfectly.

You are also saying that it was very slow, well it is slow if you use it on 32bit machine. I have 64bit system with win 7 and it doesn't work slower then any other AV.

p.s. btw doing full scan with 2 AV programs four times in one night? wow there should be really long nights or your system works really fast and if its second case BD couldn't be as slow as you say

wainuitech
05-11-2011, 09:38 AM
Chumscrubber:

to answer some of your statements.

First of all if system is infected so bad that you can't access internet, it won't let you install any antivirus either.

Incorrect ---- There are hundreds of times malware can infect a PC and damage the internet connection and antivirus software can still be installed. Example please see This Thread (http://pressf1.pcworld.co.nz/showthread.php?121352-Fake-Windows-Restore-Recovery-Virus) Having a AV only able to download and install Via the Internet is a stupid idea by the manufactures.

You are correct in saying no antivirus will catch every thing, just some catch more than others. I have just had a person phone (9.00am Saturday)me saying her PC has all popups, and the Avast antivirus looks like its been killed as windows is saying no antivirus is installed.

if i got it right when you tested both AV-s, first you used BD and then nod right? now try to scan your drive first with nod and then with BD, there also might be some viruses which skipped from nod.

Did that already, when testing AV's thats all part of it - not just a single scan --Result, nod found more infections Than BD, then BD found nothing.


You are also saying that it was very slow, well it is slow if you use it on 32bit machine. I have 64bit system with win 7 and it doesn't work slower then any other AV.
W7 64Bit systems each time -- as for speed -- BD took 2 1/2 hours to scan 34GB Nod32 took 59 Minutes.
The comment saying if you run 32bit software, its Slow -- then once again thats a fail on BD part, as there are millions of people still running 32bit software -- people are not going to buy new PC's or upgrade to a 64bit system, just so they can run BD faster.

Also there were many files that BD couldn't scan saying they are locked -- Nod scanned them easily.



p.s. btw doing full scan with 2 AV programs four times in one night? wow there should be really long nights or your system works really fast and if its second case BD couldn't be as slow as you say If it were on One PC yes , I'm a Tech, running my own business, hope you dont think I have only one PC :D I have access to 4 Workshop PC's to do what ever I want, when ever I want, so I can have one PC scanning one way, then another scanning another way at the same time (remember I have an image, so I can load it to several drives and they are exact each time) and still have 2 spare PC's.Thats doesn't include the others in the office, and other rooms.

In fact yesterday when doing the scans, two were scanning drives, a customers laptop was on another workstation doing updates/installs, another customers PC reinstalling windows, and I was changing a mother board on another customers PC. ( I was moving between different PC's all day)


One thing BD doesn't appear to do is pre scan a USB drive when inserting. Nod32 prompts you scan a drive when its attached.
And one thing that was a real fail -- as I mentioned before, BD let a clean drive get infected when slaving a drive -- Epic fail on that part.


Bit Defender isn't bad, its better than Norton, but there are others that do a better job in some cases.
One mistake a lot of people do is depend on One program to "do it all" --- Theres no such thing, you need several programs, one good AV and a couple of good Anti-malware's.

Agent_24
05-11-2011, 10:35 AM
First of all if system is infected so bad that you can't access internet, it won't let you install any antivirus either.
p.s. BD lets you to do free online scan, without installing a program.

What good is a free online scan if you can't access the Internet?
That's where bootable AV CDs come in handy.

Speedy Gonzales
05-11-2011, 10:49 AM
Only good thing about BD is they've made a Duqu removal tool. This is the " son of stuxnet" virus, so theyre saying. Its the only removal tool I've seen so far. Besides that I wouldnt bother with BD. There are better AV programs around

chumscrubber
05-11-2011, 11:52 AM
wainuitech

well, I understand what are you saying, but i don't have my own workshop and i can't make all the tests you are doing, I acn't aregue with what you are saying because i have no possibility to do same tests myself, I wrote from my experience, and it was 100% effective.

It may be bad for an antivirus program that its slow on 32bit machine but in this thread is mentioned business computer and most of the time business computers have capacity to work with the programs which use lot of resources.
Finally i hope to test all those things that you said in your posts but before that I still prefer BD to nod, avast, avira ...

Snorkbox
05-11-2011, 04:29 PM
Only good thing about BD is they've made a Duqu removal tool. This is the " son of stuxnet" virus, so theyre saying. Its the only removal tool I've seen so far. Besides that I wouldnt bother with BD. There are better AV programs around

Removal tool can be found here. :-
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9221516/Microsoft_releases_manual_fix_for_Duqu_zero_day?so urce=rss_latest_content&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+computerworld%2Fnews%2Ffeed+% 28Latest+from+Computerworld%29

Speedy Gonzales
05-11-2011, 04:38 PM
Yup Ive got it

Chilling_Silence
05-11-2011, 04:47 PM
wainuitech
First of all if system is infected so bad that you can't access internet, it won't let you install any antivirus either.
p.s. BD lets you to do free online scan, without installing a program.
I'm with wainuitech on this, that's simply not true that you can't install AV. It's quite easy to download and install via a USB Thumbdrive and most come with semi-updated definitions by default.
Also, NOD32 also does the same, but it's pretty much identical to installing it, it just leaves the files in your Program Files directory but won't tell you it's there and doesn't install shortcuts or a resident shield.


Ok now about your tests: first of all there is no antivirus that will catch all the viruses, some catch the ones that others can't and so on.
if i got it right when you tested both AV-s, first you used BD and then nod right? now try to scan your drive first with nod and then with BD, there also might be some viruses which skipped from nod.
Luckily, NOD32 catches the most. I'm yet to see anything that BD detects that NOD doesn't. Feel free to take some screenshots of NOD32 doing a scan, missing things, followed by BD doing a scan on the same machine immediately afterwards, and prove me wrong.


I have been using BD total security 2012 for about 3 month and i tested it how it really works, I must mention firewall which blocked all network attacks from one angry "hacker". I visit lots of web pages which are infecting the system and none of the malware programs managed to skip BD.
All i'm trying to say is that while i was using BD it worked 100% perfectly.
How was the firewall blocking your angry attacker? Either you have an internal ADSL Modem, you're on Dial-Up, you're running a modem in half-bridge / PPPoA -> PPPoE Passthru, or you're confused.


You are also saying that it was very slow, well it is slow if you use it on 32bit machine. I have 64bit system with win 7 and it doesn't work slower then any other AV.

Just remember that because you have a decent spec machine doesn't mean that others do...

Chilling_Silence
05-11-2011, 04:48 PM
It may be bad for an antivirus program that its slow on 32bit machine but in this thread is mentioned business computer and most of the time business computers have capacity to work with the programs which use lot of resources.
Finally i hope to test all those things that you said in your posts but before that I still prefer BD to nod, avast, avira ...

Not in any of the large businesses I've worked for. Most of them will try go for the lowest-possible cost machine that'll get the job done, then milk that machine for 3-4 years.
Anti-Virus can be the life or death of a machine if it consumes too much of the systems resources, and this is regardless of if a machine is running a 32-bit or a 64-bit OS. Makes zero difference to the resources a brand of AV will consume.

wainuitech
05-11-2011, 08:12 PM
Here chill, added to your comment :D
Most of them will try go for the lowest-possible cost machine that'll get the job done,then milk that machine for 3-4 years past the time it should be replaced or should have died



All joking aside, many businesses do have under powered PC's, with a large percentage running 32bit OS's

Chilling_Silence
05-11-2011, 09:24 PM
:D sad, but true ...

Greven
06-11-2011, 12:37 AM
A lot of Southland businesses are still running 7 year old PCs.

chumscrubber
06-11-2011, 12:52 AM
well appears that I was wrong...

mikebartnz
06-11-2011, 04:52 AM
:lol: :lol:

Well that made my day --- lab tests prove nothing, in the real world is where it matters -- Just ask anyone who sees the so called results all the time, and its exactly opposite to the "awards" -- the award they should get is "total rip off" :D
Makes me think just about all Mags are a rip off.

mikebartnz
06-11-2011, 04:54 AM
I am starting to see more infections get past NOD32, but so many people in Southland run really old computers that can barely handle 1 realtime scanner let alone 2 so I stick with the best single program for protecting them. It still catches more than any other anti-virus & does it without killing your computer.
Amy ID10T knows not to run more than one AV.

mikebartnz
06-11-2011, 04:58 AM
wainuitech

well, I understand what are you saying, but i don't have my own workshop and i can't make all the tests you are doing, I acn't aregue with what you are saying because i have no possibility to do same tests myself, I wrote from my experience, and it was 100% effective.

It may be bad for an antivirus program that its slow on 32bit machine but in this thread is mentioned business computer and most of the time business computers have capacity to work with the programs which use lot of resources.
Finally i hope to test all those things that you said in your posts but before that I still prefer BD to nod, avast, avira ...
A word of warning. Don't bother arguing with someone that knows what they are talking about. As for business PC's I have seen a lot that are complete dogs.

chumscrubber
06-11-2011, 07:02 AM
mikebartnz

whats bad in arguing?
i said what i thought they told me their version and proved with their testings that i was wrong, I think It was pretty interesting

Chilling_Silence
06-11-2011, 08:24 AM
Nothing wrong with a bit of healthy debate :)

wainuitech
06-11-2011, 09:15 AM
I will say this, bit Defender has improved since I tested it quite a way back and it was a failure in many ways then.

If I had to make a choice over BD or Norton ( which is meant to be the Bees knees) Bit Defender would be the better option.

We have already agreed that No one AV will be perfect.

One of the biggest failures that Bit Defender did was allow a slaved drive to infect the host drive when it was attached, where as Nod32 detected and killed it right away.

Preventing infections getting in is the biggest challenge to any AV company, allowing a drive to become infected, then trying to clean it afterwards is no good at all. In BD case, it missed it completely and didn't even detect it, which being an active infection it should have.

Driftwood
06-11-2011, 10:00 AM
I wonder how many of the big corporate & government pc's are running nortons.

mikebartnz
06-11-2011, 12:21 PM
I wonder how many of the big corporate & government pc's are running nortons.
The mind boggles.

Cicero
06-11-2011, 12:34 PM
I wonder what Miss Pearce thinks of all this?

Driftwood
06-11-2011, 07:37 PM
Yeah, she wil be wondering what she started.
But its the same can of worms that seems to get opened about once a week.

1101
07-11-2011, 10:37 AM
wainuitech

It may be bad for an antivirus program that its slow on 32bit machine but in this thread is mentioned business computer and most of the time business computers have capacity to work with the programs which use lot of resources.


Unfortunately, many business's (Ak) have woefully old & underpowered PC.Im talking 8 year old PC's that only get replaced when they die. Many laptops struggle with modern resource hungry software.

The true test of any AV, is in the wild across manys hundreds of Pc's in many different companies & environments (NOT YOUR 1 PC) . Thats why the regulars hear swear by NOD. They have it installed on MANY HUNDREDS of PC's .

I agree with the comments that some particular AV results or infections found may be completely irrelevant, eg cookies often show as 'infections' with some AV/antimalware and one popular free AV has more false positives than the rest.

However, what relevance in the time taken to manual scan a PC ??? why do you care ??
The scan time would probhably be due to the default setting of the AV. Some AV are set to manual scan more files than others. Some may not scan Compressed files with default setting & be much quicker.
You want fast, dont scan any MP3's or photos. They alone can take hours if you have alot of them. Ive seen many infected 'mp3' files.

Dont use the default settings for manual scans. Set to scan ALL FILES then Walk away for 4 hours+ Set to all files any AV will taken a long long long time to finish a manual scan.