I do these silly things so you don’t have to. (Yeh, I stole Jerry Pournelle’s motto. Well, borrowed it.)
So, Microsoft has decided to try offering an online security and tune-up scanner. Interesting, thought I, when I first heard of it. But I skipped the earliest beta testing round, since I don’t have any computers I want messed up that badly. Bad enough installing Microsoft’s “shrink-wrap beta” thought I…
But. Well, you knew I’d have to test it out eventually, didn’t you?
So, I selected a machine running windows 2000 Pro, 384MB of memory and 60BG of storage. Logged on to the site (and no, I’m not linking to it for reasons that will become obvious in just a bit). Loaded the scanner engine and fired it up.
32 hours later, it was still scanning for viruses and spyware. 61% finished with that task.
*sigh*
Oh, but it had found 3 viruses and eight spyware threats.
Riiiiight.
Two of the viruses were trojans recieved as email attachments and cleaned by my regular anti-virus. The scanner found them in my anti-virus software’s “virus vault”. No threat. The third false positive was just that: a perfectly legitimate, uninfected (according to three other anti-virus softwares) and very useful piece of software.
Oh, the eight spyware security threats it had found in its 32 hours’ scanning? Bogus or negligible. Cookies, one and all. And three of the cookies were for navigating a site I want cookies from. Two were for cookies from Microsoft sites, for heaven’s sake! (Now, those were a concern, cos the only time I use Internet Exploder is when I visit a Microsoft site, and Internet Exploder doesn’t throw cookies away automatically on exit. No, it doesn’t.) Ah, but that’s been a consistent problem with Microsoft’s Anti-Spyware Beta (Giant Antispyware). Lots of false positives.
I’ll let it continue to run, just to see if it does eventually turn up anything useful, but so far on a scale of 1-100 (with 100 being perfect and 1 being “stinks to high heaven”) M$’s onloine scanner has scored a -253. The score has to run to heavy negative numbers because of its lethargic performance.
I’ll revisit this sometime next week, if it’s finished scanning by then.