Strange Result From Scan
Hello all,
I have just installed the free version of Bitdefender and did a scan.
How do I interpert this result?
It says: 65 Infected items detected
Then it says: No infected items have been found.
?????
In the log it says:
"An On Demand scan has completed.
The scan took: 00:34:06
Files scanned: 484840
Infected items detected: 65
Files known to be clean: 59137
Scan Paths
Path Status
C:\ completed
Scan Results
No infected items have been found."
Comments
-
Hello all,
I have just installed the free version of Bitdefender and did a scan.
How do I interpert this result?
It says: 65 Infected items detected
Then it says: No infected items have been found. ?????
In the log it says:
"An On Demand scan has completed.
The scan took: 00:34:06
Files scanned: 484840
Infected items detected: 65
Files known to be clean: 59137
Scan Paths
Path Status
C:\ completed
Scan Results
No infected items have been found."
Nothing to worry as long as you find under Scan Results the line stating No infected items have been found. If you look further in the report, you should also find a list of Ignored items with the warning The following files could not be scanned due to insufficient privileges.* The Action for those files should be None (password protected). Encrypted archives seem to be the reason for this misleading report of Infected items detected.
__________________
* I often see an installation file for flash player in this list.0 -
Nothing to worry as long as you find under Scan Results the line stating No infected items have been found. If you look further in the report, you should also find a list of Ignored items with the warning The following files could not be scanned due to insufficient privileges.* The Action for those files should be None (password protected). Encrypted archives seem to be the reason for this misleading report of Infected items detected.
__________________
* I often see an installation file for flash player in this list.
Uppdate
One file "could not be scanned due to insufficient privileges", I moved that file to an usb and did an other scan.
Now the "Infected items detected" became 0.
But how can a file that not could be scaned render "65 infected items"? That makes no sense.0 -
Maybe it's a compressed archive that contains 65 files?Uppdate
One file "could not be scanned due to insufficient privileges", I moved that file to an usb and did an other scan.
Now the "Infected items detected" became 0.
But how can a file that not could be scaned render "65 infected items"? That makes no sense.0 -
Uppdate
One file "could not be scanned due to insufficient privileges", I moved that file to an usb and did an other scan.
Now the "Infected items detected" became 0.
But how can a file that not could be scaned render "65 infected items"? That makes no sense.
You do not need to worry about encrypted archives since if there were any viruses in such files they would be detected when they are extracted. Bitdefender® Antivirus Free Edition also provides other layers of protection such as Active Virus Control (AVC) so you do not have much to worry about new and potential threats, this product remains watching for those. Regarding the numbers in the scan report, they would change independent of your action since this antivirus keeps track of the scanned files and avoids scanning them again, so if you try scanning the same file a few times, it may end up reporting it has not scanned anything. Anyway, I cannot comprehend entirely the numbers in the scan reports since I had even seen more files found safe than the actual number of files scanned. As I said, nothing to worry as long as No infected items have been found.0 -
Thanks guys I understand what you are saying.
The file that could not be scanned due to password protection was "rapid_upgrade.dll" a file from the Samsung Magican application.
My point is that Bitdefender should NOT report "Infected items detected" in the first place at all because of a file that could not be scanned.
I mean, how can Bitdefender know that it was infected if the file was not scanned? This is just cracy.0 -
I mean, how can Bitdefender know that it was infected if the file was not scanned? This is just cracy.
Lol...laughing with you not at you.
"Who knows what evil lurks? The Shadow knows!"0 -
Thanks guys I understand what you are saying.
The file that could not be scanned due to password protection was "rapid_upgrade.dll" a file from the Samsung Magician application.
My point is that Bitdefender should NOT report "Infected items detected" in the first place at all because of a file that could not be scanned.
I mean, how can Bitdefender know that it was infected if the file was not scanned? This is just cracy.
You are right to feel the language in the report can be confusing. I found one definition for threat is an indication or warning of probable trouble. So I think the number reported as Infected items detected should be relabeled Threats detected to avoid any confusion.* However, I also found one definition for scan is to examine the particulars or points of minutely; scrutinize. Following that definition, the warning The following files could not be scanned due to insufficient privileges is correct.
I think is good to be warned about potential hideouts for malware. If file encryption is real, it can make malware undetectable by any scanner. However, no much need to worry since (from the website):
__________
Bitdefender Antivirus Free Edition uses a combination of Cloud scanning and behavioural analysis to detect
new or unknown threats that other antiviruses miss.
*I also think the words in the tab Threat Control should be Infection Control, yet that is debatable.0 -
You are right to feel the language in the report can be confusing. I found one definition for threat is an indication or warning of probable trouble. So I think the number reported as Infected items detected should be relabeled Threats detected to avoid any confusion.* However, I also found one definition for scan is to examine the particulars or points of minutely; scrutinize. Following that definition, the warning The following files could not be scanned due to insufficient privileges is correct.
I think is good to be warned about potential hideouts for malware. If file encryption is real, it can make malware undetectable by any scanner. However, no much need to worry since (from the website):
__________
*I also think the words in the tab Threat Control should be Infection Control, yet that is debatable.
Yes the warning "The following files could not be scanned due to insufficient privileges." is absolutly correct and I have no problem with that.
It is the wording "Infected items detected: 65" that I find hard to digest. It should be read "Infected items detected: 0" in my opinion.
Even the replacement "Threats detected" as you suggest a bit confusing, because Bitdefender does not know that for sure.
However, the warning could easily be rewritten to something like:
"The following files could not be scanned due to insufficient privileges and could contain possibe threats."
That would make things crystal clear.
0
