Status
Not open for further replies.

Blackhawk

New Member
NOTE: I grabbed a file today that I figured was malware. I scanned with with Zemana and it said the file was clean. I then scanned the file with Avira and it came up as a trojan as listed below. I thought Zemana used Avira as one of it's engines/cloud? If so then why no detection by Zemana? My confidence in Zemana has taken a hit.

  • Name
    TR/Dropper.Gen
  • Date discovered
    Oct 8, 2015
TR/Dropper.Gen (Cloud) Trojan
 
Last edited:

Soulweave

Moderator
Content Creator
Staff member
Verified
Original post was by @Blackhawk , however as post was removed from War Room, I had to recreate the post.

Original post
NOTE: I grabbed a file today that I figured was malware. I scanned with with Zemana and it said the file was clean. I then scanned the file with Avira and it came up as a trojan as listed below. I thought Zemana used Avira as one of it's engines/cloud? If so then why no detection by Zemana? My confidence in Zemana has taken a hit.

  • Name
    TR/Dropper.Gen
  • Date discovered
    Oct 8, 2015
TR/Dropper.Gen (Cloud) Trojan

@J Gamez065 this is the post.

@Blackhawk please provide all relevant details etc and screenshots in this thread.

@ilda15 could you look into this further if possible? thanks
 

Blackhawk

New Member
I feel bad. It's a shame you had to do that work which seems so unnecessary. I don't see the big deal. How could it have been avoided? Also I have no idea how J Gamez065 and ilda15 are connected to this, I am lost on that. What a mess. Seems so unnecessarily complicated.
 

Soulweave

Moderator
Content Creator
Staff member
Verified
J games was op on original thread. As for ilda its because of zemana. You pointed out an detection on one engine while zemana failed so its only fair you chase it up further. If you think its no need to chase up etc then you shouldn't list in the original post either. As far as whether or not it was necessary to remove the post this is not the place for discussion nor should be discussed in public however rules are listed to be adhered.

If you feel that there is no need for the post about the specific infection to be looked further then pls request that thread is close and it will be done.

Thanks
 

Blackhawk

New Member
I think this same thing like before..

An antivirus is using BD engine, but scanned with hitman pro.
Hitman pro (BD) detected it but this antivirus which is using BD engine is not detecting it.

delay in signatures update, even its cloud
I understand that can be a factor, but I think since it has been detectable since October of 2015 by Avira that one of the components of ZAM should have caught it. That's just my opinion. I had high hopes for ZAM, but this has shaken my confidence in it.
 
Reactions: Der.Reisende

Soulweave

Moderator
Content Creator
Staff member
Verified
I understand that can be a factor, but I think since it has been detectable since October of 2015 by Avira that one of the components of ZAM should have caught it. That's just my opinion. I had high hopes for ZAM, but this has shaken my confidence in it.
I understand and this is the correct section to discuss this particular case further or you can take it directly with zemana via their communication channels.
 
Reactions: Der.Reisende

Blackhawk

New Member
I understand and this is the correct section to discuss this particular case further or you can take it directly with zemana via their communication channels.
Thanks, and I apologize I still don't get it. I am truly sorry. I thought since the poster asked "Based on your opinions and reasoning which is the better product." letting him know my recent experience with ZAM missing a October 2015 trojan would be helpful. I thought this was especially helpful because ZAM uses Avira as one of it's components and it was interesting that I found that Avira on it's own detected it while ZAM didn't. I thought what I had to say was very relevant and helpful, but I guess not. People are different, but if I was the OP I would have appreciated the feedback. No hard feelings.
 
Reactions: Der.Reisende
I

illumination

Thanks, and I apologize I still don't get it. I am truly sorry. I thought since the poster asked "Based on your opinions and reasoning which is the better product." letting him know my recent experience with ZAM missing a October 2015 trojan would be helpful. I thought this was especially helpful because ZAM uses Avira as one of it's components and it was interesting that I found that Avira on it's own detected it while ZAM didn't. I thought what I had to say was very relevant and helpful, but I guess not. People are different, but if I was the OP I would have appreciated the feedback. No hard feelings.
Why he stated it was the wrong place to post it is because you list Zemana as "MISSING" the file where Avira detected it. So placing your question in the Zemana Thread is the best place for it.
 
Reactions: Der.Reisende

Blackhawk

New Member
Why he stated it was the wrong place to post it is because you list Zemana as "MISSING" the file where Avira detected it. So placing your question in the Zemana Thread is the best place for it.
Oh my there was more to it than that as the OP asked for feedback. So saying XYZ product missed an old trojan so you might want to consider that can't be done to help someone when they are looking for feedback on that particular product? Just MO, but it could have been left there to help the OP and also put in another section to then help the vendor. But, I doubt it will be seen this way. Let's just stop. I will try and refrain from giving my view of a product I have in use so as to avoid a situation like this. It just doesn't make any sense to me though.
 
Reactions: Der.Reisende

Soulweave

Moderator
Content Creator
Staff member
Verified
Leaving your original post in war room was not the best course of action therefore it was moved here since its specific to a signature. I also tagged ilda as she handles zemana. If you look at false positives post by tornado you will understand why I tagged ilda.

Op asked for feedback in war room and you voted but yo specifically list an infection missed was not the beat approach. You could still refer to it but then post further in the appropriate forum.

As mentioned before if you feel this thread is not needed then it will be closed. If you want to contribute further pls provide screenshots and info on infected file so zemana can look at it and also use their submission methods. Thanks
 
Reactions: Der.Reisende
I

illumination

Oh my there was more to it than that as the OP asked for feedback. So saying XYZ product missed an old trojan so you might want to consider that can't be done to help someone when they are looking for feedback on that particular product? Just MO, but it could have been left there to help the OP and also put in another section to then help the vendor. But, I doubt it will be seen this way. Let's just stop. I will try and refrain from giving my view of a product I have in use so as to avoid a situation like this. It just doesn't make any sense to me though.
Saying you like one product over another because of issues is one thing. Showing the issues you did, needs to be placed here so it can be looked into by the Vendor of the product. If it is a possible problem with their product, it needs to be addressed. I would highly suggest toning down the rhetoric.
 
Reactions: Der.Reisende

Blackhawk

New Member
Saying you like one product over another because of issues is one thing. Showing the issues you did, needs to be placed here so it can be looked into by the Vendor of the product. If it is a possible problem with their product, it needs to be addressed. I would highly suggest toning down the rhetoric.
There is no rhetoric, you are taking things the wrong way it seems. I deleted the trojan after posting the info
 
Reactions: Der.Reisende
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar Threads

Similar Threads