Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!vax1.cc.lehigh.edu!cert.sei.cmu.edu!krvw
From: tbrown@lehi3b15.csee.lehigh.edu (Thomas Brown [901015])
Newsgroups: comp.virus
Subject: McAfee ProScan ineffective? (PC)
Message-ID: <0003.9102221354.AA15356@ubu.cert.sei.cmu.edu>
Date: 21 Feb 91 04:20:34 GMT
Sender: Virus Discussion List <VIRUS-L@LEHIIBM1>
Lines: 31
Approved: krvw@sei.cmu.edu

I have been using McAfee's SCAN/CLEAN V72 for quite some time with
good success.  I recently discovered an "end-user" version with a nice
screen interface, etc. called ProScan (also by McAfee) which is
supposed to perform the same functions as SCAN/CLEAN.  I have found,
however, the following problems:

     1.  ProScan does not scan system memory for viruses (even though
         documentation says it should)
     2.  ProScan does not test both boot sector AND partition table
         for viruses
     3.  Even with the library of 200+ viruses, ProScan does not
         detect even older viruses such as Stoned or Jerusalem,
         while SCAN/CLEAN V72 find them immediately, whether they
         exist in the boot sector, partition table, data area, or
         even in memory.

The version of ProScan is the latest commercial offering which was
made available (for retail sale to customers) to a computer
store/service department which I work for part time.

Any thoughts?

Regards,
Tom
- --=--
Thomas Brown, KA2UGQ          BITNET: twb0@lehigh.bitnet
Lehigh University UC Box 855    ARPA: tbrown@lehi3b15.csee.Lehigh.EDU
Bethlehem, PA  18015            UUCP: ..!uunet!twb0@lehigh.bitnet
(215) 758-0093                 AX.25: ka2ugq@ka2ugq.nj.usa.na

'You can't have everything...where would you put it?' -S.W.


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com