Boot Time Scan

[Brightonjohn]

I do a lot of remote computer servicing BUT I find that the scan at boot option which then asks for the user to choose one of a number of options really frustrating. This is particularly so because they are often not in attendance or they don't bother to let me know that the computer is sitting there waiting for an input.
So is there any way of setting this up so that it automatically puts all infected files into a vault and then lets the computer restart? If not it would be very useful!

[Pondus]

boot scan is not designed to be a regular scanner, it is a specialised tool to be used if something bad is going on

http://blog.avast.com/2010/02/04/v5-bts-auto-actions/

[plsrepli]

I'm not sure about the restart part but there are options available that will let the scan complete on its own (without prompting the user):

[Para-Noid]

boot scan is not designed to be a regular scanner, it is a specialised tool to be used if something bad is going on

+1  I ran my first boot scan in years yesterday. All it found was corrupt archive in Super Anti-Spyware.
     It took an hour to complete. I won't run another boot scan for a few more years. Unless avast recommends one after a scan.
     I'll stick to my customary weekly quick scan and my monthly full scan. 

[plsrepli]

@Para-Noid: I always thought the boot-time scan is/was more effective than a full scan and, because of that presumption, I use that exclusively in lieu of the full scan. However, since I keep seeing recommendations to not use it until prompted to do so (by Avast), I must ask "why do many recommend the full scan over the boot-time scan?" Also, "what benefit does the full scan offer that is absent from a boot-time scan?" BTW, the time to complete either or is not a decisive factor for me.

[DavidR]

Personally I don't even recommend a full system scan, if I wanted to be strict I would say the Quick scan is another that could be left alone too.

- With a resident on-access antivirus like avast, the need for frequent on-demand scans is much depreciated. For the most part the on-demand scan is going to be scanning files that would be otherwise be dormant or inert. If they were active files then the on-access file system shield would be scanning them before being created, modified, opened or executed.

I have avast set to do a scheduled weekly Quick scan (more from old habit), set at a time and day that I know the computer will be on.

If for some reason my system wasn't on, no big deal I will catch up on the next scheduled scan.

[plsrepli]

Just for fun, I did a full scan and a boot-time scan. The full scan showed "less files" were actually tested (than a boot-time scan). I was also surprised to see the full scan showed over 29GBs tested; whereas, the boot-time scan only showed over 18GBs of data tested. Now, I'm not sure how either of those data calculations were generated because my entire installation footprint for Win 8.1.1 is only 12.5GBs. In summary, since the boot-time scan actually tested 34,478 "additional" files and it only took less than one minute longer, that will remain my personal choice going forward. The difference between a 4:36 minute full scan vs a 5:24 minute boot-time scan is negligible as far as I'm concerned. Anyway, to each their own.

[DavidR]

The scan Data calculations include the unpacking and scanning of archive files. That will always exceed the data size reported in explorer as it only counts the compressed size of the archive files not the unpacked size.

Archive files are inert, have to be unpacked and executed before they present a risk. Before that happens the file shield would scan them, so it really is pointless scanning archives.

[plsrepli]

The scan Data calculations include the unpacking and scanning of archive files. That will always exceed the data size reported in explorer as it only counts the compressed size of the archive files not the unpacked size.

Archive files are inert, have to be unpacked and executed before they present a risk. Before that happens the file shield would scan them, so it really is pointless scanning archives.

That makes perfect sense so I thank you for your response.

plsrepli

[DavidR]

You're welcome.