Scanning files with Avast

[Belti]

Hi

When I scan a local disk huge media files get scanned in a matter of seconds, however if I try to scan a single file using the right hand click button and select scan big media files (350Mb+) take a couple of minutes to scan a file. Is there any reason why this happens ?

Thank you.

[superhacker]

as i know avast scan every bit in the file"media"unlike avira ,avira detect the file and if it is a media file it scan a small piece of its hexadecimal.but avast scan every bit in the file so it handle it like unknown extention "scan every thing in it"
so you can exclude those folders from svan by go to program settings->exclusion->then browse the folder you dont need to scan.

[DavidR]

The context scan using the ashQuick.exe is the most thorough of all the avast scans.

[Belti]

Thank you for your replies. So is it possible to change the context scan to something less thorough ?

Thank you

[DavidR]

Unfortunately not, and the purpose you are using the ashQuick.exe isn't really what it was designed for, typically scanning a single file that has been downloaded, etc.

For scanning folders, partitions or drives then you should take advantage of the on-demand scanner (Simple User Interface) as that allows for greater configuration on the sensitivity of the scan and if packers are used (e.g. not to scan archive files).

So why is it that you are doing this scan (perhaps we can offer a workaround) ?

[.: L' arc :.]

The context scan using the ashQuick.exe is the most thorough of all the avast scans.

i dont think.
can you check what you write?

Context scan is in thorough scan settings and unpacks all archives. It's configuration is enough to call it thorough.

[DavidR]

Your use of quoting seems to be up the creek as superhacker hasn't quoted any of my posts, nor has he said the words you attribute to him.

So is it you that doubts the accuracy of the comment in my post that you quoted ?

If so then it is accurate, as by default it scans all files within the selected area and uses all packers by default. Where as the Thorough Scan doesn't scan archives by default (requiring the packers) you have to select it.

Even the Alwil members have stated this in the past.

[.: L' arc :.]

 Nope, I am not against. On my reply, I second your thought DavidR.

[DavidR]

But what was the purpose of the quoted text supposedly from super hacker in response to something I said in the first place. It doesn't make sense and just confuses.

I can't see how you managed to cobble together the quoted text, as superhacker never said that in this topic, nor did he reply to anything I said, in fact I can't see those words in this topic other than were you quoted them. 

So colour me totally confused !!!

[.: L' arc :.]

 Thinking about it. Sorry DavidR if I might have been 10 hours delayed to notice that superhacker's reply that I quoted was gone. I swear, superhacker's reply was there before.

[DavidR]

I don't know where it might have gone, as users can't delete their own posts, only modify them and that is indicated by the edited date/time stamp. Only moderators can delete posts, so a bit of a mystery then.

[superhacker]

yes i wrote it but some human error delete it since i dont hijack the topic,so no moderator delete it ,may be some one else,

[igor]

My fault. I removed it, as it wasn't correct IMHO, and wanted to add some explanation - but just at that moment my network connection crashed for quite a while.
Sorry.

Anyway, yes, ashQuick uses the highest possible sensitivity / thoroughness.

[superhacker]

hi igor,what is the meaning of IMHO?

[nmb]

IMHO : In my humble/honest opinion.

just search in this page : http://www.urbandictionary.com/

nmb