Vulnerable media file types

Can't find a precise answer to this so here goes.

I almost died of old age waiting for my last virus check to run so am looking for ways to cut down the time. It occurred to me that I have huge quantities of very large media files, which might not be vulnerable to attack, namely:

Audio: wav, aif, mp3
Pix: jpg, gif, tif, bmp and cr2 (Canon camera RAW format)

Most of these I have created myself.

I did hear that jpeg's can carry malware but don't know if this is true or just a mischievous rumour. As for the rest, I have no idea.

And what about txt files? Surely they're safe enough? I would be very glad of any sage advice.

Thanks and regards,
Duncan

 

depending on what software you are using, there might be the choice in the option/preferences window. I have the same thing, but it seems that a/v programs skim very quickly past files like that. Running Ccleaner to clean up temp folders and emptying out cookies will help immensely. http://majorgeeks.com/download4191.html
another option would be, if you have a large amount of mp3's, would be to put them on their own drive/partition. and just have the a/v program skip it. what anti virus program are you using? some work faster than others

 

Since there are vulnerabilities all over - its better safe than sorry I say so a scheduled scan will not finish if you run it over night?

What I've heard is jpeg, mp3 (something with winamp & ID3), and PDF. Some of these may be patched now. I always consider the source when opening a file - I guess I am the first AV scanner.

SmokingGun is right on too - cleanup best you can first & store files elsewhere.

 

Hi fellas, thanks for getting back. I am running G DATA IS2010 and it is a frustrating product, too often grinding things to a halt especially when typing on-line. If it didn't score so well on detection tests I'd have dumped it already. Anyone use it?

Most of the big audio and image files are already on a separate drive so I could exclude them but I just wanted to be sure they wouldn't be subject to infection. Another thought that occurs is that if I exclude a folder, couldn't malware still be written there? I suppose the monitor should take care of that.

I must check to see if the scanner does indeed skip through the monsters quickly. It could well be, the estimated time was way out. I had thought of leaving it overnight but never have because I like to be on hand, just in case. Probably better give it a go - as you say, better safe than sorry.

And it's probably about time I ran ccleaner again.

Thanks again for the advice.

Regards,
Duncan

 

I've never heard of it.
Can you post a link to the site showing great detection ratings? If it were that good, you'd suspect it would be a well-known product.

I found some info on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_DATA_Software

 

I think it's supposed to be a hidden gem.... I got the reports from here and decided it was worth a go, although there are plenty of others to try:
http://www.av-comparatives.org/comparativesreviews/dynamic-tests
http://www.av-comparatives.org/comparativesreviews/main-tests
Thanks for the link, Duncan

 

I know some people don't like pcworld, but for what it's worth
http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/product/61695/review/internet_security_2010.html

 

Thanks. I think I saw that one, which was another reason to give it a go.

In the interests of fairness, I need to update my views on G Data's speed. I think part of the problem while typing on-line was because I had Firefox's spell-checker turned on, which must have been looking somewhere and presumably triggered a check. I also think I'm a bit short of ram, in spite of having 1.75MB free. G Data uses quite a bit (due to running two engines, I suppose) and closing my desktop calendar has improved my speed a lot.

Anyway, I'm running F-Secure IS at the moment and not getting any slowness or hesitation at all, even with the calendar running. Just hope it's doing as good a job...

Cheers,
Duncan