Transfering Files Without Transferring Viruses?

[Skill_Caster]

In a while, I'm going to get a new computer. I've had for many, many years, and even though it's had a small tune-up hardware wise to keep up with the times, it's no where I'd like it to be. Also, even though I run about the most secure and locked down computer I've ever seen, I'm still paranoid about malware and the like (pretty sure it's an issue of mine), and when I get a new computer, I want to have a fresh start. Transfer the least amount of files I can, just in case somehow there's something lingering on here that would screw up the new one.

 

The only thing I really think I'd want to transfer is my iTunes Library. Granted, it's actually pretty small and a very tiny fraction of most others (I buy my music), but how could I transfer it to my new computer? It could probably all fit on one DVD, but since it's a data DVD, can't stop just hop on there? I've also heard MP3s can't have viruses, so what if I just burn a bunch of MP3 CD-R's with all my music on it? Would that be safe, and would it keep the song info and album art and stuff?

 

Also, I have an iPod Touch and have purchased a lot of apps and stuff, how would I transfer those? Could I just download them again? I've heard Apple is a bit sketchy about letting people do that kind of thing.

 

And if I do decide to transfer other pics and documents, how can I check they're clean? Is there a medium I can use to scan them in between PCs? Virustotal them?

 

Heh, lot of questions from a paranoid guy... thanks in advance.

-Skill

[Laura]

There's a new feature in iTunes 9 called Home Sharing. You can enable it and download all of the songs on your old computer onto your new computer, even over WiFi. Not sure about the whole virus thing, though. I would have thought a virus scan (even with multiple different AV programs, but not at the same time of course) on the older computer would suffice.

[Nadril]

Seems like you're way way too paranoid about this. Just transfer the files after performing a scan. Hell, just perform a small scale scan on the DVD once you burn it.

[Skill_Caster]

Thanks, anyone else have knowledge on the subject?

[Laura]

There isn't going to be a program that 'combs' out all of your files. Just download an antivirus like Avira or AVG and give it commands to search the files you want to transfer. But even the programs you mentioned should have picked something up, should an anomaly be present. If you're not having problems on this computer, there really shouldn't be a reason to worry that something will pop up on the newer one (based explicitly on the files you wish to transfer).

 

The links and related downloads I supplied are safe. ;)

[Sbrideau]

I wonder why people still say that AVG is good, the detection rates of it are really bad. I've had a friend that was with AVG and had a computer that became very slow a week earlier and then asked me help. Upon switching to Avira, it removed over 50 viruses that AVG didn't pick up. Same with another of my friends that it removed even more, up to 200 viruses were on that other friend's computer that was also with AVG. Imagine how much detections there would be with an even better antivirus like Kaspersky!

 

To the OP, I don't think there's any danger in transfering files. If you don't have viruses right now, why would there be on the new computer? Also, you have no reason to be so paranoid, most people that get viruses get them from dodgy sites, where I don't think you ever go.

[Laura]

I wonder why people still say that AVG is good, the detection rates of it are really bad. I've had a friend that was with AVG and had a computer that became very slow a week earlier and then asked me help. Upon switching to Avira, it removed over 50 viruses that AVG didn't pick up. Same with another of my friends that it removed even more, up to 200 viruses were on that other friend's computer that was also with AVG. Imagine how much detections there would be with an even better antivirus like Kaspersky!

Just skimming over the date here, but Avira has a 99.4% detection rate and AVG has 94%, with Kapersky besting AVG slightly with 94.7%. The set contained 1.6 million malware samples to determine the accuracy-70% of which was made up of trojans. At these detection rates, however, Avira had nearly triple the amount of false positives versus AVG and Kapersky. Avira was able to scan through files at 14.4MB/sec while AVG slugged at 6.8MB/sec. What does this mean for the average user? Probably nothing. Avira has better detection rates and a faster scan while AVG has a lower number of false positives. Both are certainly viable anti-virus programs, and it has simply become a hackneyed view on these forums that AVG is garbage. The same goes for Symantec, where it fell in between AVG and Avira, beating Avira in the number of false positives, scanning rate (17.3MB/sec) and falling short by miniscule amounts in detection rates.

 

I am doubtful that the items listed were all independent viruses, because depending on how you set it up, the AV program can detect tracking cookies which can be found hundreds of times in a computer. It may simply be that AVG was not set to list these items as anomalies. Regardless, both AV programs have something to offer that the other one does not and are thus equally viable choices when coming to consumer protection. It is also worth noting that NOD32 (which is highly praised on these forums) did worse in detection rates and had slower scanning times than either Avira or Symantec with its false positives greater than AVG. We all have our personal opinions on the software we use, but there are statistics to interpret up the facts. ;)

 

PDF Cited

[Sbrideau]

I am not stupid. I know what a tracking cookie is and I study in computers. What I say about detection rates is from my experience. I have used all the antiviruses that I tal about and am even trying the Microsoft Security Essentials to see how it will do. Even if Avira has more false positives, it doesn't have much compared to other antiviruses like Avast.

 

Whatever the statistics are, people can make them say what they want. I have had a few statistics classes so I know that fact. Scanning time doesn't bother as the thing that should be the best in any antivirus is the detection rate and also the RAM usage. I've used both Norton and McAfee antiviruses (even now, college forces me to use McAfee on a virtual machine -.-) and can say that they are still too heavy on the resources thus slowing the machine down, which to people with budget and low end computers can get trouble even opening programs.

 

AVG did have good detection rates, but that is now in the past. It has went from a very good antivirus to a bad antivirus around the summer 2008. And like I said I know the difference between a real virus and a false positive, and I can say I always look at the results before removing the detected object.

 

Norton is once again good on detection rates, but they're still too low for my standards and it's still too heavy en resources and still causes problems with other programs. McAfee hasn't changed and still slows down machines with 2GB of RAM.

 

I do have to agree with you on Nod32. While I think it was only Devnull that praised it as much as you say, I have used it for almost a year and was deceived as to what was said about it. I didn't use it much as it wasn't that good.

 

Also, that pdf is nothing really amazing as they have not went with the default settings, which is the settings most people use on their machines. This is something that makes the results kind of false in a way.

[Laura]

I am not attempting to say that you are stupid, simply that having an antivirus other than Avira doesn't mean your system is any less secure. Resources are not a factor given the circumstances because the older machine would not likely be the user's primary computer. The statement about the difference in settings only proves to validate my stance on the matter because it is Avira, unlike AVG, who is not set at the highest setting by default. The PDF, while "nothing amazing," comes from an independent study and dates to less than six months ago. Please do not take this as a means to belittle you or your knowledge-you are a valuable and wise member of T&C and I am always glad to hear your input.

[Skill_Caster]

Thanks laura. Don't judge me, lol, I may have come of a bit paranoid from my original post...but I have Avast!, Spybot, SuperAntiSpyware, and MalwareBytes as base protection...and FF w/ NoScript and WoT. All the good stuff. Just wanted to be sure =)

[Sbrideau]

I'm sorry laura for taking this too seriously. As for the antivirus testing, having it set to maximum greatly increases the amount of false positives.