CPAPtalk.com

Krelvin wrote:

MarylandCPAPer wrote: Thank you for the link.

I didn't provide a link.

Excuse me, my mistake. Thank you for the information you provided.

I saw on another CPAP forum that Rescan 5.4.1 supposedly "corrected the false positive virus warning." So maybe Norton picked up a false positive and the software is fine.

A further comment from another group: "Norton Antivirus software has reported ResScan as being "malicious" or "infected" for quite a while now. I've probably gotten 100 emails from folks who have Norton reporting this. Assuming you downloaded ResScan from ResMed's website, Norton is likely giving you a "false positive", meaning it incorrectly marks some programs as having a virus."

MarylandCPAPer wrote:I saw on another CPAP forum that Rescan 5.4.1 supposedly "corrected the false positive virus warning." So maybe Norton picked up a false positive and the software is fine.

A further comment from another group: "Norton Antivirus software has reported ResScan as being "malicious" or "infected" for quite a while now. I've probably gotten 100 emails from folks who have Norton reporting this. Assuming you downloaded ResScan from ResMed's website, Norton is likely giving you a "false positive", meaning it incorrectly marks some programs as having a virus."

that is pretty much what we've been saying.

I think I sent the link and it was not any special link. It was to the Resmed provided download link that we all have used. Myself included.
Norton is flagging a false positive. So if it was me (I forget who I sent it too) it was the Resmed site link. I don't send anything else when it comes to Resmed. Now Encore stuff is a different story depending on what the person might want.

I found it interesting when I tried again to download the software directly from Resmed's site that Norton said less than 100 Norton users use that software, yet I found by Googling "Rescan and Norton" that another board had gotten more than 100 emails reporting that Norton thought it was malicious software. Maybe those of us who use Norton are diligent in trying to protect our fellow CPAPers from a program we may be told may harm our computers.

Or the number of users that have Norton install is in flux, as people find out its true worth. Mainly it's added to rolled out grade computers like Dell. Jim

This thread is incredible. At best, there is a lot of misinformation. At worst, it's hysteria.

gp:
> I don't like Norton products,

That's your opinion. Hopefully it's based on current information and reality.

> they are bloated and over controlling.

Here's where you begin to veer off.

First, let me say that I am no fan of Symantec, the corporation. "Misguided" would be too kind a word.

Rational people -- as opposed to those who are low tech and out of date -- separate their feelings about the company from the product.

> they are bloated

Once again, to prove that I am no blind NIS lover, I left NIS some years ago when it was, at that time, truly bloated. It slowed your computer down. That was unacceptable. I then used a couple of different paid anti-virus products for several years.

Several years later, multiple reviewers told the same story. It no longer sapped your computer's resources and it had decent anti-virus protection.

The next time that my year's subscription was up, I switched back to NIS and verified that myself. The reviews were correct. Much faster than it previously was. Decent, not perfect, protection. No anti-virus product is 100% perfect.

> Norton can't be removed without a reformat

That's so wrong that it's scurrilous. Incompetently wrong.

> it's worse that a virus.

You're demonstrating your high degree of hysteria.

K:
> Norton is your problem.
> Never let that program on any computer I setup.

As I said, I felt that way once too.

pr:
> norton is one of the more bloated packages and makes your computer slower than others.

That was once true. But no longer.

On a related point, a product can appear to be really fast, but it's because it does very little in the way of protection. There's a technical trade-off.

gp:
> I learned about Norton, in the old Commodore days

There's your problem.

In the '70's I invited the lead designer for the Commodore PET to speak to our science and engineering staff about their new product.

Wikipedia says that Norton Utilities had no _anti-virus_ capability. Symantec bought Peter Norton Computing in 1990. Symantec's Norton Anti Virus for the PC came out in 1991. It's not clear that Commodores were still in general (mainstream) use by then. And i found no evidence that there was a Norton AV product for the Commodore.

> never let a program near your computer that doesn't u install cleanly.

NIS uninstalls cleanly. This is for the "typical user definition" of cleanly. It's a multi-step process, but not difficult.

If by "cleanly" you also mean _completely_, it takes a little technical knowledge to do that, but it does uninstall completely -- for common industry-standard definitions of completely. No product uninstalls 100.0%. When I go to a new version of NIS, I always do a complete uninstall and reinstall.

gp:
> I have 5 computers ... all using Avast Free.

That says a lot. There's an old expression:
"Free is worth it."

That's usually true in the world of technology. There are some exceptions (ccleaner, defraggler, etc) but those are the exceptions, not the rule.

Among free anti-virus products, Avast is one of the better ones. But I would never trust any free anti-virus product on any computer of mine. The more you know, the more concerns you have.

mc:
>> Norton is likely giving you a "false positive", meaning it incorrectly marks some programs as having a virus."

It starts with complaints (which usually turn out to be true). Symantec seems to ignore them until they get a critical mass of complaints. Users then need to send in a copy of the problem files. Symantec then takes too long identifying what the problem is and fixing it.

I'm not completely happy with any of the choices of paid anti-virus products. (And none of the choices of free products.) NIS is one (of several) that are acceptable. If you're going to criticize, get your facts straight -- up-to-date and accurate.

Thank you, xyz! Now, based on my original post that quoted what the most recent version of Norton Internet Security, updated every time I turn on the computer via Live Updare, came up with about rescan during a full system scan of my computer, would you consider Rescan 5.4.1 safe to install or not? I value my computer, which is less than a year old and runs Windows 8.1, more than the ability to make pretty graphs about CPAP treatment.

I can also get information from my Resmed Airsense 10 from their site, "My Air," but I have to find some information on the machine (serial number, etc.) that I haven't entered yet. My AHI and other stats shown on the screen display show that my AHI is under 1 and my treatment seems to be working well. My Airsense 10 is less than a week old. I used a Phillips Respironics System One Aflex machine for 5.5 years and used no software. I got reports printed out at the DME and a sleep center.

To run Sleepyhead, my computer wants me to download a 2010 Microsoft program for which I have a more recent version because I am missing a MSV***.dll file. I hesitate to let a 2010 program, which may be important to other functions on my computer, overwrite my more recent version of the program. I asked someone in the IT business if I could install the 2010 version in another directory or something so it doesn't change the more recent version and was told it wasn't that simple.

I also have a computer runnng Windows XP and with the same Norton Internet Security setup. What do you think of installing the 2010 program there? I haven't tried it yet, but for that computer, it may not need the more recent version to run. However, I don't want to screw up that computer either.

Thank you for your information on Norton Internet Security and any insight you can give on running Rescan 5.4.1 and/or installing the 2010 program that Sleepyhead requires for it to run.

xyz wrote:This thread is incredible. At best, there is a lot of misinformation. At worst, it's hysteria.

gp:
> I don't like Norton products,

That's your opinion. Hopefully it's based on current information and reality.

> they are bloated and over controlling.

Here's where you begin to veer off.

First, let me say that I am no fan of Symantec, the corporation. "Misguided" would be too kind a word.

Rational people -- as opposed to those who are low tech and out of date -- separate their feelings about the company from the product.

> they are bloated

Once again, to prove that I am no blind NIS lover, I left NIS some years ago when it was, at that time, truly bloated. It slowed your computer down. That was unacceptable. I then used a couple of different paid anti-virus products for several years.

Several years later, multiple reviewers told the same story. It no longer sapped your computer's resources and it had decent anti-virus protection.

The next time that my year's subscription was up, I switched back to NIS and verified that myself. The reviews were correct. Much faster than it previously was. Decent, not perfect, protection. No anti-virus product is 100% perfect.

> Norton can't be removed without a reformat

That's so wrong that it's scurrilous. Incompetently wrong.

> it's worse that a virus.

You're demonstrating your high degree of hysteria.

K:
> Norton is your problem.
> Never let that program on any computer I setup.

As I said, I felt that way once too.

pr:
> norton is one of the more bloated packages and makes your computer slower than others.

That was once true. But no longer.

On a related point, a product can appear to be really fast, but it's because it does very little in the way of protection. There's a technical trade-off.

gp:
> I learned about Norton, in the old Commodore days

There's your problem.

In the '70's I invited the lead designer for the Commodore PET to speak to our science and engineering staff about their new product.

Wikipedia says that Norton Utilities had no _anti-virus_ capability. Symantec bought Peter Norton Computing in 1990. Symantec's Norton Anti Virus for the PC came out in 1991. It's not clear that Commodores were still in general (mainstream) use by then. And i found no evidence that there was a Norton AV product for the Commodore.

> never let a program near your computer that doesn't u install cleanly.

NIS uninstalls cleanly. This is for the "typical user definition" of cleanly. It's a multi-step process, but not difficult.

If by "cleanly" you also mean _completely_, it takes a little technical knowledge to do that, but it does uninstall completely -- for common industry-standard definitions of completely. No product uninstalls 100.0%. When I go to a new version of NIS, I always do a complete uninstall and reinstall.

gp:
> I have 5 computers ... all using Avast Free.

That says a lot. There's an old expression:
"Free is worth it."

That's usually true in the world of technology. There are some exceptions (ccleaner, defraggler, etc) but those are the exceptions, not the rule.

Among free anti-virus products, Avast is one of the better ones. But I would never trust any free anti-virus product on any computer of mine. The more you know, the more concerns you have.

mc:
>> Norton is likely giving you a "false positive", meaning it incorrectly marks some programs as having a virus."

It starts with complaints (which usually turn out to be true). Symantec seems to ignore them until they get a critical mass of complaints. Users then need to send in a copy of the problem files. Symantec then takes too long identifying what the problem is and fixing it.

I'm not completely happy with any of the choices of paid anti-virus products. (And none of the choices of free products.) NIS is one (of several) that are acceptable. If you're going to criticize, get your facts straight -- up-to-date and accurate.

Are you sure you don't run a Apple II? Jim

I know you have access to some kind of computer, or you are posting from the library. Your shaming didn't work!

It's like XPAP, use it or don't, you are the one that has to pay the price.