0

I am not able to understand what use is the manual antimalware scan? All antivirus software has a manual anti-malware scan. I understand if it's the first time someone installs it on their infected/unknown PC, the scan helps in detecting malware. But I can't understand in what situations are such scans useful when the antivirus software automatically protects machines in real-time?

Example: I purchase antivirus software and scan my PC for the first time with it, and no malware is found. The antivirus downloads updates automatically. In what scenario will I feel the need to manually "scan my PC for malware"? Can you give an example? If I ever needed to scan for malware, then why didn't the antivirus stop it in the first place? And if it couldn't identify and stop it in the first place, how can it be expected to identify the malware in the scan?

1
0

There are lots of reasons why you would want to manually trigger a full system scan.

No real-time scan is going to be perfect, and it can be easier to detect some malware when it is not running. So, if you suspect you might have malware, you can manually update the software and trigger a scan instead of waiting for the scheduled scan or hope it is picked up in a real-time scan.

You can also scan a portion of your system, like a directory or mounted storage media.

5
  • "....it can be easier to detect some malware when it is not running." --- This phrase seems to answer my question. "No real-time scan is going to be perfect..." won't make a manual scan any better or any less better, so I am ignoring this phrase. And your final sentence is correct, but does not address the question, so, all-in-all I think your mentioning that "it can be easier to detect some malware when it is not running" is the only use case I can imagine to be logical.
    – Jay Shah
    Jan 19 at 12:19
  • Anything else you want to add, or is this the only use case you could imagine of the "Antimalware Scan button" in the Antivirus software?
    – Jay Shah
    Jan 19 at 12:19
  • (2) Moreover, can you confirm that a scheduled scan is no different than a real-time detection feature when it comes to malware detection? If you are browsing on the internet and click somewhere only to get a spyware on your computer that instantly sends all your sensitive documents to a remote server, what will help you in the end, a scheduled scan, or a real-time detection feature? The latter, I guess. So again, a scheduled scan, although it's not manual, but still as useless as a manual scan. The real protector is the real-time detection of malwares.
    – Jay Shah
    Jan 19 at 12:24
  • Prevention is a lot lot better than "detection and cure". Do you agree schroeder? Would like to hear your opinion. Thanks
    – Jay Shah
    Jan 19 at 12:24
  • 1
    If you are going to pick and choose the parts of the answer you like, there is not much point in responding. Real-time scans and static scans can detect different things , so, yes, it can be important to do both ... And I have already said this, so, your #2 is moot, and focused on one particular type of threat. If the malware exists solely in memory, then a static scan won't pick it up anyway. And sure, prevention is "better" (in some definition of better) important than response, but certainly not more important.
    – schroeder
    Jan 19 at 14:31

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.