Yeah I've ordered Norton. Please, please, please, don't tell me it's crap! :shocked:
I ordered it because I've got System works and I use the defrag and fast clean-up quite frequently to clean up all the rubbish on the system and under normal circumstances this seems to work well.
I am interested in hearing your recommendations though so I can find out more and maybe look to them in the future. Also, as with any board, there are always more browsers than posters and some of them will be interested in your suggestions.
As regards my problem. I downloaded and updated the programs and ran them all. The Ewido scanner found 8 threats and deleted them. Interestingly none of them matched those found with the Panda scan. So I ran the Panda scan again with the same result I posted earlier. I then deleted those files using KillBox.
The ccleaner found a load of junk and cleaned it all.
The CW Shredder found nothing.
Having done all that I ran Ewido again and no files were found. I then ran Panda again and although it found no files it reported 3 instances in the registry. I Googled these and they are all associated with browser hijacks which is not a problem I've ever had. However I checked the registry with regedit and none of the known entries were there anyway. I must admit to being a little skeptical of online scanners that want you to purchase their product.
Having done all this I rebooted and yes, my little friend is still sitting smugly on my desktop.
I have not, of course, installed sp2 because, as you say, it's no good installing on an infected system. Is it possible that this "jpg file" is just a standalone not caused by any malware but exploiting some weakness that causes an error which while it displays, because it hasn't actually any substance programs don't recognise it?
Remember it's file name is 221 characters long. Is that possible under normal circumstances? Has someone found a way of creating a file name that is illegal in the sense of it's length thereby causing the os to be unable to handle it and thus ignore it?
If not, then whatever code is supporting it is potentially very dangerous because it's seen off everything thrown at it.