I'm being held hostage by ransomware

[Growltiger]

Not necessary for internal hard drives? I ask because I haven't done a Chkdsk since using Windows and haven't experienced any issues.

NTFS is an extremely resilient file system. Nothing to worry about. Don't bother. Windows will tell you if there is a problem.

But it is worth checking the health of your drives now and again. I use Crystaldiskinfo.
Downloading File /70295/CrystalDiskInfo8_0_0.exe - CrystalDiskInfo - OSDN

Drives keep track of their own health and store it internally. This is what Crystaldiskinfo reveals. Read here:
S.M.A.R.T. - Wikipedia.

You don't need to understand it all, you get a simple colour shown for each drive.
Green or blue=healthy, Yellow=going bad, replace at once, Red=gone bad.

All SSD drives slowly get used up and die, so for SSD it shows you what percentage is left. I had some very early ones that went down to 90% before I replaced them.

 

[Mike Buckley]

Thanks, Richard. Never heard of CrystalDiskInfo or anything like it. It indicates that my internal hard drive is in "good" (blue) condition.

 

[Walter Rowe]

This article is dated May 2018.

What’s the Best Antivirus for Windows 10? (Is Windows Defender Good Enough?)

Excerpted from the article:

• Use the Built-in Windows Defender for traditional antivirus – the criminals have moved on from regular viruses to focus on Ransomware, zero-day attacks, and even worse malware that traditional antivirus just can’t handle. Windows Defender is built right in, blazing fast, doesn’t annoy you, and does its job cleaning old-school viruses.
• Use Malwarebytes for Anti-Malware and Anti-Exploit – all of the huge malware outbreaks these days are using zero-day flaws in your browser to install ransomware to take over your PC, and only Malwarebytes provides really excellent protection against this with their unique anti-exploit system. There’s no bloatware and it won’t slow you down.

Further down in the article it says:

"Note that you can get some of Malwarebytes’ features for free, but with caveats. For example, the free version of Malwarebytes program will only scan for malware and PUPs on-demand—it won’t scan in the background like the premium version does. In addition, it doesn’t contain the anti-exploit or anti-ransomware features of the premium version.

You can only get all three features in the full $40 version of Malwarebytes, which we recommend. But if you’re willing to forego anti-ransomware and always-on malware scanning, the free versions of Malwarebytes and Anti-Exploit are better than nothing, and you should definitely use them."​

 

[dburanich]

This article is dated May 2018.

What’s the Best Antivirus for Windows 10? (Is Windows Defender Good Enough?)

Excerpted from the article:

• Use the Built-in Windows Defender for traditional antivirus – the criminals have moved on from regular viruses to focus on Ransomware, zero-day attacks, and even worse malware that traditional antivirus just can’t handle. Windows Defender is built right in, blazing fast, doesn’t annoy you, and does its job cleaning old-school viruses.
• Use Malwarebytes for Anti-Malware and Anti-Exploit – all of the huge malware outbreaks these days are using zero-day flaws in your browser to install ransomware to take over your PC, and only Malwarebytes provides really excellent protection against this with their unique anti-exploit system. There’s no bloatware and it won’t slow you down.

Further down in the article it says:

"Note that you can get some of Malwarebytes’ features for free, but with caveats. For example, the free version of Malwarebytes program will only scan for malware and PUPs on-demand—it won’t scan in the background like the premium version does. In addition, it doesn’t contain the anti-exploit or anti-ransomware features of the premium version.

You can only get all three features in the full $40 version of Malwarebytes, which we recommend. But if you’re willing to forego anti-ransomware and always-on malware scanning, the free versions of Malwarebytes and Anti-Exploit are better than nothing, and you should definitely use them."​

Interesting article.
That is the first time I have heard Malwarebytes is good for anti-ransomware.
If that is true it may very well be worth getting the full version.

 

[Growltiger]

Interesting article.
That is the first time I have heard Malwarebytes is good for anti-ransomware.
If that is true it may very well be worth getting the full version.

I'm not convinced. When I looked at it the feature simply allowed you to prevent various folders being written to. This seemed an impractical approach since all the folders that need protecting are the same ones I need update access to all the time - such as my documents and photos. One would continually be having to give permission to the system just to continue doing normal work.

 

[dburanich]

I'm not convinced. When I looked at it the feature simply allowed you to prevent various folders being written to. This seemed an impractical approach since all the folders that need protecting are the same ones I need update access to all the time - such as my documents and photos. One would continually be having to give permission to the system just to continue doing normal work.

We may be very well doing the best possible thing right now.
Regular image backups with drives disconnected from the computer once the backup is complete.

 

[Omar]

Not necessary for internal hard drives? I ask because I haven't done a Chkdsk since using Windows and haven't experienced any issues.

Windows 10 uses the NTFS file system. It's designed to do more error checking as it goes. I would only bother with Chkdsk if I suspect a file system problem and include it as a troubleshooting step. It's been years since I ran this utility.

Removable drives are now formatted with exFAT for best compatibility (Macs can read/write this format) these days. I'm not sure whether it has the same ongoing error checking or not. That might be why it could be useful to run Chkdsk on that type of drive. I would only bother if I suspect a disk error. I'd be as likely to trash the drive if I'm at that point.

"The recoverability designed into NTFS is such that a user should never have to run any sort of disk repair utility on an NTFS partition." from https://support.microsoft.com/en-ca/help/100108/overview-of-fat-hpfs-and-ntfs-file-systems

See also: https://www.howtogeek.com/235596/whats-the-difference-between-fat32-exfat-and-ntfs/

 

[Omar]

I'm not convinced. When I looked at it the feature simply allowed you to prevent various folders being written to. This seemed an impractical approach since all the folders that need protecting are the same ones I need update access to all the time - such as my documents and photos. One would continually be having to give permission to the system just to continue doing normal work.

I played with the Windows security setting (introduced a year ago?) that can limit which programs are allowed to make changes to specific folders. The early version was frustrating (somewhat brain dead) so I turned it off. I might look at it again. For example, it would certainly be useful to limit write access to photo folders to a small group of authorized programs.

 

[Mike Buckley]

I received an automated email from Macrium Reflect today reminding me (among other details) to use the Verify capability. That capability verifies that the backup is accurate. I hadn't remembered learning about it, so I checked it out. If you're using the free version as I am, the click path is a little different than the path explained in the email, though I don't know if the free version is different in this regard than the paid, premium version:

1. Attach the pertinent backup drive.
2. Click the Restore tab and select the backup that you want to verify.
3. Click Other Actions and select Verify Image. The rest is intuitive.

I am running the verification process as I type this message. Based on the progress bar, I expect the verification process to take about the same amount of time the backup process takes.

 

[dburanich]

I received an automated email from Macrium Reflect today reminding me (among other details) to use the Verify capability. That capability verifies that the backup is accurate. I hadn't remembered learning about it, so I checked it out. If you're using the free version as I am, the click path is a little different than the path explained in the email, though I don't know if the free version is different in this regard than the paid, premium version:

1. Attach the pertinent backup drive.
2. Click the Restore tab, choose Image or File and Folder and select the backup that you want to verify.
3. Click Other Actions and select Verify. The rest is intuitive.

I am running the verification process as I type this message. Based on the progress bar, I expect the verification process to take about the same amount of time the backup process takes.

Mike,
I have the image automatically verify right after backup.
That way it does it while I am sleeping since that's when I perform my backups.
Verification is essentially a part of my backup process.

Disk Image/Other Tasks/Edit Defaults/Auto Verify Image
Check off "verify image or backup file directly after creation"

Once your image backup is complete you should receive a message that Image Backup And Verification were completed successfully.

 

[dburanich]

A couple of things I'm not sure of and maybe Richard can help on this one, I would think if you verify the image hours or days after the backup, what happens to the files that have changed in this time period? I always make sure Windows Defender will not be scanning during my backup and there are no updates to download. I'm not sure how it would work in Win 10 if a Defender scan started while a backup was in progress or if an update started. From what I understand you cannot control when your system updates in Win 10.
I would think the verification would not pass in these instances.

 

[Mike Buckley]

Disk Image/Other Tasks/Edit Defaults/Auto Verify Image
Check off "verify image or backup file directly after creation"

Thanks for that information, Dave, as I had not been aware of it. Even so, at least for now I'll manually verify. That's because I can backup and verify at separate times, which allows me the flexibility of not leaving the external drive connected to the computer at night for hours when it is not being used. I've become obsessed about ensuring that it's disconnected at all times it's not being used.

I would think if you verify the image hours or days after the backup, what happens to the files that have changed in this time period?

As I understand it, the verification process takes into account only the state of the information at the time the hash was stored. If I'm right about that, I don't think it should matter what has changed since the hash was stored.

I always make sure Windows Defender will not be scanning during my backup and there are no updates to download. I'm not sure how it would work in Win 10 if a Defender scan started while a backup was in progress or if an update started. From what I understand you cannot control when your system updates in Win 10.

I haven't thought about any of that and was unable to determine how to control when Windows Defender scans. I just now looked up Windows 10 Settings and learned that if the computer has to restart to fully update the system, the restart will typically be done outside the active hours. Even if it's done during active hours, it will be done only if the computer is inactive at the time. The active hours are controlled by the user. I didn't find anything about the situation when the system is updated without requiring a restart.

 

[Growltiger]

A couple of things I'm not sure of and maybe Richard can help on this one, I would think if you verify the image hours or days after the backup, what happens to the files that have changed in this time period? I always make sure Windows Defender will not be scanning during my backup and there are no updates to download. I'm not sure how it would work in Win 10 if a Defender scan started while a backup was in progress or if an update started. From what I understand you cannot control when your system updates in Win 10.
I would think the verification would not pass in these instances.

The verification will work. All it does when it verifies is read through the image file and check its integrity.
However I agree it is better to do the verify automatically as part of the backup, so that if there is a problem you know as soon as possible.
A verification error on a modern computer is unlikely. But it is possible, for example the backup could perhaps be to an external drive with a flaky USB connection, or perhaps the backup drive has problems.

I always close all other programs, it seems sensible, but you may be surprised to learn it is not essential. The reason is that Macrium uses some special features of the operating system, designed for this purpose: Volume Shadow Storage. Read more here: Backup Internals: What is VSS, how does it work and why do we use it?

 

[Mike Buckley]

However I agree it is better to do the verify automatically as part of the backup, so that if there is a problem you know as soon as possible.

If I start the backup-verification combination at midnight and it completes at 3:00am, I'll learn when I wake up at about 7:30am whether everything is fine. If instead I start only the backup during the daytime hours when I'm up and around and wait a couple hours for whatever reason to start the verification, I'm actually finding out just as quickly. The difference in the latter case is that the backup drive is disconnected when it isn't being used. As I mentioned, I've become obsessed about that.

One could certainly argue to do the backup-verification combination during the day, especially noting your information that it can be done while using the computer for other purposes. (I used the computer for other purposes while the verification was done but not while the backup was being done.) Indeed, that might be the best of all possible worlds of getting everything done while ensuring that the backup drive is connected to the computer only when it is being used.

 

[Mike Buckley]

This entire fiasco began almost exactly one month ago when I accidentally downloaded the wrong software for burning music files to audio compact discs. It's extremely likely that that software planted the ransomware on my internal drive.

It's in that context that I am now exceptionally happy to report that I have now finally come full circle; using the correct burning software (ImgBurn) recommended by Richard, I have successfully burned and verified three test tracks to the CD. The tracks play just fine in my CD player and they display just fine on my television, which makes it possible to play any track using the television's remote control.

Whew!

The remarkable lesson I learned from the process of recording music on my audio cassette tapes to electronic files is that playing the electronic files is far superior to playing the tapes. That's because of the Audacity recording, editing and playback software I use (recommended by someone in another thread -- sorry that I don't remember who). Audacity makes it possible to remove the sound of the tape hiss without adversely affecting the music itself. Yowza!

 

[atlanta_man]

I'm going to stock up on writable CD's. Before they get to be expensive collectors items.

 

[Growltiger]

I'm going to stock up on writable CD's. Before they get to be expensive collectors items.

CD-R are incredibly cheap.
DVD+R are incredibly cheap.
Blu-ray-R are quite cheap too.
I use them all. But not for backups.

 

[atlanta_man]

Wondering what the archive-ability / longevity they (consumer writeable CD/DVD's) have ? I tried to research this long ago for a business use but gave it up as the claims were not very convincing to me at the time. The whole idea of a dye layer hit by a laser just did not seem to be for the long term.

I took out six audio CD's (that I had burned music on five or six years ago) from the player (factory Toyota unit) in the car I traded off a few months ago. I'd long since quit playing them in the car, instead using the aux input of the player and an mp3 player.

Two of the cd's would not play on any of the 4 different computer and household players I tried. At least three Texas summers may have faded out the music. The dye died.

 

[Growltiger]

Wondering what the archive-ability / longevity they (consumer writeable CD/DVD's) have ? I tried to research this long ago for a business use but gave it up as the claims were not very convincing to me at the time. The whole idea of a dye layer hit by a laser just did not seem to be for the long term.

I took out six audio CD's (that I had burned music on five or six years ago) from the player (factory Toyota unit) in the car I traded off a few months ago. I'd long since quit playing them in the car, instead using the aux input of the player and an mp3 player.

Two of the cd's would not play on any of the 4 different computer and household players I tried. At least three Texas summers may have faded out the music. The dye died.

There is a huge difference between the longevity of disks which are rewriteable and those which are write once. If your disks were marked RW then I'm not surprised. I have had CD-RW and DVD-RW disks and found them very unreliable. Their dyes are far less stable.

But CD-R is very stable, although some early disks had problems with a weird rust or mould that developed. Long ago I used CD-R for data and never had a problem.
DVD+R is better designed than DVD-R.

Nowadays I would not dream of using any optical media for backups. The data capacity is too small, and I would not trust either one or two layer BDs. No need, external drives have huge capacity and are cheap and so long as you have several and rotate them you are very safe.

 

[Mike Buckley]

The Audacity software explains that "it is strongly recommended that you purchase good quality CD-Rs (that can be burnt just once) and not the rewritable CD-RWs." (That's a verbatim quote including their use of bold and italic fonts, so I bought Verbatim CD-Rs. ) There was nothing about why they advised buying one type instead of the other type.

If my CDs go bad over time, I'll still have the Audacity project files on my computer from which I can generate the WAV files again just in case a WAV file goes bad. I'll also have the WAV files on my computer. And I'll have the backups of all of them.

My biggest concern at this point is whether the audio cassette tapes are in decent condition; they certainly don't last forever. Will the tracks still be properly aligned with the player's heads? Will parts of the tapes be stretched? The tapes have been stored all these decades in relatively cool, dry conditions, so that's a help. Even so, one of the tapes I intended to use to learn how to do the recording to electronic file sounded on both sides like it was muffled to the point of being unusable. It was a commercially produced tape, so perhaps it was defective from the very beginning.