IObit Cloud, Online Antivirus File Analysis

Martin Brinkmann
Dec 29, 2010
Updated • Apr 10, 2012
Antivirus, Internet, Security

When in doubt verify. That's one of the maxims that I use daily to avoid running into troubles. That's especially true for files and programs that I want to test and run on my system. Sometimes they come from untrustworthy sources, and even though I have antivirus installed I prefer to double-check those files to avoid a successful virus attack on my computer.

IObit Cloud is a new service by IObit that users can utilize to scan files for malicious code. The process itself is straightforward. It begins by selecting the file from the local hard drive. The service does not mention file size limitations but it seems to be that only files up to 20 Megabytes can be uploaded.

The online antivirus scanner loads the file and begins to analyze it. The load on the server has been relatively low in the time of testing. All file scans started immediately which could change in the future.

file analysis

A report is generated in the end that contains a threat assessment, basic file information that include hashes, information about Registry changes and a report link.

IObit Cloud is a new service that the developers need to improve. What's missing? Frequently asked questions or usage instructions for information like file size or type limitations for instance, or a privacy policy so that users know how the files are handled by the service.

IObit Cloud is an alternative to other online antivirus file checkers, especially those that utilize only one antivirus engine as well.

The better option for most users is a multi-engine service such as Virustotal which offers a safer assessment of a file's threat potention.

Update: The service is now displaying a service load indicator in the upper right corner of the screen. It is still not as complete as Virustotal or other multi-engine scanners.


Tutorials & Tips

Previous Post: «
Next Post: «


  1. imu said on January 4, 2014 at 5:00 pm

    Martin, did you hear anything good about Sophos’ UTM Firewall Home Edition? I would love to see your review on this one but I have no idea whether this can be run in VM so in case you have no spare machine to test it then this ain’t gonna happen I know.

  2. Boris said on January 4, 2014 at 5:40 pm

    Hm, my friend is having problems with major slowdowns on her computer from time to time. And incidentally I installed MS Essentials on her computer. This could be a problem.

  3. Ramesh Khanna said on January 4, 2014 at 10:15 pm

    I understand S E isn’t available for Win8/8.1 because microsoft thinks defender on 8 is strong enough to not need S E. how does defender compare with other security programs?

    1. Martin Brinkmann said on January 4, 2014 at 10:16 pm

      Not good as well.

      1. JohnP said on January 5, 2014 at 4:58 am
  4. Richard said on January 4, 2014 at 10:54 pm

    I am skeptical of AV test comparisons. The reasons for my skepticism are many. Perhaps the most meaningful one is that it is impossible to re-create real world experiences in a lab. IMPOSSIBLE!

    I have used MSE for years. It is fine. Typically, other free AV products have a much heavier footprint on systems. They also have a more intrusive UX than MSE. They perform their AV function no better.

    BTW, the reason you can’t install MSE in Windows 8/8.1 is because the version of Windows Defender that is incorporated into the OS includes MSE.

  5. sagar nandwani said on January 5, 2014 at 1:38 pm

    Is the percentage one select to be the amount of CPU which MSE is allowed, or which one wishes to reserve for other applications??
    Obviously at 50% it doesn’t matter, does it, but in any other case, it does.

  6. GK said on January 5, 2014 at 2:34 pm

    Yes please avoid MSE/Defender. Its filter driver causes a significant hit in CPU performance and disk I/O. I recommend using Avast or Avira’s free versions. Better protection, lighter on resources.

  7. Straspey said on January 5, 2014 at 3:31 pm

    I was recently experiencing an extreme example of this problem – with a very high CPU usage to the point where I could hear my hard disk working very hard.

    When I opened task manager and looked at the process list, I noticed that there was a file which was using abut 50% of the CPU:


    My first inclination was to just try and “end” the process, to see what happens – but I was denied and prevented from doing so.

    So I then ran a Google search and found this link, which provided the explanation and solution:

    Open MSE – Click on Settengs and then, from the list on the left, choose “Excluded files and locations”

    Browse to C:/Pprogram Files/Microsoft Security Client/MsMpEng.exe and add it to the list.

    Click on Save Changes and close the program.

    Apparently, MSE sees its own process as something which needs to be closely monitored — almost like a puppy dog trying to bite its own tail – and this adjustment relieves the issue.

    As far as I can tell – and from the explanation on the link above – this configuration does not interfere with the proper functioning of MSE – because if it did, the configuration would fail – just like it did when I tried ending the process in Task Manager.

    It’s been a few weeks now, and I have not experienced that constant high CPU usage associated with MSE — while at the same time, I have noticed it happening on occasion when the process was being called normally.

    Give it a try – and I would be very interested to hear what Martin thinks about this.

    Happy New Year to All

  8. Richard Steven Hack said on January 5, 2014 at 6:06 pm

    Yes, I had a client with the same issue – Security Essentials chasing its own tail. It caused a major CPU spike on her system.

    I assume that the reason they do this is to protect the program from itself being compromised by malware, which does happen to AV programs occasionally.

    Given that most of the major AV programs are doing poorly at detecting new malware, using a weak detector like Security Essentials is a bad idea. “Real world” results are likely to be worse than any AV test.

  9. Richard Steven Hack said on January 5, 2014 at 6:08 pm

    My comment was marked as spam? Seriously? Because I edited it?

    1. Martin Brinkmann said on January 5, 2014 at 6:22 pm

      WordPress is strange, at times.

Leave a Reply

Check the box to consent to your data being stored in line with the guidelines set out in our privacy policy

We love comments and welcome thoughtful and civilized discussion. Rudeness and personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please stay on-topic.
Please note that your comment may not appear immediately after you post it.