Kaspersky 7 still has major issues

[ccsito]

-{ Quote: "I only got a reply that suggested ZA is looking into the iSwift matter. Maybe there's hope yet, but I'm not sure I'll get any further replies on the matter from ZA....." }-

I wouldn't be surprised if you got no further responses. ::)

My DOS command prompt CHKDSK ran for under 5 minutes on a 40 GB hard drive with 20% used area. I used to run the program a lot on my Windows 3.1 system with a 200MB hard drive. It executed in just a few seconds. But I have never ever used any Kaspersky product, so can't say how doing so would impact CHKDSK.

[Firecat]

-{ Quote: "I wouldn't be surprised if you got no further responses. ::)
" }-

I wouldn't be surprised either, considering ZoneAlarm's support is, well, flaky from what I've seen so far, but anyway, having a reply would definitely help! :)

Oh, BTW, I missed your previous post, and to answer that question, I asked the ZA support team about this iSwift issue and its relation to ZoneAlarm's AV and Security Suite. (along with a few other non-related queries). They tell me to submit undetected samples directly to Kaspersky when I told them that I receive a failure notice when I try to send malicious files directly to ZoneAlarm. ::)

[sunrise]

sorry, was reading through this thread as well as the chkdisk thread in kaspersky forums, but could not really comprehend 100% on the problem..sorry..

Can i ask if the chkdisk problem mention by the users is:

after installing KIS, when they run chkdisk under dos prompt, they experience stage 2 hang, or sometimes chkdisk fail to complete or complete with errors.

Or after installing KIS, KIs will cause (or may be the cause) chkdisk to run automatically upon reboot or startup of computer?

[optigrab]

-{ Quote: "sorry, was reading through this thread as well as the chkdisk thread in kaspersky forums, but could not really comprehend 100% on the problem..sorry..

Can i ask if the chkdisk problem mention by the users is:

[1] after installing KIS, when they run chkdisk under dos prompt, they experience stage 2 hang, or sometimes chkdisk fail to complete or complete with errors.

[2] Or after installing KIS, KIs will cause (or may be the cause) chkdisk to run automatically upon reboot or startup of computer?" }-Both issues have been reported and are possible, however it appears scenario #1 is a lot more common than scenario #2.

[trjam]

Oh geez, give me a friggining break. Common? Yeah they are very common and have been for years (http://forum.kaspersky.com/lofiversion/index.php/t13439.html)

[Trespasser]

No need for the "Oh geez, give me a friggining break" comment. He was just asking for some clarification.

BTW, I did a chkdisk scan two days ago and my computer zipped through all stages without a problem. Must be something particular to a certain setup or hard drive. And, yes, I'm running Kaspersky.

Have a good day, everyone.

[trjam]

-{ Quote: "No need for the "Oh geez, give me a friggining break" comment. He was just asking for some clarification.

BTW, I did a chkdisk scan two days ago and my computer zipped through all stages without a problem. Must be something particular to a certain setup or hard drive. And, yes, I'm running Kaspersky.

Have a good day, everyone." }-
True, I apologize.

[Mele20]

-{ Quote: "Having read some of your posts here and elsewhere I can't see where you can blame anything on any particular program. You have installed so many applications and had them running at the same time then uninstall them and try something else, and haven't done a clean install in years...... there is no doubt that your pc is a complete mess. I don't care how well programs uninstall or how good registry cleaners are, installing and uninstalling security applications that can conflict with one another routinely will cause nothing but problems. These programs leave junk behind in the registry, they leave behind drivers that try and load even after an uninstall that conflict with other applications. You need to take a chill pill and look at yourself and the way you are acting about this...... very irrational.

??? :wacko:" }-

OOOHHH and who is acting irrational? I got your goat didn't I? Scared silly because you couldn't live if Kaspersky is taken down? That could happen. I know it can be done. I just don't want to bother with the hassle.

I'll say it again. I have ONE security program that runs in real time. That is ProcessGuard. I have Avira Premium that has no Guard installed or email scanner installed. I use it as on demand only and I have never done a full scan. I have no other Security programs except Spybot that I run on demand at the most once a month if I happen remember to do so. I also have Spyware Blaster which I don't keep up to date as I just can't remember to update it.

Errr...I haven't done a clean install in "years"? And how did you automagically wave a wand a make this computer older than 16 months? You also seem to have magically forgotten that I use VMWare Workstation 5.5 and I do my AV testing there. I haven't tested anything though in over a year even on VMWare. So, could you list for me all this security stuff I have installed on this computer for "YEARS" even though the computer is only 16 months old and what tests I do are on a virtual machine? I have had Bit Defender, Kaspersky and F-Prot on this computer. Bit Defender and F-Prot uninstall very cleanly. It is only your precious AV that fxxks with one's computer and has no respect for its users.

I really think you should be careful before you shoot your mouth off when you have no facts to back up the drivel that pours forth. Obviously, you are unable to civilly defend Kaspersky against these serious charges so you resort to ad homenium attacks. You make Kaspersky look really good...yeah...your behavior just reinforces my belief that Kaspersky to some extent became so arrogant because of people like you who are so terrified of getting a virus that you will put up with anything to have the one AV that can "save your soul".

[Mele20]

-{ Quote: "Mele20,

I'm fairly sure that command line usage of fsutil as presented by deXter_ here (http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18608452-Kaspersky-You-lost-me-at-ISwift~start=380) is about as good as it will get.

KL may whip up a simple tool that yields the same result, but unless they have been tracking creation of the file object ID's all alone (which I assume is extremely unlikely for a variety of reasons), I don't see a way for them to selectively remove just the entries that they have created. As far as I can see, it's an all or nothing deal. I have not seen any issues from the partition that I have cleaned of object ID's. From my basic understanding of their function, I wouldn't expect any untoward effects for a standalone typical home environment PC despite the warnings from the MS website quoted multiple time. I could see potential issues in a networked domain, but that's not the world most of us reside in with our home PC's.

As for the KL response, my personal opinion is that it's been absolutely pathetic. Others may differ in their opinion, and that's fine, but at the end of the day, if a customer perceives that they've been slighted/dismissed/ignored, that perception is reality for that customer interaction. KL really needs to look inward regarding how they handle volatile situations like this. It's not the first time the ball has been bobbled, and past lessons obviously didn't take. Frankly, that speaks to a structural issue.

As to going down the iSwift road at all...., they should not have been so naive, and that's really the only word for it. The discussion regarding unintended secondary consequences - both functional and those involving customer perception - had to have been cursory if it occurred at all. A very basic guiding principle is that the structure of a machine/file system should not be irreversibly changed unless explicitly known and approved by the user. It really is just basic courtesy and operational hygiene. People moan over the sparse footprints left by long gone applications. At least those foot prints are sparse, these touched every file on the system and that is fundamentally inexcusable.

Blue" }-


That is an outstanding post. You have summarized the situation beautifully and with grace which I have trouble doing because I feel so betrayed and that makes me very angry.

I have only the one internal drive and an external one. The internal one is getting full (only 160GB) and I am about to purchase a new 320GB Seagate SATA3 with NCQ and 16MB cache scrumptious drive but I have to wait for Office Max to get some more as they were just put on the boat today so that means at least a month before they arrive. Anyhow, my question is that after I get this new drive and set it up, if I copy all the files off the current drive onto it that will remove the Object Identifiers ..right...or will I have to then copy them all back to the current drive? (I'm not getting rid of the current drive...I have 4 internal drive bays). Maybe something like this will be my best bet right? Although if Kaspersky is finally talking to Microsoft about this maybe Microsoft will be able to bail out all of us including Kaspersky.

[ccsito]

-{ Quote: "

They tell me to submit undetected samples directly to Kaspersky when I told them that I receive a failure notice when I try to send malicious files directly to ZoneAlarm. ::)" }-

LOL ::) :wacko:

Thanks for replying back to my earlier question. I also found the answer on the ZA website.

-{ Quote: "Starting with version 7.0, ZoneAlarm offered a new antivirus engine that is arguably the most respected and effective antivirus engine available today. This award-winning Antivirus technology is from Kaspersky Labs. Kaspersky is known as the leading antivirus provider because of two main things: 1) Its legendary hourly signature updates which make your computer protected sooner from zero-day virus outbreaks; and 2) Its expanded database that goes beyond viruses to catch the latest spyware such as Trojan horses. Kaspersky has won major industry awards from Virus Bulletin, SC Magazine and others and is a favorite among computer experts. It is an excellent and critical component of ZoneAlarm's multi-layered antivirus defenses" }-

[trjam]

I am wondering if unchecking iswift in each scanner would help with this issue.

[BlueZannetti]

-{ Quote: "I am wondering if unchecking iswift in each scanner would help with this issue." }-If by issue you mean creation of file object id's, the answer is..., sort of.

The realtime monitor appears to create them when files are accessed, so any file accessed on the system will get them even if all places where iSwift can be enabled/disabled within the GUI (which cover demand/scheduled scans) are unchecked.

Blue

[Firecat]

It may be possible to disable iSwift in each KAV clone that uses it by using a command line switch, but the problem is that I don't know if such a switch exists and how to use it. :-\