Kaspersky 7 still has major issues

[trjam]

Just removed it to put Avira back on to see how the updating goes over the next few days. On rebooting I get the chkdsk screen telling me their are consistency problems and the disk must be scanned. It then says something about orphan files need to be replaced. So, Kaspersky, keep your software and all that goes with it. It seems the old, is still in the new. Lodore, enjoy my gift as I would not install this crap again for a million dollars. Is there anyone out there that can make a safe, reliable and good product anymore. Geez, I could not believe this. And this isnt bashing but stating a fact.

[lodore]

{QUOTE-> Just removed it to put Avira back on to see how the updating goes over the next few days. On rebooting I get the chkdsk screen telling me their are consistency problems and the disk must be scanned. It then says something about orphan files need to be replaced. So, Kaspersky, keep your software and all that goes with it. It seems the old, is still in the new. Lodore, enjoy my gift as I would not install this crap again for a million dollars. Is there anyone out there that can make a safe, reliable and good product anymore. Geez, I could not believe this. And this isnt bashing but stating a fact. <-QUOTE}
thanks for the gift jeff:thumb:
have you reported the bugs to the kaspersky 119tr thread?
http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=38710&st=100
lodore

[trjam]

no and why should I. I no longer want any association with the "flavor of the week."

[huntnyc]

I removed it version 7 not because of that problem but because I cannot stand continued degraded speed of browsing. Went back to NOD32 2.7 and waiting on 3 and maybe looking at Avira again who knows.

Gary

[Mele20]

{QUOTE-> Just removed it to put Avira back on to see how the updating goes over the next few days. On rebooting I get the chkdsk screen telling me their are consistency problems and the disk must be scanned. It then says something about orphan files need to be replaced. So, Kaspersky, keep your software and all that goes with it. It seems the old, is still in the new. Lodore, enjoy my gift as I would not install this crap again for a million dollars. Is there anyone out there that can make a safe, reliable and good product anymore. Geez, I could not believe this. And this isn't bashing but stating a fact. <-QUOTE}

Are you referring to the Chkdsk problem in 2006 or some other problem about inefficient KAV removal that causes Chkdsk to popup after removing KAV?

Kaspersky has stated that the Chkdsk problem in 2006 is a figment of users imaginations. So, why is it a surprise that the problem persists in 2007? With that sort of attitude, it will never be addressed. If your Chkdsk problem is something different...well, I don't know.

[Peter2150]

{QUOTE-> Are you referring to the Chkdsk problem in 2006 or some other problem about inefficient KAV removal that causes Chkdsk to popup after removing KAV?

Kaspersky has stated that the Chkdsk problem in 2006 is a figment of users imaginations. So, why is it a surprise that the problem persists in 2007? With that sort of attitude, it will never be addressed. If your Chkdsk problem is something different...well, I don't know. <-QUOTE}

Geesh, this is like a stuck record. Go to the Kaspersky forum, and look for the volumes of people reporting problems. Aren't there. If it really is a problem go to the forum, report it, and provide Kaspersky something concrete to work on it. Continually posting the same thing over and over again, accomplishes nothing.

[Mele20]

First of all I wasn't replying to you. I was replying to trjam. I'm not sure what he means and why did you try to answer the question I asked him? Can you read his mind? I can't. ;)

Secondly, this is not a stuck record. The thread is still alive and kicking at Kaspersky forums. I was just reading the last few pages about a week ago and apparently the problem is still there and maybe even worse in the 2007 version.

Thirdly, I have been a major contributor to the thread (although not since I uninstalled KAV). So, I'm a bit puzzled. What more do you expect me to do? I reported the problem as soon as I discovered it on my computer. Luckily, probably because I never did a full scan when I had KAV for those six months last year, and I immediately unchecked use ISwift and IChecker, I had a milder experience of the problem. I have not had Kaspersky since last December but I still have the Chkdsk problem that it left me as a "remember me by" present. Are you saying I should install Kaspersky again and allow it to do more damage in the hope that I can figure out a way to provide Kaspersky with more clues so they can "find" the problem themselves? That is asking awful lot especially considering that I still might not be able to provide them with whatever is they lack to discover the problem themselves. Plus, there are many others in the thread with far superior computer skills to mine who can better provide clues to the puzzle.

[tamdam]

well I have used kis6 and kis7 and never had any chkdsk problems. But anyhow, I don't see this as a big issue - I have in the past had chkdsk "problems" (before I even heard of kaspersky - so not kaspersky related) but never knew it until I ran it after a incomplete shutdown. And yet Windows XP was sailing along nicely - so I didn't worry. I think chkdsk problems are overhyped - it finds a few fragments - so what? It could equally be caused by bad shutdown or whatever. Does it really affect your windows installation? I've had chkdsk report errors straight after a clean install! And yet XP runs fine and snappy (until you download all those windows updates :S) There are many happy users of kaspersky products - if it really did cause serious chkdsk corruption (which I doubt) then why aren't all kaspersky users having harddisk corruption troubles?

[Sjoeii]

People
What are we talking about. Version 7 haven't been released officially yet. People try software and say (shout ) it is the best in the world and everybody needs to know. Next a minor problem occurs and it is the worst in the world. Then they try another and same thing happens.

You can shout over here or all over the internet if you like but that doesn't help anyone. If you have any issues please post them over at the Kaspersky forum so the Mods can help or maybe even better so that the Kaspersky specialists can do something about it.There are several members of the KL Team on the forum all of the time.

[colt45allstar]

I've had none of the mentioned issues.

No chkdsk problems or anything. (of course didn't have the problems with 6.0 or my admittedly limited time with 5.0 either)

This is the smoothest running security software I've ever ran on my computer bar none. I've tried older versions of Norton Internet Security... Avira (though to be fair Avira's made huge strides since then and if I didn't like Kaspersky so much I would give it another try) Nod 32 and Zone Alarm Pro Combination... could go on and on.

This pc is a pile of crap also.. just being honest. (hey I'm stuck with it until the other one gets fixed)

As bare bones as bare bones gets and everything is running great.

In regard to the decreased speed mentioned by another user... Web surfing is much much faster on this end than it was with 6.0...which in turn was much faster than nod32 with imon enabled)

Hourly updates.. a willingness to improve heuristics.. proactive defense and a program that runs this well on the computer?

Just goes to show how programs react differently on different computers.

Myself? Baring something unforeseen I'm a KIS user for life at this point.

[trjam]

I know what I saw and it was the old problem rearing its head. May be a issuer to some and not to others. Gary, after a few days, 7 slows everything down as bad as 6, folks will see this the more that use it. I agree for speed and detection, Eset and Avira, also Dr. Web.

[zapjb]

This is a beta for goodness sake. If it was a final, that'd be different.

[trjam]

excuse me, this is the tr release and I dont think there will be any changes in the drivers and say about a week from now. Look, to each his own, but I know what I experienced and I am not going through it again.

[TonyW]

I still keep saying this, and I'll say it again: I'd love somebody to do a comparative study to find out WHY it works on some machines and not others. Only by doing that will we find out what really is causing the problem some users experience.

[mnosteele]

I think it's due to some type of conflict with another program. I'm a KL reseller and have installed KAV hundreds of times and have never seen this issue. I use all the same software for all of my clients because I know there are conflicts with different applications. I just don't think it's KL fault, their technicians are very open to suggestions, complaints and requests. I think in the hundreds of installs I've done that I would have seen this at least once if it was KAV.

:)

[Baldrick]

{QUOTE-> excuse me, this is the tr release and I dont think there will be any changes in the drivers and say about a week from now. Look, to each his own, but I know what I experienced and I am not going through it again. <-QUOTE}
You have made your point so why don't you change the record? Just because you are having a does not mean that everyone else is. I have been running KIS 7 since Build 55 of the beta and have NEVER had an internet slowdown. KIS 7 has been consistently faster than KIS6 (and anything else I have tested) ON MY PC.

And whilst we are about it I tried Avira and it slowed my PC down...so where do we go from here. Well, we just have to accept that this will always happen so we have to trial software, find what works well on ones own PC and go with that (I dropped NIS2006 because it did not work well on my PC but before that I had run Norton AV products since early WIndows 95 with nothing but very good performance.

So lets all grow up a bit, eh!;)

[zapjb]

Similar situation. I had run of a friends house & computer a few weeks ago. He has McAfee Security Center running perfectly well on it. That confounds me & my feelings about McAfee. But I have to accept it. I saw it. Still not for mine.

[C.S.J]

i too have problems with K7 and also with past versions, i dont know the reasons but it has never ran well for me, it really is hit or miss....

i know many people have problems with kaspersky, i simply just cant run it for more than a day without getting a problem, but then again... i know many other people have no problems with kaspersky.

its a query that should be made, as its a puzzle to me why this is, all the same 'problems' happen in k7 aswell as previous versions for me, this is possibly a reason why i say i dont see such a big difference between the versions, i dont know.

and i a decent enough machine, a good dual core cpu and 2gb ddr2 ... so its not a performance issue.
my machine is pretty barebones, i really dont like installing or even having anything on my machine that i dont use, im kinda funny like that. :)

it is confusing, why why why

:wacko:

[zapjb]

I'd venture it's some program/service that's always running. Like HIPS, imaging/disaster recovery, defrag, AS or some such programs.

[Antarctica]

{QUOTE-> i too have problems with K7 and also with past versions, i dont know the reasons but it has never ran well for me, it really is hit or miss....
it is confusing, why why why
<-QUOTE}

As for myself I don't even questioning anymore. They are only Software after all.;) If one of them is not compatible with my machine, I just ditch it and try another one.:)

[steve1955]

On my main PC both Kav6 and Kav7 run lighter than Nod32 when the settings are set to be as near as possible to be the same,on my daughters PC the same result,but on my sons Nod 32 runs a lot lighter than Kav6(never tried any Kav7 builds on that one!)So,as mentioned by others,which of the ones will run best is dependent on what is in your pc(hardware)and what is on it(software)I am of the opinion there is no definitive answer which covers every user,as for checkdisc errors:-never had them with Kav(didn't know others had either until I read this thread:-not something I've ever needed to investigate!)
The phrase "horses for courses" seems apt!

[steve1955]

{QUOTE-> As for myself I don't even questioning anymore. They are only Software after all.;) If one of them is not compatible with my machine, I just ditch it and try another one.:) <-QUOTE}

Yes I agree competely,I can't understand how some users can become so fanatical over something that in the end is just a "tool"

[trjam]

{QUOTE-> Yes I agree competely,I can't understand how some users can become so fanatical over something that in the end is just a "tool" <-QUOTE}
I totally agree and thus, ditched KIS 7.::)

[Antarctica]

{QUOTE-> I totally agree and thus, ditched KIS 7.::) <-QUOTE}

That's perfect.:) The only difference between you and me is that I don't make a big fuss over the Forum when I ditch a Software.;)

[lodore]

{QUOTE-> That's perfect.:) The only difference between you and me is that I don't make a big fuss over the Forum when I ditch a Software.;) <-QUOTE}
i will have to learn that one;D
lodore

[The Hammer]

{QUOTE-> i will have to learn that one;D
lodore <-QUOTE}Better to stay under the radar if you want more gifts.;)

[trjam]

{QUOTE-> That's perfect.:) The only difference between you and me is that I don't make a big fuss over the Forum when I ditch a Software.;) <-QUOTE}
Cant argue with you, so I guess I will just apologize. I know I can be a bear, but I am a sicko because you know what, I am passoniate about this stuff, and that is frigging crazy. But true. I will tone it down. Want a Big Mac?;)

[Antarctica]

trjam,
No problem, I didn't mean to offend you.:) Thanks, but I hate Big Mac.And even if you give me one, I would ditch it:P ;D

[trjam]

{QUOTE-> trjam,
No problem, I didn't mean to offend you.:) Thanks, but I hate Big Mac.And even if you give me one, I would ditch it:P ;D <-QUOTE}
you are a smart person. No problem, your points are well taken.

[EliteKiller]

{QUOTE-> I know what I saw and it was the old problem rearing its head. May be a issuer to some and not to others. Gary, after a few days, 7 slows everything down as bad as 6, folks will see this the more that use it. I agree for speed and detection, Eset and Avira, also Dr. Web. <-QUOTE}
No offense, but you uninstall/reinstall various AV's on a weekly basis, and one can only assume that you are also doing the same with other security software. If you're being forced to run CHKDSK on your hard drive, are there any bad clusters or sectors in the report? Replace your hard drive and switch back to KAV because your current avatar is ugly. :D

[btman]

{QUOTE-> switch back to KAV because your current avatar is ugly. :D <-QUOTE}

That made me laugh.

But yeah... All of these issues your describing really do not happen with my KAV 6... Let alone I hear KAV 7 is lighter so thats another bonus. I can't wait till the final comes out.

[lodore]

{QUOTE-> That made me laugh.

But yeah... All of these issues your describing really do not happen with my KAV 6... Let alone I hear KAV 7 is lighter so thats another bonus. I can't wait till the final comes out. <-QUOTE}
i cant wait eiether.
lodore

[zapjb]

I'm awaiting KIS7 final. :thumb:

[beethoven]

{QUOTE-> and switch back to KAV because your current avatar is ugly. :D <-QUOTE}

Shall we take a poll on how long it will remain?;)

[Zombini]

From what I've seen NIS2008 is going to kick KIS7 a**. The only advantage that KIS6 had going for it was detection and have many of you have seen from the recent AV tests even that lead they had seems to be diminishing.

[Sjoeii]

from what I've seen from NIS 2008 they will never win. First look is good. But I'm used to KIS 7 now and must be a good company to beat that

[btman]

{QUOTE-> From what I've seen NIS2008 is going to kick KIS7 a**. The only advantage that KIS6 had going for it was detection and have many of you have seen from the recent AV tests even that lead they had seems to be diminishing. <-QUOTE}

I'm curious... Whats in Norton 08 thats better than Kaspersky?

KIS has pro-active defence, heuristics, solid firewall, its lighter than 6... Norton has..____ (I'm not sure, so fill in the blanks)

[lodore]

{QUOTE-> I'm curious... Whats in Norton 08 thats better than Kaspersky?

KIS has pro-active defence, heuristics, solid firewall, its lighter than 6... Norton has..____ (I'm not sure, so fill in the blanks) <-QUOTE}
the symantec beta testers are not allowed to disclose that infomation.
so we will have to wait for the public beta.
lodore

[Peter2150]

Please confine the discussion to the issue of Kaspersky 7 having major issues.

If you want to discuss a new version of NIS, a new thread would be appropriate.

Pete

[lodore]

anyway back to kis7.0 issues
what issues?;D
ive installed kis7.0tr on my main pc and its runnning sweet as
lodore

[DVD+R]

Vloody Hell!! :o (Russian for By Gosh your Dumb) :P I Seriously Doubt you lot even read what is Meant by Beta!, Even when you sign up for Beta testing you have the warning that it isnt an Official release, and should only be tested by Experts ( :dry: ) And it should Only be installed on a Test Machine :shifty: So More fool you If you get Crashes and Stuff Ups! *puppy*

[Peter2150]

{QUOTE-> Vloody Hell!! :o (Russian for By Gosh your Dumb) :P I Seriously Doubt you lot even read what is Meant by Beta!, Even when you sign up for Beta testing you have the warning that it isnt an Official release, and should only be tested by Experts ( :dry: ) And it should Only be installed on a Test Machine :shifty: So More fool you If you get Crashes and Stuff Ups! *puppy* <-QUOTE}

DVD

The build 119TR is the final. It is the release version and not a beta. Needs commercial key.

Pete

[buffet]

My Dell E501 box runs very well in most powerful protections provided by KIS7TR.
There is no performance issue with KIS7 even at most highest settings of protections at all levels; this is a great sign to the complete newly rewritten NDIS network driver of KIS7 team; on my box, it is a very small differential, < 3% from in/out throughputs network/internet between no KIS7 and having KIS7 at max. protection level.

New heuritic engine as most other powerful ones, at max heuritic scanning, some false alarms should be there anyway. On mine, there have been two of all detected one as "trojan.generic (modification)" and another as "worm.P2P.generic (modification)"; both are sent to KAL for further analysis.

It hopes that KAL should redesign GUI of firewall components (rules settings/reports/template more)

Thx to KIS7 team.

[larryb52]

sometimes a person has such problems that they need to vent, we should all understand that, it's called being human. Also agree that all software isn't for all users or all machines so I have to back trjam. In his case it caused him a lot of problems & so he's just venting, I hope he get's back to square one.

[The Hammer]

{QUOTE-> I hope he get's back to square one. <-QUOTE}He does indeed get back to square one. In fact he starts from that position at least once a week.;D

[trjam]

Very funny guys and I understand and expect it. But time will truthfully tell and if you really think Kas 7 is the Holy Grail, well, let me just bookmark this post for say, about 90 days from now. Peace.:)

[C.S.J]

a canadian having a go at an american and vice versa,

NEVER! ::)

lol

[Pfipps]

I have been using KAV Beta since 7.0.0.55 with no major problems (Although I have never used the parental control). The only issue I have is that it is still relatively slow compared to AVG, NOD32, Panda and Alwil. It also appears to be slower than Avira. Kaspersky needs to focus even more resources on speed. Granted, the firewall in version 7 is significantly faster than in version 6.

[huntnyc]

Although I saw slow browsing when I installed KIS 7 earlier, I reinstalled and now I don't see any noticable slowdowns at all when using Opera 9.21 or in IE 7. It is a vast improvement. But, I also stilll like Avira as well.

Gary

[DVD+R]

{QUOTE-> DVD

The build 119TR is the final. It is the release version and not a beta. Needs commercial key.

Pete <-QUOTE}


Dont be ridiculous ::) If it was a Release it would be on the Kaspersky Store by Now. Its Still Beta:dry:

[NAMOR]

I thought the "TR" phase was somewhere in between the beta stage and the final stage, but closer to the final. Here some parts of the program could have minor changes to it before it is officially released (changes in help file, GUI enhancements, etc).

[Peter2150]

{QUOTE-> Dont be ridiculous ::) If it was a Release it would be on the Kaspersky Store by Now. Its Still Beta:dry: <-QUOTE}

I am not being ridiculous. It is no longer beta, the beta keys won't work with it. However if you read the Kaspersky forum, you would learn, that once they have the release version, it is typically several weeks before it ends up in the Kaspersky store.

The decision on which version is the release is made by the technical folks, and the decision on the release date is marketing.

[Seer]

Hello :)

Is TR (Technical Release?) something like RC (Release Candidate)? If so, it's still not final, but "technically" it's not a beta anymore either...

[Blackcat]

It's out of the beta-testing phase now (http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=38784).

KAV 7 went through several Release Candidates and then this TR, which should now be ready for prime time ( gold release).

[huntnyc]

Spoke too soon, still a slight lag at times browsing with version 7 but it is better than 6 for sure. For now though, went back to my old setup and not a suite for now.

Gary

[lodore]

{QUOTE-> Spoke too soon, still a slight lag at times browsing with version 7 but it is better than 6 for sure. For now though, went back to my old setup and not a suite for now.

Gary <-QUOTE}
ye i tryed online armour version 2 on my old pc and the internet was faster.
so the kis7.0 firewall still needs a bit of work.
lodore

[ronandex]

PC Magazine voted Kaspersky number 1 this last month with Symantec Norton #2. :) Funny how soon they forget.. I was running a demo of Norton antivirus 2007 full virus scan in the background (less load on the PC if you minimize- how hillarious) CPU showed 25-30% CPU when minimized running a virus scan in the background.. Come on now. I'm running with 2 GB of DDR2. That shouldn't be happening. Yes Norton Antivirus still holds the title of system hog on resources.

[EliteKiller]

{QUOTE-> PC Magazine voted Kaspersky number 1 this last month with Symantec Norton #2. :) Funny how soon they forget.. I was running a demo of Norton antivirus 2007 full virus scan in the background (less load on the PC if you minimize- how hillarious) CPU showed 25-30% CPU when minimized running a virus scan in the background.. Come on now. I'm running with 2 GB of DDR2. That shouldn't be happening. Yes Norton Antivirus still holds the title of system hog on resources. <-QUOTE}
I am running a Kaspersky AV 6.0 scan on my other pc as we speak (AMD 2000+, 2GB, etc.) and avp.exe is frequently spiking up to 90+% cpu usage. So by your train of thought KAV is worse than Norton. :dry:

[lodore]

have you try insstalling norton 2007 on the same pc and see how much cpu that uses during the scan?
you have to try both on the same pc to make it a fair test.
lodore

[Don Pelotas]

{QUOTE-> have you try insstalling norton 2007 on the same pc and see how much cpu that uses during the scan?
you have to try both on the same pc to make it a fair test.
lodore <-QUOTE}
Why? It's supposed to use the CPU when doing a scan, not using the available CPU would not make a lot of sense. :)

[lodore]

{QUOTE-> Why? It's supposed to use the CPU when doing a scan, not using the available CPU would not make a lot of sense. :) <-QUOTE}
Hi Don,
what i ment was if you using the pc it should work around you due to the "concede resourses to other applications"
lodore

[Technodrome]

{QUOTE-> Funny how soon they forget.. I was running a demo of Norton antivirus 2007 full virus scan in the background (less load on the PC if you minimize- how hillarious) CPU showed 25-30% CPU when minimized running a virus scan in the background.. Come on now. I'm running with 2 GB of DDR2. That shouldn't be happening. Yes Norton Antivirus still holds the title of system hog on resources. <-QUOTE}

How can you call it a hog when during full scan its ONLY using 25-30 % CPU? No matter what antivirus you try, on demand scan will be a cpu hog(effecting lower CPUs even more).


tD

[C.S.J]

i agree, this is getting stupid, especially saying norton is a hog now and cpu usages.

personally, i would rather have a full system scan use 100% if it finishes quicker, i have noticed this problem with my drweb.

in my drweb, there is a setting for low priority > high priority.

low priority - 10-20% ish
high priority - 30 - 50% MAX

so, its not really high priority... if i set it to this, i expect it to usage my maximum resources which would be 80-100%, and it just does not do this and i wish it did.

norton never uses full/high cpu usage yet it still manages to do a fast scan, so ive no problem with this.

kaspersky does use high CPU when scanning, but as ive mentioned.... ive no problems with this at all.

not many programs are 'true hogs' now, these would be GDATA, trustport and i still think mcafee needs turning down its usage.

if you look at things now, norton is not a hog, neither is panda and these 2, used to be the 2 biggest hoggers out-there.

i think people got too attached to the argument of X is a hog, i would never use that, and now they are just running out of ideas and usually come up with something totally radical, just for arguments sake.

[Mele20]

We now know that the chkdsk issue in KAV6 and KAV7 is very real and is caused by IStreams placing NTFS Object Identifiers on every file on the user's computer. Plus, thanks to Don, we also know that KAV8 will not have IStreams...I wonder why? ::) You guys who have pooh- poohed the entire issue owe all of us with the problem an apology as does Kaspersky. I fully expect a tool to remove the IStreams Identifiers will be forthcoming soon from Kaspersky. I'm not going to settle for Dantz's difficult, time consuming program to remove them.

What angers me so much is two things: 1. I, like StraightShoot, was a stupid fool to trust Kaspersky again after the ADS fiasco. 2. The arrogance shown by Kaspersky toward its customers is simply astounding. That they would lie as they have about IStreams and the fact that it cannot be turned off in the GUI and thus even when you try to avoid getting the Identifiers on all your files (because you hated having the ADS tags on all your files) there is no way to avoid it (even if you deliberately never run a full scan which is what I did and in the GUI uncheck Istreams and ICheck for the on demand scanner).

Kaspersky also never informed us that if we installed KAV 6 or 7 that no matter what we did, not only would all our files have crap attached to them (just like with KAV5), and that crap could never be removed except by either reformatting or using a clean image, because the KAV uninstaller, just like with KAV5 and the ADS tags, cannot remove the crap from every file placed there by KAV on the user's computer. So, when someone does a trial of KAV6 or 7 or decides for whatever reason to no longer use KAV6 or 7, they are left with damage to Chkdsk and a nasty "remember me always" present from KAV in the form of junk attached to every file that they cannot remove. If they could remove the junk, Chkdsk would be healed.

It simply astounds me that Kaspersky refused to learn anything from the ADS mess and instead just arrogantly turned around and created IStreams which is even worse than ADS tags and then deliberately hid all relevant information regarding IStreams from the users. Then when questioned by users a year ago, Kaspersky said it was a figment of their imagination that KAV was the cause of their damaged/broken chkdsks even though Kaspersky KNEW about ISwift breaking chkdsk from the early days of KAV6 beta at which time Kaspersky stated that the problem was Microsoft's and Microsoft had to fix it and they KNOWINGLY, WILLFULLY WENT ON WITH ISTREAMS.

ANYONE CONSIDERING USING KASPERSKY SHOULD FIRST BECOME FULLY INFORMED BECAUSE THERE IS NO TRUE CONSENT TO THE KAV EULA AS IT IS SILENT AS TO WHAT ISTREAMS DOES TO ONE'S COMPUTER. READ THE DSLR THREAD... ALL 272 POSTS. ALSO READ THE FRONT PAGE DSLR NEWS ARTICLE.

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18608452-Kaspersky-You-lost-me-at-ISwift
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Kaspersky-AV-Breaking-CHKDSK-85517

[Peter2150]

{QUOTE-> We now know that the chkdsk issue in KAV6 and KAV7 is very real and is caused by IStreams placing NTFS Object Identifiers on every file on the user's computer. Plus, thanks to Don, we also know that KAV8 will not have IStreams...I wonder why? ::) You guys who have pooh- poohed the entire issue owe all of us with the problem an apology as does Kaspersky. I fully expect a tool to remove the IStreams Identifiers will be forthcoming soon from Kaspersky. I'm not going to settle for Dantz's difficult, time consuming program to remove them.

What angers me so much is two things: 1. I, like StraightShoot, was a stupid fool to trust Kaspersky again after the ADS fiasco. 2. The arrogance shown by Kaspersky toward its customers is simply astounding. That they would lie as they have about IStreams and the fact that it cannot be turned off in the GUI and thus even when you try to avoid getting the Identifiers on all your files (because you hated having the ADS tags on all your files) there is no way to avoid it (even if you deliberately never run a full scan which is what I did and in the GUI uncheck Istreams and ICheck for the on demand scanner).

Kaspersky also never informed us that if we installed KAV 6 or 7 that no matter what we did, not only would all our files have crap attached to them (just like with KAV5), and that crap could never be removed except by either reformatting or using a clean image, because the KAV uninstaller, just like with KAV5 and the ADS tags, cannot remove the crap from every file placed there by KAV on the user's computer. So, when someone does a trial of KAV6 or 7 or decides for whatever reason to no longer use KAV6 or 7, they are left with damage to Chkdsk and a nasty "remember me always" present from KAV in the form of junk attached to every file that they cannot remove. If they could remove the junk, Chkdsk would be healed.

It simply astounds me that Kaspersky refused to learn anything from the ADS mess and instead just arrogantly turned around and created IStreams which is even worse than ADS tags and then deliberately hid all relevant information regarding IStreams from the users. Then when questioned by users a year ago, Kaspersky said it was a figment of their imagination that KAV was the cause of their damaged/broken chkdsks even though Kaspersky KNEW about ISwift breaking chkdsk from the early days of KAV6 beta at which time Kaspersky stated that the problem was Microsoft's and Microsoft had to fix it and they KNOWINGLY, WILLFULLY WENT ON WITH ISTREAMS.

ANYONE CONSIDERING USING KASPERSKY SHOULD FIRST BECOME FULLY INFORMED BECAUSE THERE IS NO TRUE CONSENT TO THE KAV EULA AS IT IS SILENT AS TO WHAT ISTREAMS DOES TO ONE'S COMPUTER. READ THE DSLR THREAD... ALL 272 POSTS. ALSO READ THE FRONT PAGE DSLR NEWS ARTICLE.

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18608452-Kaspersky-You-lost-me-at-ISwift
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Kaspersky-AV-Breaking-CHKDSK-85517 <-QUOTE}

Geesh, who is all the "WE". I've run chkdsk on my computers with KAV 6.0 and 7.0 and chkdsk runs fine. I am not saying some people don't have some problem, but you are yelling louder and louder. Where are your statistics to prove how big the problem is. How many users that have KAV 6.0 and now 7.0 actually have a problem.

[Mele20]

Everyone has the non disclosure problem. I would never have installed KAV 6 had I been properly informed that ISwift could NOT be turned off for the file monitor, except perhaps in the registry, but even that is not certain. I was not informed that KAV 6 (and now 7) was a repeat of KAV 5 in that it would place, withOUT my permission, crap on every single file on my computer. Further, I was not informed that if I decided to uninstall KAV that the uninstaller was a piece of junk that cannot uninstall KAV properly..the same as with KAV 5. To me, even more outrageous than the damage done by the NTFS Object Identifiers to Chkdsk is the fact that I was lied to and led to believe that I could turn off ISwift entirely when turning ISwift off for the on demand scanner and never running a full scan yet, according to posts in the KAV forum in the past few days by Lucian among others, that is futile as far as escaping from having Kaspersky put all this junk on your files. I would never dream of using an AV that would do something like that even if that action had no effect on Chkdsk.

If Kaspersky has such poor engineers that they can't figure out a decent, clean method to speed up their scanner that is slow on older computers then that is their problem, but they should not lie about it to their customers. Avira catches more than KAV, and NOD32 does also, and neither of them have had to resort to sneakily placing crap on all our files in order to be fast on old computers. So, had Kaspersky been honest about their problems with the speed of the scanner and the fact that they felt they had to do something in KAV 6 that was similar to KAV 5, I would have simply avoided KAV 6 and now KAV 7. Others don't care about their files being raped by KAV so they would keep it or happily get it for the first time. Fine. All Kaspersky had to do to avoid this entire mess was be transparent with their users. You'd think after the ADS fiasco that they would have learned that crucial lesson but, no, they learned from that incident that they need to be even more secretive and if there are any problems they need to not address them promptly rather they need to call those who are the canaries in the mindshaft stupid, crazy, heavy imaginers,etc.

Do you use System Restore? That may make this problem worse for chkdsk. If you do use System Restore how much disk space do you allocate to it and how many restore points do you have? Whether or not you get the problem with chkdsk also seems to have to do with the number of files on the disk and how many are small ones. We don't know all the common denominators yet for why some have the problem and others don't. But we do know that it is a problem caused by ISwift. I suspect that particularly in the case of AVS users that the problem is widespread but those users tend to not be very computer knowledgeable and probably have never run chkdsk and may not even know what it is. If, by chance, they did run they would have no idea what was normal and what wasn't so they probably would not report a problem with chkdsk.

[Peter2150]

First. Iswift does not make up for a slow scanner. Take my disk. An initial scan with KAV takes about 35 minutes. Okay, so Avira might do it in 30. But my subsequent scans only take about 3 minutes. That is significant, and why even if chkdsk were to take 10% longer I don't care. Besides I never run chkdsk.

Questions to those who have the problem.

1. Have you compared the chkdsk time using the regular chkdsk setup vs running it from the recovery console. I ask as when I was discussing something related with chkdsk with the support folks at Velocity Micro, they said they had never done it the way I was asking about. They only ran it from the Windows CD/REcovery console.

2. If you have the problem, have you documented it, asked KAV folks what tests they need, and run them. When I was testing version 6.0 it ran on all my machines, but one. I PM'd one of the developers and he worked with me, sending special things to try, and they eventually solved the problem. But if you just complain on a forum, not surprised nothing is done.

[ugly]

I never had major issues with KIS 7.
No chkdsk errors , no slowdowns operating a P III 800 :o PC.;D

KIS have a stong firewall with a "very good" level of anti-leak protection :

191314

Combined with web antivirus it might lead to a little slowdown while browsing.
But can that be compared with all that amazing protection you get ??? .

[fce]

guys this is my experience with KIS.

when i have my new laptop i installed a lot of software and my security during that time is PCcillin IS 2007. I try NOD32, Jetico firewall, GS, SAS Pro.....and lastly i try KIS.

what do i expect with ****'d up system ( a lot of un-installation blah blah blah) KIS did not work properly.

What i did is I do clean vista install and BEFORE I install other software and windows update I installed KIS7 first. No problem since that. No chkdsk error, no freeze problem, no slowdown, no major problem, etc.

Just reminder to KIS7, when you do next upgrade don't mess-up with ver .125 :-*

[Zombini]

{QUOTE-> I never had major issues with KIS 7.
No chkdsk errors , no slowdowns operating a P III 800 :o PC.;D

KIS have a stong firewall with a "very good" level of anti-leak protection :

191314

Combined with web antivirus it might lead to a little slowdown while browsing.
But can that be compared with all that amazing protection you get ??? . <-QUOTE}

I've had just the opposite experience.. chkdsk errors, slowdowns while browsing (very annoying). I just uninstalled KAV6.

The whole leaktest fiasco is just a bunch of snake oil. Once malware is on the machine, there is an infinite number of ways it could phone home if it wanted to. Besides, even for the leaks that are detected, Kaspersky alerts on every one of them. WHAT THE POINT IN ASKING THE USER. Thats why products like NIS have a low score before they dont believe asking the user is the right approach. If you can automatically block malware from communicating, that will be cool (check out NIS 2008).

[plantextract]

{QUOTE-> I've had just the opposite experience.. chkdsk errors, slowdowns while browsing (very annoying). I just uninstalled KAV6.

The whole leaktest fiasco is just a bunch of snake oil. Once malware is on the machine, there is an infinite number of ways it could phone home if it wanted to. Besides, even for the leaks that are detected, Kaspersky alerts on every one of them. WHAT THE POINT IN ASKING THE USER. Thats why products like NIS have a low score before they dont believe asking the user is the right approach. If you can automatically block malware from communicating, that will be cool (check out NIS 2008). <-QUOTE}
...but this topic is about v7.

[The_Duality]

{QUOTE-> ...but this topic is about v7. <-QUOTE}

Same difference. :P

KAV 7 is essentially KAV 6 but with a few extra features such as heuristics, rootkit scanner, etc. Problems with KAV 6 are still applicable to KAV 7.

[sach1000rt]

I dont know from where you guys get those errors.
In my opinion it was the best suite for its fastness and for its working and also low on system resources. It is the best all in one protection.

[C.S.J]

'we' dont know and neither do kaspersky

but for some people its flawless, some people it causes wayyy too many problems.

ive tried it on 2 laptops and i really cant use it the way it is for me, and although id say it does NOT cause 'wayyy' too many problems, there are a few things that dont work as they should, or maybe how id like them to.

[The_Duality]

{QUOTE-> I dont know from where you guys get those errors.
In my opinion it was the best suite for its fastness and for its working and also low on system resources. It is the best all in one protection. <-QUOTE}

I completely agree, it is the best out there - but they lost me on the whole chkdsk fiasco.

[Blackcat]

ALL AV's have some minor issues.

I have not seen any chkdsk problems with KAV 6/7 but I stiill think it would be a good idea for Kaspersky to offer a removal tool for the NTFS identifiers.

And interestingly, Don has stated that KAV 8 will not use iSwift technology.

[plantextract]

{QUOTE-> ALL AV's have some minor issues.

I have not seen any chkdsk problems with KAV 6/7 but I stiill think it would be a good idea for Kaspersky to offer a removal tool for the NTFS identifiers.

And interestingly, Don has stated that KAV 8 will not use iSwift technology. <-QUOTE}
no, it *might* not have it enabled by default

[Blackcat]

Just reporting from a post at DSLReports; don't shoot the messenger;
{QUOTE-> A small note about 8.0 btw, it has a from the ground up new engine design instead of improving/modifiying an already good engine....................and it will most likely not use iSwift.. <-QUOTE}

Although I agree that no one knows what may or may not be in KAV 8. But it is interesting that they may be moving away from iSwift.

[flyrfan111]

They should develop another method of keep track of already scanned files. NOD, F-Prot and Panda have caching methods as well, but their methods don't ruffle as many feathers as KAV's seems to.

[plantextract]

{QUOTE-> They should develop another method of keep track of already scanned files. NOD, F-Prot and Panda have caching methods as well, but their methods don't ruffle as many feathers as KAV's seems to. <-QUOTE}
yes, but you have to admit that none of those make a scan so fast as kav's (you can do a manual scan even in under a minute)

[flyrfan111]

Only because those 3 only use caching for their on access scanners and not their on demand scanners. It is easy to do a scan in less than a minute when you only scan a limited number of files.

[Mele20]

Who cares how fast you can do a manual scan? I never did one. If I ever had to do one, I would do it while I slept and it wouldn't matter how long it took. I simply am angry that the file scanner uses that crap ISwift junk even though I thought I was telling it not to. KAV 4.5 was extremely fast and there was NO reason for Kaspersky to come up with ADS tagging or ISwift. There was no need. If you have a computer that is old, slow, or new, but with insufficent RAM, or CPU power then you should just stay away from KAV. Instead KAV decided to punish those of us with fast computers, and sufficient RAM, by forcing ADS tagging and then ISwift real time NTFS Indentifiers on our files. Really nice of them. All just so folks with old computers and computers that are newer, but that skimp on the essentials could use their AV. It is all in the name of greed. That will be downfall of a company every time.

[flyrfan111]

Thanks Mele, that was where i was going with my next point. A fast manual scan just doesn't seem all that important to me. Not sure I agree with you that greed was a motivator, but I suppose it always is. I thought it was to counterbalance their slow scanner and make KAV not so "heavy", but then that translates into selling more so I guess greed could come into the picture, but I think they just wanted to improve the performance of their product. Removing unpacking support was not the right idea as that was one of things they were known for, so they developed a way to "lighten" the load and keep their great unpacking ability.

The deceptive way they introduced and implemented the technology was what I was refering to as "ruffling feathers".

[optigrab]

I just wanted to chime in here as a KIS6 user who has just read the related DSLReports thread and several posts here at Wilders. As an aside, I must say that I'm not impressed by posts that deride the concerns of some users who apparently have put a lot of thought and research into expressing themselves and their frustrations. If a user customer has a problem, then it is a problem for the vendor, period. If a vendor and many other users disagree about the severity of the problem, it seems to me a little beside the point - the perceptions of the disgruntled customers are still important.

But back to the issue and my question: It seems to be that some folks acknowledge that chkdisk is affected but are not concerned enough to change their opinion of KAV/KIS or deter them from using it. On the other hand, there are some who say that the chkdsk issue (a slowdown for the most part) is permanent, and may have some long term consequences that haven't yet appeared. This is my biggest concern. I value the chkdsk utility and to my knowledge there isn't a replacement (SpinRite?)

What are your thoughts on this? Might a seemingly minor slowdown (in my case a 20 or 30 second delay in the Stage 2 chkdsk operation) prove at some time in the future to be a royal pain in the neck?

I can revert to an old image and undo the metadata changes that iSwift introduced. Wouldn't this be a case of "better safe than sorry"?

[Don Pelotas]

{QUOTE-> Who cares how fast you can do a manual scan? I never did one. If I ever had to do one, I would do it while I slept and it wouldn't matter how long it took. I simply am angry that the file scanner uses that crap ISwift junk even though I thought I was telling it not to. KAV 4.5 was extremely fast and there was NO reason for Kaspersky to come up with ADS tagging or ISwift. There was no need. If you have a computer that is old, slow, or new, but with insufficent RAM, or CPU power then you should just stay away from KAV. Instead KAV decided to punish those of us with fast computers, and sufficient RAM, by forcing ADS tagging and then ISwift real time NTFS Indentifiers on our files. Really nice of them. All just so folks with old computers and computers that are newer, but that skimp on the essentials could use their AV. It is all in the name of greed. That will be downfall of a company every time. <-QUOTE}
{QUOTE-> Thanks Mele, that was where i was going with my next point. A fast manual scan just doesn't seem all that important to me. Not sure I agree with you that greed was a motivator, but I suppose it always is. I thought it was to counterbalance their slow scanner and make KAV not so "heavy", but then that translates into selling more so I guess greed could come into the picture, but I think they just wanted to improve the performance of their product. Removing unpacking support was not the right idea as that was one of things they were known for, so they developed a way to "lighten" the load and keep their great unpacking ability.

The deceptive way they introduced and implemented the technology was what I was refering to as "ruffling feathers". <-QUOTE}
4.5 was never to be considered fast, that is simply your memory playing tricks on you, it was very slow and definitely in the slowest bunch of scanners.............it was however also very thorough though.

I, like you two couldn't care less about the scantime, i do a scan when i'm not using the pc (& not very often).............but most users are interested in this, thats why it was developed, because it was a request many users had.

Optigrab:

I have used 6.0 for two years now with experience from 100 builds from the very first prototype and now build 7.0.0.125, i have never seen anything beyond a delay to the start of Stage 2 of chkdsk in those two years with regards to your "some time in the future to be a royal pain in the neck?" question.

[flyrfan111]

I hope I am not one the people you refer to as deriding concerns of others, I don't wish to minimize anyone's opinion or experiences.


The problem COULD get worse over time, it may not however. I can not comment on how Kaspersky is using Iswift now, I only trialed KAV5 with it's ADS streams which basically made an image of each file which essentially doubled the space you used on your hdd, and I had the defrag and chkdsk issues.

As for the back up question, it would depend on what type of back up was done. If it was an image and the image is restored, then yes, all data on the hdd would be replaced by the image and the hdd would be exactly the same as it was at the time the image was made. If you used a file copy type back up, it would depend on what options you used during the restore. Some programs allow you to replace files that are backed up and yet leave any new files that are there now but were not when the back up was made. That option would obviously leave some remnants that COULD cause problems.

I am also aware of others like DonPelotas that have not had these problems using KAV and swear by it. Only time will tell.

[JerryM]

Although not a "deal breaker" for me, I do especially like the short scan times of Kaspersky. I do not leave my computers on at night, but an hour scan time in the daytime would not be a problem.
I sometimes do something, such as changing an application, that makes me want to check my system. With Kaspersky it takes only a few minutes.

Just to check, I ran a chkdsk yesterday, and as always did not experience any problem. I won't argue whether someone else has problems, but on two machines with both V6 and V7 I have not had any problem.

Regards,
Jerry

[ugly]

{QUOTE-> I've had just the opposite experience.. chkdsk errors, slowdowns while browsing (very annoying). I just uninstalled KAV6.

The whole leaktest fiasco is just a bunch of snake oil. Once malware is on the machine, there is an infinite number of ways it could phone home if it wanted to. Besides, even for the leaks that are detected, Kaspersky alerts on every one of them. WHAT THE POINT IN ASKING THE USER. Thats why products like NIS have a low score before they dont believe asking the user is the right approach. If you can automatically block malware from communicating, that will be cool (check out NIS 2008). <-QUOTE}

I do not agree that once malware is on the machine it's free to do everything. But.... what's the probability to be hit while protected by KIS7 ?

Latest av-comparatives on demand indicate a 97.89% detection. In numbers we have 487.103 samples detected from a total of 497.608.
10.505 undetected.
The new heuristic engine will have the chance to detect 35% of those = 3.676 detected.
6.829 undetected.
Next in action will be PDM with a score of 99% = 6.760 detected. Unfortunately you will have to answer to block that.:( ( a white list is under development ).
69 samples remaining totally undetected ...from 497.608.:o
That means an overall 99.99% detection.:P
With a little luck KIS firewall will block those undetected samples attempt to connect with outside world.......again with user's interaction....
All this sounds like a good protection to me.:-*

P.S. This is only a game with numbers.......;D :-* ;)

[Don Pelotas]

{QUOTE-> I hope I am not one the people you refer to as deriding concerns of others, I don't wish to minimize anyone's opinion or experiences.
<-QUOTE}
Neither do i particularly...........do you mean my comment about 4.5 being very slow as opposed to Mele's view that it was extremely fast?

[Peter2150]

{QUOTE-> Who cares how fast you can do a manual scan? I never did one. If I ever had to do one, I would do it while I slept and it wouldn't matter how long it took. I simply am angry that the file scanner uses that crap ISwift junk even though I thought I was telling it not to. KAV 4.5 was extremely fast and there was NO reason for Kaspersky to come up with ADS tagging or ISwift. There was no need. If you have a computer that is old, slow, or new, but with insufficent RAM, or CPU power then you should just stay away from KAV. Instead KAV decided to punish those of us with fast computers, and sufficient RAM, by forcing ADS tagging and then ISwift real time NTFS Indentifiers on our files. Really nice of them. All just so folks with old computers and computers that are newer, but that skimp on the essentials could use their AV. It is all in the name of greed. That will be downfall of a company every time. <-QUOTE}

Mele20, get over being mad, life is to short. Besides this is just one person's viewpoint. Frankly, the reason I use KAV is the fast manual scans. Fits my scheme perfectly. Also I for one could care less about chksdsk, I never run it. Even with out the Kaspersky issue, it is slow as molasses.

Also I would ask those that are so bitter, what have you done to give Kaspersky any data. They come with a design that is perfectly valid using microsoft structure, and they test it, and the beta testers test it, and it is fine, why not.

Yes they should respond to unhappy users, but if they test and don't find a problem, they can do nothing without the help of those users.

Testing KAV I've encountered problems. Complaining is pointless, but going to the forum, and with PM if necessary making contact with the developers, they will respond, if you are serious in helping them resolve a problem.

[Graystoke]

First of all, let me say I don't have KAV installed on my machine at this time, so I don't think I'm biased in any way.

That being said, what it the big deal if chkdsk takes an extra 20-30 seconds to start Stage 2? Does this guy StraitShoot, who started this whole thing at dslreports, and others that are complaining about this lag, run chkdsk every day, and then sit there and watch it? I think I've run chkdsk twice, once before ever installing any Kaspersky product, and once after. To me both times were long and boring processes. I just left and did something else while chkdsk was running.

Now about NTFS Identifiers. I know next to nothing about this, and never really heard about them until this this subject appeared. What problems do they cause? Are they some kind of security risk? I'm asking because I don't know.

[BlueZannetti]

{QUOTE-> But back to the issue and my question: It seems to be that some folks acknowledge that chkdisk is affected but are not concerned enough to change their opinion of KAV/KIS or deter them from using it. On the other hand, there are some who say that the chkdsk issue (a slowdown for the most part) is permanent, and may have some long term consequences that haven't yet appeared. This is my biggest concern. I value the chkdsk utility and to my knowledge there isn't a replacement (SpinRite?)

What are your thoughts on this? Might a seemingly minor slowdown (in my case a 20 or 30 second delay in the Stage 2 chkdsk operation) prove at some time in the future to be a royal pain in the neck? <-QUOTE}Optigrab,

There's unfortunately been a lot more noise than light in that (http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18608452-Kaspersky-You-lost-me-at-ISwift) thread.

In very few cases there may be a real issue. I put a clear qualifier on that since objective data on the situation is scarce. I, like a few others, experience a minor delay. It's not bothersome, nor worrisome, and during that period the system is neither standing still nor obviously dealing with a problem - it is crunching away with progressive disk activity.

If you look at the File ID Object identifer structure (see here (http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa364393.aspx)):typedef struct _FILE_OBJECTID_BUFFER {
BYTE ObjectId[16];
union {
struct {
BYTE BirthVolumeId[16];
BYTE BirthObjectId[16];
BYTE DomainId[16];
};
BYTE ExtendedInfo[48];
};
} FILE_OBJECTID_BUFFER,
*PFILE_OBJECTID_BUFFER;one can see where some issues could emerge. The ExtendedInfo identifer should be the one that is used. Given that size associated with that optional identifier compared to the basic ones, I can see an impact in the time to process those entries, particularly if a basic assumption is that their usage is sparse. I don't know if that's the case, but it seems to be a fairly reasonable assumption to me given the context. As a corollary, there should be some rough scaling relation between file count and impact. It might not be linear, it may be strongly nonlinear, but it should be there although one has to recognize that additional factors (say fragmentation, machine speed, working set size relative to RAM, etc.) could be involved as either a secondary or possibly a dominant influence.

Since the issue persists after removal of KAV/KIS, it is unlikely a direct conflict problem, but more of a structural result.

For the most part, readily provided detail information that could help users develop a realistic view of whether this was or was not a real problem is missing. From the quantitative information posted, the delay may be a couple of minutes on a partition with 75,000-100,000 files or so. No details on CPU/RAM provided, although I fall in that range and have a 2.8 GHz P4 with 1 GB of RAM. This is not a bump in processing time to be concerned about.

Will this prove to be a pain in the future? Who knows.... That question would be moot is these entries could be removed by a vendor provided tool.

{QUOTE-> I can revert to an old image and undo the metadata changes that iSwift introduced. Wouldn't this be a case of "better safe than sorry"? <-QUOTE}Of course, but you should have that image on hand anyway, right?

Blue

[Mele20]

{QUOTE-> 4.5 was never to be considered fast, that is simply your memory playing tricks on you, it was very slow and definitely in the slowest bunch of scanners.............it was however also very thorough though.

I, like you two couldn't care less about the scantime, i do a scan when i'm not using the pc (& not very often).............but most users are interested in this, thats why it was developed, because it was a request many users had.
. <-QUOTE}

No, not my memory playing tricks on me. On MY machine, I experienced no slowdown with 4.5. I don't recall if I did a full scan with it. Maybe, maybe not. I was referring more to no perceptible slow down from using it...i.e. the real time monitor set to scan ALL files was fast. I had posts here, dslr, and, I think, in the old ICE KAV forum about how fast 4.5 was for me. I couldn't understand how so many said it was slow. That is what I was referring to when I said that IMO Kaspersky had no need to mess with the file scanner and add first the ADS tags and then the NTFS identifiers.

[Mele20]

{QUOTE-> First of all, let me say I don't have KAV installed on my machine at this time, so I don't think I'm biased in any way.

That being said, what it the big deal if chkdsk takes an extra 20-30 seconds to start Stage 2? Does this guy StraitShoot, who started this whole thing at dslreports, and others that arecomplaining about this lag, run chkdsk every day, and then sit there and watch it? I think I've run chkdsk twice, once before ever installing any Kaspersky product, and once after. To me both times were long and boring processes. I just left and did something else while chkdsk was running.

Now about NTFS Identifiers. I know next to nothing about this, and never really heard about them until this this subject appeared. What problems do they cause? Are they some kind of security risk? I'm asking because I don't know. <-QUOTE}

No, we don't run chkdsk every day! If any of you would do a search here for my posts on this subject long before Straightshoot started the dslr thread, and/or if you were to take the time to go and read the 19 page thread at Kaspersky forums, you would see that I am not a rabid dog frothing at the mouth about this issue. I read Frode's thread at the Kaspersky forum shortly after he started it...gee, a thread titled "KAV causing Chkdsk errors" would certainly get one's attention. I wondered if I had a problem. I had only had KAV for two months and had installed it on a machine that was only FOUR MONTHS OLD. I had run chkdsk on the new machine a few times and it completed with no delays. I had run it shortly before installing KAV6 also. So, after reading the thread, I was concerned.

I ran chkdsk and no problems. This was two months after I installed KAV6. Read post #126 in the KAV thread. I wasn't particularly worried after running chkdsk and was convinced that I had nothing to worry about in the future either because I never did a full scan and never enabled ISwift and ICheck. Frode said this in reply to my post:

"For those with this issue, it likely won't matter. It will only take longer for the issue to arise (scans will still happen when you access your files, so it'll build up gradually instead). KAV supposedly no longer stores anything in ADS, but it apparently does do something else permanent to the filesystem still. Why or what I can't even begin to guess at."

How prophetic. How I wish now that I had removed KAV as soon as I read his reply. But I really liked KAV and I still TRUSTED Kaspersky fool that I was (especially after being burned by the ADS mess). I didn't know then, of course, that Kaspersky had lied to us when they let us believe that disabling ISwift in the GUI totally disabled the use of that technology. I thought maybe Frode just had a unique problem. So, I continued using KAV6 for two more months.

Then in October 2006, in post #171, I said this:

"Where are we on getting some sort of comment from the developers on this problem? I don't want to be a FUD spreader but I too now have a chkdisk problem which is very much like what Frode reported in his first post. Chkdisk was fine when I made my earlier post in this thread. At that time I had KAV 2006 installed for two months.

Two months have passed since that post. Now chkdsk hangs at 7% in Stage two which is what Frode reported as the FIRST symptom. I uninstalled KAV and ran chkdsk and it still hangs at 7% for several minutes and then completes normally. I have reinstalled KAV for now as I am not sure what to make of this. In the absence though of any comment from the developers, I remain worried that my files are slowly being corrupted."

If you read my posts here and there, I still trusted Kaspersky and I didn't want to badmouth them when I wasn't sure how serious the problem was. I made restrained comments and I continued to use KAV until December at which time I could no longer ignore the damage to chkdsk and, what was worse, the deafening silence from Kaspersky.

Now, I learn from Lucian that Frode was right all along and that there was no escaping ISwift even though many of us with this problem thought we were not using ISwift. I was shooting myself in the foot continuing to use KAV. The damage was just taking a lot longer to build up for me since I had unchecked ISwift and did no full scans. There is simply no doubt in my mind though that this damage is due to my using KAV6. Chkdsk worked perfectly, on a four month old machine, just before I installed KAV6. It was still working perfectly two months later (although the damage was probably accumulating but hadn't reach "critical mass" yet), but by four months of KAV installation, I too had the hang that Frode first described and that he predicted would eventually happen to me also.

After I removed KAV for good in December, I made an occasional post warning users about this problem but I tried to do it in a restrained manner. I was resigned to having permanent chkdsk problems from KAV6 especially after Grnic finally posted that comment that made me want to strangle him in the KAV thread this year. Then my friend Jim started that thread at dslr. I'm so glad he did that. I then went back to the KAV thread which I had last seen to have ended on page 13 several months earlier and was just stunned at what Lucian and some others were saying about how it was impossible to turn off ISwift. That is when I became angry, very angry...not so much because this very expensive, very, very nice computer is permanently damaged by Kaspersky but because I had trusted Kaspersky and that was the wrong thing to do. Kaspersky had lied about ISwift, did not obtain my consent to it putting all this junk on my files, and refuses to help those of us who now have damaged computers even after we removed the product that caused the damage. Kaspersky never told us in the Eula that we were consenting to FOREVER HAVING THIS CRAP ON OUR FILES. Kaspersky has treated this problem just like they did the ADS fiasco. Kaspersky is not worthy of trust by its customers even by those who are not affected (or think they are not) by this problem. Actually, everyone is affected because the data placed on all files is there forever. I feel betrayed by a company I trusted. Of course, I am angry.

[danny9]

"I feel betrayed by a company I trusted. Of course, I am angry" Mele20

I can understand why you are upset, Mele.
I don't have the delays many are speaking of, just a very slow chdsk scan now when I tried it.
All this discussion has to make one think about this problem and whether it will affect me.
This computer is only 6 months old now and I do not want it damaged.
Been using KIS for the last 1 and 1/2 yrs.
Still, I think, the best out there, but now at what price?
I, like others, have a decision to make.
And you are right. You have to have the trust in the product and the company. My trust in the company is quite iffy right now.
And with no comments coming from them at this point, the trust factor goes down.
That's what's sad.
Dan

[Peter2150]

I would I can't believe there is much of a long range price. I don't care about chksdsk, and I don't believe there is much of a long range issue. Iswift may write and read the identifiers, but I doubt there length changes.

Given I've been running the beta's of both 6.0 and 7.0, I would suspect both of my machines, have probably been fully scanned several hundred times, if not more. I've seen no problems. Ran chkdsk for the first time on either of the new machines, and saw nothing out of the ordinary. Just good old slow chkdsk.

While not downplaying someone's problem, I found the hew and cry about not disclosing technology almost laughable. Name me one company that actually does this.

FDISR, modifies the MFT. They don't "disclose" or warn of that.
Rollback/Eazfix Modify the whole file system. True you can find out on the website with a lot of digging, but no dislosure perse.


Also I would love to have one poster with a problem, lay out the specific things they did in a back and forth with Kaspersky to resolve the problem. Just complaining gains very little results.

Pete

[flyrfan111]

If you check the thread about this topic in the Kaspersky forum you would see that it contains over 18 pages. Sounds to me like Kaspersky was informed.

[danny9]

{QUOTE-> I would I can't believe there is much of a long range price. I don't care about chksdsk, and I don't believe there is much of a long range issue. Iswift may write and read the identifiers, but I doubt there length changes.

Given I've been running the beta's of both 6.0 and 7.0, I would suspect both of my machines, have probably been fully scanned several hundred times, if not more. I've seen no problems. Ran chkdsk for the first time on either of the new machines, and saw nothing out of the ordinary. Just good old slow chkdsk.

While not downplaying someone's problem, I found the hew and cry about not disclosing technology almost laughable. Name me one company that actually does this.

FDISR, modifies the MFT. They don't "disclose" or warn of that.
Rollback/Eazfix Modify the whole file system. True you can find out on the website with a lot of digging, but no dislosure perse.


Also I would love to have one poster with a problem, lay out the specific things they did in a back and forth with Kaspersky to resolve the problem. Just complaining gains very little results.

Pete <-QUOTE}

Valid point on the technology disclosure.
My doubts and questions come from the problems posters are listing on 3 forums that I'm aware of.
I too ran betas of Kis6 and most of KIS 7.
It appears I have no such problem.
I believe there is some sort of a problem here, though.
Will it show up on our systems down the road?
Maybe this is a problem only on certain systems or in combination with different software involved.
I would just like to find out the truth to what is going on.
One would think with the accusations pointing at Kav right now, that they would want to look into this to see what the problem is and fix it.
Sotware does develop problems but most companies add updates to correct this.
I would just like Kav to look into this and do the same.
If the doubts remain, I'd rather take off KAV then take a chance of having problems down the road.

[danny9]

{QUOTE-> If you check the thread about this topic in the Kaspersky forum you would see that it contains over 18 pages. Sounds to me like Kaspersky was informed. <-QUOTE}

One would certainly think so.

[flyrfan111]

{QUOTE->

Also I would love to have one poster with a problem, lay out the specific things they did in a back and forth with Kaspersky to resolve the problem. Just complaining gains very little results.

Pete <-QUOTE}
http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=14995

This thread is from Kaspersky's own forum, so how can you make an allegation that people do nothing but complain? Kaspersky was well aware of the problem. To have a Moderator make such a statement seems a little disappointing.

[Kapiti]

{QUOTE->
Also I would love to have one poster with a problem, lay out the specific things they did in a back and forth with Kaspersky to resolve the problem. Just complaining gains very little results.

Pete <-QUOTE}
I contacted Kaspersky support as soon as I noticed the chkdsk problem and done everything they suggested (this was over a number of emails).
Finally they asked if I would do a clean install of Windows XP then install Kaspersky and see the result. I replied that I didn't have a test machine only a working one and it wasn't practicle to do as they asked. The next email I received from Kaspersky stated that the problem would be fixed in the upcoming new version.
I am not anti Kaspersky rather the opposite, I would go back to using the software tomorrow if they only fixed the problem.

[Blackcat]

{QUOTE-> The next email I received from Kaspersky stated that the problem would be fixed in the upcoming new version.
<-QUOTE}
Suggesting therefore that it is a Kaspersky problem and not Microsoft's :-X

Thanks for posting.

[Peter2150]

{QUOTE-> http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=14995

This thread is from Kaspersky's own forum, so how can you make an allegation that people do nothing but complain? Kaspersky was well aware of the problem. To have a Moderator make such a statement seems a little disappointing. <-QUOTE}

Hi flyrfan111

Sorry to disappoint you, but I wasn't as much making an allegation as asking a question. You have to admit there is a lot of emotion flying around on this subject. People ask if why Kaspersky doesn't do something. Well it could be they can't duplicate the issue. I know I can't. That makes it tough to do something with out help. Right now I can't get to the link you posted but I do want to read it. I started thru a long thread on the kav forum, but sort of gave up when I realized that it a lot of it was the same people just saying the same thing over again. I'll keep trying the link to see what it says.

Pete

[Peter2150]

Okay, finally got to the thread and read thru about 8 pages, before I just bogged down.

My thoughts for what they are worth.

1) While no doubt a few people were having genuine issues, looking at that thread, the number was small. If you actually count the number of different people saying they had a problem it was only a handful. Still very real to them.

2) Running chkdsk in windows. I wouldn't even consider it. When I talked with the technical folks at Velocity Micro about a not being able to see either a chkdsk blue screen or the screen where PD does it's offline defrag, their comment was they would never consider running chkdsk except from the Windows CD/Recovery console.(the display problem is a know nvidia display driver problem)

3) What I found of interest also was the original posters comment about ATI having trouble analyzing the partition. There is a bug(as confirmed by one of the image program developers) in the Microsoft Routines that access the partition tables. Sounds like something is also corrupting the partition table. Some weirder going on there.

4) KL did find a bug in the drivers back in the early builds of 6.0, and they said it was fixed. It was hard to tell if they have had any indication of finding something with later builds.

5) The real challenge is if you really believe you have a problem, what can you send to KL that confirms it is indeed a problem, and the problem is caused by KAV/KIS. I don't know, and this goes back to what I first was asking. If it were me I'd get on the forum, and PM one of the developers, and ask what can I do to try and pinpoint the problem. My experience is they will respond. I didn't see a post where anyone says they did that and what exchange took place. I also do realize many people may not be equiped to do certain testing, so I am not saying what I said to be critical.

Pete

[flyrfan111]

Yes I do realize there are people that just complain for no reason as well, there is plenty of that here as well.

As for the chkdsk/ISwift/IChecker/whatever else they call it now, much of the fault can be laid at KL's own feet. Yes, I know most software maker's don't release exactly what technology is used in new versions but Kaspersky was deceptive and even downright deceitful to an extent by allowing users the option of suppossedly turning off the feature and yet the checkbox had absolutely no effect on program operation. That to me was enough to no longer use their software because it sort of says "Ok, we know that there is a problem with this feature, so we will allow you to THINK it's turned off" What kind of lame crap is that? So the amount of frustration people have with them is justified, in my eyes at least. I was a KAV customer from AVP 3 until the fiasco of KAV 5 came along, but I felt that it was time to move on at that point.

My comment may have been a bit harsh, but I was trying to say that there is much more to this issue than just chkdsk fragments on hdd's, it's about the response of the company and it's treatment of some of it's customers that have magnified the issue and polarized people.

[Peter2150]

{QUOTE-> Yes I do realize there are people that just complain for no reason as well, there is plenty of that here as well.

As for the chkdsk/ISwift/IChecker/whatever else they call it now, much of the fault can be laid at KL's own feet. Yes, I know most software maker's don't release exactly what technology is used in new versions but Kaspersky was deceptive and even downright deceitful to an extent by allowing users the option of suppossedly turning off the feature and yet the checkbox had absolutely no effect on program operation. That to me was enough to no longer use their software because it sort of says "Ok, we know that there is a problem with this feature, so we will allow you to THINK it's turned off" What kind of lame crap is that? So the amount of frustration people have with them is justified, in my eyes at least. I was a KAV customer from AVP 3 until the fiasco of KAV 5 came along, but I felt that it was time to move on at that point.

My comment may have been a bit harsh, but I was trying to say that there is much more to this issue than just chkdsk fragments on hdd's, it's about the response of the company and it's treatment of some of it's customers that have magnified the issue and polarized people. <-QUOTE}

I am still not sure this is a realistic position. Many pieces of software have features you can turn on and off with a checkbox. But to assume because you turn it off, it isn't installed isn't really a good one. Most software that has features that can be turn on and off, still installs the feature, it just then isn't used. Why is Kaspersky being singled out for doing this.

[Mele20]

{QUOTE-> Okay, finally got to the thread and read thru about 8 pages, before I just bogged down.
Pete <-QUOTE}

Some of the most important comments are in pages 14-18. I do agree that it is a very long thread to read especially if you have no problem.

After reading the lastest comments in the dslr thread I am beyond being angry. I am almost reduced to tears as I appear to have two choices now both awful. I can try Dantz's method when he finally gets it up but first I would have to fix the problem with Dells and BartPE and it all sounds very complicated and no guarantee that it won't bork something. Or I can reformat and spend days trying to get everything back the way I like it. I have an Acronis True Image but it is from two months ago. Won't do any good. I had an image from before I installed KAV until last Dec 12. If only Kaspersky had fessed up back then and told us that it was impossible to shut off ISwift and that they had just put that check box in the GUI to mislead us, I could have used that image. I only have room on my external drive for one image so I finally erased that one. I suppose I have a third choice. I can do nothing and worry that my files are slowly being further corrupted.

This quote from Microsoft and the ensuing discussion in the dslr thread is what has me despairing:

"Warning
•

Do not delete, set, or otherwise modify an object identifier. Deleting or setting an object identifier can result in the loss of data from portions of a file, up to and including entire volumes of data. In addition you might cause adverse behavior in the Distributed Link Tracking (DLT) Client service and File Replication service (FRS)."

http://technet2.microsoft.com/windowsserver/en/library/14cb706b-2a38-48e0-a569-a7fa9ca3b3401033.mspx?mfr=true

I think m0d is probably correct. I think the key to all this is:

"The bottom line is that it is in no way "recommended" to start creating Object IDs for huge numbers of files. It simply isnt what they were intended for according to the Microsoft documentation.

Do we know what the limit on the number of Object IDs allowed is? Is that documented? If this limit is broken what is the expected result?

Given that we dont.. expect the data corruption or at a minimum performance issues due to fragmented MFT and excessive numbers of Object IDs all over the filesystem."

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18654026-

I'm beginning to suspect now that the reason Kaspersky is silent is because their attorneys have muzzled them due to the serious liability issues here if m0d is right.

[flyrfan111]

{QUOTE-> I am still not sure this is a realistic position. Many pieces of software have features you can turn on and off with a checkbox. But to assume because you turn it off, it isn't installed isn't really a good one. Most software that has features that can be turn on and off, still installs the feature, it just then isn't used. Why is Kaspersky being singled out for doing this. <-QUOTE}

I understand about the idea of software still installing non-active parts, and that is the difference here, unchecking had NO affect, the feature would still be installed and used/active, even though the customer did not want it active. It is/was what I call a "feel good" box. All it did was make the customer feel good, absolutely nothing in the software was changed/deactivated.

[Mele20]

{QUOTE-> I am still not sure this is a realistic position. Many pieces of software have features you can turn on and off with a checkbox. But to assume because you turn it off, it isn't installed isn't really a good one. Most software that has features that can be turn on and off, still installs the feature, it just then isn't used. Why is Kaspersky being singled out for doing this. <-QUOTE}

You misunderstand. I don't care if ISwift is INSTALLED. I care whether I can do what the GUI (and the Help file) says I can do or not. The GUI/Help file indicates I can turn it off. That is NOT true. It CANNOT be turned off (read those pages you didn't read in the thread at the KAV forum). Yeah, it can be turned off, we think, for the on demand scanner. What was not made clear though is that ISwift is ALSO used by the file scanner. I had the file scanner set to scan all files and I thought it was not using ISwift. Evidently, it does use ISwift and it matters not at all how you set anything in the GUI. According to Lucian, and another poster, you can only turn off ISwift for the real time scanner in the registry and even then it may not be turned off. The Help file says nothing about needing to go into the registry to turn off ISwift for the real time scanner and doesn't indicate what key has to be modified either. Plus, Lucian says it is not certain that modifying the registry key will even turn off ISwift for the real time scanner. It may be impossible to turn it off.

Some of us installed KAV, and used it, ONLY because we believed we had ISwift totally turned off which now, way too late, we find out did not happen as the real time scanner uses ISwift no matter if the user wants that or not. This situation is quite different from someone bitching about not wanting to use an AV's mail scanner, for instance, and being pissed because the mail scanner module installed even though they don't want to use it. They can just not enable that module and while it might be nice if the user could choose to not even install a module they don't intend to use, they can just turn it off after it installs. ISwift, on the other hand not only installs, but CANNOT be turned off even though the GUI and help file says it can be.

I'm not the only one who is upset by the revelations in the posts on pages 17-18 in the KAV thread. Others have mentioned this in the dslr thread including the OP. Perhaps Lucian is wrong. Perhaps we are all misreading those posts. But what are we supposed to do? We had asked Kaspersky to break their deafening silence and talk to us about this. They stonewall instead. It is hard to believe that we are misinterpreting those posts and that from what we understand an entire thread at dslr has been created and is still going. If Lucian is wrong why has Kaspersky Lab not spoken up and corrected the misperception? Why would Kaspersky Lab let the dslr thread go on and on if we are wrong and we were able to TOTALLY turn off ISwift?

[Peter2150]

I did go back and read those pages. But I still come away with the same feelings. A small minority are having some problems, but a majority don't appear to be. The why is a good question.

I have to confess, I never would have even considered running chkdsk in windows, and in fact on two machines that run 18 hours a day, with large single partition drives, the only time chkdsk has been run was when it was rollback induced. Otherwise I consider it a waste of time.(If I suspect a problem, I restore an image)

I would also have to confess a moderation in my reaction to Mele20's zeal about this based on a reminder tonight about how I feel when I hover my mouse over a PDF file and acrobat reader tries to start. Irk's the heck out of me.

Pete(who's eye's are spinning in circles)

[C.S.J]

its not only that kaspersky made the chkdsk slower, dramatically.

but,

with kaspersky, the problem was that it would always run automatically, quite a few times on reboots, and this would stop with the removal of kaspersky.

i never run them, and windows never feels the need to run them, but with kaspersky, they run all the time, so i wonder what its doing to my harddrive to make windows run these.

i think thats what 'some' users also mean with the chkdsk problem, not only the slowness of it, but the actual fact that it keeps running, whereas without it installed, it never ever feels the need to.

hope that makes sense, it does in my head. ;D

[danny9]

{QUOTE-> its not only that kaspersky made the chkdsk slower, dramatically.

but,

with kaspersky, the problem was that it would always run automatically, quite a few times on reboots, and this would stop with the removal of kaspersky.

i never run them, and windows never feels the need to run them, but with kaspersky, they run all the time, so i wonder what its doing to my harddrive to make windows run these.

i think thats what 'some' users also mean with the chkdsk problem, not only the slowness of it, but the actual fact that it keeps running, whereas without it installed, it never ever feels the need to.

hope that makes sense, it does in my head. ;D <-QUOTE}

Makes sense in my head too!!;D

[tommyboy]

{QUOTE-> I have to confess, I never would have even considered running chkdsk in windows, and in fact on two machines that run 18 hours a day, with large single partition drives, the only time chkdsk has been run was when it was rollback induced. Otherwise I consider it a waste of time.(If I suspect a problem, I restore an image) <-QUOTE}Well, according to Microsoft, chkdsk is meant to run under Windows...

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/4602ebdc-30a6-4459-98e4-ff4f4cdbf1f3.aspx

There are dozens of more pages just like that at Microsoft's site, not just one for Windows Server 2003.

Certainly, you can decide not to run it under Windows for yourself, however, just because you normally don't, does not mean the rest of us are wrong for doing so. In fact, chkdsk was "designed" to be able to run under Windows. That was a key design component at the time.

[Peter2150]

{QUOTE-> Well, according to Microsoft, chkdsk is meant to run under Windows...

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/4602ebdc-30a6-4459-98e4-ff4f4cdbf1f3.aspx

There are dozens of more pages just like that at Microsoft's site, not just one for Windows Server 2003.

Certainly, you can decide not to run it under Windows for yourself, however, just because you normally don't, does not mean the rest of us are wrong for doing so. In fact, chkdsk was "designed" to be able to run under Windows. That was a key design component at the time. <-QUOTE}

I assume that also applies to XP, and I don't disagree it is designed to do that. But does everything MS make work as designed, and is it always a good design. I just think you tilt the odds in your favor doing it the other way.

[ajcstr]

Been following this thread though some is over my head.

What would you guys recommend to someone like me with Kaspersky in the box and current Panda subscriptions running out in Sept. Do I wait it out or get rid of the package on ebay ?

[Peter2150]

{QUOTE-> Been following this thread though some is over my head.

What would you guys recommend to someone like me with Kaspersky in the box and current Panda subscriptions running out in Sept. Do I wait it out or get rid of the package on ebay ? <-QUOTE}


I would recommend imaging your system, and then installing KAV and see how you like it.

Interestingly the latest post in the Kaspersky forum thread, suggests the problem may be more chkdsk then KAV.

[JerryM]

{QUOTE-> I would recommend imaging your system, and then installing KAV and see how you like it.

Interestingly the latest post in the Kaspersky forum thread, suggests the problem may be more chkdsk then KAV. <-QUOTE}


Agree. I suspect that it will not be a problem, but the only way to know is to try it. I am not sure if stage 2 pauses a few seconds or a minute or not, but either way it is not a problem.

On the other hand, while I have not had a problem with it, if it were a bother to me I would just ditch KAV/KIS, and go to another.

Life has too many problems to dwell on some AV that has a real or fancied problem. There are some good ones around, and if KIS doesn't work then go to another.

Regards,
Jerry

[lodore]

when i used the older builds of kaspersky windows would want to run chkdisc quite alot.
at first i thought this was happerning at the end of using f-secure as well but seems not.
then suddenly windows never wanted to run chkdisc again which in my mind at least means if it was a problem with kaspersky it has since been fixed hence windows not asking to run chkdisc no more.

im sure kaspersky will some how manage to make scans and realtime scanning faster in new versions without the need for addons....
lodore

[Macstorm]

I do not believe these folks complaining about this 'chkdsk supposed issue'. IME, dozens of KAV v6 installations performed on friends/relatives computers and zero problems with them makes me think so. Moreover, the more they bring this BS back here and there, over and over, the more I see an anti-KAV tendencious campaign around this subject. Why? choose guess what.
Sorry about it.

[Mele20]

{QUOTE-> . Moreover, the more they bring this BS back here and there, over and over, the more I see an anti-KAV tendencious campaign around this subject. Why? choose guess what.
<-QUOTE}

That is because you haven't read all the posts. If you read all of mine at Kaspersky, here, and dslr you would see that I am not a KAV hater. I am not rabid either and I resent what you said out ignorance. I will repeat yet again that I believe KAV 4.5 to be the greatest AV EVER.

Besides, everyone using KAV6 or 7 has the problem. Some of you don't/won't see it. It has nothing to do with chkdsk asking to run all the time. My chkdsk has NEVER "asked" to run. I have to go to the command line and instruct it to run on the next boot if I want to use it.

[optigrab]

{QUOTE-> I do not believe these folks complaining about this 'chkdsk supposed issue'. IME, dozens of KAV v6 installations performed on friends/relatives computers and zero problems with them makes me think so. <-QUOTE}There could be other reasons why the number of people experiencing problems is low - like the fact that very few people use CHKDSK at all. Do you disbelieve people who have rare diseases because the vast majority of people do not?{QUOTE-> Moreover, the more they bring this BS back here and there, over and over, the more I see an anti-KAV tendencious campaign around this subject. <-QUOTE}I've read many posts by people who use every opportunity (taking threads OT) to deride some software, pointing out its flaws, dangers, and how it is inferior to their favorite. Those people generally do not have that software installed on their machine - in this case they do.

[TonyW]

{QUOTE-> There could be other reasons why the number of people experiencing problems is low - like the fact that very few people use CHKDSK at all. <-QUOTE}By the same token, there are probably people who use chkdsk that haven't experienced the same problems.

It's a funny ol' computer world. ;)

[C.S.J]

i think people are forgetting that 'part of the problem' is that kaspersky is making CHKDSK run on reboot quite alot, not that people are running it themselfs.

this leads me to think what kaspersky is doing to my harddrive when i use it.

[Kapiti]

{QUOTE-> I do not believe these folks complaining about this 'chkdsk supposed issue'. IME, dozens of KAV v6 installations performed on friends/relatives computers and zero problems with them makes me think so. Moreover, the more they bring this BS back here and there, over and over, the more I see an anti-KAV tendencious campaign around this subject. Why? choose guess what.
Sorry about it. <-QUOTE}

I am certainly not anti Kaspersky and as far as bringing "this BS here" I suggest you Google for "Kaspersky chkdsk" or "Kaspersky checkdisk" you'll find that Wilderssecurity is not the only forum that has threads dealing with the issue.

Taking your theory a step further, would it be correct for me to suggest that uses that are having problems with Acronis TrueImage, EAZ-FIX\RollBack Rx v8, and Norton Go-Back are talking BS just because I don't have problems with the software?

[optigrab]

{QUOTE-> By the same token, there are probably people who use chkdsk that haven't experienced the same problems. <-QUOTE}Actually, I'm fairly near certain of that. I'm not aware of any statement to the contrary in this thread, much less in my two posts.{QUOTE-> Taking your theory a step further, would it be correct for me to suggest that uses that are having problems with Acronis TrueImage, EAZ-FIX\RollBack Rx v8, and Norton Go-Back are talking BS just because I don't have problems with the software? <-QUOTE} That seems to be Macstorm's reasoning (not even taking it "a step further")! Works for me. I've successfully used this same reasoning to disprove the existence of polar bears and people from Luxembourg. The key is to rely on a statistical sample of people you know personally. "Dozens" will do. ::)

[BlueZannetti]

To all,

Let's everyone just take a step back with respect to accusations towards users experiencing issues and the inevitable response from the user base - that's a vicious cycle that has simply played out too many times in the discussion of this specific problem here and elsewhere. We simply do not need to see it play out in that fashion here yet again. It's a waste of everyone's time.

If you're not experiencing a problem, that's fine, but it doesn't mean that another user's experience is fiction. The specific problem has been fully documented at a number of sites, from a number of users. For some it is a very minor issue and of no real consequence at the moment. For some of them there is the background concern that it will morph into some of the seemingly more serious problems articulated and currently experienced by others. Finally, there is a small population of users who do appear to have serious issues.

It is not unique to this situation, but a general observation - If you're responding to anyone experiencing a serious issue with any product, probably the least productive contribution is to be unilaterally dismissive of the situation. It doesn't matter who you are - vendor employee, reseller, product advocate, or fellow user. If you want to make the problem worse - if you want to increase user unease and general distress - a dismissive response is usually a great way to start. Sheesh, this isn't complicated folks - if you want to resolve a problem (or even confirm that a problem exists), work the problem, don't work over the people reporting the problem.

A reasonable approach to remove the potential immediate source of the problem, file object ID's, has been provided here (http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18608452-Kaspersky-You-lost-me-at-ISwift~start=380). Try it if you wish, but don't cry foul if you're unprepared to deal with any unanticipated outcomes.

Blue

[TonyW]

I think we have established there are people with these problems. The trick is in finding out WHY they have those particular problems.

It's the same with any software - there are groups of people with troubles and others without. It would be nice if the differences could be tallied somehow so that the root causes may at least become apparent, but I realise that is such a mammoth task considering everyone's rig is different.

[Macstorm]

{QUOTE-> That is because you haven't read all the posts. <-QUOTE}
I do have read ALL of them, even those posted at dslr, kl, etc.

{QUOTE-> I am certainly not anti Kaspersky and as far as bringing "this BS here" I suggest you Google for "Kaspersky chkdsk" or "Kaspersky checkdisk" <-QUOTE}
I said 'here and there'. Google is my old friend.

{QUOTE-> would it be correct for me to suggest that uses that are having problems with Acronis TrueImage, EAZ-FIX\RollBack Rx v8, and Norton Go-Back are talking BS just because I don't have problems with the software? <-QUOTE}
Surely they're having issues with them just like as I had others with adobe, nero etc, which were fixed afterwards.
As I said before, IME kaspersky=zero problems.

{QUOTE-> That seems to be Macstorm's reasoning (not even taking it "a step further")! Works for me. I've successfully used this same reasoning to disprove the existence of polar bears and people from Luxembourg. The key is to rely on a statistical sample of people you know personally. "Dozens" will do. ::) <-QUOTE}
I know what you mean :( :D
I just expressed my opinion, sorry if I did hurt anyone with it. Again, I see the anti-kav machinery is full-time working from competitors.

{QUOTE-> Sheesh, this isn't complicated folks - if you want to resolve a problem (or even confirm that a problem exists), work the problem, don't work over the people reporting the problem.
<-QUOTE}
To the people posting again and again about the same theme...

End

[Mele20]

{QUOTE->
To the people posting again and again about the same theme...

End
<-QUOTE}

All of us would be happy to stop posting about this if Kaspersky would stop stonewalling and actually do something to help us. Where is the removal tool we have asked for from Kaspersky? Sadly, it seems that with Kaspersky one has to hit them over head repeatedly to get them to finally respond. That is what happened with the ADS fiasco and it is painfully obvious that Kaspersky learned nothing from that episode but how to be even more arrogant and even less respectful of their users. For most companies, except Microsoft and Kaspersky, the result would have been the opposite.

[plantextract]

{QUOTE-> All of us would be happy to stop posting about this if Kaspersky would stop stonewalling and actually do something to help us. Where is the removal tool we have asked for from Kaspersky? Sadly, it seems that with Kaspersky one has to hit them over head repeatedly to get them to finally respond. That is what happened with the ADS fiasco and it is painfully obvious that Kaspersky learned nothing from that episode but how to be even more arrogant and even less respectful of their users. For most companies, except Microsoft and Kaspersky, the result would have been the opposite. <-QUOTE}
sorry, which ADS fiasco, where are the head lines for it, where are the milions of users ranting? because i mostly see only you.

[danny9]

{QUOTE-> sorry, which ADS fiasco, where are the head lines for it, where are the milions of users ranting? because i mostly see only you. <-QUOTE}

I use KIS7, just for the record.
It's just not Mele complaining.
This is a problem with a thread running here, at the KAV forums and at DSL reports.
Some posters are just more vocal then others and some are more technically inclined then others and understand the ramifications of this problem better then others.
For those of us not as knowledgeable with the workings of the computer, these posters are doing us a favor.
You are more then welcome to your opinion but I would suggest you read the threads, especially at DSL Reports where they are getting very technical, before you accuse one person as the problem and the only one instigating this.

[Antarctica]

{QUOTE-> sorry, which ADS fiasco, where are the head lines for it, where are the milions of users ranting? because i mostly see only you. <-QUOTE}

I for one never complained on any Forum, not even on Kasperski's Forum and yet I had this chkdsk problem right after installing KIS 6.0

What I did? just waiting for my licence to end, reformat and installed another Antivirus. There are other good one around.:) they are only Software after all...

Now it doesn't mean because you see only "a few people" complaining and ranting as you say,that the problem doesn't exist.

Oh! and by the way my chkdsk problem is solved now...

[Patrician]

{QUOTE-> I know what I saw and it was the old problem rearing its head. May be a issuer to some and not to others. Gary, after a few days, 7 slows everything down as bad as 6, folks will see this the more that use it. I agree for speed and detection, Eset and Avira, also Dr. Web. <-QUOTE}


I've been using KAV 6 for nearly a year on my laptop with no issues and no slowdown at all. I have also not seen any sign of the fabled chkdsk problems either.

[NAMOR]

{QUOTE-> sorry, which ADS fiasco, where are the head lines for it, where are the milions of users ranting? because i mostly see only you. <-QUOTE}

They stopped using them didn't they? I remember at that time there were a number of threads here and on other forums with negative views toward the ADS tags. Personally, it didn't bother me.

[optigrab]

{QUOTE-> I've been using KAV 6 for nearly a year on my laptop with no issues and no slowdown at all. <-QUOTE}Great news. I think that confirms the experience of everyone else on this thread. That is, I don't believe anyone on this thread has complained of a general slowdown.

{QUOTE-> I have also not seen any sign of the fabled chkdsk problems either. <-QUOTE} Also great news. The majority of folks have not had an issue. Unfortunately, some unlucky folks have. Do you recall your CHKDSK results (Stage 2 times)?

[optigrab]

{QUOTE-> I know what you mean :( :D
I just expressed my opinion, sorry if I did hurt anyone with it. Again, I see the anti-kav machinery is full-time working from competitors. <-QUOTE}And I am sorry that you appear foolish by associating me with some "anti-kav machinery" without any reason, and particularly not based upon anything I have ever posted. I also find it ironic that you seem to have mistook BlueZannetti's post as supporting your statements, when in fact you would do well to take his words to heart.

[Macstorm]

{QUOTE-> I also find it ironic that you seem to have mistook BlueZannetti's post as supporting your statements <-QUOTE}
oh no are you sure??? read again

He did his best shot here
{QUOTE-> Sheesh, this isn't complicated folks - if you want to resolve a problem (or even confirm that a problem exists), work the problem, don't work over the people reporting the problem. <-QUOTE}
plz stop kav haters?

[BlueZannetti]

{QUOTE-> He did his best shot here

plz stop kav haters? <-QUOTE}Macstorm,

Just for the record, I've been a personal multilicense (5-pack) KAV WKS holder for 4-5 years already and my current license runs to late 2008. If that makes me a KAV hater, you have a warped sense of that term.

That said, there are some styles of customer treatment by vendors/product advocates/f