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." }-
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." }-

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." }-

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." }-
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
" }-

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.:)" }-

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"" }-
I totally agree and thus, ditched KIS 7.::)

[Antarctica]

-{ Quote: "I totally agree and thus, ditched KIS 7.::)" }-

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.;)" }-
i will have to learn that one;D
lodore

[The Hammer]

-{ Quote: "i will have to learn that one;D
lodore" }-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.;)" }-
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" }-
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." }-
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" }-

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." }-
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" }-

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." }-

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)" }-
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*" }-

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." }-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" }-


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:" }-

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" }-
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." }-
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" }-
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. :)" }-
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." }-

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" }-

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 ??? ." }-

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)." }-
...but this topic is about v7.

[The_Duality]

-{ Quote: "...but this topic is about v7." }-

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." }-

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." }-
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.." }-

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." }-
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: "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"." }-
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)." }-

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.
" }-
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." }-

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?" }-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"?" }-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.
." }-

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." }-

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" }-

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." }-

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" }-
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" }-
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.
" }-
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." }-

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." }-

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" }-

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." }-

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." }-

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" }-

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)" }-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." }-

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 ?" }-


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." }-


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.
" }-

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." }-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." }-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." }-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." }-

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." }-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?" }- 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." }-
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"" }-
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?" }-
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. ::)" }-
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.
" }-
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
" }-

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." }-
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." }-

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." }-

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." }-


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." }-

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." }-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." }- 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. " }-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" }-
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." }-
plz stop kav haters?

[BlueZannetti]

-{ Quote: "He did his best shot here

plz stop kav haters?" }-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/fellow users that I happen to strongly disagree with. I've seen it come out in discussions involving KAV (and NOD32, BOClean, AdAware, and many other products....) over the past few years with, in my estimation, the current discussion involving potential unintended consequences of the KL iSwift implementation being a bit of a lightening rod in this regard.

Like I said - work the problem, not the people. Note, working the problem can include objective analysis that it's not an issue. As should be obvious, the quickest way to derail productive discussion is to turn it away from the technical content and towards the participants...

Blue

[TonyW]

-{ Quote: "I have also not seen any sign of the fabled chkdsk problems either." }-You see, this is what I find hard to fathom out, folks. Patrician above hasn't experienced any problems, and there are others in the same boat. However, there are others who have experienced problems.

Why don't we set about trying to pinpoint the reasons why some people are not experiencing the issues reported by some? This would be more productive than arguing about how many users are affected or whether this is all mythical. It's not helpful to anyone.

Let's get to the root of it, and find a solution that helps those that have been affected.

[Macstorm]

-{ 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.
" }-
Hi Blue,

I think that you misread my previous comments because of the way I wrote them.
I just meant that you pointed out correctly the words from your quotation I pulled of and I redirected them to all KAV complainers.
Sorry if I was misunderstood.

[flyrfan111]

-{ Quote: "You see, this is what I find hard to fathom out, folks. Patrician above hasn't experienced any problems, and there are others in the same boat. However, there are others who have experienced problems.

Why don't we set about trying to pinpoint the reasons why some people are not experiencing the issues reported by some? This would be more productive than arguing about how many users are affected or whether this is all mythical. It's not helpful to anyone.

Let's get to the root of it, and find a solution that helps those that have been affected." }-

Because I think in this case it is a rare combination of software/hardware that creates the problem, yes the vast majority of people will not have any problems with KAV, others will, the rare configuration makes it harder to reproduce, which makes it next to impossible to fix.

[BlueZannetti]

-{ Quote: "Let's get to the root of it, and find a solution that helps those that have been affected." }-Just to summarize what has appeared on this topic during major threads related to this topic - Kaspersky-You-lost-me-at-ISwift (http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18608452-Kaspersky-You-lost-me-at-ISwift), KAV causing chkdsk errors (http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=14995), very very slow chkdsk is it from KIS 7? (http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=42980).

I started walking through the threads to collect data, but it's a bit fragmentary. My personal assessment (and bear with me in the event I get some details wrong....):
Most users experience a simple delay in running chkdsk. For most it seems to be of the order of 30 seconds to a couple of minutes. For some, the delay occurs at 0% stage 2, for others it occurs at 5-7% stage 2.
Some users experience multiminute delays at stage 2 of chkdsk. Values quoted range from about 10-20 minutes.
A few users have experienced multi-hour delays
With some users, the chkdsk progress indicator appears stuck at 0% for an inordinate time, then appears to jump to a much later point (20-45%) and then progresses normally.
There doesn't appear to be a hardware connection as multiple systems with different chip sets and HDD types (EIDE, SATA) are impacted.
Some users experience secondary issues with chkdsk crashing, being unable to complete a scan, or observe hangs with other disk/file system utilities (e.g. Acronis True Image). Others do not observe these secondary interactions
File metadata appears prone to severe fragmentation in some instances.
A conflict may exist between KAV/KIS and O&O Defrag,
A couple of approaches have been provided to rid a system of the iSwift file object ID's, see here (http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18608452-Kaspersky-You-lost-me-at-ISwift~start=380). Both employ the MS fsutil.exe utility.
The approaches just mentioned (I prefer the command line invocation) have been shown to lower the stage 2 delay a sizable degree. As yet, I've not seen anyone experiencing a multiminute delay, file system errors, or problems with other applications (Acronis True Image, O&O Defrag) report on whether removal of the iSwift generated file object ID's remedy their particular issues. Until this latter step occurs, the true efficacy of this solution is unknown, as is whether a minority of cases are actually suffering from distinct and multiple issues.
That's a quick synopsis of the major items. Parenthetically, my personal opinion is that KL made a bad call using an OS facility outside of it's targeted role. Unfortunately, programmers often make implicit assumptions in creating programs and changing a system such that virtually every file could have file object ID's set, while the expected norm is that they are sparsely employed, may the key issue.

Finally, while severe problems have occurred, and are of major consequence to those impacted, let's not lose sight of the fact that they are, at this point, restricted to a handful of confirmed instances.

Blue

[flyrfan111]

Sorry Blue, forgot about the different chip sets involved. I do and always have used O&O though.

[Mele20]

I think Blue's synopsis of the problem as reported in a number of forums and threads is excellent. Except for what bothers me the most which Blue didn't even mention!!. I have a delay of ckdsk at the end of 6% of stage 2 for about 3 minutes that I did not have before installing KAV 6 on a four month old computer. But what I am the most angry about, and Blue didn't mention this at all, is the fact that Kaspersky blatantly lied to all of us and has shown no indication of apologizing for this incredible breech of trust.

Kaspersky says in the GUI, and the Help file, that you can turn OFF Iswift and never have it be used. That is a lie which only came to surface during the DSLR thread and was finally made known in the Kaspersky forum thread where P2U stated that ISwift cannot be turned off even though we users are told that it can be. Lucian looked into it and then agreed that the ONLY POSSIBLE way to turn off ISwift is in the Registry and even that may not be possible. Yet Kaspersky says it can be turned off in the GUI. I would NEVER have installed KAV 6 had I known the truth. I believed I had ISwift turned off because it never occurred to me that Kaspersky would lie about something this important and that they would deliberately put a FAKE turn off box in the GUI!

This lying to the customer is what angers me and I can't understand why every Kaspersky user is not angered and doesn't immediately get rid of KAV. Why would you want to use software where the authors have blatantly lied to you about something that is extremely important? Why do all of you want junk on all your files? I would never accept that. There are plenty of fine AVs out there that do not burden all files on the computer with junk added. I will never trust Kaspersky again. It doesn't matter if they have dropped ISwift from 2008. They LIED to me and DELIBERATELY misled me about an important feature of KAV 2006 -2007 and now are caught out in the LIE (by their forum resident expert) they don't come forward and apologize! And most users don't care if the vendor lies about important features, puts crap on their files...geez...something is really wrong with this scenario. I have my priorities straight...I don't think most of you do.

[BlueZannetti]

-{ Quote: "Kaspersky says in the GUI, and the Help file, that you can turn OFF Iswift and never have it be used. That is a lie which only came to surface during the DSLR thread and was finally made known in the Kaspersky forum thread where P2U stated that ISwift cannot be turned off even though we users are told that it can be." }-Yes, that was one issue I missed.

For the interested, see here (http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=14995&st=337). The nuance is that the GUI does allow disabling iSwift/iChecker using the Additional Settings dialog windows under Scan (i.e. scheduled and on-demand scans), but that this apparently does not disable iSwift/iChecker from functioning with the real time monitor under file protection and the only place this appears configurable is using an undocumented, but plainly visible, registry entry.

As for user reaction to this issue, I'm not about to tell every user how they should view the situation. Because it is a major point with some users does not mean it has to be a major point with all users.

Blue

[optigrab]

-{ Quote: " The approaches just mentioned (I prefer the command line invocation) have been shown to lower the stage 2 delay a sizable degree. As yet, I've not seen anyone experiencing a multiminute delay, file system errors, or problems with other applications (Acronis True Image, O&O Defrag) report on whether removal of the iSwift generated file object ID's remedy their particular issues. Until this latter step occurs, the true efficacy of this solution is unknown, as is whether a minority of cases are actually suffering from distinct and multiple issues." }-Please correct me if I am wrong, but don't the solutions described remove all file object ID's, not simply the iSwift id's? Since I don't know how the OS makes use of file object ID's on my system, I am unsure if this is a good idea. I am also wondering about the safety & impact of removing file object ID's from OS components. Ideally, a surgical approach to remove just the iSwift ID's would please me, but I think the KL people would have to show us how.

[BlueZannetti]

-{ Quote: "Please correct me if I am wrong, but don't the solutions described remove all file object ID's, not simply the iSwift id's? Since I don't know how the OS makes use of file object ID's on my system, I am unsure if this is a good idea. I am also wondering about the safety & impact of removing file object ID's from OS components. Ideally, a surgical approach to remove just the iSwift ID's would please me, but I think the KL people would have to show us how." }-Yes, that is correct. All file object ID's are removed unless a file or path is locked at the OS level since they are not tracked with respect to how they were initially created (i.e. KAV or the OS).

See here (http://msdn2.microsoft.com/En-US/library/aa363997.aspx) for a somewhat detailed description of at least one use context. My read is that they were not really meant for the individual home user, but are useful in the context of a domain/workgroup members. As I noted here (http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18608452~days=9999~start=390), I've seen no functional impact on their removal from my own machine.

Blue

[ajcstr]

Does this issue affect the free AVS since it is powered by Kaspersky?

[TonyW]

-{ Quote: "
This lying to the customer is what angers me and I can't understand why every Kaspersky user is not angered and doesn't immediately get rid of KAV. Why would you want to use software where the authors have blatantly lied to you about something that is extremely important? Why do all of you want junk on all your files?" }-I knew iSwift was being used before I added Kaspersky version 6, and by installing the program I agreed to its use. The same for iStreams in version 5.

I guess the reason why people like myself aren't jumping up and down in anger is because we haven't experienced the problems you have.

As Blue says, just because it affects some users, like yourself, doesn't mean all other KL users are in the same position. I certainly view it differently, and as long as Kaspersky does its job, i.e. protect against computer viruses et al, without any problems then I'm happy.

[Kapiti]

-{ Quote: "Does this issue affect the free AVS since it is powered by Kaspersky?" }-

I'm one of the unlucky users that have the chkdsk problem, and yes it does effect the free AVS. The problem also arises when ZASS is installed so it would appear that any antivirus that is run by the Kaspersky engine is effected.

And just because I have the problem doesn't make anti Kaspersky;D

[ajcstr]

-{ Quote: "I'm one of the unlucky users that have the chkdsk problem, and yes it does effect the free AVS. The problem also arises when ZASS is installed so it would appear that any antivirus that is run by the Kaspersky engine is effected." }-

Oh Right - Zone alarm uses Kaspersky now also. I would imagine it would have affected IOLO also because they used Kaspersky - not sure if they still do or not.

[Don Pelotas]

-{ Quote: "I'm one of the unlucky users that have the chkdsk problem, and yes it does effect the free AVS. The problem also arises when ZASS is installed so it would appear that any antivirus that is run by the Kaspersky engine is effected.

And just because I have the problem doesn't make anti Kaspersky;D" }-
-{ Quote: "Oh Right - Zone alarm uses Kaspersky now also. I would imagine it would have affected IOLO also because they used Kaspersky - not sure if they still do or not." }-
ZA 7.0 does not use the iSwift technology only the engine, so that muddies the water if true that ZA is "affected"...:)

[Peter2150]

-{ Quote: "I'm one of the unlucky users that have the chkdsk problem, and yes it does effect the free AVS. The problem also arises when ZASS is installed so it would appear that any antivirus that is run by the Kaspersky engine is effected.

And just because I have the problem doesn't make anti Kaspersky;D" }-


Hi Kapti

Does ZASS, have the Iswift option. If it doesn't then it's harder to lay the problem at Kaspersky vs maybe a chkdsk problem. Maybe Don can shed some light, but I don't think it's the KAV engine that uses Iswift. The shell program using Iswift determine which files need to be scanned and then they are passed to the engine. On the other hand if ZA can also license the Iswift stuff then maybe.

Pete

Oops. See Don already did.

[Peter2150]

-{ Quote: "
This lying to the customer is what angers me and I can't understand why every Kaspersky user is not angered and doesn't immediately get rid of KAV. Why would you want to use software where the authors have blatantly lied to you about something that is extremely important? Why do all of you want junk on all your files? I would never accept that. There are plenty of fine AVs out there that do not burden all files on the computer with junk added. I will never trust Kaspersky again. It doesn't matter if they have dropped ISwift from 2008. They LIED to me and DELIBERATELY misled me about an important feature of KAV 2006 -2007 and now are caught out in the LIE (by their forum resident expert) they don't come forward and apologize! And most users don't care if the vendor lies about important features, puts crap on their files...geez...something is really wrong with this scenario. I have my priorities straight...I don't think most of you do." }-

This is a bit over the top. Obviously the person writing the help file made a mistake. But can you prove it was done deliberately. Deliberate is a very strong word. If you were to ask Dell about Bartpe, assuming they even know what it is, if they said sure it should run, would that be a deliberate lie. Probably more likely an uninformed techie. Same thing Mele with the order problem with you had with Dell. Infuriating, yes, frustrating, yes, organizationall incompetence, yes, but a deliberate action, probably not.


Also everyone assume's it's KAV, when it could well be a chkdsk issue, and a microsoft problem. The assumption is that Kaspersky is guilty and it covering it up. But unless one knows what is going on behind the scenes, that might be a bit of a rash judgement. I've learned that when companies have to interact with Microsoft, things can get complicated.

Pete

[flyrfan111]

Pete,
I think something you may not be realizing is it is not a matter of people running chkdsk that is the problem, it is the OS running chkdsk during restarts. It usually was not selected to be run by the user. That is where the implication that damage to the OS was being done by KAV.

[plantextract]

-{ Quote: "Pete,
I think something you may not be realizing is it is not a matter of people running chkdsk that is the problem, it is the OS running chkdsk during restarts. It usually was not selected to be run by the user. That is where the implication that damage to the OS was being done by KAV." }-
no, that IS the "issue". people run chkdsk and it hangs at stage 2 for a long time (verifing indexes)

[C.S.J]

-{ Quote: "no, that IS the "issue". people run chkdsk and it hangs at stage 2 for a long time (verifing indexes)" }-
they are both the issue,

kaspersky hangs on stage 2,
kaspersky makes windows run the chkdsk

[flyrfan111]

No, as a former user of the product, chkdsk would run on restart automatically, I did not select to run it.

[C.S.J]

-{ Quote: "No, as a former user of the product, chkdsk would run on restart automatically, I did not select to run it." }-
yep i can confirm,

i never ever run chkdsk and windows never runs it automatically for me, yet in the 'very short time' i tried kaspersky, it ran quite a few times on reboots, AND it does hang on stage 2.

so both issues = chkdsk problem, that people talk about.

::)

[lodore]

-{ Quote: "they are both the issue,

kaspersky hangs on stage 2,
kaspersky makes windows run the chkdsk" }-
Hi chris,
kaspersky hasnt made windows do a chkdisc after i installed kis6.0 MP2
the older builds made windows do a chkdisc about once every few weeks.
lodore

[JerryM]

-{ Quote: "Hi chris,
kaspersky hasnt made windows do a chkdisc after i installed kis6.0 MP2
the older builds made windows do a chkdisc about once every few weeks.
lodore" }-

I guess I have not understood what has been said. I have never had chkdsk run unless I designated it to do so. I have only had experience with KAV 6 and 7.

Jerry

[King Grub]

I've used Kaspersky since version 5; it has never ever asked for a chkdsk-reboot.

[trjam]

I agree. Anyone who thinks there is a issue with Kaspersky is just crazy. Who is the dumb ass that started this thread any hew.::)

[C.S.J]

there is an issue, the 2 mentioned above.

i doubt kaspersky will sort it,

to me it seems they would rather compromise my HD-health just to have a quicker scan speed, windows would not need to do these checks on reboot if it wasnt doing something to my HD which my computer does not like.

many people dont get the issue, but to say its not there is just ********,

but also, many... like BOTH my laptops, do get the issue.

[Kapiti]

-{ Quote: "ZA 7.0 does not use the iSwift technology only the engine, so that muddies the water if true that ZA is "affected"...:)" }-

Don, After I removed KISS by restoring an image made before KISS was installed, I installed ZASS trial to see if the problem still happened. It did, at least the delay at stage 2 was still apparent after doing a full scan. I also did the same with AVS and after doing a full scan chkdsk hung at stage 2 just the same. (Talking of a delay around the five minute mark).
Now, if as you say these programmes don't use iSwift then there must be another reason with Kaspersky that is causing the chkdsk stage 2 delay.
After installing both ZASS and AVS and seeing that the problem was still there I recovered using an ATI image, chkdsk then ran correctly without any delay at stage 2.
I don't have the knowledge, or expertise, to trouble shoot the problem, but maybe others that have the problem with KAV or KISS could try out ZASS and AVS to see what results they get?
If I could just get KISS to work on my computer without the stage 2 delay, and was convinced that Kaspersky wasn't causing a potential threat to my files, I would be a very happy camper and would reinstall the software again.

[trjam]

Ok Chris, all kidding aside, I hear you. But from a dumb ass viewpoint, I never had ever even ran a chkdsk or whatever the hell it is. So my question is, why and when do you run it..... I am not being rude just trying to understand. And if all this is for real, why hasn't anyone contacted a lawyer for start of a class action lawsuit. You cant tell me that if an abundant number of computers have been screwed, that some New York lawyer wouldn't have run a ad in the paper by now, enticing complainants for a suit involving Kaspersky and Microsoft.

[Don Pelotas]

-{ Quote: "Don, After I removed KISS by restoring an image made before KISS was installed, I installed ZASS trial to see if the problem still happened. It did, at least the delay at stage 2 was still apparent after doing a full scan. I also did the same with AVS and after doing a full scan chkdsk hung at stage 2 just the same. (Talking of a delay around the five minute mark).
Now, if as you say these programmes don't use iSwift then there must be another reason with Kaspersky that is causing the chkdsk stage 2 delay.
After installing both ZASS and AVS and seeing that the problem was still there I recovered using an ATI image, chkdsk then ran correctly without any delay at stage 2.
I don't have the knowledge, or expertise, to trouble shoot the problem, but maybe others that have the problem with KAV or KISS could try out ZASS and AVS to see what results they get?
If I could just get KISS to work on my computer without the stage 2 delay, and was convinced that Kaspersky wasn't causing a potential threat to my files, I would be a very happy camper and would reinstall the software again." }-
If you didn't format your HD, then of course it will still be there according to what some have said.

I have the stage 2 delay and have used 6.0/7.0 through 100 builds (including the beta builds of course) over two years and have never seen anything beyond that stage 2 delay, in my case it is a non issue. :)

[Kapiti]

-{ Quote: "If you didn't format your HD, then of course it will still be there according to what some have said." }-

There was no need to format. I used an Acronis image file made prior to the installation of Kaspersky to recover from. As far as the hard drive is concerned once the recovery was made using ATI it's as if Kaspersky had never been installed in the first place.

[TonyW]

-{ Quote: "No, as a former user of the product, chkdsk would run on restart automatically, I did not select to run it." }-
Just out of interest, did you see it run and were there logs available after this? I've scanned my disk for chkdsk and only see the executable with no record of the chkdsk.log anywhere. (I assume it creates the .log after it runs.)

[flyrfan111]

-{ Quote: "Just out of interest, did you see it run and were there logs available after this? I've scanned my disk for chkdsk and only see the executable with no record of the chkdsk.log anywhere. (I assume it creates the .log after it runs.)" }-

Chkdsk should create an entry in the windows log, in XP this is viewed using event veiwer available under administratvie tools. It should be in the application section with the title winlogon.

[Don Pelotas]

-{ Quote: "There was no need to format. I used an Acronis image file made prior to the installation of Kaspersky to recover from. As far as the hard drive is concerned once the recovery was made using ATI it's as if Kaspersky had never been installed in the first place." }-
Then again, the water is a bit muddied because ZA does not use iSwift....neither does Online Armour to my knowledge, does that also exhibit the same?

[ccsito]

Isn't Chkdsk that ancient DOS command to scan the hard drive for defects? I just ran it from the DOS command prompt and it indicated that some kind of orphan file was recovered and some kind of bitmap attribute had to be fixed. ??? I stopped using it since the Windows 3.11/DOS 6.2 days. But that would be odd for a AV to invoke an internal drive scan operation since that should an OS function ONLY.

[TonyW]

-{ Quote: "Chkdsk should create an entry in the windows log, in XP this is viewed using event veiwer available under administratvie tools. It should be in the application section with the title winlogon." }-Just for the fun of it, I just restarted Windows XP, 10.30pm UK time. No visible signs of chkdsk running here, no chkdsk.log either, and not even an entry for winlogon. In fact, the last entry for that on my machine was May 22, and that was because "the shell stopped unexpectedly and Explore.exe restarted".

Screenshot of part of current Application section:

[flyrfan111]

As it has been said, the majority of people don't have the issue.

[Kapiti]

-{ Quote: "Then again, the water is a bit muddied because ZA does not use iSwift....neither does Online Armour to my knowledge, does that also exhibit the same?" }-

Can't answer for Online Armour. As for ZASS using iSwift I gave my views to you in my previous message.

What I find strange is the absence of a Kaspersky spokesperson in this, and the other forum debates (apart from you that is:) ) I would have thought that by this stage someone from Kaspersky would be in repair mode.

[flyrfan111]

-{ Quote: "Can't answer for Online Armour. As for ZASS using iSwift I gave my views to you in my previous message.

What I find strange is the absence of a Kaspersky spokesperson in this, and the other forum debates (apart from you that is:) ) I would have thought that by this stage someone from Kaspersky would be in repair mode." }-

That is what lets the frustration/dis-satisfaction build, the minimal to non-existant response, even in their OWN support forum.

[Graystoke]

I don't have the chkdsk problem, and I've run both KAV/KIS 6 and 7, but I don't doubt that some are having this problem. As Kapiti and flyrfan111 says, it would be nice to hear from a KL guy just to get their side of the story.

[plantextract]

-{ Quote: "I don't have the chkdsk problem, and I've run both KAV/KIS 6 and 7, but I don't doubt that some are having this problem. As Kapiti and flyrfan111 says, it would be nice to hear from a KL guy just to get their side of the story." }-

last post: http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=14995&view=findpost&p=399119
Talec is the Certification Manager at KL if i'm not mistaken. If you want to help, contact him.

[trjam]

Wow, it does appear there is some validity to this issue. That isnt good.>:( I urge all that have Kaspersky to hurry as fast as you can and install Avira or Nod. Please dont hesitate....:-\

[trjam]

Let me also remind all of this post dated May 24th (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1011071&postcount=1). I said it then and got bashed, so do the right thing now.

[BlueZannetti]

-{ Quote: "Wow, it does appear there is some validity to this issue. That isnt good.>:( I urge all that have Kaspersky to hurry as fast as you can and install Avira or Nod. Please dont hesitate....:-\" }-Let's stay on topic. If this thread starts to veers off into unproductive paths, it will be closed.

Blue

[Don Pelotas]

-{ Quote: "Can't answer for Online Armour. As for ZASS using iSwift I gave my views to you in my previous message.

What I find strange is the absence of a Kaspersky spokesperson in this, and the other forum debates (apart from you that is:) ) I would have thought that by this stage someone from Kaspersky would be in repair mode." }-
ZA does not use iSwift, a central point in the arguments and an important aspect i would think since this has been one of the main arguments in this.

I count at least three times in the "OWN" forum asking for someone to actually supply those logs/steps to reproduce it............... the last two requests has been from the testing dept to supply directly..............."minimal to non-existant response" ...................hmmm. ???

P.s. I'm not a spokesperson for Kaspersky, i'm a moderator at their forum, yes, but not speaking in any official capacity in this matter.....it is my personal opinion i'm expressing.

[trjam]

Don you are correct. But please, take a look at my first post at the start of this thread and just help me understand why my computer would say that. No , I dont have any logs, I wish I did to help you folks, but my word is all I have. I am just trying to understand how, as you said, an unproven or documented rumor can continue this long without any truth.

[trjam]

I mean in all fairness to us, it is running elsewhere (http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/85517).

[flyrfan111]

-{ Quote: "

I count at least three times in the "OWN" forum asking for someone to actually supply those logs/steps to reproduce it............... the last two requests has been from the testing dept to supply directly..............."minimal to non-existant response" ...................hmmm. ???

P.s. I'm not a spokesperson for Kaspersky, i'm a moderator at their forum, yes, but not speaking in any official capacity in this matter.....it is my personal opinion i'm expressing." }-
Sorry but yes, I do view 3(One of which was yesterday!!) posts in a thread with going on 20 PAGES to be a "minimal" response.

[C.S.J]

i think this thread needs to be closed, things are just going over... and over.. and over.

some people have the problems mentioned in the thread, some dont.
there are others that have the problem on other forums, and again some that dont who reply to them aswell.

if you dont have a problem with this or never have, fair enough.

ive had these problems, and although they are not massive problems i do wonder what kaspersky is doing to my HD for windows to pop up with chkdsk on more than one occasion, thats my only worry, it does not bother me that it hangs on stage 2 a little.

either way, this thread is massive now and keeps going over and over with people still mentioning the same things from the first page.

:thumbd:

:isay:

[trjam]

Blue, I started it, feel free to close it please.

[flyrfan111]

Sorry for the distracting post, kindaa felt "attacked".

As for closing the thread, the thread starter asked to close so I guess it should be closed. As for those accusing others of KAV bashing, pointing out shortomings or problems is not bashing, All AVs have their problems/shortcomings, this is a support forum and most people come here for help with problems not to bad mouth companies.

[ccsito]

-{ Quote: "All AVs have their problems/shortcomings, this is a support forum and most people come here for help with problems not to bad mouth companies." }-

Agreed :thumb:

[BlueZannetti]

-{ Quote: "ZA does not use iSwift, a central point in the arguments and an important aspect i would think since this has been one of the main arguments in this." }-Don,

I'm going to have to question this assertion.

As a test, I installed ZA AntiVirus trial. Every file I accessed showed file object ID's. If I tried to delete them, they were immediately recreated. That is what appears in the first screenshot. The second shot is following the uninstall of ZA AntiVirus. The file object ID is still there, as it should be, but is now readily deleted and does not reappear. That would seem to suggest an active iSwift module...

Blue

[BlueZannetti]

-{ Quote: "Blue, I started it, feel free to close it please." }-If it remains on target and without acrimonious postings, the thread will remain open.

There are customers out there with problems. Although logs might be nice, an alternate approach is the direct challenge experiment - remove the file object ID's from a system displaying the genuinely concerning behavior (chkdsk crashing, stage 2 stalls exceeding, say, 10 minutes, negative impact on other applications (True Image, O&O Defrag, etc.)) and observe whether that removal remedies the major problem. At this point I don't believe anyone can really eliminate secondary conflicts as a source of the major problems. If the file object ID's are the primary cause (which I actually have a difficult time rationalizing unless it is a pure throughput/timeout issue), the problems will be resolved.

Blue

[Graystoke]

-{ Quote: "last post: http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=14995&view=findpost&p=399119
Talec is the Certification Manager at KL if i'm not mistaken. If you want to help, contact him." }-


I'm not having the problem, so no need for me to contact him. Thanks for the link anyway.

[Kapiti]

-{ Quote: "last post: http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=14995&view=findpost&p=399119
Talec is the Certification Manager at KL if i'm not mistaken. If you want to help, contact him." }-

Thank you, It's been awhile since I checked the Kaspersky forum so missed this. It's good to see that at last Kaspersky is starting to take the issue seriously.
I won't be contacting Talec as I no longer have Kapersky installed, but as a previous message of mine in this tread mentioned, I had contacted Kaspersky support, and a number of emails passed back and forth but not once was I asked for a log file.
I received the impression that since I was unwilling to clean install Windows then install KISS they lost interest, hence the last message I received from them that stated "The problem will be fixed in the next version" a polite brush off in my opinion.

[Peter2150]

I have on occasion seen a reboot and then a run of chkdsk. But this would only after a hard crash of the system, usually the result of playing with a pre-beta of a kernel mode program.

On my newest machine, the only times a crash has induced a run of chkdsk was with Rollback Rx. Many times in the course of testing, if I do have a crash, chkdsk or no, I'll restore an image just to be safe.

I have absolutely no doubt some folks are having a problem, I am just beginning to wonder if the problem is Kaspersky or Microsoft. Something to ponder. KL uses a feature of the flie system, that Microsoft says is fine to use, they implement it according to MS instructions, and do it properly, and there is a problem, whose problem is it. Unfortunately the answer is a few unlucky users.

[Don Pelotas]

-{ Quote: "Don,

I'm going to have to question this assertion.

As a test, I installed ZA AntiVirus trial. Every file I accessed showed file object ID's. If I tried to delete them, they were immediately recreated. That is what appears in the first screenshot. The second shot is following the uninstall of ZA AntiVirus. The file object ID is still there, as it should be, but is now readily deleted and does not reappear. That would seem to suggest an active iSwift module...

Blue" }-
This would be news to me Blue, i actually took the time to ask them this question when released, but might not have gotten a correct answer.:)

[SourMilk]

Here's my 2 cents. I bought KIS 6 and received security descriptor errors on chkdsk. Removed KIS 6 and finally after repartitioning and reinstalling Windows the errors went away. After I heard about KIS 7 being released in France with an English version, I installed KIS 7 and the security errors reappeared. Again, I had to repartition and reinstall Windows. This time with a different AV. I guess I am with the unlucky few too. :'(

SourMilk out

[Don Pelotas]

-{ Quote: "Sorry for the distracting post, kindaa felt "attacked".

As for closing the thread, the thread starter asked to close so I guess it should be closed. As for those accusing others of KAV bashing, pointing out shortomings or problems is not bashing, All AVs have their problems/shortcomings, this is a support forum and most people come here for help with problems not to bad mouth companies." }-
No attack intended, but whether the last request was yesterday seem a bit irrelevant, the important thing is that they actually do ask and have done so, if we go back from the one yesterday which apparantly suspicious in your opinion, then Kulich (he's from the testing dept) asked me on 10.05.2007 (http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=14995&view=findpost&p=342458) to post that users who can reproduce to simply contact him regarding this because it was important enough......to my knowledge he has received none, it is very difficult to help with an issue they can't reproduce if they don't get any help from those that see it.

Again for those who see this, contact Talec (http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showuser=11407) (read post 372 to 374) since he asked yesterday..............if you think you can help. :)

[flyrfan111]

Sorry for being so sensitive, I am not a KAV basher, I do recommend it, just with the caveat to trial it for the full trial and make an image based back up before installing it. I know the problems being discussed here only seem to affect a small number of users, the vast majority of KAV users don't see this problem for whatever reason. Unfortunately I was one of them, but I did enjoy the days of KAV 3.5, 4 and 4.5. I thought they had just gotten it "right" with 4.5, and then 5 came along. I used 4.5 until they no longer supported definitions for it.

[Macstorm]

-{ Quote: "...then Kulich (he's from the testing dept) asked me on 10.05.2007 (http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=14995&view=findpost&p=342458) to post that users who can reproduce to simply contact him regarding this because it was important enough......to my knowledge he has received none, it is very difficult to help with an issue they can't reproduce if they don't get any help from those that see it.
" }-
Couldn't agree more :thumb:

[BlueZannetti]

-{ Quote: "This would be news to me Blue, i actually took the time to ask them this question when released, but might not have gotten a correct answer.:)" }-Don,

I know you do your homework, but the answer you received does seem at variance with observation. It's a little disappointing that your contacts either missed the precise question asked or dropped the ball on the answer.

I also checked the registry to see if there were any registry settings along the lines mentioned (http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=14995&view=findpost&p=364043) by Lucian Bara, and there were none, so I was a little surprised myself when those object ID's regenerated on deletion. It's as though this facility is embedded in the main engine.

I thought that it was important to note this behavior since it does appear to provide a firm common link to ZA based issues.

Blue

[dantz]

-{ Quote: "ZA does not use iSwift, a central point in the arguments and an important aspect i would think since this has been one of the main arguments in this." }-
I just want to clarify that although there is no iSwift enable/disable option in ZoneAlarm Internet Security Suite 7, the iSwift database file "fidbox.dat" and several other related fidbox.* files are still installed, and the NTFS-Identifiers (used by iSwift) are still added to the NTFS index entries of every scanned file. Perhaps ZASS isn't able to take advantage of iSwift's time-saving capabilities, but the basic features of iSwift appear to be installed and active.

[Firecat]

-{ Quote: "I just want to clarify that although there is no iSwift enable/disable option in ZoneAlarm Internet Security Suite 7, the iSwift database file "fidbox.dat" and several other related fidbox.* files are still installed, and the NTFS-Identifiers (used by iSwift) are still added to the NTFS index entries of every scanned file. Perhaps ZASS isn't able to take advantage of iSwift's time-saving capabilities, but the basic features of iSwift appear to be installed and active." }-
That would be consistent with what I saw in ZoneAlarm AV. Its true: ZA has no option to enable or disable iSwift, but indeed the DAT files are there, and I scanned a few hundred samples 2-3 times using ZA, and the scan time was considerably reduced from the 2nd scan onwards (but if you update ZA then it will again take the same amount of time as the first scan to scan those files, presumably because the flags for skipping the scanning are reset). Therefore it seems to me that ZoneAlarm does indeed use iSwift.

However, I will also make it a point to note that I do not have a significant delay at stage 2 of the chkdsk scans, and hence it seems that I am unaffected by this issue (However, I also did not scan my entire hard disk with ZA even once)

I contacted ZoneAlarm about iSwift and they deny using iChecker or iStreams or iSwift in their products. I have no idea why, but I have known the ZoneAlarm support team to be wrong on a few issues from time to time. Hence it could simply be a matter of the support team not knowing that ZA uses iSwift. I'll send off another email to them later and see what happens.

For now, I am staying away from ZA's Antivirus due to various reasons, one of which is the risk of contracting this issue also.

[Don Pelotas]

-{ Quote: "Don,

I know you do your homework, but the answer you received does seem at variance with observation. It's a little disappointing that your contacts either missed the precise question asked or dropped the ball on the answer.

I also checked the registry to see if there were any registry settings along the lines mentioned (http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=14995&view=findpost&p=364043) by Lucian Bara, and there were none, so I was a little surprised myself when those object ID's regenerated on deletion. It's as though this facility is embedded in the main engine.

I thought that it was important to note this behavior since it does appear to provide a firm common link to ZA based issues.

Blue" }-
Thank you, but apparantly not on this one...............i didn't ask Kaspersky, but simply asked ZA the question & the answer was short......but they said they didn't use iSwift, so ididn't think more about it as ZA is not an interest of mine, it was only to have the info if some users asked. :)

[Kapiti]

-{ Quote: "Thank you, but apparantly not on this one...............i didn't ask Kaspersky, but simply asked ZA the question & the answer was short......but they said they didn't use iSwift, so ididn't think more about it as ZA is not an interest of mine, it was only to have the info if some users asked. :)" }-

Hey Don, Does that mean the water is no longer muddied? (Only kidding:) )

I've been in contact with Talec and received a bunch of the most incredible emails I've ever received from a support group. I now have serious thoughts about sending them an image file that was made when Kaspersky was installed on my computer. I've received an apology so will rethink and then decide what to do.

In your opinion as a moderator in the Kaspersky forum, if I sent the image file to Kaspersky would the contents of the image file be treated securely? I would delete all aspects that deal with my banking accounts, and credit cards before sending, but obviously there would still be a risk, what do you think?

[flyrfan111]

I can't imagine Kaspersky doing anything irresponsible with your personal files, despite my personal misgivings with their software, they are a quite reputable company. That being said, it is also not unreasonable to remove as much personal information as you can. Short of them sending a tech rep to your house, I imagine this may be the best way for them to possibly find the source of this problem. I do understand your concerns however, and would be just as nervous, I imagine.

[plantextract]

They would only need binary data, raw data from the image, they are not interested in your private data.

[Don Pelotas]

-{ Quote: "Hey Don, Does that mean the water is no longer muddied? (Only kidding:) )

I've been in contact with Talec and received a bunch of the most incredible emails I've ever received from a support group. I now have serious thoughts about sending them an image file that was made when Kaspersky was installed on my computer. I've received an apology so will rethink and then decide what to do.

In your opinion as a moderator in the Kaspersky forum, if I sent the image file to Kaspersky would the contents of the image file be treated securely? I would delete all aspects that deal with my banking accounts, and credit cards before sending, but obviously there would still be a risk, what do you think?" }-
The water is always muddy around here............. so yes! ;)

Hmmm, you're basicly asking me to give a guarantee i cannot give you as a moderator in their forum, but IME there are a very security focussed group of developers and me personally would not have a problem doing it if i had this issue.

If you have reservations, then i would contact them again and insist on assurance that the image will be treated in strict confidence and destroyed after testing. :)

[Kapiti]

-{ Quote: "The water is always muddy around here............. so yes! ;)

Hmmm, you're basicly asking me to give a guarantee i cannot give you as a moderator in their forum, but IME there are a very security focussed group of developers and me personally would not have a problem doing it if i had this issue.

If you have reservations, then i would contact them again and insist on assurance that the image will be treated in strict confidence and destroyed after testing. :)" }-

Thanks Don, Flyfan, and Plantextract for the advice and opinions. I've decided after reading your replies to recover the image remove the financial details and then make another image (without the accounts details) then re image and send this to Kaspersky.

Don, Didn't mean to put you on the spot, and yes, I suppose I was asking for a guarantee which was silly. Thanks for taking the muddied water part in good humour:)

[flyrfan111]

No Problem. If I were still using their AV and still had the problem, I would most likely do the same. With a problem this rare it might take such an unusual approach to solve the problem.

[Schouw]

Is anyone running Vista experiencing chkdsk errors?
I'm interested strictly in Vista user reports. I'm also not interested in stage 2 slowdowns.

Your help would be greatly appreciated.

You may contact me via PM if you desire to do so.

[fce]

-{ Quote: "Is anyone running Vista experiencing chkdsk errors?
I'm interested strictly in Vista user reports. I'm also not interested in stage 2 slowdowns.

Your help would be greatly appreciated.

You may contact me via PM if you desire to do so." }-

i'm using business vista and no chkdsk errors here.

[Mele20]

Many of you here know Gavin Coe, formerly of DiamondCS, and currently a trojan analyst with Trojan Hunter. He has just posted in the dslreports thread on chkdsk and the damage from using Kaspersky products (including ZoneAlarm and AOL's AVS).

If Gavin, who is an expert regarding antivirus and antitrojan applications and HIPS applications like ProcessGuard, has this problem and is stumped by this Kaspersky chkdsk mess...well...all I can say is Kaspersky better get a tool out very soon and apologize to all of us.

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18717127-Re-Kaspersky-You-lost-me-at-ISwift

[jmschwartz]

Please speak for yourself. I need no apology.

[Peter2150]

-{ Quote: "Many of you here know Gavin Coe, formerly of DiamondCS, and currently a trojan analyst with Trojan Hunter. He has just posted in the dslreports thread on chkdsk and the damage from using Kaspersky products (including ZoneAlarm and AOL's AVS).

If Gavin, who is an expert regarding antivirus and antitrojan applications and HIPS applications like ProcessGuard, has this problem and is stumped by this Kaspersky chkdsk mess...well...all I can say is Kaspersky better get a tool out very soon and apologize to all of us.

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18717127-Re-Kaspersky-You-lost-me-at-ISwift" }-

No disrespect intended at Gavin, as I think very highly of him and would accept him as a foremost expert on trojan analysis, but how does that qualify him a NTFS file structure expert. Also you are forgetting that Don reported that Zone Alarm doesn't use Iswift.

[flyrfan111]

-{ Quote: "No disrespect intended at Gavin, as I think very highly of him and would accept him as a foremost expert on trojan analysis, but how does that qualify him a NTFS file structure expert. Also you are forgetting that Don reported that Zone Alarm doesn't use Iswift." }-

Are you forgetting Bluezannettis test(see post 190) that proves ZA does use it? And Don's statement that apparently ZA techs were not aware that it does?

[Peter2150]

-{ Quote: "Are you forgetting Bluezannettis test(see post 190) that proves ZA does use it? And Don's statement that apparently ZA techs were not aware that it does?" }-

Yep, I did forget that. Sorry.

[flyrfan111]

No Prob Pete, as long as this thread is, it is hard to remember it all!!

[mnosteele]

-{ Quote: "Many of you here know Gavin Coe, formerly of DiamondCS, and currently a trojan analyst with Trojan Hunter. He has just posted in the dslreports thread on chkdsk and the damage from using Kaspersky products (including ZoneAlarm and AOL's AVS).

If Gavin, who is an expert regarding antivirus and antitrojan applications and HIPS applications like ProcessGuard, has this problem and is stumped by this Kaspersky chkdsk mess...well...all I can say is Kaspersky better get a tool out very soon and apologize to all of us.

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18717127-Re-Kaspersky-You-lost-me-at-ISwift" }-

Give it a rest would you, you and StraitShoot have done nothing but complain and cry about "permanent damage" to your computers but haven't done the first thing to help resolve the issue. You have claimed KL has ignored this and even talked about a class action law suit...... you have got to be kidding me!!! There is NO "permanent damage" to your computer, there is NO proof of any performance degradation, there is only an inconvenience in waiting a little longer for chkdsk to finish, which 99% of the people out there would never notice..... the worst case scenario is you would have to reformat and reinstall Windows..... big deal, just do it and be done with it..... then the "permanent damage" is gone..... so it's NOT permanent. Two KL technicians have joined in the thread at DSLR and have asked question regarding the issue try to help find a cause/cure. If that isn't tech support then what is? Have you answered any of their questions? Have you done ANYTHING to help resolve this but complain on every forum you post on? Try being part of the solution instead of part of the problem for once.

::)

[Mele20]

How I am I supposed to help Kaspersky techs when (a) I uninstalled Kaspersky6 in December 2006 and (b) I no longer have a license for it? I was ready and VERY willing to help Kaspersky last year but Kaspersky wanted no help and stated that this was a figment of the users imagination. It is not my problem that I was ready to help and Kaspersky didn't want my help and now they want it way too late. Why in the world would I, even if I had a current license, reinstall KAV on my main computer in order to what? Incur further damage when it appears Kaspersky is acting like an ostrich when they say they are not interested in slowdown or hang of chldsk? They say they only want help from those with absolute disasters where chkdsk is completely broken. So, are you telling me that I should get a new license for Kaspersky, reinstall it, and allow it to totally break chkdsk so I might possibly be able to help Kaspersky more than one year after the problem was first reported? Sorry, but that makes no sense to me.

As for shutting up and reformatting, I have reformatted a computer only ONCE in nine years and that one time was when I was a newbie and got my only virus. Reformatting is out of the question in most circumstances (a brand new, never used computer is an exception). I have a TI image but it has the Object Identifiers on the files. Reformatting is something one does only as the extreme last resort if that is the only way they can get that computer to work again. That one time I had to reformat, I spent 4 days glued to the computer trying to get everything back tweaked exactly as I use it. It was an absolute nightmare. I didn't eat or sleep hardly...ended up with a huge bill for forgetting to send my rent check for that month by the deadline and got physically ill for over a week after I finally got my computer running again as I had it tweaked before the reformat. I went through a similar hell in Feb 2006 when I got this computer and the image from my old computer could not used on this one due to so much hardware change. I got this computer as an exchange for my older XP computer that failed (even after complete rebuild by Dell) during second year warranty. Even with an image that I could use to copy files off of to the new computer, it was still a hellious task and time consuming and stuff like OE and all my mail was very difficult to move. I spent days just solving that one problem. And you think I should just suck it up and reformat...you are being totally unrealistic!

[Peter2150]

Mele20

We get it.

1) you don't like KAV
2) you don't like Dell

Understandable, but don't you think it's time to move on.

You keep posting these rants to what end. Certaintly the KAV folks aren't going to pay any attention to you, and frankly your posts come off with a degree of irrationality that even a new user you might want to warn won't take it seriously.

Now if you seriously did want to help, the license situation shouldn't be an issue. There are many including myself who could send you the last beta release and of course the beta code's are readily available.

[JerryM]

Hi Mele,
Please forgive me if I am out of line. I would hope that you would consider what I am saying.
I can easily understand the frustration of having a problem that seems to go unsolved, and that you see as a lack of interest/attention by KL. However, do not forget that all this is just some software, and a computer or maybe two. In the overall scheme of things, your life, they are not nearly as important as many other things, including family, school, health, and job.

There is a lot of stress in each of our lives, and such things as the problems of KIS 7 just cause more stress if we do not give them the proper priorities.
If there were no more good security applications and new computers it might be a little different, but there are some excellent ones out there, and the cost is not all that much.
My own approach is to give a good try at correcting or helping to correct problems that I see and consider of some importance. But some things just defy my lone efforts, and subsequently I admit that I cannot change them, and that it is better to go on to something else.

Please consider just dropping your apparent goal of straightening out Kaspersky. There are some very good to excellent applications available that should suit you. Hopefully, at some point in time the problem, which I conclude must be real although I have not had the problem, will be corrected. If you then want to try it again go for it. In the meantime try to ignore it.

What you decide to do is up to you, the mods, and KL. But take this advice as coming from an old man who has been there and done that. Don't let the stress and irritation cause physical problems that will dwarf your current problem.

Best regards,
Jerry

[duke1959]

I agree Jerry M. I just went back to AVG Pro and a-squared Anti-Malware that I was fortunate enough to be given license to, and when they expire sometime next year I'll just install Avira Free, Spyware Terminator, or what ever else my be available at that time. However I do take exception with what could and should be fixed by Kaspersky. Maybe they could like CA Antivirus or F Secure has done in the past, work out a deal with Microsoft to give users a 6 month free trial, if Microsoft helps out with the CHKDSK problem.

[JerryM]

-{ Quote: "I agree Jerry M. I just went back to AVG Pro and a-squared Anti-Malware that I was fortunate enough to be given license to, and when they expire sometime next year I'll just install Avira Free, Spyware Terminator, or what ever is available at that time." }-

Hi Duke,
I had some problems with KAV6 after MP1, and removed it. I tried several that I ended up liking. Now with V7 I have installed KAV 7, and KIS 7 and both are running well. Maybe the advantage I see for KIS 7 over others that I like as well is the speed of starting and scanning after the initial scan.

I really liked AntiVir Premium, and F-Secure IS. Except for the slow loading and updating, I think I would prefer it to even KIS. I have a 3 year license for FSIS OEM, and I can always go back to it if necessary. I am not married to any of this stuff.

I think the freebies would be OK for me along with a good AS application such as SAS, AVGAS, or a-squared. I have liked Avast Home.

Best,
Jerry

[Macstorm]

-{ Quote: "Many of you here know Gavin Coe, formerly of DiamondCS, and currently a trojan analyst with Trojan Hunter. He has just posted in the dslreports thread on chkdsk and the damage from using Kaspersky products (including ZoneAlarm and AOL's AVS).

If Gavin, who is an expert regarding antivirus and antitrojan applications and HIPS applications like ProcessGuard, has this problem and is stumped by this Kaspersky chkdsk mess...well...all I can say is Kaspersky better get a tool out very soon and apologize to all of us.

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18717127-Re-Kaspersky-You-lost-me-at-ISwift" }-
No offense, but you're going too far with this theme again :thumbd:

[DevilFrank]

First, I did´nt have the chkdsk-issue (http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18608452-Kaspersky-You-lost-me-at-ISwift~start=280), but I have to agree with Mele and Straitshoot partially. The question in general for me is: I have to pay for this software and the vendor isn´t resolving the exisiting error. Why should I have to help him? I did pay for it!!! This arrogance is simply unbelievable.

[mnosteele]

-{ Quote: "First, I did´nt have the chkdsk-issue (http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18608452-Kaspersky-You-lost-me-at-ISwift~start=280), but I have to agree with Mele and Straitshoot partially. The question in general for me is: I have to pay for this software and the vendor isn´t resolving the exisiting error. Why should I have to help him? I did pay for it!!! This arrogance is simply unbelievable." }-

How else are they supposed to fix the problem? The majority of users complaining about this have done nothing the KL technicians have asked them to do, they have the same attitude as yourself, yet want a fix. It is still questionable if it is a serious issue since only a handful of users are complaining about it, if the developers can't reproduce the issue than how can they determine it truly is an issue and fix it? I don't see the arrogance and dismissal of the problem as you and others do, KL and NOD32 are some of the few programs where you can directly communicate with the developers to help resolve issues, but when the people complaining do nothing but complain where does that leave things?

:-\

[Firecat]

I have just sent out an email to ZoneAlarm regarding the problem, and am awaiting their comments on it. I'll let you know as soon as I get a reply. Possibly we can all get some insight on the matter from ZA's reply. :)

[Peter2150]

-{ Quote: "First, I did´nt have the chkdsk-issue (http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18608452-Kaspersky-You-lost-me-at-ISwift~start=280), but I have to agree with Mele and Straitshoot partially. The question in general for me is: I have to pay for this software and the vendor isn´t resolving the exisiting error. Why should I have to help him? I did pay for it!!! This arrogance is simply unbelievable." }-

It isn't arrogance at all. They develop the software and test it, it works. A corp of beta testers run it and have no problem. Then suddenly some users complain about a problem, then the only way the developers can fix it is with help from those users.

YOu can't fix what isn't broke, and it if works on all of your machines, how do you fix it.

Part of the problem is there are a lot of folks, like me, who never run chkdsk.

[Mele20]

-{ Quote: "It isn't arrogance at all. They develop the software and test it, it works. A corp of beta testers run it and have no problem. Then suddenly some users complain about a problem, then the only way the developers can fix it is with help from those users.

YOu can't fix what isn't broke, and it if works on all of your machines, how do you fix it.

Part of the problem is there are a lot of folks, like me, who never run chkdsk." }-


Wait one minute! Beta testers reported the problem from the get go with KAV6. I read the posts in the beta forum. I agree that you can't fix something if you don't see the problem. I don't agree that Kaspersky has never seen the problem. I believe they were well aware all along about this problem but because the slowdowns, hangs and, in some cases, complete crippling of chkdsk only happens to a minority they decided to go ahead with ISwift hoping there would be no complaints...perhaps for the reason you cited...many don't run chkdsk. If there were complaints, they figured they could squelch them as they did for over a year. Straitshoot is right, I think, that it is only loud ranting at a prominent site, in a well respected security forum, that has finally forced Kaspersky out of their "official" denial and silence. As Straitshoot said earlier today, he wouldn't be mad if Kaspersky had just done the right thing and been very clear about how ISwift works, that it cannot be turned off even though it appears it can be in the GUI, and had stated that there was a risk for some in using ISwift. In other words, if Kaspersky had used proper disclosure either in the Eula or on their site, etc. then the burden would be on the user. But they instead chose to mislead the users and the burden not only remains with them but is even heavier because of no disclosure of possible risks that I firmly believe they knew about all along.

No one replying to my earlier post has given any reason as to why Kaspersky didn't take the help that was offered by many a year ago. No, you guys just want to shut up Straitshoot and myself. Thanks a lot for nothing. :(

[plantextract]

That was a problem with an old beta build, it was confirmed & was fixed, you probably notice that if you read the whole topic. And afterwards no more reports of that.

[Baldrick]

Been wtaching this thread with interest. Have been using KIS 6 with iSwift & iChecker enabled, have run CHKDSK a number of times with no ill effects. Have recently done the same after upgrading to KIS 7...still no ill effects. Can only assume that it is an issue for some users and not other and that therefore those that have it are free to change application if they want.

Personally I am very happy with KIS 7...and looking forward to the beta of KIS 8.;D

[Peter2150]

-{ Quote: "Wait one minute! Beta testers reported the problem from the get go with KAV6. I read the posts in the beta forum. I agree that you can't fix something if you don't see the problem. I don't agree that Kaspersky has never seen the problem. I believe they were well aware all along about this problem but because the slowdowns, hangs and, in some cases, complete crippling of chkdsk only happens to a minority they decided to go ahead with ISwift hoping there would be no complaints...perhaps for the reason you cited...many don't run chkdsk. If there were complaints, they figured they could squelch them as they did for over a year. Straitshoot is right, I think, that it is only loud ranting at a prominent site, in a well respected security forum, that has finally forced Kaspersky out of their "official" denial and silence. As Straitshoot said earlier today, he wouldn't be mad if Kaspersky had just done the right thing and been very clear about how ISwift works, that it cannot be turned off even though it appears it can be in the GUI, and had stated that there was a risk for some in using ISwift. In other words, if Kaspersky had used proper disclosure either in the Eula or on their site, etc. then the burden would be on the user. But they instead chose to mislead the users and the burden not only remains with them but is even heavier because of no disclosure of possible risks that I firmly believe they knew about all along.

No one replying to my earlier post has given any reason as to why Kaspersky didn't take the help that was offered by many a year ago. No, you guys just want to shut up Straitshoot and myself. Thanks a lot for nothing. :(" }-

The problem you and straitshoot have is you are so irrationally mad, you aren't logical. First, obviously the didn't disclose exactly how it works. Thats marketing 101. Contact F-Secure, and tell them you want to know exactly how DeepGuard works before you put it on your computer, and see how they respond. Also Kaspersky didn't warn you of the risk...... what nonsense. You are ASSuming they knew there was a problem beyond the one that was found and fixed.

Your last statement sums up why people are ready for the two of you to go away "because of no disclosure of possible risks that I firmly believe they knew about all along" That sure would be powerful evidence in a court room. You can say this kind of stuff over and over and louder and louder, but that still doesn't make it so.

[Kapiti]

-{ Quote: "Been wtaching this thread with interest. Have been using KIS 6 with iSwift & iChecker enabled, have run CHKDSK a number of times with no ill effects. Have recently done the same after upgrading to KIS 7...still no ill effects. Can only assume that it is an issue for some users and not other and that therefore those that have it are free to change application if they want.

Personally I am very happy with KIS 7...and looking forward to the beta of KIS 8.;D" }-

Users that have the problem can't just uninstall Kaspersky and change applications because the problem remains on the drive. The only way is to either format, and reinstall everything back onto the hard drive, or use an image file created prior to installing Kaspersky and recover from that. I was lucky enough to still have a months old image file that I could recover from, others are not that lucky.

I was also very happy with KISS 6 and hopefully once the problem has been sorted I'll go back to using Kaspersky.

[Kapiti]

-{ Quote: "I have just sent out an email to ZoneAlarm regarding the problem, and am awaiting their comments on it. I'll let you know as soon as I get a reply. Possibly we can all get some insight on the matter from ZA's reply. :)" }-

I contacted ZA support some weeks age in regards the chkdsk problem and was informed that they were unable to duplicate the problem so were unable to help.

[Baldrick]

-{ Quote: "Users that have the problem can't just uninstall Kaspersky and change applications because the problem remains on the drive. The only way is to either format, and reinstall everything back onto the hard drive, or use an image file created prior to installing Kaspersky and recover from that. I was lucky enough to still have a months old image file that I could recover from, others are not that lucky.

I was also very happy with KISS 6 and hopefully once the problem has been sorted I'll go back to using Kaspersky." }-
I realise that but was just airing my views at the superficial level. What you have stated in your post has been stated so many times that it is getting boring reading it again and again. I assume that someone who subscribes to a thread has the decency to read the whole thread before posting...I certainly did.

Hope that you eventualy come back into the KIS fold...it is the best place to be IMHO.;)

BTW, I am not taking your comments personally.

[Kapiti]

-{ Quote: "BTW, I am not taking your comments personally." }-

There was nothing in my comments to be taking personally. You expressed your opinion and I did likewise.

[SourMilk]

I finally solved my chkdsk problems with KIS 6/7. First I repartitioned, reformatted, and reinstalled Windows XP. I then reinstalled KIS 6 but before the initial scan, I turned off the New/Changed file switches and the iSwift and iChecker switches. So far, (fingers crossed) I have had no chkdsk corruption of either the security descriptors or indexes. Because of my "ultra highly scientific experimentation and thorough understanding of the time space continuum" I think its the iSystem and iChecker that is causing most of the problems. Now if I can only get this global warming thing sorted out, I would have a great day.

SourMilk out

[Macstorm]

-{ Quote: "Your last statement sums up why people are ready for the two of you to go away "because of no disclosure of possible risks that I firmly believe they knew about all along" That sure would be powerful evidence in a court room. You can say this kind of stuff over and over and louder and louder, but that still doesn't make it so." }-
My thoughts exactly :thumb:

[ccsito]

-{ Quote: "I have just sent out an email to ZoneAlarm regarding the problem, and am awaiting their comments on it. I'll let you know as soon as I get a reply. Possibly we can all get some insight on the matter from ZA's reply. :)" }-

Which ZA product are you referring to? The Firewall, AV, Security Suite or all of them?

-{ Quote: "Because of my "ultra highly scientific experimentation and thorough understanding of the time space continuum" " }- ;D

[Mele20]

-{ Quote: "The problem you and straitshoot have is you are so irrationally mad, you aren't logical. First, obviously the didn't disclose exactly how it works. Thats marketing 101. Contact F-Secure, and tell them you want to know exactly how DeepGuard works before you put it on your computer, and see how they respond. Also Kaspersky didn't warn you of the risk...... what nonsense. You are ASSuming they knew there was a problem beyond the one that was found and fixed.

Your last statement sums up why people are ready for the two of you to go away "because of no disclosure of possible risks that I firmly believe they knew about all along" That sure would be powerful evidence in a court room. You can say this kind of stuff over and over and louder and louder, but that still doesn't make it so." }-

I never said I wanted to know "exactly how ISwift works". I said that if a software company intends to COMPLETELY ALTER ALL MY FILES FOREVER EVEN AFTER I UNINSTALL THEIR PRODUCT, yeah they damn well better inform me before the fact otherwise face a lawsuit for lying and deliberately damaging my computer forever unless I reformat. You cannot get around the fact that Kaspersky has been completely irresponsible and arrogant in this matter. I never asked for trade secrets about ISwift. I asked for courtesy and to be respected as a user. Why you would want to defend and use a product from a company that you readily admit lies about extremely important facts regarding what their product does to people's computers in order to sell its product seems extremely odd to me.

Even if I had no discernible Chkdsk damage, I would NEVER install a product that (A) alters every single file on my computer and (b) does so FOREVER even after I uninstall the product. I cannot fathom why anyone would do this but if you all are so frightened that only KAV can save you from yourselves then of course you will see Straightshoot and me as grave threats to your carefully constructed, "safe" view of the world and of the role that Kaspersky, at all costs, must for your peace of mind play in it.

Kaspersky is unbeliveably arrogant and has absolutely no respect for its users. I base this statement on the irrefutable fact that Kaspersky has already been here and done the unforgiveable regarding forever altering all users files even after Kaspersky is removed back with ADS and KAV5. There was a huge angry explosion over Kaspersky's arrogance and disdain of their users back then...fittingly at my home site as is the current explosion. Kaspersky was forced screaming and yelling denials all the way to finally give us a removal tool for the ADS tags. A NORMAL company that makes a mistake like that LEARNS IMMEDIATELY TO NOT DO THAT AGAIN. Kaspersky though just went right ahead and did the same thing AGAIN. That indicates either a highly irrational company or a company that is extremely arrogant and which has no respect for its users.

The failure of chkdsk or its slowdown is just icing on the cake so to speak. The real issue here is Kaspersky's total disdain of its users. If users have no respect for their OS and their file system and are so paralyzed and terrified of getting a virus then fine, install Kaspersky. The rest of us who are more sane regarding concerns about getting viruses and who believe there is more than one AV that will do the job, don't want to pay such an incredibly heavy price for AV. We should have been informed that our files would be forever altered even after uninstallation of the product. We should have been informed before we installed that there was no way to turn off ISwift even though the GUI shows where to turn it off. Not one of us has ever demanded that Kaspersky give away trade secrets about the details of how ISwift works. We have simply asked that we be properly informed before we install the product exactly what we are consenting to. I have NEVER had any other AV (and I have installed a lot of them) alter all my files FOREVER. I have had AVs leave some junk behind when I uninstall them...some leave more junk than others and some leave none. Those that leave junk though, I have ALWAYS been able to remove the junk with a good registry cleaner or by hand in the registry the longest taking less than an hour to fully handcomb the registry (McAfee) and a guide is provided by the AV company and/or a tool. Since no other AV has ever altered all my files forever, and since I assumed (wrongly obviously) that Kaspersky was a rational company that respected its users, I believed that Kaspersky would NEVER repeat the outrageous mistake it made with KAV5 in altering all files on a computer forever or that if it did decide to go down that road again that at the very least it would have the wisdom and respect of users to tell them up front what would happen if they installed KAV6 or 7.

There is simply no way that Kaspersky could win a lawsuit if one is filed. However, I just want a tool for removal of of the object identifiers. Plus, it would be nice if Kaspersky would apologize but I'm sure their attorneys have told them that might be construed as an admission of guilt so they have probably muzzled them.

[mnosteele]

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

??? :wacko:

[FastGame]

3 PC's running AOL AVS ever since it came out, no chkdsk-issue's what so ever 8)

[duke1959]

What would make me less concerned about current or potential damage done by KAV and AVS, is that instead of any former users talking about 2nd stage CHKDSK delays and problems, is people who never used AVS or KAV posting about 2nd stage delays they have with CHKDSK. Maybe a thread about that should be started.

[BlueZannetti]

-{ Quote: "However, I just want a tool for removal of of the object identifiers." }-Mele20,

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

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

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

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

Blue

[BlueZannetti]

-{ Quote: "You need to take a chill pill and look at yourself and the way you are acting about this...... very irrational.

??? :wacko:" }-mnosteele,

It's perfectly rational to be extremely irritated if one feels betrayed. If you don't feel betrayed, you'll have a different perspective on things. That doesn't mean those dealing with feelings of betrayal or poor treatment are wrong or irrational. However, dismissive comments will continue to fuel the polarized opinion on this topic as much as the rants you appear to rail against.

To all:

Speak to the technical issues that are the focus of this thread, not those posting in it. That is always the best course of action and the only way you're going to find any light at the end of the tunnel.

Blue

[Dogbiscuit]

Well said.

[fce]

i run chkdsk /f /r last night and it take me 2hrs to complete 5stages chkdsk.

i'm using business vista with 2GB Ram and 200GB (50%used) HDD

didn't get any error message, but i'm not sure if 2hrs is good or bad.

[Peter2150]

-{ Quote: "i run chkdsk /f /r last night and it take me 2hrs to complete 5stages chkdsk.

i'm using business vista with 2GB Ram and 200GB (50%used) HDD

didn't get any error message, but i'm not sure if 2hrs is good or bad." }-

Those times are about what I used to get on a machine(long before KAV) when I ran chkdsk /f/r on a 120G disk.

That's why I never run it. I can do a restore of an image and fix any disk problems that way and it takes about 6 minutes.

[Kapiti]

Latest news received is that Kaspersky is attempting to duplicate the problem in-lab, and is in direct communication with Microsoft chkdsk project team.
Seems like things are starting to happen at Kaspersky:)

[Firecat]

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