A must-have option.

Well, McAfee has added this cool feature of not scanning folders which haven't been modified, which saves time. So let's say you love DVD's and have 30 saved onto your computer in a folder called "DVDs". Now when you scan it would help if DVDs wasn't scanned because it'd be very large. But this feature does this to any unmodified folder from one system scan to the next...quite resourceful if I do say so myself.

Any plans on adding it?

 

Why is that needed? I never do a full system scan. There is no need as Amon is always running and I scan all downloaded email attachments, program files, etc. using advanced heuristics via Paolo's shell extension (I do not use IMON) before executing. I see no reason to schedule full scans using the on demand scanner. I would schedule a full scan only if I had suspicious behavior on my box and wanted to make sure it was not caused by a virus that Amon/adv. heuristics did not detect.

 

First off -

1. Some people have multiple users and need to scan their system.

2. Exploits - New worms and such could be hidden somewhere and are set as timebombs released at special times. You don't need to download anything for worms, they use exploits in IE or RPC for example.

3. It's just safe practice to scan your computer once a month. So why not speed it up?

Anyway, just a suggestion.

 

The scan is so fast that I can't see the problem with scanning all files.

If the ESET folks start adding more "bells and whistles" then the product will end up as a bloated mess. NOD32 does a great job as it is.

 

I disagree. First, scanning complete DVDs can take a *considerable* time, and for a user to want to omit scanning of them is a reasonable request. That said, the use of NOD32 profiles mya be an answer to the poster's needs in this respect.

Second, while NOD32 does a good job at virus detection, it's user interface and flexibility leave a lot to be desired, IMO. Adding a few usability options will not turn it into a "bloated mess", just make the product more attractive to more users. Witness, for instance, the popularity of Paolo Monti's shell extension for NOD32: this was written in response to a clear deficiency in NOD32. There are others, too, such as (optional) scanning of outgoing mail (the arguments for which I have already posted elsewhere on this forum), the user customisation of notices added to e-mail, and a number of others asked for by other users.

(As an aside, the programming API offered by NOD32 offers access to few of the product's features)

So, please - when another user asks for a feature not present, show some respect and accept that there might be a good reason for them asking, even if you don't share the need. A product that stands still and doesn't respond to its users needs will die a quick death.

 

Yeah, just having a checkbox option wouldn't make it "bloaty" as you say. And I agree with Steve Moss, 100%. Sure it does a fast job, buy why not speed it up?

That's all I really have to say, it's really up to eset from here.

 

Nod32 already has an area to put in exclusions of files and folders you do not want scanned, if I understand it right.

It is just a matter of setting it up.

 

Here is a screen shot of what I am talking about if I can get it too work.

 

As far as I know, the exclusion feature doesn't work, but yeah, I've thought of that....

Hmm, what I mean is...let's say you have 10 folders you don't check out. This will identify if it has changed since the last system scan. Plus viruses can hide in your DVD folder, for example, and you wouldn't scan it because it is excluded. This feature would check, well has it been modified? So that way, you're safe and are operating more effciently.

I hope you get what I mean.

Regards,
-BB.

 

No - the exclusions apply only to AMON, the resident scanner, not to the NOD32 scanner. What balbanebeoulve (now there's a name ;-)) is looking for is the ability to have NOD32 scan only files that have changed since the last scan. For that to work effectively, NOD32 would - I believe - need to generate and save a checksum (say, an MD5 hash) for each file it scans, and re-check these on subsequent scans. It would then only perform a full A/V scan for files which don't have checksums (i.e. new files) or changed checksums (i.e., changed files).

PS: It seems that the problem with AMON exclusions is to do with long vs. short (i.e., DOS 8.3) file names. By adding both the long and short version of file or folder names to the AMON exclusion list gets around the problem, while ESET go about fixing it.

 

Ok I understand now.
There are free registry and file monitors that you can use to do just that. Whether Nod will add this feature or not I cannot say.

But I do feel this way about Nod if you add too many features then there will be too much bloat and will be just another Antivirus that is trying to accomplish everything with one program.

 

> A product that stands still and doesn't respond to its users needs will die a quick death

LOL...how can you say Eset has been standing still and not responding to user needs? We just got version 2 for heaven's sake and it is a HUGE improvement GUI wise over version one and in many other ways. IMON is state of the art as is advanced heuristics (check out this thread..http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8050123~root=security,1~mode=flat;start=0

So, I don't see how you can accuse Eset of standing still!!! Further, if you practice safe computing you won't need to regular on demand scans of everything on your system. Are you fully patched? Do you have your OS locked down tight (if XP have you disabled all those unnecessary services and closed all ports even 135?) and have you locked down IE and preferably use a less insecure browser such as Mozilla? etc. etc.

I agree with Marti. We don't need any more bells and whistles. If that is what you want there are already plenty of av out there that are big and bloated...take your pick and leave NOD32 for us who don't want all that junk.

 

Read my post again - *I* never said Eset was standing still. It was *you* that was advocating the product should be left alone (so why you are getting so hot under the collar at your own postings mystifies me), and that is what I was responding to, and rightly so.

This thread is not a poll - you are not being asked to approve whether or not other people's requests should be implemented. That is for Eset to decide. All I did was to support balbanebeoulve's right (and other people's rights) to make requests without your attempts to have them stopped. I reiterate that here. If you don't want the product to improve, I suggest you make that suggestion to Eset. Don't expect them to necessarily listen, though.

 

YOU stated that Eset was standing still. "A product that stands still and doesn't respond to its users needs will die a quick death". I quoted you (not someone else) and that is what you said. I am not getting "hot under the collar at my own postings"...I can't fathom what you mean by that remark. How did you reach the conclusion that I am trying to stop people from making requests in this forum? All I have done is state that I don't think those things need to be implemented. I believe I too, and not just you, have the right to speak my opinion.

Geez....you seem to fly off the handle for no reason at all! Calm down and take a deep breath. First you yell at Marti and now at me for simply saying we like NOD32 just as it is. We too are entitled to state our opinions even if this isn't a poll...in fact what does a poll have to do with this discussion?

I haven't tried to "approve" anyone's suggestions here. Why do you say I have? All I have done is give my opinion and I believe I am entitled to do that just as you are. As for whether or not I want NOD to "improve" what does that have to do with this discussion? You are not making much sense. (Of course, I want NOD to improve when it is needed for it to improve. I don't think that time is current. I think for the present that it is fine just as it now is. That appears to be where we differ which is ok. Our differences on whether or not it is time should not provoke an attack from you is all I am saying). You can make all the requests you wish for "improvements" and I can make all the statements I wish as to why I agree or disagree with what you or anyone requests. Ok? I am a user too so I am entitled to convey my feelings to Eset regarding these requests just as you are.

 

Sigh. What tiresome nonsense. Mele20: go back and read my posts. Then read yours. Then decide if you're still on the same planet. You talk about 'flying off the handle" and "yelling". There's only one person doing that: you. I suggest you take a very deep breath, then decide not to post further here. Perhaps you will then prevent yourself emanating more nonsense. Maybe the moderators will step in and do that for you anyway.

 

I would like everyone to refrain from personal remarks and attacks.
Please stay factual and on topic, please.

TIA,

Pieter

 

Hey all,

>this cool feature of not scanning folders which haven't been modified, which saves time.

OK, the feature could be quite useful, so we've added it to the wishlist.

Please calm down here - the discussion is needed, but I hope the time can be spent better than with a personal attacks. We'd need also more time to help you better.

Thanks,

jan

 

Thank you sir.

 

IMHO this feature will not contribute to the greaster speed, it will even slow down the program

1. 100 % solution: You want to know if the file was modified ? first do a cheksum of it - quit time consumpting. Wanna know if was modified - to another checksum and compare. Result: slowdown of the program, scan would be faster, because it process only portions of the file

2. Risky bussines:
- check if timestamp was changed. useless - viruses can modifi file withou changing timestamp
- do a checksum only of part of the file. Less time consumpting, but also less reliable.

 

Well, the only way to verify performance impact is to implement it (i.e, only Eset can determine the performance impacts). Discounting your 'Risky business" option, the first "100% option" (which is the approach I outlined earlier) *may* have an adverse impact on the first full system scan you perform. Given that NOD32 scans through all of every file anyway, this impact is likely to be minimal (though, as I say, the actual figures would remain to be verified). On subsequent scans, however, the impact on performance is likely to be *extremely* beneficial, given that almost all files will be checksummed, but not scanned against the signature database.

 

I just want to reieterate that i thinkl this is a totally useless and bloatware feature. Please do not add it. I use NOD32 primarily because of its speed and the fact that it has not aquired bloatware as many other av have.

If you would just practice safe computing, as any self respecting netizen does, then you wouldn't need to ask for this feature. You would not need to run the on the demand scanner except when faced with odd, suspicious behavior on your computer which would be almost never. Sounds to me like you get a lot of viruses and it would behoove you to change your internet habits and secure your computer properly instead asking for something that is not needed and will only bloat NOD.

 

No this is not true.
Reasons:
- NOD32 when it scans a file it loads only portion of the file to the memory and scans it
- checksumming requires to process whole file, even on subsequent control - cos you have to compare if the checksum changed since last time....

I can guarantee you, the scanning will be faster than checksummimg (disk access is slower than access to memory, buffers have some size, should be reloaded, flushede etc ...)
Even subsequent scans would be lot slower than scanning. You can't boots performance this way... I rest my case.

Just ask ESEWT boys ....

 

Sigh. More off-world nonsense. First, get your facts straight: *I* have not asked for this feature. The feature was requested by balbane. I have simply supported his right to request it. Really - go back, read and learn.

As it happens, I am somewhat ambivalent about the feature - it's not of high priority for me, but I can see how it would be useful. Jan of Eset seems to agree - go back and read his post where he states "OK, the feature could be quite useful, so we've added it to the wishlist.". Are we to assume, therefore, that all your tub thumping is having little effect?

Further, it really is of no consequence how things "sound" to you. You are, yet again, completely wrong. Before you insinuate about my (or others') internet habits, please first make the effort to ascertain some actual facts on which to base your arguments. Otherwise, you would be well advised to keep your insinuations to yourself.

Our computers here (for which I am responsible) are secured properly and our staff well versed in the procedures to follow to keep things that way. We have *never* suffered from a virus infestation, despite the many that arrive at our gateway on a regular basis, and despite your erroneous assumptions.

So, I respectfully request that you refrain from further aggressive postings of the kind you are making recently, get a grip of your emotions, and start behaving sensibly here. It will be to the benefit of all.

 

Hi all,

please really stay on topic and don't spread the fire that seemed to be damped down. I'll come back here with more explanations.

Thanks,

jan