Is KAV working on chkdsk ?

Mele & gang...

No matter what, I will never ever trust Kaspersky ever again. It isn't even the problem, it's the way they chose to handle it...

Peter, with all due respect, that "fix" you mention may be okay, but I'd feel like I am operating on myself. I'm not that brave, or reckless...

I only have one computer infected with the KAV problem now. The other two, I was lucky and had "KavLess" clones.

There is life after KAV. It's called "any other AV".. LOL...

Jim

 

I'm not familiar with the details of what they actually did, but I am assuming that they altered files by attaching something to them, or altered the file system in some manner that has resulted in some ill effects. I think another question is, did they really need to do this in the first place? Nobody else does that I know of. I assume the reason was to speed up future scans. Seems like a pretty unwise thing to do if it is any risk to the files or file system. In my opinion, nothing should ever alter the file system in such a way. They could have used some kind of database approach to hold info, or something else. So based on that, and the fact that many people have had troubles, I would have to pass on any future use of KAV myself...

 

I don't know much about the development of AV software, but I would venture to guess that this technique was employed to place a "fingerprint" on each item in your file system to allow the program to work more efficiently by recognizing this "fingerprint" and bypass those that were not changed (the net result being a much reduced scan time). They could have employed a different option to achieve the same results, but I guess they must have decided that this particular option was a "workable" one for the program. Programmers do whatever it takes to make something operate better (for their particular application) and they cannot be totally cognizant of the ramifications of that update. It makes you wonder what any program is doing to your computer (especially any GUI application).

 

I still say it wont be fixed in 8.

 

And I say it will. So there!

 

Does the on line web based Kav scan create the same issue with Chkdsk?

Right now, if I try to run a windows xp sp 2 defrag, I get a message no can do there is a chkdsk / f scheduled to run !

I didn't schedule it did this Kav thingee issue you all have been debating cause this little gem?

I ran a Kav on line weeks ago, it found zip but now this?

Anybody got any ideas?

 

Here's a recent thread where this is being discussed. Please join that discussion if you have further comments\questions.

Kaspersky Online Scanner ObjectID

Thanks,
Bubba

 

Will do Bubba, TY

 

Yep, my personal opinion is that no app should ever make alterations to the file system like that. It's just not proper.

 

As I recall from a previous post, the online scanner appears to act the same way as the regular AV program (modifying Object IDs), though you wonder why it would do so since the AV program is not "installed" on your system?

 

Not appears to act the same way, but does act the same way. See here.

Although not needed for an online scanner, I assume that it is a simple consequence of using the same basic engine and program (i.e. minimal changes).

Blue

 

From direct experience I can tell you that programmers are a lazy bunch. They will borrow or copy code from elsewhere whenever they can do so.

 

That's not necessarily lazy. If you have debugged and field proven code, use it. This is simply a logical consequence of the path that KL implemented. I don't agree with it, but it makes perfect sense to me that this is how it would ultimately play out.

Blue

 

I am new here but anyone has proven evidence that programs that use KAV engine, such as F-secure also creates those objectIDs in our file system? I switched from KAV to F-secure lately but I am not sure if F-secure will do the same tag thing as KAV does...

 

Well, KAV engined Zone Alarm does, KAV engined AOL does, even their online scanner does, but I don't recall an explicit comment specifically regarding F-Secure. The question can be readily and unambiguously addressed, however, by following the same procedure that I did here for the KAV Online scanner.

Blue

 

isn't the AV that Online Armor uses Kaspersky? If so i imagine it would also be included.

 

Yes, although once again, direct and unambiguous assessment is trivially easy for any current or interested potential user of any product on the market, and that's the best way to go - with firm data, not soft speculation.

Blue

 

Thanks bule for your prompt reply. I followed your method and tested F-secure antivirus client security 7.10 and I did NOT see any added objectIDs after files scanned by F-secure!
Good, I will stick with F-secure....

 

For completeness and indirect confirmation, the F-Secure online scanner yields the same result that you observed.

Blue

 

Cool! thanks for this info.
To further confirm our test results, I just emailed F-secure online tech support inquring if their AV product will create ObjectIDs when scanning files. i.e., if they are using similar techique like iSwift/iCheck as in Kaspersky.. Will report back when I get their response...

 

Dear all,
Just got the response from F-secure. However, I am not sure I understand completely what they mean because I am not a native english speaker; my understanding is that F-secure will not generate objectIDs. Please let me know what you think about this response....


<<snip>> Posting private emails isn't permitted

 

oliverjia,

While you cannot post emails in whole on this forum, you can take key lines and post them, and post the ideas of the email.

I encourage you to do this to educate the forum on this issue.


Thank you,


-FTP



.