Kaspersky 7 still has major issues

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.

 

Suggesting therefore that it is a Kaspersky problem and not Microsoft's

Thanks for posting.

 

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.

 

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/windo...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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

Makes sense in my head too!!

 

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.

 

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 ?

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

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.