Kaspersky 7 still has major issues

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. Try it if you wish, but don't cry foul if you're unprepared to deal with any unanticipated outcomes.

Blue

 

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.

 

I do have read ALL of them, even those posted at dslr, kl, etc.

I said 'here and there'. Google is my old friend.

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.

I know what you mean
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.

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.

 

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.

 

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...

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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)?

 

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.

 

oh no are you sure read again

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Just to summarize what has appeared on this topic during major threads related to this topic - Kaspersky-You-lost-me-at-ISwift, KAV causing chkdsk errors, very very slow chkdsk is it from KIS 7?.

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. 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

 

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

 

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.

 

Yes, that was one issue I missed.

For the interested, see here. 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

 

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 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, I've seen no functional impact on their removal from my own machine.

Blue

 

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

 

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.

 

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