Physical disk detection bug.

Card reader without card will cause error like -
Error occured while scanning MBR sector of the 7. physical disk. Error reading sector.
As card reader creates disks 6, 7, 8, 9, that could be normal.

But, scanning from context menu shows -
MBR sector of the 1. physical disk is OK. Error occured while scanning active boot sector of the 1. physical disk. Error reading sector. Error reading sector.

This can be reproduced with any comuter and any card reader I have tried.

 

The answer can be located in the Frequently Asked Questions - FAQs thread.

Cheers

 

Sorry, but "The answer" seems not answering anything.
I am talking NOT about error itself (which is quite natural if card reader is without card), but about INCONSISTENT error messages - different, when scanning from On-Demand scanner(7. physical disk) and context menu(1. physical disk).

"Physical disk 1" has nothing to do with card reader, which is disk 6,7,8,9.
And, if this error is gone with removing the reader, it means message has nothing to do with Physical disk 1 - it is a bug, which obviously needs fixed.

Do I need to tell what consequences does it cause, if you are not an expert in NOD32 peculiarities? I am not spending time to research NOD32 for possible bugs, but have, like usual, real client's story behind this. I was sure, nobody needs to hear the whole story, which includes too many funny things, like infected files (detected only after signature update,) manual and context scan, cleaning, then panic about damaged physical disk 1. and some inadequate actions, and finally (after some illumination), bashing of NOD32, which unfortunately cannot be classified as completely unreasonable.

That is what I was trying to avoid by simply pointing at the bug.

Finally, I do not get headache, nor I lose any sleep if NOD32 has bugs. Simply wanted to inform about above, assuming it may be useful for developers. Sorry if it is not.

 

This too is answered in the Frequently Asked Questions - FAQs thread.

Cheers

 

Sorry, you are misunderstanding something. Did I write not clearly?

If presence of some physical disk causes error on other disk, and this error varies with scan method - is it a bug or feature?