Amount of files scanned has risen

Hi all,
as you might have noticed in another thread here, the latest update of the archive module added the support for scanning chm, cab and tar files. If you don't wish NOD32 to scan archives internally, simply untick the appropriate check-box in the on-demand scanner setup and the scanning will take much less time.

 

In a similar thread Snowbound mentioned a Damaged Archive File "couldn't be extracted" in conjunction with the # files scanned increase. I have Duplicate Groups of ( Lines = 16 of Damaged Archive Files in Win\Options\CABS\ \ etc. Don't know if a new Thread is warranted but do others see Damaged Archive Files,too, with the > doubling of scanned files?

 

I have only one damaged archive file and here it is
C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\AOL\C_AOL 9.0\AOLTEMP\aspsetup.zip »ZIP »aspsetup.exe - archive damaged.
But I have had this archive damaged file for a long time, before the nod upgrade.
I have done a couple of scans with nod and no other files show any damage apart from the aol 9.0 file.


The MUL

 

My scan didn't show any Damaged Archive Files. Also the file count wasn't just doubled but went up quite a lot.

 

"It now unpacks more files than Kaspersky (and a bit faster too)."

Thats a bold statement, especially since its not true. Kaspersky supports nearly 1000 packed formats. Nothing unpacks more than that.

 

asp.exe and the associated zip file may safely be deleted. It is the installer for AOL's new Spyware protection. As long as spyware protection is functioning properly you may safely delete it. Of course if it isnt, since the archive is damaged, you should re install from the disk or download that you originally used anyway.

 

Interesting. If that's a direct quote from Eset, and what your saying about KAV is true, I have to wonder if maybe they're correct on a technicality. That quote uses the term 'files' and not 'format types'. Is it possible NOD scans a widely-used format that KAV does not?

 

Actually, it is true. On this machine Kaspersky 5.0.142 scanned 345k files in 65 minutes, while NOD32 scanned 395K files in 40 minutes. How would you explain the file count and time differentials?

Steve

 

WELL does it really matter who scanned the most files or who is the quickest, as long as they stop all the nasties out there.
I feel this is now starting to move away from the topic and might start a who is faster argument between nod and kav, which this thread is not about.
I do use kav as my main and nod as a back up, but both are good av programmes and that is all i would say on the matter.
Lets all get back on topic and live with the fact that both are good in there own right.


The MUL

 

Good post, Steve. NOD must be scanning an archive format that KAV does not, even if KAV does scan more types (if in fact that's true).

 

Just a note, Jake wasn't responding to a quote from ESET, but a comment from steve_h.

As for Steve's experience, didn't Kaspersky Personal 5 reportedly reduce some of the scanning capabilities that were previously present in KAV 4.x? Which is why some KAV users are looking forward to KAV Pro 5 that should have all the previous functionalities?

At any rate, so far ESET doesn't appear to be making any claim re: comparative scanning capabilities. But to get back on track, apparently NOD has increased some of its capabilities so that's cool.

 

If NOD32 is scanning a bit fewer files on my machine, but taking a bit longer, compared to some of the other posters on this thread, could this be simply attributable to my less-than-cutting-edge processor? Or should I look at the NOD32 config or other apps for reasons why my scan should be slower? I'm talking ~56k files in ~38 minutes.

 

I had a similar prob couple of weeks ago. My increase was similar btw I had 57K and it was scanning in 13 mins or so and all the sudden it jumped up to about 40 mins. I enabled the logging of all files checked and then sat there and watched NOD scanning. Anyway I watched the scanning and waited to see if it got stuck on any files, it did, 2 corrupted files in temporary internet files. I then deleted them and it went right back to normal. Until this archive scanning update which this thread is about happened.

 

If eset and nod users have been so dogmatic about"files in archives being harmless" why start scanning inside?
One of the major strengths of Nod was scan speeds which if they haven't improved detection of trojans etc at the same time we may as well use Kav as scan times are now not much different but that offers more protection,I install Nod on slower machines which now I may as well install kav and do away with at prog!

 

Well I now see that different configurations make a big difference. Scanning archives takes a long time. To reduce scan time, I can uncheck archive scanning, scan only default extensions and not scan extensionless files. This config speeds things up nicely (~12k files in 6 minutes), but I don't think I'll leave it set that way.

Regards
Optigrab

 

Yesterday, NOD32 was choking and giving me strange errors and refusing to finish a scan on my W98SE box. Tech support told me to uncheck archives. It scanned fine then. Today, I rechecked archives and it scanned just fine.

I too was concerned after reading here about the large increase in scanned files and time to scan as I have NOD32 on my old PIII 450MhZ box mainly because it is light and fast. I am happy to report that today the full scan (with everything checked and deep heuristics) involved 20,000 more files...a jump from 43,000 to 63,000 and took only 2 minutes 30 seconds longer! The scan now takes 16 minutes 30 seconds which is admirable for an old box. So, I can still confidently recommend NOD32 for older boxes!

Tech support told me that if NOD32 choked again to try and detect exactly which archive was causing the choking. I think unchecking archives and running a scan and then rechecking somehow unstuck the scanner so anyone having problems with hanging or abrupt stopping of the scan and and strange error messages might try this.

I did see one corrupted file that I have never had identified before. It is in my Windows Update set up files. It is good to know about that corruption so that if I ever need to re-setup WU, I won't try to do it from the files on the computer.

 

It may also have been fixed becuase of an updated and new archive scanning module which arrived today (1.016 20040702).

Steve

 

Mele20,

Don't feel bad, our desktop is a 450 also, but a PII. Scans take almost 40 mins or ours though. I guess those SSE optimizations do make a difference.

 

Three times the files scanned and twice the time it normanlly takes.
There was also an error message left behind when I closed it down but never thought of photographing it. I have another scan running now to see if it comes up again.

 

Well the scan is finished. There were still about 3 times the normal files but the time was cut back to about 13 mins. and no error notice, I will try one more to finish with.

optigrab wrote;
Well I now see that different configurations make a big difference. Scanning archives takes a long time. To reduce scan time, I can uncheck archive scanning, scan only default extensions and not scan extensionless files. This config speeds things up nicely (~12k files in 6 minutes), but I don't think I'll leave it set that way.

I am not going to change any settings, sorts of defeats the purpose.

 

Yes, I have 3 lines of damaged archive files reported in C:\Windows\Options\CABS. They don't actually seem to be damaged - WinZip can extract them, for example.

I also tried scanning the CABS folder using NOD32DOS.exe, with Archives checked. It went through that folder without reporting any damage, but it was also really quick, so I assume the DOS version is not affected by the recent program updates.

Richard

 

Possibly because so many users couldn't live without it? Or perhaps ESET listens to their users?

--count me among the 'dogmatic'...

 

Scanning archives is disabled by default so if you mind that the scanning takes much more time now, you can simply leave it disabled and rely on the on-access scanner. There had been a high demand for supporting other types of archives as other AV do. I'm sure you will certainly benefit from that specially after you install NOD32 with the HTTP scanner.

 

It may be beneficial to have Runtime packers checked. There are a few pieces of malware that use the UPX Packer (the Ultimate Packer for eXecutables).

 

Anyone know if ISOs are supported?