About HTTP Scanner

Discussion in 'NOD32 version 2 Forum' started by rdsu, Oct 18, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    Hi,

    should I've to set all the entries of "maxthon.exe", or another browser, in Compatibility Setup to 'Higher efficiency' or only an specific?

    I also use the Ad Muncher and the question is the same.

    Thanks
     
  2. ronjor

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    57,802
    Location:
    Texas
    VaMPiRiC_CRoW

    With the new version, I have everything set to higher efficiency.

    No problems so far.
     
  3. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    All the browser that I've installed are in 'Higher compability'!

    I made a clean install of 2.12.3
     
  4. ronjor

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    57,802
    Location:
    Texas
    Yes. I changed all mine to higher efficiency.
     
  5. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    I thought that the browsers will be set y default in this version...

    And about the Ad Muncher?
     
  6. Marcos

    Marcos Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    14,375
    There are some cases when you MUST have the particular application set to higher compatibility due to the principle it works. Especially download managers and streaming-media players cannot afford to wait till IMON downloads and checks entire files first.
     
  7. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    Thanks Marcos, I see the point... ;)
     
  8. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    I don't like one thing in HTTP Scanner.

    If I've my browser in 'Higher efficiency' and have a download manager that pick the link and download it, the NOD32 check all the file and after send it to the download manager, so I downloaded the file 2 times! :(
     
  9. CyGho

    CyGho Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2004
    Posts:
    35
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Yeah, and I think IMON doesn't split up the downloads like a downloadmanager, so the speed is "more" slow than just the double download :doubt: .
    As I understand now: browser >> IMON (remote to local) >> download manager (remote to local again)
    A solution can be in case of downloading files with a manager:
    browser >> downloadmanager (remote to local) >> AMON. But in that case there must be a possibility to configure a download manager in the option of NOD. Maybe the developers can implement such a thing?

    (With remote to local I mean downloading)
     
  10. Blackspear

    Blackspear Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2002
    Posts:
    15,115
    Location:
    Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
    There is a further thread here, in particular post number 32, which discusses HTTP scanning, while it does not download the file twice, it appears to scan the file twice...

    Hope this helps...

    Cheers :D
     
  11. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    But for this I've to restrict the port 8080 in all the files!

    It would be better if NOD32 implements a way to detect this problems...
    If the files is already scanned, the NOD32 should know that it's not necessary to scan it again...
     
  12. CyGho

    CyGho Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2004
    Posts:
    35
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    @Blackspear,
    I think that thread with Proxomitron is something else. In that case there are 2 different ports used.
    In the case of a downloadmanager it's not. The browser picks up just the link and passes it to the manager, with is also using port 80 just as the browser, and the manager actualy will download the requested data (the download) INSTEAD of the browser.
    It seams that IMON scans the data first (by downloading it) and if it's ok than gives the manager permision to download it (again) because it's found clean.
     
  13. Blackspear

    Blackspear Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2002
    Posts:
    15,115
    Location:
    Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
    This would seem logical...

    Cheers :D
     
  14. flyrfan111

    flyrfan111 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2004
    Posts:
    1,224
    And then AMON scans it as it is written to the HDD, this is where I feel NOD should communicate with itself and not waste processor cycles to check something for a THIRD time. I think for a company that prides itself on minimal system impact they should have thought IMON through a little better before releasing. They should develop a way to mark files as scanned so they only get scanned once, similar to KAV and Panda, currently they only scan files once if the contents haven't changed or the Def's haven't changed.
     
  15. Stan999

    Stan999 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2002
    Posts:
    566
    Location:
    Fort Worth, TX USA
    AMON doesn't scan archive files like zip files, etc.. A lot of downloads, especially larger downloads, are compressed archive files so there wouldn't be any redundancy with the HTTP scanner and AMON for those type of files.
     
  16. flyrfan111

    flyrfan111 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2004
    Posts:
    1,224
    Agreed but there are plenty of file types that are scanned multiple times and my suggestion would cover this possiblity anyway because even if AMON did scan compressed files they would already be marked as scanned by IMON and AMON wouldn't scan them again.
     
  17. Stan999

    Stan999 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2002
    Posts:
    566
    Location:
    Fort Worth, TX USA
    Just from my end I would want AMON to scan that archive file again if opened, etc. even if IMON had reported it clean when downloaded. Someone may download a file but not run it until a later date when new definitions are available.

    I also just don't see much point in marking the files as scanned until new definitions are out, like some other AVs do, because the time intervils between new definitions are too short to make it useful. Also marking the files may cause additional problems.

    Plus NOD is still being used on a game machine here without any impact compared to some other AVs so I consider NOD to still be very good as far as CPU usage.
     
  18. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    I put all the files in HTTP Scanner in Higher Compatibility mode until they fix this kind of things...
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.