Amount of files scanned has risen

Discussion in 'NOD32 version 2 Forum' started by the mul, Jul 1, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. the mul

    the mul Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2003
    Posts:
    1,703
    Location:
    scotland
    I have been using nod for about a year now and in the scanner log for about the last ten full scans that I have done all show about 26,000 files scanned for example.

    number of files scanned: 26531 16/03/04
    number of viruses found: 0
    time of completion: 17:49:50 total scanning time: 717 sec (00:11:57)

    number of files scanned: 26786 28/04/04
    number of viruses found: 0
    time of completion: 17:24:03 total scanning time: 608 sec (00:10:0:cool:

    number of files scanned: 26817 27/06/04
    number of viruses found: 0
    time of completion: 15:58:46 total scanning time: 610 sec (00:10:10)

    These are only some examples but why in the latest scan dated 1/07/04 is it now scanning over 79,000 files for example.

    number of files scanned: [79846] 1/07/04
    number of viruses found: 0
    time of completion: 15:50:47 total scanning time: 1754 sec (00:29:14)

    I have only updated my protection programmes and I have not installed any programmes lately, so why has it jumped by 50,000 files, when only days ago it was scanning 26,000 files, it just seems a lot to have gone up by.
    Also nod is working great and have no problems, just wondering why the sudden jump in amount of files.

    The MUL
     
  2. ronjor

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    57,721
    Location:
    Texas



    It appears to me that something has changed in the scan engine. I am getting the same thing. And, some of the files that are being scanned seem to be scanned a little deeper. The scan seems to be slower.
     
  3. Dazed_and_Confused

    Dazed_and_Confused Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Posts:
    1,831
    Location:
    USA
    I too am showing an increase, though much smaller. But then I've scan using a number of command line options to maximize the no. of files scanned. I wonder if Eset has changed the default settings in the engine to reflect what options I'm using in the command line.
     
  4. the mul

    the mul Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2003
    Posts:
    1,703
    Location:
    scotland
    I am glad to hear that it is not just me with this big increase in files scanned,It used to be about ten minutes and now twenty nine minutes :'( there has as u know been no information from eset on this change to nod, if this is the cause lets hope someone can fill us in on this missing information and put our minds to rest.


    The Mul
     
  5. BlueZannetti

    BlueZannetti Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Posts:
    6,590
    I took a look at my scan logs. New items related to some Outlook mail databases and chm (compiled HTML files) now appears in the listings. It's a more extensive treatment of your system. Mine count went from 530,000 to 824,000 files. Speed (as files/min.) was almost as fast - not quite - but the difference was very minor.

    Blue
     
  6. FanJ

    FanJ Guest

  7. flyrfan111

    flyrfan111 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2004
    Posts:
    1,224
    Maybe someone from Eset can explain, same here btw way, way more files scanned, but the time almost tripled went from 59K in 13 mins to 129K in 40mins. AMON doesn't seem affected though. System usablility seems the same, just the NOD32 scan takes much longer. BTW anbody seen a list of what was added in the 1798 update?
     
  8. optigrab

    optigrab Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2002
    Posts:
    624
    Location:
    Brooklyn/NYC USA
    Curious. o_O

    Attempted a full system scan before leaving the house this morning and it was taking forever. Not sure if the speed was down, the number of files was up, or both. I didn't allow it to finish, but vowed to investigate tonight.

    I thought it might possibly be related to my recent tinkering: (1) installed Abtrusion Protector recently (3) changed NOD32's config (set AMON to scan all files) though this seems an unlikely culprit.
     
  9. ronjor

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    57,721
    Location:
    Texas

    It appears to me that java files are scanned down to the hard drive. I've never seen this before. I may try a deep, scan everything scan.
     
  10. FanJ

    FanJ Guest

    Hi,

    No, I haven't seen it; I don't know whether there was a list of new definitions published.

    I tend to think (I could be wrong ofcourse !) that that update was not a virus-definitions update but the update about which I already posted: the one with the new Archive support module :

    https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=22205
     
  11. the mul

    the mul Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2003
    Posts:
    1,703
    Location:
    scotland
    I would just like to say thanks to u all, at least we seem to be getting to the bottom of this increase in scanned file size.
    I am surprised no one else has reported this before i did, but maybe nobody has noticed, I do watch every security programme very carefully for any changes.
    Thanks again for all your input.


    The MUL :D
     
  12. FanJ

    FanJ Guest

    Then you would have seen the change in the file nod32.002 like my NISFileCheck and CRC32-check in TDS-3 told me ;)


    Edit :

    Oops, Sorry The Mul: I had no intention to offend/hurt you !
    I should have worded that posting in a different way !
    Sorry !!!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 1, 2004
  13. the mul

    the mul Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2003
    Posts:
    1,703
    Location:
    scotland
    No offence taken here as we are all friends I hope, what I was trying to say is that I normally watch for changes of my security programmes and report to others for advise to see if this change is ok or have experienced this change, like nod scanning more files.
    My experience is limited and any help from u my friend and any others is always appreciated.


    The Mul ;)
     
  14. FanJ

    FanJ Guest

    Many thanks The Mul !

    You are absolutely right: we are here all friends in the Wilders-family, and we all are learning from each other !

    You know: I was very happy with your posting, and that from others, about the risen amount of scanned files. I had not noticed it myself (cause I didn't look at it :oops: ). So thanks to you !!!

    PS:
    I have many of the NOD32 files put in my CRCfiles.txt of TDS-3 so the CRC32-test of TDS-3 will check whether they are changed (a little paranoid....).
    If you like I could post that list of my NOD32-files in crcfiles.txt , but you have to keep in mind that I'm on Windows 98 SE....

    Cheers, Jan.
     
  15. steve_h

    steve_h Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Posts:
    24
    Location:
    NJ, USA
    Scan time has doubled (as have the files). The unpacker is unpacking files that it has never unpacked (Microsoft office install filies, .chm, html compound files, etc.)

    It now unpacks more files than Kaspersky (and a bit faster too). It also comsumes more resources as previously you could not notice it was scanning, but it now slows down foreground apps as it unpacks. I would rather have this extra deep scanning as it enhance the security of the AV IMO.

    number of scanned files: 153258
    time of completion: 11:26:38 total scanning time: 1562 sec (00:26:02)

    With prior archive support module

    number of scanned files: 392490
    time of completion: 12:34:30 total scanning time: 2799 sec (00:46:39)

    With new archive support module
    Archive support module version: 1.015 (20040625)
    Archive support module build version: 1090

    Scan is done with command line switches:
    Command line: c:\ /clean /ah /all /subdir+ /heur+ /scanfile+ /scanmem+ /scanboot+ /scroll+ /arch+ /pack+ /mapi- /pattern+ /scanboot+ /scanmbr+ /heurdeep /log+ /prompt

    HTH,

    Steve
     
  16. the mul

    the mul Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2003
    Posts:
    1,703
    Location:
    scotland
    Thanks for the good info steve h, i am glad u like the improved nod.
    I also notice more system resources being used but what the hell as long as it is doing a good job that is what matters.



    The MUL :D
     
  17. flyrfan111

    flyrfan111 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2004
    Posts:
    1,224
    Steve,

    You have scanboot twice.
     
  18. the mul

    the mul Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2003
    Posts:
    1,703
    Location:
    scotland
    So what do u think of the fact that the files scanned have nearly doubled,and also that the scan time is longer as well, do u think it is for the good of nod or will we wait and see what happens.
    I think it would have been nice to have been informed of this upgrade or improvement whichever is first, do u not agree,I however like the fact that more files are scanned, but not with the bigger resource usage, which we all love nod for the low usage.
    I am not saying it eats up massive cpu, but there is deffinitely an increase in the amount, but dont get me wrong i love nod and probably always will.


    The MUL
     
  19. flyrfan111

    flyrfan111 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2004
    Posts:
    1,224
    Yes, I agree, I think it is definitely for the better that they have increased scanning of compressed files. Additionally it is good that they did it with out slowing down the system like KAV does. It sure would be nice if one of the Eset Mods would chime in as to whats up though. A change for the better I would say though.
     
  20. tazdevl

    tazdevl Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Posts:
    837
    Location:
    AZ, USA
    Same. More files, about 2X for scan time. Scanning all files, deep heuristics.

    Anyone know if NOD32 counts a zip with multiple files as 1 file scanned or X#?
     
  21. spm

    spm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2002
    Posts:
    437
    Location:
    U.K.
    Yes, my scan count has risen from approx. 174000 to 826000 files, with consequent increase in scan time (changed from 45 mins to 150 mins).

    While I have to applaud this move, it does beg the question of why Eset are less than open, shall we say, about product updates. I must assume that Eset were not willing to compromise the oft-touted claims about how light on 'resources' NOD32 is (was) - a claim that is now less convincing - while at the same time correcting what I - and others here - saw as a huge deficiency.
     
  22. steve_h

    steve_h Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Posts:
    24
    Location:
    NJ, USA
    Bad, cut and paste. :mad:

    Steve
     
  23. steve_h

    steve_h Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Posts:
    24
    Location:
    NJ, USA
    It only appears to consume additional resources during a scan, while the on access scanner does not weigh down processes at all (as we have come to expect of NOD32). It remains in this regard different than most AV's and the upgrade is just that, an improvement to it's security. So for 1 hour a week, I can live with this as long as the computer remains responsive all of the rest of the time.

    Steve
     
  24. Stan999

    Stan999 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2002
    Posts:
    566
    Location:
    Fort Worth, TX USA
    Looks to me like the NOD32's, "On Demand Scanner", scan time and resources are the same if you just have the default settings which a lot of folks have. It is when you mark "Archives" and "Runtime packers" that the time and resources have now increased.

    AMON is still the same.

    This is fine with me.
     
  25. marti

    marti Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Posts:
    646
    Location:
    Houston, Texas, USA
    I'm not seeing any increase in number of files scanned nor increased scanning time. However, I have a lot of items "unchecked." I don't scan archives, run time packers, or email files.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.