AOL AVS (Kaspersky): Scan new and changed files only

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by DaveD, Oct 8, 2006.

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

    DaveD Guest

    Does this option make use of any kind of MD5 sums (or similar) to verify if files were changed or not?

    I am just trying to decide how much I should rely on this option. If it is done in a way which is relatively secure then I would think that every AV should incorporate something like this. It sounds like a very impressive feature. I mean, really, why scan all files everytime which have already been declared safe... I am all about efficiency and I obviously quite like the sounds of this feature.
     
  2. dah145

    dah145 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2006
    Posts:
    262
    Location:
    n/a
    Scan new and changed files is a really, really, really good advantage, for real-time (file-AV) it lows the resource usage a lot.
    For manual scans I suggest to make one full scan on high settings and then change to scan only new and changed files, that way the time of the scans will drop about a 200%. :D
    I think the method used by KAV is related to th iSwift and iChecker technologies, read about it on the Help archive from KAV.

    :cool:
     
  3. DaveD

    DaveD Guest

    I have already witnessed the benefits of using this with real-time scanning as well as the on-demand scanning and was very impressed. I was only curious as to how fool-proof the techniques used could be. I searched the Kaspersky forums as you had suggested and found lots of great information.

    All I can say is, WOW!

    Kaspersky must have some really intelligent programmers working for them with very thoughtful ideas. I can't believe some of the older AV companies haven't thought up methods like this. Whether certain AV engines have fast or slow scanning speeds, this is certainly a worthwhile enhancement.

    From Kaspersky FAQ:
    The descriptions for iChecker and iSwift answered my question perfectly.

    However, I could not find a more detailed description for "Scan new and unchanged files only" to define how it differs from iChecker and iSwift. It sounds to me like the exact same thing.

    One thing for sure is that I am completely sold on Kaspersky now because of this AOL AVS offer. I will likely purchase Kaspersky when the new version comes out so that I can also benefit from HTTP scanning.

    One last question, how does "Scan new and unchanged files only" differ from iChecker and iSwift?
     
  4. Kilauea

    Kilauea Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Posts:
    8
    iSwift & iChecker -> the files will be scanned again after a signatureupdate, you can decide how often they will be scanned again while working by choosing an update-timetable that fits your needs

    Scan new and unchanged files only -> files are not scanned again after a signatureupdate but by a random timetable


    Kilauea
     
  5. Mele20

    Mele20 Former Poster

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2002
    Posts:
    2,495
    Location:
    Hilo, Hawaii
    I would disable both of those. There is some very disturbing evidence from some users that KAV is corrupting files. I myself am seeing some possible evidence of this (although it may be due to something else) and I deliberately have never done a full scan with KAV 6.0 and immediately unchecked the boxes for iChecker and iSwift. Yet, I too now see a problem with Chkdsk. The speculation is that possibly all users are slowly having their files corrupted but most haven't noticed it because they don't use Chkdsk. Chkdsk was fine before I installed KAV this summer. Now, it hangs on Index Verification at 7%. I had no problem two months ago but now I do. I'm not sure what to make of it but it is the very same problem these other users are reporting and now I too have it. If the chkdsk problem is caused by file corruption from KAV the corruption will be worse and faster if you use iChecker and iSwift and if you do full system scans. The scary thing is that those reporting this are saying that uninstalling KAV does not fix Chkdsk and thus they think that the file corruption is permanent.

    Again, I'm not sure what to make of this. I was skeptical when I first read the thread and I posted in it and said I had no problem at that time....but I do now have the problem. I installed KAV in June. I posted in the thread on Aug 8 and Chkdsk was fine then. Now, two months later, Chkdsk is hanging at 7% in Stage 2. I uninstalled KAV earlier today and ran Chkdsk and it still hangs. This is exactly what is reported in the thread. So, now I am thinking Frode (thread author) is right to warn users to stay away from KAV for now. Or at least don't use iSwift and iCheck and don't do full scans. I have reinstalled KAV but if this gets any worse I will uninstall it for good.

    Kaspersky appears to be ignoring this problem which worries me even more.
     
  6. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    Actually it's "Scan new and changed files only" instead "Scan new and unchanged files only"... Whats the point of scanning only new and unchanged files anyway?
     
  7. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006
    i belive the reason why kav has scan new and changed files only is to make up for the slow real time scanning. if they had faster real time scanning and on demand scanning there wouldnt really need this option. I know it is a good idea but they should make the kaspersky engine scan faster. the real time scanning still has more impact during normal useage with scan new and changed files only than e.g. antivir,nod32 etc. if they made the kav engine faster it would also benifit the other people who use the engine on its own.
    and then it would make less impact on the system.
    do you think they decided to make up for the slow engine theye put the scan new and changed files option? theres no point in scanning files that have been comfirmed as safe.

    i hope you understand what i mean.

    lodore
     
  8. Firefighter

    Firefighter Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2002
    Posts:
    1,670
    Location:
    Finland
    Is it actually slower than many "fast" scanners? If you tweak Kaspersky to scan the same file extensions, the same depth level and quantity of archives, unpack the same (= less) runtimepackers as competitors, how can it be slower after all these? :doubt:

    Best regards,
    Firefighter!
     
  9. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,873
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma

    It all depends on how the scan engine is coded as to how efficent it is in scanning= ergo scan speed. they are not all created equal. :doubt:
     
  10. Firefighter

    Firefighter Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2002
    Posts:
    1,670
    Location:
    Finland
    It's hard to believe that if you tweak those scanned files to the same level as Kaspersky's competitors have, the scan speed doesn't get much faster! :doubt: How much of the engine coding has to do with HYPE (= marketing)?

    Best regards,
    Firefighter!
     
  11. Big Apple

    Big Apple Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Posts:
    724
    I keep on shouting, that it shouldn't be needed to 'tweak' any scanner in order to get the right speed!!!!!!! If a virus scanner is terribly slowing down my pc, I won't be using it. In order to be properly protected......a scanner should be configured properly 'out of the box' and shouldn't need heavy tweaking! Kav makes my pc crawl, no matter what I do. This program is just not right for me. I don't know if Kav is causing this for a 100%, but I refuse to 'tweak' in order to get the right speed! Kav is great in detecting etc. and I would love to use it, but I've chosen for a scanner which is configured properly without having to dig into the 'deep' and also is tested to be near the top in detection and cleaning!
    I really don't understand why everybody keeps hammering on 'tweaking' virus scanners. It isn't made the way it is for nothing and 'tweaking' reduces the security level, as far as I am concerned.
    Think about the average pc user, who does not have the knowledge about configuring & tweaking! He should have proper standard protection......that's what he's paid for!!!!!!!
     
  12. Mele20

    Mele20 Former Poster

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2002
    Posts:
    2,495
    Location:
    Hilo, Hawaii
    Aside from the real and present danger of possible file corruption if you check any of that stuff (or even use KAV at all), I see no reason why anyone would check those. KAV real time scanner is very fast. I have it set to check all files and never use icheck or iSwift and there is NO slow down at all. Web AV is horrible though as it creates extremely slow internet speed and is a worthless piece of junk.

    KAV is very slow if you do an on demand scan of the entire C drive. But there is no need to do that unless you think you are infected. If you absolutely must do full scans (even at risk of file corruption) then do them while you are sleeping...then what does it matter how slow KAV is when iCheck and iSwift are not checked? Remember always that KAV royally screwed up on 5.0 with ADS tagging and may have screwed up badly on 6.0 with causing file corruption. Minimize the file corruption until Kaspersky fixes the problem. KAV is the best scanner, but be very careful how you use it.
     
  13. Big Apple

    Big Apple Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Posts:
    724
    On my pc Kav's realtime scanner is very slow also......that's the trouble here. I have tried all new versions, it just doesn't work. It beats me, but I have given up on Kav, no problem.
     
  14. Cerxes

    Cerxes Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2005
    Posts:
    581
    Location:
    Northern Europe
    This I may say came as some sort of a chock...KAV is slowly corrupting our files?! With all respect, but do you have any other sources because I regard this as highly critical!...The effect is the same as some virus would have done it. The strange thing is that for one year now, I have had problems with files/installation packages/documents that suddenly was corrupted by some reason. I thougt this was because the harddrive I stored this information had a "minor" defect that lead to this. But know it could have been KAV that is the source to the problem...
    Please, check up your statement concerning sources/evidence, and then inform us in a separate thread.

    Regards, C.
     
  15. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,873
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma
    I really don't believe there is any advertising hype coded into the scan engines. they are written and some are just written to open files and scan them more efficently than others. This is also where the difference in detection comes into play.
     
  16. ggf31416

    ggf31416 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    Posts:
    314
    Location:
    Uruguay
  17. DaveD

    DaveD Guest

    I know that it is "Scan new and changes files only". However, at that point in my thread I was literally copy and pasting from Kaspersky FAQ. Therefore, the mistake of "Scan new and _unchanged_ files only" actually came from Kaspersky FAQ. Since it was quoted from Kaspersky FAQ I did not feel right changing it.

    There were many noticeable spelling and grammar mistakes throughout their FAQ, but that is okay, it just means they don't know the English language very well.

    Cheers,
    Dave
     
  18. DaveD

    DaveD Guest

    After checking out a few out of the 9 pages on that thread I decided to give Chkdsk a whirl. Last time I had used it was about 2 months ago, but on Windows 2000.

    Now on Windows XP Home SP2, I realized that Chkdsk is not working as it should. It was near time for an OS re-install anyways as I have been testing lots of different software recently. So I removed AOL AVS, made sure every bit of it was gone and rebooted. Ran Chkdsk again and the output was still the same.

    I wiped out the partition, re-installed Windows XP Home SP2 and ALL of my usual software with the exception of an AV. Chkdsk ran smoothly as it should, no errors, no slowdowns.

    Now I could test this whole thing out again by re-installing AOL AVS, but there is no way I am going to risk it. Not worth the time...
     
  19. duke1959

    duke1959 Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Posts:
    1,238
    Hey DaveD, I just uninstalled AOL AVS as well, but I didn't run Chkdsk yet. I hope I have no problems as described when I do because I'm not as Computer literate as you and some others, and I wouldn't no where to begin fixing anything. This brings me to a question. How important is this if everything seems to be running ok on my PC now, even if I do come across the Chkdsk problem? I only had AVS installed for a short time but it may have scanned three or four times. From what i read it hopefully is a time oriented problem, I guess i'll know after doing the Chkdsk, which i don't believe I ever did before. Is it ok to do this by just opening MY Computer and right clicking on local disk c and going to properties and then tools where an error check is? Thanks for any help, and since I'm now using Antivir, I must add that I guess it just won huh? Update. I did run Chkdsk and it didn't immediately scan in Phase two, but when it did, it didn't hang as described. The whole proceedure took less than 20 minutes and found no problems.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2006
  20. mercurie

    mercurie A Friendly Creature

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2003
    Posts:
    2,442
    Location:
    Sky over the Wilders Forest
    Any more news on this issue? How about it fellow creatures? :doubt:
     
  21. DaveD

    DaveD Guest

    Two threads going on over at Kaspersky:

    KAV causing chkdsk errors
    http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=14995

    chkdsk causes kaspersky to hang windows, KIS 6 hang windows after chkdsk
    http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=22711

    But unfortunately no "official" response or any kind of recognition from developers. I would like to go back to AVS, but not until there is some type of recognition of this.
     
  22. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006

    you should read all the posts and notice that 99.9 percent of people it will never happen to, this post could harm kaspersky's reputation.
     
  23. mercurie

    mercurie A Friendly Creature

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2003
    Posts:
    2,442
    Location:
    Sky over the Wilders Forest
    Thanks for the replies. The reason I ask might be related but who knows. I am behind a NAT Router, and my wireless machine hesitates or freezes sometimes as long as 3 or 4 seconds before executing mouse clicks or mouse movements.

    This occurs with OutPost off or on makes no difference. I am wondering if it could be AOL AVS. This PC beahvior to me is unacceptable. :mad:
     
  24. DaveD

    DaveD Guest

    mercurie,

    When I was running AVS for a few days not too long ago, I also noticed that my computer was not as "responsive" as it usually was. I had delays opening any program, even opening Windows Explorer. I had all of the settings enabled to make it as efficient as possible, but even that wasn't enough. So I removed it because performance is something that I value greatly. I don't want to be running a new computer, yet feel like it's 3 or 4 years older then it really is.

    I installed AntiVir PE and I can't even tell it's running. The system, as a whole, is snappy like it should be. No delays. But this is just my experience and my opinion.
     
  25. Don Pelotas

    Don Pelotas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Posts:
    2,257
    DaveD, one thing i can tell you with 100% certainty is that if you experience a pc that feels 4 years older than before installing AVS or Kaspersky, then you have a conflict and that could be anything (until you find it), the systems i have installed Kaspersky 6.0 on is very much like you describe it with AntiVir...snappy, after you have done the first on-demand scan and it will become even more apparant after a while if you use the default recommended settings.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.