Kaspersky 7 still has major issues

How else are they supposed to fix the problem? The majority of users complaining about this have done nothing the KL technicians have asked them to do, they have the same attitude as yourself, yet want a fix. It is still questionable if it is a serious issue since only a handful of users are complaining about it, if the developers can't reproduce the issue than how can they determine it truly is an issue and fix it? I don't see the arrogance and dismissal of the problem as you and others do, KL and NOD32 are some of the few programs where you can directly communicate with the developers to help resolve issues, but when the people complaining do nothing but complain where does that leave things?

 

I have just sent out an email to ZoneAlarm regarding the problem, and am awaiting their comments on it. I'll let you know as soon as I get a reply. Possibly we can all get some insight on the matter from ZA's reply.

 

Wait one minute! Beta testers reported the problem from the get go with KAV6. I read the posts in the beta forum. I agree that you can't fix something if you don't see the problem. I don't agree that Kaspersky has never seen the problem. I believe they were well aware all along about this problem but because the slowdowns, hangs and, in some cases, complete crippling of chkdsk only happens to a minority they decided to go ahead with ISwift hoping there would be no complaints...perhaps for the reason you cited...many don't run chkdsk. If there were complaints, they figured they could squelch them as they did for over a year. Straitshoot is right, I think, that it is only loud ranting at a prominent site, in a well respected security forum, that has finally forced Kaspersky out of their "official" denial and silence. As Straitshoot said earlier today, he wouldn't be mad if Kaspersky had just done the right thing and been very clear about how ISwift works, that it cannot be turned off even though it appears it can be in the GUI, and had stated that there was a risk for some in using ISwift. In other words, if Kaspersky had used proper disclosure either in the Eula or on their site, etc. then the burden would be on the user. But they instead chose to mislead the users and the burden not only remains with them but is even heavier because of no disclosure of possible risks that I firmly believe they knew about all along.

No one replying to my earlier post has given any reason as to why Kaspersky didn't take the help that was offered by many a year ago. No, you guys just want to shut up Straitshoot and myself. Thanks a lot for nothing.

 

That was a problem with an old beta build, it was confirmed & was fixed, you probably notice that if you read the whole topic. And afterwards no more reports of that.

 

Been wtaching this thread with interest. Have been using KIS 6 with iSwift & iChecker enabled, have run CHKDSK a number of times with no ill effects. Have recently done the same after upgrading to KIS 7...still no ill effects. Can only assume that it is an issue for some users and not other and that therefore those that have it are free to change application if they want.

Personally I am very happy with KIS 7...and looking forward to the beta of KIS 8.

 

Users that have the problem can't just uninstall Kaspersky and change applications because the problem remains on the drive. The only way is to either format, and reinstall everything back onto the hard drive, or use an image file created prior to installing Kaspersky and recover from that. I was lucky enough to still have a months old image file that I could recover from, others are not that lucky.

I was also very happy with KISS 6 and hopefully once the problem has been sorted I'll go back to using Kaspersky.

 

I contacted ZA support some weeks age in regards the chkdsk problem and was informed that they were unable to duplicate the problem so were unable to help.

 

I realise that but was just airing my views at the superficial level. What you have stated in your post has been stated so many times that it is getting boring reading it again and again. I assume that someone who subscribes to a thread has the decency to read the whole thread before posting...I certainly did.

Hope that you eventualy come back into the KIS fold...it is the best place to be IMHO.

BTW, I am not taking your comments personally.

 

There was nothing in my comments to be taking personally. You expressed your opinion and I did likewise.

 

I finally solved my chkdsk problems with KIS 6/7. First I repartitioned, reformatted, and reinstalled Windows XP. I then reinstalled KIS 6 but before the initial scan, I turned off the New/Changed file switches and the iSwift and iChecker switches. So far, (fingers crossed) I have had no chkdsk corruption of either the security descriptors or indexes. Because of my "ultra highly scientific experimentation and thorough understanding of the time space continuum" I think its the iSystem and iChecker that is causing most of the problems. Now if I can only get this global warming thing sorted out, I would have a great day.

SourMilk out

 

My thoughts exactly

 

Which ZA product are you referring to? The Firewall, AV, Security Suite or all of them?

 

I never said I wanted to know "exactly how ISwift works". I said that if a software company intends to COMPLETELY ALTER ALL MY FILES FOREVER EVEN AFTER I UNINSTALL THEIR PRODUCT, yeah they damn well better inform me before the fact otherwise face a lawsuit for lying and deliberately damaging my computer forever unless I reformat. You cannot get around the fact that Kaspersky has been completely irresponsible and arrogant in this matter. I never asked for trade secrets about ISwift. I asked for courtesy and to be respected as a user. Why you would want to defend and use a product from a company that you readily admit lies about extremely important facts regarding what their product does to people's computers in order to sell its product seems extremely odd to me.

Even if I had no discernible Chkdsk damage, I would NEVER install a product that (A) alters every single file on my computer and (b) does so FOREVER even after I uninstall the product. I cannot fathom why anyone would do this but if you all are so frightened that only KAV can save you from yourselves then of course you will see Straightshoot and me as grave threats to your carefully constructed, "safe" view of the world and of the role that Kaspersky, at all costs, must for your peace of mind play in it.

Kaspersky is unbeliveably arrogant and has absolutely no respect for its users. I base this statement on the irrefutable fact that Kaspersky has already been here and done the unforgiveable regarding forever altering all users files even after Kaspersky is removed back with ADS and KAV5. There was a huge angry explosion over Kaspersky's arrogance and disdain of their users back then...fittingly at my home site as is the current explosion. Kaspersky was forced screaming and yelling denials all the way to finally give us a removal tool for the ADS tags. A NORMAL company that makes a mistake like that LEARNS IMMEDIATELY TO NOT DO THAT AGAIN. Kaspersky though just went right ahead and did the same thing AGAIN. That indicates either a highly irrational company or a company that is extremely arrogant and which has no respect for its users.

The failure of chkdsk or its slowdown is just icing on the cake so to speak. The real issue here is Kaspersky's total disdain of its users. If users have no respect for their OS and their file system and are so paralyzed and terrified of getting a virus then fine, install Kaspersky. The rest of us who are more sane regarding concerns about getting viruses and who believe there is more than one AV that will do the job, don't want to pay such an incredibly heavy price for AV. We should have been informed that our files would be forever altered even after uninstallation of the product. We should have been informed before we installed that there was no way to turn off ISwift even though the GUI shows where to turn it off. Not one of us has ever demanded that Kaspersky give away trade secrets about the details of how ISwift works. We have simply asked that we be properly informed before we install the product exactly what we are consenting to. I have NEVER had any other AV (and I have installed a lot of them) alter all my files FOREVER. I have had AVs leave some junk behind when I uninstall them...some leave more junk than others and some leave none. Those that leave junk though, I have ALWAYS been able to remove the junk with a good registry cleaner or by hand in the registry the longest taking less than an hour to fully handcomb the registry (McAfee) and a guide is provided by the AV company and/or a tool. Since no other AV has ever altered all my files forever, and since I assumed (wrongly obviously) that Kaspersky was a rational company that respected its users, I believed that Kaspersky would NEVER repeat the outrageous mistake it made with KAV5 in altering all files on a computer forever or that if it did decide to go down that road again that at the very least it would have the wisdom and respect of users to tell them up front what would happen if they installed KAV6 or 7.

There is simply no way that Kaspersky could win a lawsuit if one is filed. However, I just want a tool for removal of of the object identifiers. Plus, it would be nice if Kaspersky would apologize but I'm sure their attorneys have told them that might be construed as an admission of guilt so they have probably muzzled them.

 

Having read some of your posts here and elsewhere I can't see where you can blame anything on any particular program. You have installed so many applications and had them running at the same time then uninstall them and try something else, and haven't done a clean install in years...... there is no doubt that your pc is a complete mess. I don't care how well programs uninstall or how good registry cleaners are, installing and uninstalling security applications that can conflict with one another routinely will cause nothing but problems. These programs leave junk behind in the registry, they leave behind drivers that try and load even after an uninstall that conflict with other applications. You need to take a chill pill and look at yourself and the way you are acting about this...... very irrational.

 

3 PC's running AOL AVS ever since it came out, no chkdsk-issue's what so ever

 

What would make me less concerned about current or potential damage done by KAV and AVS, is that instead of any former users talking about 2nd stage CHKDSK delays and problems, is people who never used AVS or KAV posting about 2nd stage delays they have with CHKDSK. Maybe a thread about that should be started.

 

Mele20,

I'm fairly sure that command line usage of fsutil as presented by deXter_ here is about as good as it will get.

KL may whip up a simple tool that yields the same result, but unless they have been tracking creation of the file object ID's all alone (which I assume is extremely unlikely for a variety of reasons), I don't see a way for them to selectively remove just the entries that they have created. As far as I can see, it's an all or nothing deal. I have not seen any issues from the partition that I have cleaned of object ID's. From my basic understanding of their function, I wouldn't expect any untoward effects for a standalone typical home environment PC despite the warnings from the MS website quoted multiple time. I could see potential issues in a networked domain, but that's not the world most of us reside in with our home PC's.

As for the KL response, my personal opinion is that it's been absolutely pathetic. Others may differ in their opinion, and that's fine, but at the end of the day, if a customer perceives that they've been slighted/dismissed/ignored, that perception is reality for that customer interaction. KL really needs to look inward regarding how they handle volatile situations like this. It's not the first time the ball has been bobbled, and past lessons obviously didn't take. Frankly, that speaks to a structural issue.

As to going down the iSwift road at all...., they should not have been so naive, and that's really the only word for it. The discussion regarding unintended secondary consequences - both functional and those involving customer perception - had to have been cursory if it occurred at all. A very basic guiding principle is that the structure of a machine/file system should not be irreversibly changed unless explicitly known and approved by the user. It really is just basic courtesy and operational hygiene. People moan over the sparse footprints left by long gone applications. At least those foot prints are sparse, these touched every file on the system and that is fundamentally inexcusable.

Blue

 

mnosteele,

It's perfectly rational to be extremely irritated if one feels betrayed. If you don't feel betrayed, you'll have a different perspective on things. That doesn't mean those dealing with feelings of betrayal or poor treatment are wrong or irrational. However, dismissive comments will continue to fuel the polarized opinion on this topic as much as the rants you appear to rail against.

To all:

Speak to the technical issues that are the focus of this thread, not those posting in it. That is always the best course of action and the only way you're going to find any light at the end of the tunnel.

Blue

 

Well said.

 

i run chkdsk /f /r last night and it take me 2hrs to complete 5stages chkdsk.

i'm using business vista with 2GB Ram and 200GB (50%used) HDD

didn't get any error message, but i'm not sure if 2hrs is good or bad.

 

Latest news received is that Kaspersky is attempting to duplicate the problem in-lab, and is in direct communication with Microsoft chkdsk project team.
Seems like things are starting to happen at Kaspersky

 

I only got a reply that suggested ZA is looking into the iSwift matter. Maybe there's hope yet, but I'm not sure I'll get any further replies on the matter from ZA.....