m0d
join:2005-03-02
ireland
| reply to StraitShoot
Re: Kaspersky, You lost me at ISwift..
Hi Blue,
My worry there is that it may not be technically possible to distinguish the KAV Object IDs as against the "legit ones".
But yes its a reasonable expectation that paying users are either:
1) Provided a fix
2) Advised as to "implications"
I live in hope  |
|
norwegian
Premium
join:2005-02-15
Outback
 ·WestNet Broadband
| reply to m0d
said by m0d  :norwegian, I did get bashed.. flamed even on this very forum .. for simply referring people to NTFS API docs and questioning the API use al la iSwift. The only statement that matters now is the one from Microsoft/Kaspersky. Don't shoot the messenger who brings you facts. That is just not right now is it? Yes I do remember.
I believe this is where the moderator of the forums controls the flow of what is on topic, or not, including derogatory remarks. That is neither Kaspersky's or Microsoft's fault.
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke |
|
bluezanetti
Premium
join:2003-10-04
| reply to m0d
said by m0d :
My worry there is that it may not be technically possible to distinguish the KAV Object IDs as against the "legit ones".
Unless they've been keeping track (and there's no reason to think they have), the simple answer is that the KAV Object ID's cannot be distinguished from any other ones. I tend to take that as a given. I don't see a major issue for most/all home users. I do see potential issues for business network domains.
Blue |
|
Blue2
Premium
join:2004-04-14
France
1 edit | reply to StraitShoot
said by bluezanetti : IMHO, all the lawsuit talk is pure BS. Sorry, I don't interpret things as you do. Lawsuits are always a last resort. However, they are notoriously effective at provoking action when none is forthcoming. It isn't about money, but prompting an adequate response.
Since neither you nor I are judges, have both all the facts, have heard all the potential arguments, and are versed in application of law, it is somewhat assumptive to state what will or will not happen if someone decided to pursue it. (Class action lawsuits have been filed against Toshiba for floppy drive click-of-death, against Paypal for account access issues, Sony on DRM, Iomega on technical support issues, Visa on hidden overseas ATM conversion charges, etc. Every one of these resulted in settlement/action.)
The point is that law is based on interpretation, not on binary code, and it simply doesn't matter which issue you or I think has merit. |
|
m0d
join:2005-03-02
ireland
4 edits | reply to norwegian
"The Microsoft Corporation officially states that API means were not developed for the mechanism deployed in the iSwift technology."
That would be the only fault I attribute here. That and well some users of the same product have a problem they are not aware of just yet. It will only take time. If you really think this isn't Kasperskys "fault" .. think again .. It needs a fix sooner not later.
And your right bluezanetti.. there is no way to distinguish them .. hence the absence of a removal tool.
Blue2 your right too .. there is no need for a lawsuit here if the vendor stepped up and was honest. Simple as that.
Chkdsk /I is NEVER a "FIX" for this now is it? |
|
jeisenberg
New Year's Eve
join:2001-07-06
Windsor, ON
 ·Cogeco Cable
 ·Cogeco Voip
1 edit | reply to StraitShoot
Let me postulate for a second...
There are some legitimate reasons for SOME Object IDs to exist. Let's assume we're trying to find a means of identifying which Object IDs still have to exist after uninstalling KAV.
Let's say you began by traversing the entire drive, querying the object id of every file, and writing the BIRTHOBJECTID and file path into a log.
After the log was completely written, the log file would be sorted by BIRTHOBJECTID.
Now, you could traverse the file looking for adjacent lines with the same BIRTHOBJECTID. If line "n" and line "n+1" had different BIRTHOBJECTIDs, then the file path referred to by BIRTHOBJECTID "n" could have the object id safely removed; and the process would be repeated for lines "n+1" and "n+2" and so on...
When you reached the end of the log, only the files with identical BIRTHOBJECTs would retain them. Yes, there would be special cases where there are more than two files with exact matching BIRTHOBJECTIDs, but you get the idea.
Does that seem like a correct and safe algorithm for identifying and removing the object ids that have no need to exist?
Edit: Replaced "ObjectIDs" with "BIRTHOBJECTIDs" in my description. |
|
m0d
join:2005-03-02
ireland
1 edit | No sorry  .. Nice try though. Your approach assumes you had a snapshot of Object IDs "before" the install... and well you don't. Besides, why would it be down to us to fix this? |
|
jmorlan
Hmm... That's funny.
Premium
join:2001-02-05
Pacifica, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to jeisenberg
said by jeisenberg :When you reached the end of the log, only the files with identical object ids would retain them. Yes, there would be special cases where there are more than two files with exact matching object IDs, but you get the idea. Does that seem like a correct and safe algorithm for identifying and removing the object ids that have no need to exist? I didn't know that two different objects could have identical objectIDs. I thought they were supposed to be unique identifiers. |
|
m0d
join:2005-03-02
ireland
1 edit | "unique identifiers" .. exactly..
If you can code a tool from that .. someone should pay you. however I see reasons it wont work |
|
jeisenberg
New Year's Eve
join:2001-07-06
Windsor, ON | reply to StraitShoot
You're correct about unique object ids. I intended to say BIRTHOBJECTIDs, as per my edit of my post.
As far as responsibility for coming up with a fix, I don't care who does it, as long as a fix is available. |
|
jeisenberg
New Year's Eve
join:2001-07-06
Windsor, ON
·Cogeco Cable
·Cogeco Voip
| reply to m0d
said by m0d :No sorry .. Nice try though. Your approach assumes you had a snapshot of Object IDs "before" the install... and well you don't. Besides, why would it be down to us to fix this? No, my approach assumes there is no way to know what the state was before the introduction of KAV. It merely tries to rebuild the objectids, leaving only the ones that have a legitimate need to be there. |
|
Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
2 edits | reply to StraitShoot
I see the fanboys over at Kaspersky forum are all riled up. They don't like this forum, our Mod or this site.  They have insulted WCB, our forum and our site as well as Jim and I. If they want to use ad hominem attacks on me I don't much care but I do care when I see them stating that WCB is a poor moderator who deliberately allowed Jim and myself to post whatever we wanted but censored anyone who said anything favorable about Kaspersky. They conveniently forget that Kaspersky personnel posted in this forum, plus, I suppose they don't realize that at least one Kaspersky engineer has been a member here for years. I also suppose that they have not yet discovered the inevitable: the fanboys have the problem also. ALL Kaspersky users have the problem and it is going to bite all of them.
--
"The same ferocity that our founders devoted to protect the freedom and independence of the press is now appropriate for our defense of the freedom of the internet. The stakes are the same: the survival of our Republic". Al Gore, The Assault on Reason |
|
StraitShoot
Who Loves Ya Baby? - Theo Kojak
Premium
join:2003-02-08
Clinton, MA
| reply to bluezanetti
Re: Kaspersky, You lost me at ISwift..
Bluezanetti,,,
KAV completely Ignored us for a while and never gave us a removal tool..
They should also be sued by Microsoft, as far as I'm concerned..
If they (Kav and the fanboys) are afraid, so well, sorry.. I bought and paid for KAV, I installed it, it forever altered my system, and now I'm supposed to walk around with a dumb fanboy look on my face saying "KAV is not at fault"..
I don't think so...
BTW, I appreciate your comments.. and I thank you. You have something Constructive to say, not a waste of breath ... |
|
bluezanetti
Premium
join:2003-10-04
| reply to jeisenberg
said by jeisenberg :
You're correct about unique object ids. I intended to say BIRTHOBJECTIDs, as per my edit of my post.
The BirthObjectID is simply the "original" (i.e. birth) ObjectID. Note, if you delete an ObjectID, a new BirthObjectID is generated when ObjectID's are recreated and the two entries are identical. I don't see any relation to how that ObjectID was created. I don't see where this accomplishes anything.
said by jeisenberg :
No, my approach assumes there is no way to know what the state was before the introduction of KAV. It merely tries to rebuild the objectids, leaving only the ones that have a legitimate need to be there.
Exactly how is it doing that?
I tend to view this as an all or nothing situation - either all ObjectID's stay or they are removed. That's it. I really don't see selective pruning being possible and since that would depend on KAV carrying around a separate database distinguishing existing vs. KAV/KIS created entries and if they were carrying this around, why go down the ObjectID path at all? Simply use this external database (which is how they should have handled this in the first place, if they wished to go down this road at all).
Blue |
|
bluezanetti
Premium
join:2003-10-04
1 edit | reply to StraitShoot
quote:
said by StraitShoot :
Bluezanetti,,,
KAV completely Ignored us for a while and never gave us a removal tool..
I know, and as m0d has already pointed out, responses from some other quarters bordered on/were nothing less than bashing of users in distress.
I just hope someone at KL comes to realize that their entire management of this situation provides a good case study of what not to do in managing a problem situation. This is true regardless of which side of the discussion you're on. It's been pathetic from the start, and, amazingly, continues on in that manner. Usually, organizations eventually come to grips with the fact that they have to get out in front of a problem. That is something that is still sorely lacking here. It's like watching a slow motion trainwreck over the past 15 months.
Blue |
|
Blue2
Premium
join:2004-04-14
France
1 edit | said by bluezanetti :I just hope someone at KL comes to realize that their entire management of this situation provides a good case study of what not to do... Precisely.
The responses of either ignoring the issue or bashing users has turned what might have been a disappointing product issue into a contentious one. That only incites users, hardens their responses and provokes stronger reactions.
I think Kaspersky management needs to take a class in conflict resolution. Conflict escalation is usually what leads to wars (and I'll wager, most class action lawsuits). It isn't the problem itself that incites the anger, but the arrogant response. It doesn't take much to realize that denying user experience is akin to pouring gasoline on the fire.
And by the way, I don't have any significant problems (yet?), but don't approve of the way that Kaspersky responded to the issue. I still say that they make a fine product, but are an irresponsible company. |
|
StraitShoot
Who Loves Ya Baby? - Theo Kojak
Premium
join:2003-02-08
Clinton, MA
4 edits | reply to Mele20
said by Mele20 :I see them stating that WCB is a poor moderator who deliberately allowed Jim and myself to post whatever we wanted but censored anyone who said anything favorable about Kaspersky. They conveniently forget that Kaspersky personnel posted in this forum, plus, I suppose they don't realize that at least one Kaspersky engineer has been a member here for years. I also suppose that they have not yet discovered the inevitable: the fanboys have the problem also. ALL Kaspersky users have the problem and it is going to bite all of them. Mele, I submit the Fanboys made this forum topic the way it is... I really don't see why this thread should be used by the fanboys to post positive remarks about Kaspersky. That isn't the point. The point is ALL KAv users now have this issue and there is NO official fix, period, end of discussion. The fanboys are perfectly welcome to start another "I love Kaspersky" no matter what anytime they want. I got very very upset when I found out what KIS and KAV did to my system; I would have given up my "derogatory" statements a long time ago if KAV only gave us a workable Removal tool for the masses. That's what the fanboys don't want to hear. KA's detection rate is great, and that's why I bought, installed, and used KAV. Although it slowed my computer somewhat I was willing to live with it due to the detection. However, the mess that was created on 3 of my 'puters was the straw that broke my back; NO WAY AM I GOING TO LET UP NOW.. If KAV creates a workable and valid removal tool tommorow, I will let up and remove my "sig" tommorow.. So far, that ain't happening..
Pardon me, but for me and you and others here to keep defending our viewpoint on this subject, that is just ridiculous and the stubborness of the fanboys completely amazes me. It shouldn't be up to me or any of their customer base to create or spend money on removal tools. I didn't buy into Kaspersky to become an expert on Object Identifers.. I bought it to enhance my computers.. How hard can THAT be to comprehend? That's why, like Blue2 and others are saying, a lawsuit may be a last resort, but at least maybe that will make KAV do the right thing and fess up... 
PS.. Note, Mele, I changed my Sig to reflect AOL's Wise Decision to change their Free AV offering using KAV to McAfee..
--
Don't Forever Alter Your Computer! Don't Install or Use Anything with Kaspersky or The Free AOL Version of KAV, AOL Active Virus Shield! (KAV Version)
|
|
