Blue2
Premium
join:2004-04-14
France
| reply to StraitShoot
Re: Kaspersky, You lost me at ISwift..
I like Active Virus Shield, even though I have a key for Kaspersky 6.0. I was impressed by the scanning engine, and have no hidden agenda. But I still call things as I see them: Kaspersky has lots to learn about customer support and respectful answers to its client base would be a good start. Let me cite three specific examples:
1. When I had slow manual file scans, AOL referred to Kaspersky, who asked me to install a data collection tool to diagnose the problem. That done, Kaspersky indicated to AOL that the issue was "fixed" in the new release. So I went back to the website, uninstalled the "old" version, installed the "new" release, and re-configured it. Two hours later I found out that it was the very same release. While I realize that AVS was free, Kaspersky's misleading response lead to two hours of my time wasted (not free). Unprofessional.
2. Then security vulnerabilities were reported in KAV. I immediately asked if they were also to be found in AVS, and if so when would a fix be available. It took weeks to get an answer to this basic question so I could decide how protected my systems were. Finally, I was pointed to an update. Kaspersky considered this an AOL "customer service" issue. I saw this as a product security issue, requiring a two minute reply, and one that only Kaspersky could answer. A vulnerable security product is an oxymoron. Not being direct in how or when it would be handled was unprofessional.
3. Now the NTSF object identifier issue. Fanatical "the sky is falling" ranters? Hardly. How about a group of fellow professionals, who don't like having every issue discredited as a rant. MS gets cited for antitrust, Sony for DRM, but Kaspersky is above acknowledging that anything can ever be wrong. An unfounded complaint is a rant. When many users complain, one returns to the adage "where there's smoke, there's fire." Unprofessional of Kaspersky to not investigate further and alleviate consumer fears.
Like I said, I have no agenda other than to be treated, like every customer, with a little respect. That's the least I expect (no, make that demand) from a manufacturer, colleague, restaurant, client...and I see no reason why Kaspersky should be an exception. |
|
dantz
join:2005-05-09
Honolulu, HI
 ·Hawaiian Telcom
| reply to Dr Tweak
said by Dr Tweak  :OK, after reading through the thread on KL forum I think I might have more insight on the cause..... system restore. I ALWAYS disable system restore on all the computers I work on and have never seen this issue. Personally I think system restore is useless and a waste of system resources, just my opinion. In any case I think it's directly related to having system restore enabled.... those of you who have seen this issue, was system restore enabled? And for those of you who think MS is always right.... there is a glitch I have seen with system restore MANY times. If you only disable system restore by right clicking on My Computer - system restore - and checking the option to disable it, many times it will not complete disable. You must disable the system restore service as well, if you don't I have seen system restore continue to make restore points and never delete the old ones, it then fills up the entire drive with restore points and there is no disk space left. To fix it you must enable system restore then reboot then disable it and reboot again to delete all of the restore points, the hard is then clear and back to normal. This is a MS problem that has never been addressed. Thanks for suggesting a closer look at System Restore. I haven't tested this, since mine has been off for years. (And yes, I made sure to clear the Restore points when I turned off the feature. However, I still experienced chkdsk problems until I finally got rid of Kaspersky's NTFS identifiers).
However, this information may be relevant: Some of my testing has involved comparing the chkdsk lag when different numbers of files are present in the partition. I found that if you double the number of KAV-scanned files in a partition, the chkdsk lag for that partition will approximately double as well. If you then delete two-thirds of the files, the lag will decrease by approximately two-thirds. Thus, the number of files in the partition is one of the determinants of the lag time.
The System Restore points can consist of many thousands of files. It seems to me that as far as the chkdsk lag is concerned, clearing the Restore points would be pretty much like deleting any other large quantity of files. You could probably achieve the same thing by deleting ordinary data files. However, I have not tested specifically against the presence/absence of System Restore points. I still have a lot of other tests to perform, but if it is warranted then I will try to get around to doing that at some point. |
|
dantz
join:2005-05-09
Honolulu, HI
·Hawaiian Telcom
1 edit | reply to salzan
said by salzan :If I understand this correctly, the identifiers are not copied by Acronis TI. What happens if you uninstall KAV, take an image and restore the image? I would do this using the recovery CD, not from within Windows. Both ATI and Ghost 2003 will copy the chkdsk problem as a part of the image, and will restore it when you restore the image. I have done this many times as a part of my testing procedure.
However, if you use ATI to backup data (as opposed to making an image) the NTFS identifiers will be discarded and will not be present when you restore the data. Of couse, this is not normally the way a person would back up and restore their OS.
(edit: Hmmm, I forgot to mention that for this to work you have to either delete the data from the partition, or leave it there and instruct ATI to overwrite existing data during the restore. ) |
|
dantz
join:2005-05-09
Honolulu, HI
·Hawaiian Telcom
1 edit | reply to Don Pelotas
said by Don Pelotas :Don't let scaremongers affect your choice, that is exactly what they are out to do Hello, Don. As soon as this thread started I knew you'd be along pretty soon. I appreciate your participation, because it shows that Kaspersky Labs is interested in the problem.
(edit) PS: I hope they are interested in more than just the public relations aspect. How about convincing KL to get busy with a solution, then you won't have to keep trying to stamp out these little forest fires. |
|
The Snowman
Premium
join:2007-05-20
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to StraitShoot
As a Users of KAV 6 I have never experienced the problem mentioned in this topic....frankly I do not know if I enabled ISwift or not..
However, I was just wondering....if a re-install of KAV on top of the previous install...disabling the ISwift during the re-install...would revert things back to normal.......this is just a random thought but it may be worth someone trying.
|
|
Graystoke
join:2006-03-24
Stockton, CA
1 edit | reply to StraitShoot
Never mind. Much ado about nothing. |
|
Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
| reply to The Snowman
Iswift and ICheck are enabled by default. You can disable one or both in the GUI for the on demand scanner before you run a full scan. You cannot disable them in the GUI for the file scanner though. According to Lucian in the KAV forums (he's the resident expert in the official forums on KAV if you didn't know) you have to disable ISwift in the registry, first disabling KAV's self protection, so you can disable them. He says even that may not disable ISwift. This applies to KAV7.
It appears that there is NO way to disable the KAV6 realtime monitor from using ISwift and thus doing exactly what so many were so angry about with KAV5 in putting crap on all your files without clear disclosure in the Eula, or on the download page for trials, that this will occur and that the crap is there forever even after you uninstall KAV. If there had been clear disclosure that ISwift is, in a sense, the horrible IStreams from KAV5 redone then the user could make an informed choice and those who don't mind having their files forever altered by KAV6 and 7 would happily install KAV and everyone else who does object to such unnecessary, especially permanent, invasion of our files could simply walk away and get another AV that doesn't do this sort of thing.
--
"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 |
|
The Snowman
Premium
join:2007-05-20 | reply to Mele20
Re: Kaspersky, You lost me at ISwift..
Mele
Thanks for that info...appreciated |
|
mers2
Premium,MVM
join:2004-03-20
USA
clubs:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to Kill DRM
said by Kill DRM :
Can somebody say FUDDDD ???
If you want to attack Kaspersky, there are enough legitimate reasons for doing so without making yerself look like an idiot.
While I am not a KAV user, I have taken note of the many documented complaints regarding this issue over the past year and of Kaspersky's apparent lack of concern for their customers. That blatant disregard bothers me much more than the issue and pretty much ensures I won't be trying the product any time soon. I'd say it's Kaspersky that comes of as the idiot in this issue.
--
Team Discovery
|
|
m0d
join:2005-03-02
ireland
| reply to Kill DRM
FUD = marketing term .. not a technical one ..
I ditched KIS 6(paid) and AOL AVS free from multiple PCs (home/work) because of this issue.. I was a fan .. I am NOT no more. This lead to data loss when chkdisk scrolls for an eternity.
Do you really think this is some "FUD" or "conspiracy"?
Try with MULTIPLE drives .. some FAT.. some NTFS .. some SATA/IDE mixed in .. add huge numbers of files + directory depth.. you will see your "FUD" then.
Also.. there are conflicting explanations here:
1) "we cant recreate it".. and with access to src code .. I sincerely doubt that one. Simple to recreate here on multiple comps. Even FRESH installs.. just one SATA drive.
2) "Its NTFS and Microsoft must fix.." you used an UNDOCUMENTED API .. therefore its your problem and very lame.
Read your code.. what is it doing to NTFS? Release a tool to reverse that.. because even an uninstall does NOT fix it.
That is reality.. to bury your head in the sand on this is your loss not ours. |
|
dantz
join:2005-05-09
Honolulu, HI
·Hawaiian Telcom
| reply to Kill DRM
Re: Kaspersky, You lost me at ISwift..
said by Kill DRM :
Files themselves are not modified. MD5 checksums remain the same before and after Kaspersky install. It's each file's NTFS index entry that is modified. MD5 checksums won't show that. |
|
Bobbb
@comcast.net
| reply to StraitShoot
Re: Kaspersky, You lost me at ISwift..
Why are you guys talking about kaspersky... it sucks.
Half the people I know, including a C++ programmer such as myself, cannot install kaspersky.
I use AVG Anti-Virus now, because it's lightweight, FREE, and does the job well without overloading my computer or using up my resources.
I have seen articles where Kaspersky and nod32 = #1 and #2, but I think those companies just paid those magazines really well.
I try to install kaspersky, and I get an error instantly saying "Kaspersky 6.0 cannot install to this folder, because you have an invalid file name, try not to use 'symbols'... bla bla bla". Their SETUP is even bugged.
I installed Kaspersky, to a friends computer though, and it basically didn't find any viruses, and took me like 7 days to scan his computer, for some reason kaspersky is the slowest anti-virus i've ever seen. His HD is not even close to 20 GB.
nod32, yeah try installing that, you'll get Drive Access errors all over... it sucks as well. |
|
