 |
 | New Install, Getting Errors, Slow Scanning |  |
greenknight
Joined: 18 Jan 2007 |
Posts: 0 |
Location: In the shadow of Mount St. Helens |
|
 |
Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:48 pm |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
When I scanned C:\, I got these: https://img260.imageshack.us/my.php?image=clmwnscrnry3.png
The "Can't remove..." message repeated 23 times. At some point later. more of the "untested big block size" messages appeared, followed by a long series of "Can't create temporary directory" messages.
The one scan I completed took an incredibly long time. The partition contains 14.8 GB - I let it run by itself for 6 hrs, then went online and left it running in the background, in 5 hrs more it finished. I've tried adding some filters, it doesn't appear to be dramatically faster.
OS is XP sp2; AMD Duron CPU, 700 MHz; 512 MB SDRAM.
|
|
 |
 | |  |
sherpya
Joined: 22 Mar 2006 |
Posts: 0 |
Location: Italy |
|
 |
Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 9:04 pm |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
the unpacking code isn't 100% flawless, so you have got some non standard archives, about the temp directory cleanup, the problem should be addressed by the gui when then scan finishes, next release will skip binary files and media files so big disk scans should be faster
|
|
greenknight
Joined: 18 Jan 2007 |
Posts: 0 |
Location: In the shadow of Mount St. Helens |
|
 |
Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 8:40 am |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
I tried scanning just C:\Documents and Settings (.99 GB) twice, adding more filters. The error messages still appeared. Got scanning time down to under 76 min. from 103+. Still pretty slow, but better... any idea when that next release is coming?
|
|
 | File Extensions |  |
GuitarBob
Joined: 09 Jul 2006 |
Posts: 9 |
Location: USA |
|
 |
Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 3:25 pm |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
Until then, here is a Web site that lists some dangerous file extensions. The list isn't exclusive, but you might scan for those those extensions--should help scan time, and you will probably get decent coverage for malware. I guess you could add compressed/archive extensions like ZIP, RAR, TAR, etc.
https://www.novatone.net/mag/mailsec.htm
Regards,
|
|
 |
 | |  |
drgoa.r
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 |
Posts: 0 |
Location: Bulgaria |
|
 |
Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 6:01 pm |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
excluding GIF and JPG from scanning will increase speed, because in your case you probaly scan internet browser cache also, which is full of those.
there was some problems with infected jpg's, but Microsoft eliminated the problem a long time ago.
Quote: |
Microsoft Security Bulletin MS04-028
Buffer Overrun in JPEG Processing (GDI+) Could Allow Code Execution (833987)
...............................................................................................................................
Non-Affected Software
..................
� Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 2
.................. |
as i see - your station is not affected, so excluding JPG is good idea.
|
|
sherpya
Joined: 22 Mar 2006 |
Posts: 0 |
Location: Italy |
|
 |
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:08 pm |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
nah images scanning doesn't take too much, I suggest you to skip .cab and .msi files since it's almost a waste of time and the unpacker is 100% working
|
|
greenknight
Joined: 18 Jan 2007 |
Posts: 0 |
Location: In the shadow of Mount St. Helens |
|
 |
Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 10:37 am |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
I already had .cab excluded, but not .msi. Thanks, I'll add that.
It'd be nice if it would skip Firefox cache folders - they seem to scan slowly, and there's no point to scanning them; the way Firefox handles caching, any malware in there is disabled. I clear my cache, but I have other users on this computer who don't, and it's a pain to individually exclude those folders.
|
|
 |
 | |  |
greenknight
Joined: 18 Jan 2007 |
Posts: 0 |
Location: In the shadow of Mount St. Helens |
|
 |
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 2:43 pm |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
Actually, excluding Firefox Cache folders wasn't that hard, I just used
C:\\Documents and Settings\\username\\Local Settings\\Application Data\\Mozilla\\.*
Nothing in there except Cache folders and XUL.mfl and XPC.mfl files, I don't think those are infectable files. Afterwards, I wondered if I could have used * in place of the usernames, filtered all user Caches with one entry. Would that work?
|
|
alch
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Nov 2005 |
Posts: 0 |
|
|
 |
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 10:38 pm |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
you can use any regular expression enclosed in <>
|
|
greenknight
Joined: 18 Jan 2007 |
Posts: 0 |
Location: In the shadow of Mount St. Helens |
|
 |
Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 8:53 am |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
Thought so, too bad I didn't think of using a wildcard there before I entered 4 individual filters. Oh. well...
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
Design by phpBBStyles.com | Styles Database.
Content © ClamWin Free Antivirus GNU GPL Free Software Open Source Virus Scanner. Free Windows Antivirus. Stay Virus Free with Free Software.
|  |