Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Closed TopicStart new topic
> [resolved, Won't Be Implemented] Dealing With Infection, Discussion
ONT
post Apr 8 2012, 01:00 PM
Post #1


Guru Poster
******

Group: Banned
Posts: 2,223
Joined: 11-February 10
Member No.: 31,288



What are advantages of dealing with infected files at the end of the scan rather than taking action upon finding the infection?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Christian
post Apr 8 2012, 01:13 PM
Post #2


Bitdefender Support
******

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 14,015
Joined: 27-January 08
From: BitDefender HQ
Member No.: 9,374



Hello (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

It is much more elegant to have all the results on a page and take actions for all of them instead to be prompted every few minutes by the product.

With the second option, the scan will have to stop for you to take the action making the scan time even bigger.

So, the actions page will be always at the end.

Also, if an infection is detected by the On Access and resolved, that one won't appear at the final of the scan.

Let me know if you have other questions.

Take care.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ONT
post Apr 8 2012, 01:48 PM
Post #3


Guru Poster
******

Group: Banned
Posts: 2,223
Joined: 11-February 10
Member No.: 31,288



QUOTE (Christian @ Apr 8 2012, 05:13 PM) *
Hello (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

It is much more elegant to have all the results on a page and take actions for all of them instead to be prompted every few minutes by the product.

With the second option, the scan will have to stop for you to take the action making the scan time even bigger.

So, the actions page will be always at the end.



Why the scan would prompt or stopped for taking action, if I set the actions already? This situation can be overcome by running two routines at same time, one for detection and the second for action. Although it may consume more resources but would increase the overall scan speed.


QUOTE (Christian @ Apr 8 2012, 05:13 PM) *
Hello (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Also, if an infection is detected by the On Access and resolved, that one won't appear at the final of the scan.

Take care.



In that case Bitdefender display "action failed (object was not found)", which I faced sometimes.

This post has been edited by ONT: Apr 8 2012, 01:49 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Christian
post Apr 8 2012, 02:55 PM
Post #4


Bitdefender Support
******

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 14,015
Joined: 27-January 08
From: BitDefender HQ
Member No.: 9,374



Hello (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Why would someone love to guard the scanning process when can leave it to do the job an get back later to see the results an then take action?

This is a legitimate question...

The scan can not continue if the action is user depended and you will find the scan stopped and waiting for further instructions.

Take care.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ONT
post Apr 12 2012, 08:51 PM
Post #5


Guru Poster
******

Group: Banned
Posts: 2,223
Joined: 11-February 10
Member No.: 31,288



QUOTE (Christian @ Apr 8 2012, 06:55 PM) *
Hello (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

The scan can not continue if the action is user depended and you will find the scan stopped and waiting for further instructions.

Take care.



Why the scan can not continue? I rephrase my above post that when an infection found during the scan task, the routine for taking action on the infection opens in an other window and do whatever we set the action and it remain open but in idle state (and becomes active only when another infection is found), while the scan continue in its own window without any interrupt.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
werby3
post Apr 13 2012, 02:08 AM
Post #6


Frequent Poster
***

Group: Banned
Posts: 562
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 24,433



Hello ONT

My friend, I think, you want for a very simple and fast routine to become a complicated one where one routine runs over another routine and another routine runs over another routine (if multiple infection) and so on.

"Although it may consume more resources.." what does it make you believe that "..would increase the overall scan speed"?

My Best Regards
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Christian
post Apr 13 2012, 04:15 PM
Post #7


Bitdefender Support
******

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 14,015
Joined: 27-January 08
From: BitDefender HQ
Member No.: 9,374



Hello everyone (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I have a scenario: the product prompts the user to take actions after each detection during the Full System scan, but the user is not in from of the PC. In this ideal scenario, the scan will continue and for each detection the user is prompted.

When the user returns, the scan process is finished and he will have to take actions for all the malware.

Isn't this the same thing? It is better to take all the proper actions at the end of the scan and in some cases, you can select one action and apply it to all the discovered malware.

Take care.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
werby3
post Apr 13 2012, 08:21 PM
Post #8


Frequent Poster
***

Group: Banned
Posts: 562
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 24,433



QUOTE (Christian @ Apr 13 2012, 06:15 PM) *
...but the user is not in front of the PC...

First of all this is a crime!!!
And then, what if product sending a message to mobile phone and there is the ability to select proper action via that?? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

P S: Is this a brilliant idea or what? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Peace and Happiness
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ONT
post Apr 16 2012, 04:09 PM
Post #9


Guru Poster
******

Group: Banned
Posts: 2,223
Joined: 11-February 10
Member No.: 31,288



QUOTE (werby3 @ Apr 13 2012, 06:08 AM) *
Hello ONT

My friend, I think, you want for a very simple and fast routine to become a complicated one where one routine runs over another routine and another routine runs over another routine (if multiple infection) and so on.


Kindly read my above post again.

QUOTE (Christian @ Apr 13 2012, 08:15 PM) *
Hello everyone (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I have a scenario: the product prompts the user to take actions after each detection during the Full System scan, but the user is not in from of the PC. In this ideal scenario, the scan will continue and for each detection the user is prompted.

When the user returns, the scan process is finished and he will have to take actions for all the malware.

Isn't this the same thing? It is better to take all the proper actions at the end of the scan and in some cases, you can select one action and apply it to all the discovered malware.

Take care.



I am not suggesting this scenario.....just see Eset.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
werby3
post Apr 17 2012, 01:55 AM
Post #10


Frequent Poster
***

Group: Banned
Posts: 562
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 24,433



Hello ONT,

Be sure I've carefully read your above post, although you've missed this
QUOTE
"Although it may consume more resources.." what does it make you believe that "..would increase the overall scan speed"?
from my above post.
Anyway, all I try to say is that "The best is the enemy of the good", a rule that Eset, Norton etc. seems to ignore and make our PCs running like a turtle.

Have a nice day.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ONT
post Apr 18 2012, 04:08 PM
Post #11


Guru Poster
******

Group: Banned
Posts: 2,223
Joined: 11-February 10
Member No.: 31,288



QUOTE (werby3 @ Apr 13 2012, 06:08 AM) *
Hello ONT

My friend, I think, you want for a very simple and fast routine to become a complicated one where one routine runs over another routine and another routine runs over another routine (if multiple infection) and so on.

"Although it may consume more resources.." what does it make you believe that "..would increase the overall scan speed"?

My Best Regards


What I meant was that the detection and action routines run in parallel and not like you said. And regarding your second statement, I simply gives the example of Windows Vista and Windows 7. Windows 7 consumes more resources but faster than Vista.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
werby3
post Apr 19 2012, 04:32 AM
Post #12


Frequent Poster
***

Group: Banned
Posts: 562
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 24,433



Hi ONT,

I'm not an expert but I think Vista was a completely failed system. BD is not a failed application although it needs improvement...
So, the worst must have an enemy but the good no.

My Best Regards
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ONT
post Apr 22 2012, 06:56 AM
Post #13


Guru Poster
******

Group: Banned
Posts: 2,223
Joined: 11-February 10
Member No.: 31,288



The Bitdefender holds the threat while scanning but not in a proper way, because even then the detected threats can become active and are therefore detected by RTP and thus display in the scan logs “failed to perform action (object was not found)” in the end of scan task, which happen sometimes so silently and hiddenly in the previous versions (not sure about 2012) that there was neither any pop-up appear nor indication in the logs for that threat even if they were detected by RTP. So the scan task environment can not restrict the detected threats activity and thus RTP come into play in such situations. This is the real bug of the Scan Task. In my opinion the detected threats during scan task should be kept in the environment which denies accesses to all processes and executions even to RTP.

This post has been edited by ONT: Apr 22 2012, 06:57 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
werby3
post Apr 22 2012, 01:43 PM
Post #14


Frequent Poster
***

Group: Banned
Posts: 562
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 24,433



Hi ONT,

I've not encountered such a situation till now so, if this happens, I have to agree with you about improvement at this point.
I only remember a threat (I cannot remember the type), 2 months ago, that could not be solved. Although BD deleted it, after restart, it appeared again and again so, I was forced to run "System restore" that finally solved this. I don't know if we're talking for the same thing (I'm not an expert) but I have to thank you for your info!

Have a nice week!

This post has been edited by werby3: Apr 22 2012, 01:48 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Susankool
post Apr 22 2012, 08:46 PM
Post #15


Newbie


Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 22-April 12
Member No.: 103,853



better to scan and check results later
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bms1978
post Apr 24 2012, 05:30 AM
Post #16


Newbie


Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 24-April 12
Member No.: 103,906



I agree with ONT , because while we finish full scan and we select (Take proper action) , press continue , then disinfection process starts .
Which is taking almost same or half of the time and is very irritating .

Also scan of Removable drive is very slow like .. 8 gb usb flash drive taking 1.5 hr. , after taking proper action it takes the same time again.

many times problem occurs like
1-pc hang
2-pc restarts
3-power failure

Then we have to start full scan again!!


If we select action -> disinfect or quarantine , then in we expect it to happen in any scan

So it is a gentle request to BD people, kindly make disinfection process at the time of scanning which is very convenient and hassle free.
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JAGUARS
post Apr 25 2012, 11:12 AM
Post #17


Regular Poster
**

Group: Regular Bitdefender Poster
Posts: 145
Joined: 17-April 12
Member No.: 103,593



Me agree too....that the cleaning or disinfection processes takes lot of time in 2012 version especially on the exe files.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ONT
post Apr 25 2012, 03:03 PM
Post #18


Guru Poster
******

Group: Banned
Posts: 2,223
Joined: 11-February 10
Member No.: 31,288



QUOTE (werby3 @ Apr 22 2012, 05:43 PM) *
Hi ONT,

I've not encountered such a situation till now so, if this happens, I have to agree with you about improvement at this point.
I only remember a threat (I cannot remember the type), 2 months ago, that could not be solved. Although BD deleted it, after restart, it appeared again and again so, I was forced to run "System restore" that finally solved this. I don't know if we're talking for the same thing (I'm not an expert) but I have to thank you for your info!

Have a nice week!



Read this topic for information. And what you mention later, it was the issue that the Bitdefender takes action on the virus e.g delete, but even then the same infected file was remain there. Now it is fixed. I forget the topic posted by user on this forum, but I also experienced this issue. And it is the totally different thing, not what I am discussing.

This post has been edited by ONT: Apr 25 2012, 03:04 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ONT
post Apr 26 2012, 08:04 PM
Post #19


Guru Poster
******

Group: Banned
Posts: 2,223
Joined: 11-February 10
Member No.: 31,288



Any reply on my post #13.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Christian
post Apr 28 2012, 09:30 AM
Post #20


Bitdefender Support
******

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 14,015
Joined: 27-January 08
From: BitDefender HQ
Member No.: 9,374



QUOTE (ONT @ Apr 22 2012, 08:56 AM) *
The Bitdefender holds the threat while scanning but not in a proper way, because even then the detected threats can become active and are therefore detected by RTP and thus display in the scan logs “failed to perform action (object was not found)” in the end of scan task, which happen sometimes so silently and hiddenly in the previous versions (not sure about 2012) that there was neither any pop-up appear nor indication in the logs for that threat even if they were detected by RTP. So the scan task environment can not restrict the detected threats activity and thus RTP come into play in such situations. This is the real bug of the Scan Task. In my opinion the detected threats during scan task should be kept in the environment which denies accesses to all processes and executions even to RTP.


Hi (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

The On-Access is acting normal in a standard malware-antivirus "relationship" (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

If the file is caught in memory, the action is instant, why should it wait for the On-Demand task to finish?

Malware can have different components and behavior. When it is discovered bu the On-Access module, the action is instant, as it should be.

Take care.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Closed TopicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th December 2014 - 01:39 AM