F-Prot for Dos not scanning all files

Art · External Since: Aug 13, 2006 Posts: 437

On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 12:04:05 +0100, "Shane" <shanebeatson.RemoveThis@gmail.com>
wrote:

>See #top!

??? What am I missing?

Art
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

Art · External Since: Aug 13, 2006 Posts: 437

On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 08:21:01 -0400, Clay
<one.step.closer.RemoveThis@intentionally.invalid> wrote:

>Hi Art,
>I'll certainly "speak up" in your behalf. But I totally agree with the
>OP and "his" reluctance to download and run software from a stranger.

Sure. I suppose this seems so obvious to me that I didn't feel
compelled at all to say to the OP "Good you're practicing safe
hex" or something like that.

BTW, good to hear from a voice in the wilderness. Don't hear
anything at all from you any more. In fact, now that I think of it,
you never responded to a email I sent to you not too long ago.

Art
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

Clay · External Since: Mar 07, 2004 Posts: 54

On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 13:08:13 GMT, Art <null.RemoveThis@zilch.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 08:21:01 -0400, Clay
><one.step.closer.RemoveThis@intentionally.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>Hi Art,
>>I'll certainly "speak up" in your behalf. But I totally agree with the
>>OP and "his" reluctance to download and run software from a stranger.
>
>Sure. I suppose this seems so obvious to me that I didn't feel
>compelled at all to say to the OP "Good you're practicing safe
>hex" or something like that.

Honestly, I feel that anyone that is truly practicing safe hex
deserves a pat on the back (or equivalent). Many "say" they do, but
really don't always. I don't know, maybe it's because some like to
pick and choose their safe computing criteria/practices rather than
really being serious about it. Lack of education? Laziness? Apathy?
Whatever, it was good to see some proper paranoia. Smile

>BTW, good to hear from a voice in the wilderness. Don't hear

Yeah, too busy to post mostly. Barely making time time to read acv
these days.

>anything at all from you any more. In fact, now that I think of it,
>you never responded to a email I sent to you not too long ago.

I got it. I thought it was just an "FYI" thing. Now I feel bad that I
didn't reply as usual. My bad. I do hope all is well with you and Peg.

--
Clay mania dot com

Art · External Since: Aug 13, 2006 Posts: 437

On 12 Jun 2006 05:59:52 -0700, "Hugo Trebl" <singalong.DeleteThis@dodgeit.com>
wrote:

>Art wrote:
>> On 10 Jun 2006 18:29:33 -0700, "Hugo Trebl" <singalong.DeleteThis@dodgeit.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >I'm worried that it might miss something that is not obvious at first
>> >glance.
>> >I doubt that it can scan the new rar format without an engine update
>> >for example.
>>
>> I just downloaded a trial of the DOS version of Winrar. It's Version
>> 3.60 Beta 4. I compressed a RAR archive of files using it. KAVDOS32
>> had no problem scanning all the files "within" the RAR archive.
>
>I stand corrected.

No problem.

>As for the other thread, I did find another version of kavdos32 and
>compared the exe and dll, and it did not show any suspicious behaviour
>in vmware, so I'll have no choice but to trust you from now on Smile

At least you managed to trigger some discussion on a truly difficult
problem .... that of what and whom to trust. Seems it's getting
worse all the time, what with all the rogue antispyware/adware
apps proliferating nowdays.

>I made a simple batch file for the %username%\sendTo folder for win
>2000/XP, in case anyone is interested:
>
>@echo off
>:LOOP
>for %%a in (%1) do c:\tools\kavdosnt\kavdos32 /* /a- /u- /MD- /MP- /b
>/p /m %%~fsa & pause
>SHIFT
>IF '%1' == '' GOTO END
>GOTO LOOP
>:END

I see no malicious code in that Smile

Art
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

Shane · External Since: Sep 13, 2005 Posts: 108

Art wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 12:04:05 +0100, "Shane" <shanebeatson.DeleteThis@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> See #top!
>
> ??? What am I missing?
>

Just back to where I came in, Art, that I decided against spoon-feeding,
too!

You know, I guess I feel that if someone's opinion is worth anything,
they'll find that stuff themselves, and if they don't, that's how you find
out their opinion isn't worth anything.

Shane

Art · External Since: Aug 13, 2006 Posts: 437

On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 12:45:26 -0400, Clay
<one.step.closer.RemoveThis@intentionally.invalid> wrote:

>>BTW, good to hear from a voice in the wilderness. Don't hear
>
>Yeah, too busy to post mostly. Barely making time time to read acv
>these days.
>
>>anything at all from you any more. In fact, now that I think of it,
>>you never responded to a email I sent to you not too long ago.
>
>I got it. I thought it was just an "FYI" thing. Now I feel bad that I
>didn't reply as usual. My bad. I do hope all is well with you and Peg.

We're doing fine, thanks. I mentioned the email because it did
contain a question, perhaps just implied. But never mind that
right now. I'll get to you later on the subject since some testing
is going on.

Art
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

* * Chas · External Since: Aug 27, 2005 Posts: 178

"Art" <null DeleteThis @zilch.com> wrote in message
news:60km82l4nkamjman9d20ug8ftuhfkpvk6l@4ax.com...
> On 10 Jun 2006 15:05:43 -0700, "Hugo Trebl" <singalong DeleteThis @dodgeit.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Art wrote:
> >> No, only a far better alternative. See my web site for my KAVDOS32
> >> utilities.
>
> >Thanks, it looks promising
> >However, don't take this personally, but I usually hesitate to run
> >executables from strangers, even after scanning them.
>
> Well, that proves you're a newby here Smile

I've been one of the strongly
> anti-virus/malware posters here for many years.
>
> >I already have unzip and wget, and I dont need askme.exe if i modify
> >the batch file , but I cannot find an official source for
kavdos32.exe.
> >Kaspersky Lab does not seem to offer it.
>
> It hasn't been available for sale anywhere I could find for quite some
> time.
>
> >Could you tell me an official
> >source or a way to obtain a checksum for it?
>
> No. I found build 135 in a KAVDOS32.RAR package somewhere on
> the internet. Google them up. You'll likely find they're all the same,
> for what that's worth .... which is nothing.
>
> >Also, are there any recent reviews available for this scanner?
>
> I highly doubt that. My own tests using varioous kinds of malware
> always showed that KAVDOS32 compares identically in detection to
> recent Windows versions of KAV. Much of the detection capability is in
> the data bases you update. KAV is much better than F-Fprot in several
> respects. I've quit offering F-Prot for DOS updaters/emergency disks,
> etc. since KAVDOS32 is so much better.
>
> Art
> http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

I'm still using F-Prot DOS on my Win98 systems but it has limitations
when checking NT based OSs like Win2k and XP.

I've been running KAVDOS32 and it seems pretty good. I think that this
is still a need for DOS based scanners for some viruses.

Hugo needs to do a Google Groups and check out your profile....

Your patience is commendable.

BTW, how does KAVDOS32 work with XP NTSF?

Chas.

Art · External Since: Aug 13, 2006 Posts: 437

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 20:17:59 -0700, "* * Chas" <dnafutz DeleteThis @aol.spam.com>
wrote:

>I'm still using F-Prot DOS on my Win98 systems but it has limitations
>when checking NT based OSs like Win2k and XP.

KAVDOS32 is more effective for Win 9x/ME as well as the NT
based OS.

>I've been running KAVDOS32 and it seems pretty good. I think that this
>is still a need for DOS based scanners for some viruses.

Indeed.

>Hugo needs to do a Google Groups and check out your profile....
>
>Your patience is commendable.

I have no problem when someone who doesn't know me
questions my integrity with good reason. Actually, I find
the irony of it rather amusing. I used to be accused of
going way overboard with my ANTI-malicious code stance.

>BTW, how does KAVDOS32 work with XP NTSF?

My own testing has been on my Win 2K machines. KAVDOS32
has been finding all the folders and files OK.

BTW, I'll mention again that my K-BOOT diskette has been
undergoing testing by others and has been modified
several times recently. Due to a odd conflict of the
DOSLFNMS driver with the scanner, the driver had to
be dropped. So now subdirectories are displayed in
8.3 form rather than LFN form in my program. The
latest version at my web site should be used.

Art
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg