f-prot for dos not scanning program files dir

Noaddress · External Since: Oct 31, 2004 Posts: 1

Has something wormed into my system

f-prot refuses to scan program file or windows or any subdirectories
off those directories.

windows xp sp2.

Frederic Bonroy · External Since: Jun 17, 2004 Posts: 246

null RemoveThis @zilch.com wrote:

> It's not LFNs, as such, that's the problem. It's the differences in
> naming specifications with NT versus FAT. I believe you can opt to use
> FAT 32 on XP in which case F-Prot for DOS would be ok to use.

No. Unless there are differences in this regard between Windows 2000 and
XP, FAT32 won't help. On this Windows 2000/FAT32 computer, F-Prot for
DOS will not scan all files. In fact, the number of files it claims to
have scanned is considerably inferior to the number of files it scans
under Windows 98 on the same computer. Scary. Smile

Though F-Prot for DOS is still useful for minimalist usage. If you can't
stand the pungent stench of bloat that modern Windows AV programs give
off, then you can use it to manually scan incoming files. It will do
that just fine.
As far as I am concerned, despite its limitations, I still find the DOS
version far more useful than the unhandy, clumsy native Windows scanners.

SpecialAKA · External Since: Oct 31, 2004 Posts: 2

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 00:08:18 +0100, Frederic Bonroy
<bidonavirus.DeleteThis@yahoo.fr> wrote:

>null@zilch.com wrote:
>
>> It's not LFNs, as such, that's the problem. It's the differences in
>> naming specifications with NT versus FAT. I believe you can opt to use
>> FAT 32 on XP in which case F-Prot for DOS would be ok to use.
>
>No. Unless there are differences in this regard between Windows 2000 and
>XP, FAT32 won't help. On this Windows 2000/FAT32 computer, F-Prot for
>DOS will not scan all files. In fact, the number of files it claims to
>have scanned is considerably inferior to the number of files it scans
>under Windows 98 on the same computer. Scary. Smile

>
>Though F-Prot for DOS is still useful for minimalist usage. If you can't
>stand the pungent stench of bloat that modern Windows AV programs give
>off, then you can use it to manually scan incoming files. It will do
>that just fine.
>As far as I am concerned, despite its limitations, I still find the DOS
>version far more useful than the unhandy, clumsy native Windows scanners.

yeah, echo that, that was why I was using dos scanner under me...

but need one that will do all files periodically.... but not have a
mem resident component.

I'll have to do some surfing for others...

there is a sourceforge or gnu scanner project I'll check that I think.

Shane · External Since: Feb 08, 2004 Posts: 177

"Frederic Bonroy" <bidonavirus.DeleteThis@yahoo.fr> wrote in message
news:2ul9i2F2c2oofU1@uni-berlin.de...
> null.DeleteThis@zilch.com wrote:
>
> > It's not LFNs, as such, that's the problem. It's the differences in
> > naming specifications with NT versus FAT. I believe you can opt to use
> > FAT 32 on XP in which case F-Prot for DOS would be ok to use.
>
> No. Unless there are differences in this regard between Windows 2000 and
> XP, FAT32 won't help. On this Windows 2000/FAT32 computer, F-Prot for
> DOS will not scan all files. In fact, the number of files it claims to
> have scanned is considerably inferior to the number of files it scans
> under Windows 98 on the same computer. Scary. Smile

>
> Though F-Prot for DOS is still useful for minimalist usage. If you can't
> stand the pungent stench of bloat that modern Windows AV programs give
> off, then you can use it to manually scan incoming files. It will do
> that just fine.
> As far as I am concerned, despite its limitations, I still find the DOS
> version far more useful than the unhandy, clumsy native Windows scanners.

Of course, if using FAT32, you can install a same-partition DOS dual boot
and run DOS scanners from there.

Shane

Zvi Netiv · External Since: May 01, 2005 Posts: 170

null.TakeThisOut@zilch.com wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 19:20:58 GMT, Noaddress.TakeThisOut@noaddess.noaddress wrote:
>
> >Has something wormed into my system
> >
> >f-prot refuses to scan program file or windows or any subdirectories
> >off those directories.
> >
> >windows xp sp2.
>
> F-Prot for DOS is not specified for use on NT based OS. Use the
> Windows version of F-prot instead.

Correction: F-Prot for DOS is not specified for use *UNDER* NT based OS.

The problem isn't the file system but the DOS emulation provided by the running
OS.

Regards
--
NetZ Computing Ltd. ISRAEL www.invircible.com www.ivi.co.il (Hebrew)
InVircible Virus Defense Solutions, ResQ and Data Recovery Utilities

Zvi Netiv · External Since: May 01, 2005 Posts: 170

null.TakeThisOut@zilch.com wrote:

> >>>f-prot refuses to scan program file or windows or any subdirectories
> >>>off those directories.
> >>>
> >>>windows xp sp2.
> >>
> >>F-Prot for DOS is not specified for use on NT based OS. Use the
> >>Windows version of F-prot instead.
> >>
> >could be what the problem is, but it works ok in dos window in win me,
> >so shouldnt it work in dos window in win xp, after all isnt it just
> >doing findfirst and findnext function calls from dos...
> >
> >ah... maybe thats problem, long file name being returned in what used
> >to be shortname field.... or similar...
>
> It's not LFNs, as such, that's the problem. It's the differences in
> naming specifications with NT versus FAT. I believe you can opt to use
> FAT 32 on XP in which case F-Prot for DOS would be ok to use.

It won't be OK. F-Prot for DOS exhibits the same behavior (it misses and
doesn't scan all directories) under NT based OS, whether on NTFS or FAT/FAT-32.

The governing factor if it will scan all directories is the OS, not the file
system.

Regards
--
NetZ Computing Ltd. ISRAEL www.invircible.com www.ivi.co.il (Hebrew)
InVircible Virus Defense Solutions, ResQ and Data Recovery Utilities

Frederic Bonroy · External Since: Jun 17, 2004 Posts: 246

null.TakeThisOut@zilch.com wrote:

> I'd not be satisfied if my DOS scanner(s) couldn't be relied upon to
> scan all files and folders. What do you use as checks before backup?

I don't do checks before backups. I scan all incoming files. Sometimes I
use weird system behavior as a paranoid pretext for doing a full scan.
In such a case I could simply boot to Windows 98 or DOS which I also
have on this computer.

> And have you tried KAVDOS32? And McAfee's SCAN?

They are not officially free, are they? I think I have McAfee's Win32
command line version lying around somewhere. There should be problems
with that.

Frederic Bonroy · External Since: Jun 17, 2004 Posts: 246

Bart Bailey wrote:

> Do you still have the context menu "Scan with F-Prot"
> for demand scan under win2k, and if so,

I've never had such a context menu item, or I have forgotten about it...

> what does it do when pointed at those overlooked files?

I would have to find out which ones it overlooked, by comparing its
report file with a directory listing. I will do this on a dreary sunday. Smile

me · External Since: Dec 27, 2004 Posts: 201

This message is not archived

Frederic Bonroy · External Since: Jun 17, 2004 Posts: 246

I wrote:

> They are not officially free, are they? I think I have McAfee's Win32
> command line version lying around somewhere. There should be problems
> with that.

Oops, make that "there should be NO problems with that".

Zvi Netiv · External Since: May 01, 2005 Posts: 170

me.DeleteThis@tadyatam.invalid wrote:
> Zvi Netiv <support.DeleteThis@replace_with_domain.com> wrote in

> > It won't be OK. F-Prot for DOS exhibits the same behavior
> > (it misses and doesn't scan all directories) under NT based
> > OS, whether on NTFS or FAT/FAT-32.
> >
> > The governing factor if it will scan all directories is the
> > OS, not the file system.
>
> FWIW, F-Prot DOS cannot scan directories with long names (over
> 66) even on earlier windozes, e.g., W95.

You are confusing long filenames and the maximum length of the DOS path string
(67 bytes). Like all DOS applications, F-Prot too handles file and directory
names by their DOS short form. To scan the "Program Files" directory and its
sub-directories you need to instruct it F-PROT [d:]\PROGRA~1

The max path string length is a totally different limitation of DOS programs,
that prevents them from going to deeper directory levels that require more than
67 characters to specify their short form path (i.e. "\Program Files" directory
requires only nine characters in the path string, as \PROGRA~1).

Regards, Zvi
--
NetZ Computing Ltd. ISRAEL www.invircible.com www.ivi.co.il (Hebrew)
InVircible Virus Defense Solutions, ResQ and Data Recovery Utilities