Resource Kit = Spyware?

I guess it is.

I have installed the beta app, and just ran a scan.
According to the scan, the instsrv.exe is a high risk app
that needs to be quarantined. I think the software shuold
have recognized this software for what it is: A part of the
resourceKit Pro, and downgraded the threat to low (And
suggest ignore instead of quarantine).

Other than that, The installation whent without problems on
my WinXP2 Computer.

Running the scan did render my computer useless for
10minutes+, as it hogged all the CPU it could.
The program also triggered a CPU util. from my anti-virus
software (F-secure AV Client sec v5.54). Disabeling the AV
before running a scan reduced the time it took, but it
still monopolized my CPU.

I beleive that if this software should be concidered
"useful" in "everyday life", the use of CPU should be
concidered. As a tweaking option maybe? A choice between an
agressive scan (as it is today), or a passive scan (that
would not monpolize the cpu, would take longer time but
would make your computer "useful" while scanning.

Lasse N. Wedø

> "LNW" <lnw@idcomnet.no> wrote in message
> news:073201c4f3c6$6efd6170$a401280a@phx.gbl...
>
> Running the scan did render my computer useless
> for 10minutes+, as it hogged all the CPU it could.



Funny, my computer remained responsive throughout,
even with VirusScan Enterprise v8 enabled.

P4 2.66ghz with 1gb RAM running Windows XP SP2.


--
AZC

It is using no more than 11% on my PC.
A P4 2.8 with 1Gb of RAM

Regards
Mark Dormer

>-----Original Message-----
>I guess it is.
>
>I have installed the beta app, and just ran a scan.
>According to the scan, the instsrv.exe is a high risk app
>that needs to be quarantined. I think the software shuold
>have recognized this software for what it is: A part of
the
>resourceKit Pro, and downgraded the threat to low (And
>suggest ignore instead of quarantine).
>
>Other than that, The installation whent without problems
on
>my WinXP2 Computer.
>
>Running the scan did render my computer useless for
>10minutes+, as it hogged all the CPU it could.
>The program also triggered a CPU util. from my anti-virus
>software (F-secure AV Client sec v5.54). Disabeling the
AV
>before running a scan reduced the time it took, but it
>still monopolized my CPU.
>
>I beleive that if this software should be concidered
>"useful" in "everyday life", the use of CPU should be
>concidered. As a tweaking option maybe? A choice between
an
>agressive scan (as it is today), or a passive scan (that
>would not monpolize the cpu, would take longer time but
>would make your computer "useful" while scanning.
>
>Lasse N. Wedø
>.
>

I run this app on my com without problem. CPU uses abt
15% (AMD 64 3000+)
>-----Original Message-----
>I guess it is.
>
>I have installed the beta app, and just ran a scan.
>According to the scan, the instsrv.exe is a high risk
app
>that needs to be quarantined. I think the software
shuold
>have recognized this software for what it is: A part of
the
>resourceKit Pro, and downgraded the threat to low (And
>suggest ignore instead of quarantine).
>
>Other than that, The installation whent without problems
on
>my WinXP2 Computer.
>
>Running the scan did render my computer useless for
>10minutes+, as it hogged all the CPU it could.
>The program also triggered a CPU util. from my anti-
virus
>software (F-secure AV Client sec v5.54). Disabeling the
AV
>before running a scan reduced the time it took, but it
>still monopolized my CPU.
>
>I beleive that if this software should be concidered
>"useful" in "everyday life", the use of CPU should be
>concidered. As a tweaking option maybe? A choice between
an
>agressive scan (as it is today), or a passive scan (that
>would not monpolize the cpu, would take longer time but
>would make your computer "useful" while scanning.
>
>Lasse N. Wedø
>.
>

I have now run two more scans.
First a scan where I have disabled my anti Virus.

>-----Original Message-----
>> "LNW" <lnw@idcomnet.no> wrote in message
>> news:073201c4f3c6$6efd6170$a401280a@phx.gbl...
>>
>> Running the scan did render my computer useless
>> for 10minutes+, as it hogged all the CPU it could.
>
>
>
>Funny, my computer remained responsive throughout,
>even with VirusScan Enterprise v8 enabled.
>
>P4 2.66ghz with 1gb RAM running Windows XP SP2.
>
>
>--
>AZC
>
>
>.
>

Sorry about last post. Something happened....

As I tried to say:
I have run two more scans.
First with my Antivirus disabled.
- During this scan, the computer remained responsive. But
it did at times (when scanning large files, and accessing
registry) use 99% of CPU. This happened 3 times during
scan, and lasted 5-10 seconds.
Throughout the rest of the scan, cpu varied between 15% and
60%. All within acceptable limits

Second run, I reactivated the AntiVirus.
And clearly, the CPU whent back to 100% for most of the
scanning period. The F-secure AntiVirus seems to be causing
the problems, but it is the antiSpyware program that
registrers with high cpu usage.

My Computer has the following HW:
P4 2.4 Ghz, 448MB RAM. (A Compaq EvoN1020v Laptop)

Lasse N. Wedø

I had the same issue with instsrv.exe. It also detected
Dameware as a high threat level but it is correctly
identified as "commercial software" the default was
"ignore". While there are many of MS apps I'd like to
quarantine, the resource kit is not one of them.



>-----Original Message-----
>I guess it is.
>
>I have installed the beta app, and just ran a scan.
>According to the scan, the instsrv.exe is a high risk app
>that needs to be quarantined. I think the software shuold
>have recognized this software for what it is: A part of the
>resourceKit Pro, and downgraded the threat to low (And
>suggest ignore instead of quarantine).
>
>Other than that, The installation whent without problems on
>my WinXP2 Computer.
>
>Running the scan did render my computer useless for
>10minutes+, as it hogged all the CPU it could.
>The program also triggered a CPU util. from my anti-virus
>software (F-secure AV Client sec v5.54). Disabeling the AV
>before running a scan reduced the time it took, but it
>still monopolized my CPU.
>
>I beleive that if this software should be concidered
>"useful" in "everyday life", the use of CPU should be
>concidered. As a tweaking option maybe? A choice between an
>agressive scan (as it is today), or a passive scan (that
>would not monpolize the cpu, would take longer time but
>would make your computer "useful" while scanning.
>
>Lasse N. Wedø
>.
>

I, too, am running McAfee VirusScan Enterprise v8 and saw only a slight
increase in CPU usage while running a deep AntiSpyware scan with VirusScan
OnDemand Scan on vs. with it off.



"Andrew Z Carpenter" <azc@cirencester.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:OpKFt988EHA.2280@CPMSFTNGSA04.privatenews.microsoft.com...
>> "LNW" <lnw@idcomnet.no> wrote in message
>> news:073201c4f3c6$6efd6170$a401280a@phx.gbl...
>>
>> Running the scan did render my computer useless
>> for 10minutes+, as it hogged all the CPU it could.
>
>
>
> Funny, my computer remained responsive throughout,
> even with VirusScan Enterprise v8 enabled.
>
> P4 2.66ghz with 1gb RAM running Windows XP SP2.
>
>
> --
> AZC
>