f-prot for dos not scanning program files dir

[Noaddress]

Has something wormed into my system

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

windows xp sp2.

 

[null]

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.


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

 

[SpecialAKA]

F-Prot for DOS is not specified for use on NT based OS. Use the
Windows version of F-prot instead.


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

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...

 

[null]

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.


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

 

[Frederic Bonroy]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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

 

[null]

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.

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.

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?
And have you tried KAVDOS32? And McAfee's SCAN? How do they do on your
FAT 32 Win 2K box?


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

 

[Bart Bailey]

I believe you can opt to use
FAT 32 on XP

That's how my XP box is setup,
allows me to use same utes as all other machines.

 

[Bart Bailey]

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.

Do you still have the context menu "Scan with F-Prot"
for demand scan under win2k, and if so,
what does it do when pointed at those overlooked files?

 

[Zvi Netiv]

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

 

[Zvi Netiv]

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

 

[Frederic Bonroy]

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]

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.

 

[null]

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.

Official or not, they're both readily available and I know they're
both being freely used. Kaspersky doesn't support KAVDOS32. You'd have
to be crazy to pay for it, assuming you could find a way to pay for it
in the first place.


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

 

[Frederic Bonroy]

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".

 

[me]

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

FWIW, F-Prot DOS cannot scan directories with long names (over
66) even on earlier windozes, e.g., W95.

J

 

[Bart Bailey]

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

REGEDIT4

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Classes\Drive\shell\F-Prot]
@="Scan with F-Prot"

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Classes\Drive\shell\F-Prot\command]
@="c:\\Program Files\\F-Prot\\F-Prot.exe /ARCHIVE /PACKED /DUMB
/Report=C:\\Windows\\Desktop\\f-prot.txt \"%1\""

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Classes\Directory\shell\F-Prot]
@="Scan with F-Prot"

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Classes\Directory\shell\F-Prot\command]
@="c:\\Program Files\\F-Prot\\F-Prot.exe /ARCHIVE /PACKED /DUMB
/Report=C:\\Windows\\Desktop\\f-prot.txt \"%1\""

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Classes\*\shell\F-Prot]
@="Scan with F-Prot"

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Classes\*\shell\F-Prot\command]
@="c:\\Program Files\\F-Prot\\F-Prot.exe /ARCHIVE /PACKED /DUMB
/Report=C:\\Windows\\Desktop\\f-prot.txt \"%1\""

*note this registry entry invokes the command switches above from a
context entry and pipes a report to the desktop, you can delete or
modify parameters as you wish.

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.

I was curious if certain files that were overlooked due to the OS
bypassing them during a general scan could be manually scanned
individually regardless of their location.

 

[Zvi Netiv]

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