My JPG-SCAN program

[Art]

Version 7/7/06 now up at my web site has several
improvements over prior versions. Some improvements
are cosmetic, one minor bug was fixed, and the scan
speed was again improved. The ZIP file now contains
a README.TXT containing additional info.

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

 

[Art]

Art, hola

Good work amigo. You've shaved another 12secs off 15180 .jpg over 1043
folders.

Thanks

What total scan time are you getting? Would you mind posting your
machine specs ... cpu type and clock speed, amount of RAM, hard
drive RPM if known? I'm very curious to compare your situation with
a large # of JPGs to my situation with less than 400 of them.

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

 

[ellis_jay]

Version 7/7/06 now up at my web site has several
improvements over prior versions. Some improvements
are cosmetic, one minor bug was fixed, and the scan
speed was again improved. The ZIP file now contains
a README.TXT containing additional info.

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

Nice utility.. Faster than Diamonds...........

--

Let the unseen day be. Today is more than enough.

___Sador the carpenter to Turin
Tolkien, The Unfinished Tales

Ellis_Jay

 

[oldfart]

What total scan time are you getting? Would you mind posting your
machine specs ... cpu type and clock speed, amount of RAM, hard
drive RPM if known? I'm very curious to compare your situation with
a large # of JPGs to my situation with less than 400 of them.

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

I just scanned 3386 dir's which contained 5,803 jpg in 1.58 minutes
on my laptop,
1.6gig celeron m with 256 meg ram, windows xp home, service pack 2, all
patches and updates, 80 gig hard drive don't know the rpm of it, could be
5200rpm???
regards
Owen
oldfart.

 

[Art]

I just scanned 3386 dir's which contained 5,803 jpg in 1.58 minutes
on my laptop,
1.6gig celeron m with 256 meg ram, windows xp home, service pack 2, all
patches and updates, 80 gig hard drive don't know the rpm of it, could be
5200rpm???

Thanks for the info, Owen. We are using similar machines. Mine is a
1.6 ghz AMD Duron with 256 RAM. However, I have only about 1350
directories and 400 JPGs, and my total scan times are well under a
half minute. Oddly enough, I'm seeing much faster scan speeds on my
FAT32 drive than on my NTFS drive, and they are practically file
clones of each other. Yet even the slower NTFS drive scans in about 28
seconds. The NTFS cloned drive may be a slower drive ... I haven't
checked.

BTW, I've just put up a neutered frog image people can use to verify
that my scanner is working correctly. Malicious code was removed but
there is enough of a signature that my scanner alerts. Just right
click on the little goofy froggie and your browser should give you a
option to Save him The image is the same as in all the different
samples I have of this particular series of Trojanized images.

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

 

[ms]

Version 7/7/06 now up at my web site has several
improvements over prior versions. Some improvements
are cosmetic, one minor bug was fixed, and the scan
speed was again improved. The ZIP file now contains
a README.TXT containing additional info.

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

Art, had a odd one on my ME computer, got some error message about a file
problem, stopped JPG-SCAN. It was a few days ago, sorry I can't be more
definitive. I have basically the same jpg files on both computers, nothing
unusual.

In W2K, it works fine.

Any idea why a problem in ME?

Mike Sa

 

[Renan]

I just scanned 3386 dir's which contained 5,803 jpg in 1.58 minutes
on my laptop,
1.6gig celeron m with 256 meg ram, windows xp home, service pack 2, all
patches and updates, 80 gig hard drive don't know the rpm of it, could be
5200rpm???

If it's a laptop, most likely it is 4200 or 5400rpm.

 

[Art]

Art, had a odd one on my ME computer, got some error message about a file
problem, stopped JPG-SCAN. It was a few days ago, sorry I can't be more
definitive. I have basically the same jpg files on both computers, nothing
unusual.

In W2K, it works fine.

Any idea why a problem in ME?

Mike, I did find and fix a problem due to a oversight on my part which
caused my program to crash when folder names are 3 characters or
less. It has nothing to do with any differences between the Win 9X/ME
series and the NT based series. Please try the 7/9/06 version up now
at my web site and let me know if it works for you on Win ME.

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

 

[Sheldon]

Version 7/7/06 now up at my web site has several improvements over
prior versions. Some improvements are cosmetic, one minor bug was
fixed, and the scan speed was again improved. The ZIP file now
contains a README.TXT containing additional info.

Many thanks,Art - I have saved the file
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg/index.html
to my I:\Sources directory.

With regard to JPG-SCAN, I like it. Detected the frog just fine.

I will try to paste the C:\DOSPROGS\UTIL\VIRUS\JPG-SCAN.RPT

SCAN TIME = 1 Seconds
ERRORS = 0
FROG TROJANS DETECTED = 0
*.JPG FILES SCANNED = 216
FOLDERS SEARCHED = 117 of 117

Press any key
JPG-SCAN 7/9/06

That was my E: partition, I think - about 8Gb.

Win98SE, 256Mb, two HDs: 80 and 20 Gb.
AMD K6-2, 450MHz

 

[Art]

Many thanks,Art - I have saved the file
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg/index.html
to my I:\Sources directory.

With regard to JPG-SCAN, I like it. Detected the frog just fine.

I will try to paste the C:\DOSPROGS\UTIL\VIRUS\JPG-SCAN.RPT

SCAN TIME = 1 Seconds
ERRORS = 0
FROG TROJANS DETECTED = 0
*.JPG FILES SCANNED = 216
FOLDERS SEARCHED = 117 of 117

Press any key
JPG-SCAN 7/9/06

That was my E: partition, I think - about 8Gb.

Win98SE, 256Mb, two HDs: 80 and 20 Gb.
AMD K6-2, 450MHz

Thanks for the feedback. Version 7/9/06 that I put up last
evening has another bug fix over and above the one I
mentioned to Mike. All seems to be well now on my test
machines including Win 2K and Win ME.

A little bit of additional info. It turns out that Kaspersky
suddenly started to alert on one of the samples ... one
named web.jpg. I had KAV 6 active realtime while doing
some testing of my program, and it intercepted and
interfered with my program as it was scanning web.jpg.
The result was that my program recorded a error and
just kept on going ok. I was glad to see that my error
detection worked as it should.

But I mention this primarily because there are a very
few antivirus and antimalware products that do detect
one or more of these various Froggies. Norton (Symantec)
av went whole hog and it alerts on all of them. So if
a user happens to be running my scanner while NAV
is active realtime, I would expect a conflict similar
to what I saw with KAV. That's why I suggest disabling
realtime scanners while running JPG-SCAN.

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

Art

 

[David Cox]

Version 7/7/06 now up at my web site has several
improvements over prior versions. Some improvements
are cosmetic, one minor bug was fixed, and the scan
speed was again improved. The ZIP file now contains
a README.TXT containing additional info.

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

Hi Art, Dave here. I scanned my C drive, found the neutered frog in temp.
internet files.

My info for you.

Scan time: 58 seconds (on the second run), 2 minutes and 17 seconds on
first run.

Frogs detected: 1
jpegs scanned: 2533
Directories scanned: 4228

System info:
Compaq Presario
Intel Celeron, 697 MHz, 512 MB ram
25.2 GB Western Digital hard drive, most likely 5200-5400RPM
NTFS file system

WindowsXP, Service Pack 2, all updates and upgrades.

Thanks again

 

[Art]

Hi Art, Dave here. I scanned my C drive, found the neutered frog in temp.
internet files.

My info for you.

Scan time: 58 seconds (on the second run), 2 minutes and 17 seconds on
first run.

Frogs detected: 1
jpegs scanned: 2533
Directories scanned: 4228

System info:
Compaq Presario
Intel Celeron, 697 MHz, 512 MB ram
25.2 GB Western Digital hard drive, most likely 5200-5400RPM
NTFS file system

WindowsXP, Service Pack 2, all updates and upgrades.

Thanks again

Thank you for the info!!

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

 

[ms]

Mike, I did find and fix a problem due to a oversight on my part which
caused my program to crash when folder names are 3 characters or
less. It has nothing to do with any differences between the Win 9X/ME
series and the NT based series. Please try the 7/9/06 version up now
at my web site and let me know if it works for you on Win ME.

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

Art, the latest version works fine in ME, also in W2K, detected frog, not
try in ME.

ME: 700 MHZ, C, no partitions, 18 GB hard drive, scanned in about 3
seconds.

W2K, 2.5 GHZ, D partition 20 GB, scanned in about 3 seconds or maybe
less.

BTW, thanks for the excellent W2K data on your site.

HTH

Mike Sa

 

[Art]

Art, the latest version works fine in ME, also in W2K, detected frog, not
try in ME.

ME: 700 MHZ, C, no partitions, 18 GB hard drive, scanned in about 3
seconds.

W2K, 2.5 GHZ, D partition 20 GB, scanned in about 3 seconds or maybe
less.

Thanks for letting me know, Mike.

BTW, thanks for the excellent W2K data on your site.

Glad you find it helpful.

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