On-Line Virus Scan Problem

[Marcus]

I do several on-line virus scans. Symantec, Trend, Bit-Defender and RAV all
work well and complete the scan without a hitch. But Panda and Mcafee seem
to complete the scan and then cause an Illegal Operation message and shut
down "Explorer." (I'm not sure if it's Windows Explorer or IE).

I get this message with Panda:

MAPISP32 caused an invalid page fault in
module KERNEL32.DLL at 0167:bff7b9a6.
Registers:
EAX=00000000 CS=0167 EIP=bff7b9a6 EFLGS=00000246
EBX=00000000 SS=016f ESP=0063f8cc EBP=0063fab4
ECX=ea290910 DS=016f ESI=0063fd58 FS=358f
EDX=bffc9490 ES=016f EDI=0063fd58 GS=0000
Bytes at CS:EIP:
ff 76 04 e8 13 89 ff ff 5e c2 04 00 56 8b 74 24
Stack dump:
0063fb10 7ea52593 0063fd58 8b7b7034 0063fb10 7ea52484 0063fb10 8b7b7034
8b7b7234 8b7b7234 7ea47881 0063fb10 bff84a5f 0063fb10 00000000 00000000.

Even if I temporarily delete MAPISP32 it still does the same thing with
"explorer."

Any clues as to why these two on-line scans have this problem at the end of
the scan?

Thanks,

Marcs

 

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Marcus" <[email protected]>

| I do several on-line virus scans. Symantec, Trend, Bit-Defender and RAV all
| work well and complete the scan without a hitch. But Panda and Mcafee seem
| to complete the scan and then cause an Illegal Operation message and shut
| down "Explorer." (I'm not sure if it's Windows Explorer or IE).
|
| I get this message with Panda:
|
| MAPISP32 caused an invalid page fault in
| module KERNEL32.DLL at 0167:bff7b9a6.
| Registers:
| EAX=00000000 CS=0167 EIP=bff7b9a6 EFLGS=00000246
| EBX=00000000 SS=016f ESP=0063f8cc EBP=0063fab4
| ECX=ea290910 DS=016f ESI=0063fd58 FS=358f
| EDX=bffc9490 ES=016f EDI=0063fd58 GS=0000
| Bytes at CS:EIP:
| ff 76 04 e8 13 89 ff ff 5e c2 04 00 56 8b 74 24
| Stack dump:
| 0063fb10 7ea52593 0063fd58 8b7b7034 0063fb10 7ea52484 0063fb10 8b7b7034
| 8b7b7234 8b7b7234 7ea47881 0063fb10 bff84a5f 0063fb10 00000000 00000000.
|
| Even if I temporarily delete MAPISP32 it still does the same thing with
| "explorer."
|
| Any clues as to why these two on-line scans have this problem at the end of
| the scan?
|
| Thanks,
|
| Marcs
|

Sounds like a mix-matched DLL file version problem in the DLL dependency chain.