McAfee VirusScan - way to just check for DAT updates?

[=?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?=]

I use McAfee's ScanPM (protected mode DOS virus scanner) since I don't want a bloatware, memory-hogging app constantly running in the background, but updating the DAT files is annoying because I must do it manually. Is there a way to have an auto-updater check for JUST a new DAT release only? It would be nice if ScanPM did this before it scanned for virii but if I have to go with a SMALL program running in the background all the time, I may (or just have it run once every x days or something). It could just look at ftp://ftp.mcafee.com/pub/antivirus/datfiles/4.x/ and check for a new dat-####.zip file.

 

[null]

I use McAfee's ScanPM (protected mode DOS virus scanner)
since I don't want a bloatware, memory-hogging app constantly
running in the background,

I use it too, along with KAVDOS32 and F-Prot DOS

but updating the DAT files is annoying because I must do it manually.
Is there a way to have an auto-updater check for JUST a new DAT
release only?

Soytenly! My latest updater designs are based on the internet file
fetcher WGET.EXE

It would be nice if ScanPM did this before it scanned for virii but if
I have to go with a SMALL program running in the background all
the time, I may (or just have it run once every x days or something).
It could just look at
ftp://ftp.mcafee.com/pub/antivirus/datfiles/4.x/
and check for a new dat-####.zip file.

Yep. Contact me at artnpeg at epix dot net


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

 

[David H. Lipman]

Based upon my discussions with McAfee/NAI personnel, use SCAN.EXE not SCANPM.EXE.

Dave

| I use McAfee's ScanPM (protected mode DOS virus scanner) since I don't want a bloatware,
memory-hogging app constantly running in the background, but updating the DAT files is
annoying because I must do it manually. Is there a way to have an auto-updater check for
JUST a new DAT release only? It would be nice if ScanPM did this before it scanned for virii
but if I have to go with a SMALL program running in the background all the time, I may (or
just have it run once every x days or something). It could just look at
ftp://ftp.mcafee.com/pub/antivirus/datfiles/4.x/ and check for a new dat-####.zip file.
|

 

[null]

Based upon my discussions with McAfee/NAI personnel, use SCAN.EXE not SCANPM.EXE.

I once had a discussion with someone at NAI and received the same
advice. What triggered my inquiry was the result of some testing I had
done (FAT 32 and Win 9x/ME). I had created long strings of
subdirectories and found that Scanpm quit scanning after some N number
but F-Prot and KAVDOS kept right on going. I think N was about 13 or
so, I don't recall offhand.

The other limitation of Scanpm I'm aware of is it's inability to scan
email archives whereas both F-Prot and KAVDOS have such capabilities.

Since I don't personally consider either of these aspects important,
I've shrugged it off. Now, are you aware of any other
specifics/limitations/problems using Scanpm? And are you certain the
use of Scan overcomes them?


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

 

[=?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?=]

Any chance you can't just put it on your website?

 

[=?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?=]

Well, I use ScanPM because I have Win2K and I remember reading somewhere years ago that ScanPM is the one to use with Win2K. It's odd though because I checked the latest version #s of scan.exe and scanpm.exe in VirusScan 7 Pro and they're both 4.26.0 (5/16/03) while my current one from a couple years ago (perhaps VirusScan 5; 5/21/00) is 4.7.0. Go figure.

 

[null]

Any chance you can't just put it on your website?

I just put it up. Check down at the bottom of my main page.


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

 

[=?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?=]

Cool, thanks. Some suggestions, though:

Can it not automatically extract the ZIP file? I only extract 3 files, clean.dat, names.dat, and scan.dat (since they're the ones that change and are only needed for scanpm.exe to work). Then I copy them to c:\utils\, where scanpm.exe, license.dat, and messages.dat are (among other commonly used programs/DLLs/BAT files, etc--the directory is in my path). Perhaps an INI file or something with these settings--including a directory to automatically unzip specific files into? That would be spiffy.

Also, if the latest DAT ZIP is already present in mcup.exe's directory, why does it need to redownload it?

Anyway, just some suggestions; thanks again.

 

[David H. Lipman]

Correction:

Scan86.exe will NOT work under Win2K at all.

Dave

 

[David H. Lipman]

Art:

I'll have to look at some of my email to see if I have archived the answers. They full
answers elude me. All I remember is the statement that scan.exe is the command to use and
it has the best version of memory management especially under NT platforms.

Dave


| On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 22:30:58 GMT, "David H. Lipman"
|
| >Memory management and DPMI. Its all built into this mixed DOS/Win32 program.
|
| But specifically, what are the alleged problems with using scanpm?
| I've been using it for years in both "pure" DOS and in a DOS window.
| I've scanned large virus collections and my hard drives, and other
| than what I've already mentioned, I'm not aware of any problems on DOS
| 6.22, and FAT32 Win 9x/ME.
|
|
| Art
| http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg

 

[=?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?=]

OK, so why are you telling me this?

 

[=?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?=]

It unzips the downloaded zipped DATs using unzip.exe.

Yes, I know, but I'm asking WHY does it HAVE to do it AUTOMATICALLY?

Why not simply put my updater files in c:\utils? The extraneous
files in the downloaded zip don't hurt anything.

That directory is already fairly cluttered and I don't want it any MORE cluttered--and I don't want to have to add another directory to my path.

The method of keeping track is the oldzip$ file
as explained at my web site. If you already had a up to
date set of DATs, that's tough It's not a problem after that.

So why can't it detect the current zip and not extract it all in the current directory? I'm just asking for something a bit more streamlined so I don't even have to bother with it. I want to add it as a task in Task Scheduler and be done with it--but I don't want to have to babysit it.

Why not at least just extract the necessary files (clean.dat, internet.dat, names.dat, and scan.dat) instead of all the other crap (file_id.diz, packing.lst et al)? And it shouldn't be that hard to allow specifing an optional destination directory to extract them to...

 

[David H. Lipman]

Just to let you know that you should use scan.exe.
My test showed that even though the SuperDAT contains the three different commandline line
scanners. When forcefully installing the SuperDAT , ONLY scan.exe was copied to the ENGINE
directory. It's meant to bolster the point.

Dave

| OK, so why are you telling me this?
|
| "David H. Lipman" wrote:
|
| > San86.exe and scanpm.exe may work but are contraindicated.
| >
| > I just tried a test. I have mcAfee Enterprise v7.0 on the win2K platform.
| >
| > The engine files are located in:
| > C:\Program Files\Common Files\Network Associates\Engine
| >
| > Scan86.exe and scanpm.exe were not present in the above location. I executed the latest
| > SuperDAT (ENGINE v4260, DAT v4288) with the "/e" extract parameter. The SuperDAT
contains
| > all three; scan.exe, scan86.exe and scanpm.exe. I executed the SuperDAT with the "/F"
| > parameter to force the update. Scan86.exe and scanpm.exe were NOT installed in
| > C:\Program Files\Common Files\Network Associates\Engine
| > And the only Commandline scanner was; scan.exe.
| >
| > | Well, I use ScanPM because I have Win2K and I remember reading somewhere years ago
that
| > ScanPM is the one to use with Win2K. It's odd though because I checked the latest
version #s
| > of scan.exe and scanpm.exe in VirusScan 7 Pro and they're both 4.26.0 (5/16/03) while my
| > current one from a couple years ago (perhaps VirusScan 5; 5/21/00) is 4.7.0. Go figure.
| > |
| > | "David H. Lipman" wrote:
| > |
| > | > Based upon my discussions with McAfee/NAI personnel, use SCAN.EXE not SCANPM.EXE.
| > | >
| > | > | I use McAfee's ScanPM (protected mode DOS virus scanner) since I don't want a
bloatware,
| > | > memory-hogging app constantly running in the background, but updating the DAT files
is
| > | > annoying because I must do it manually. Is there a way to have an auto-updater check
for
| > | > JUST a new DAT release only? It would be nice if ScanPM did this before it scanned
for virii
| > | > but if I have to go with a SMALL program running in the background all the time, I
may (or
| > | > just have it run once every x days or something). It could just look at
| > | > ftp://ftp.mcafee.com/pub/antivirus/datfiles/4.x/ and check for a new dat-####.zip
file.
|

 

[null]

Yes, I know, but I'm asking WHY does it HAVE to do it AUTOMATICALLY?

That directory is already fairly cluttered and I don't want it any MORE cluttered--and I don't want to have to add another directory to my path.

So why can't it detect the current zip and not extract it all in the current directory? I'm just asking for something a bit more streamlined so I don't even have to bother with it. I want to add it as a task in Task Scheduler and be done with it--but I don't want to have to babysit it.

Why not at least just extract the necessary files (clean.dat, internet.dat, names.dat, and scan.dat) instead of all the other crap (file_id.diz, packing.lst et al)? And it shouldn't be that hard to allow specifing an optional destination directory to extract them to...

Then learn to create your own custom designs to suit your
particular whims. I'm simply sharing a little cut down version
of a much larger program that I actually use. I'll not be spending
any more time on it.


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

 

[=?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?=]

Whatever, Mr. Attitude. I made a batch file to clean up your mess anyway.

 

[=?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?=]

It's not about being helpless but simply not being half-assed. I appreciate what you did but would simply like to've had it more efficient is all. Whatever.

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

(e-mail address removed) wrote in

Glad to see you're not completely helpless, dimbulb. Geez! What
oceans of slime do these creeps crawl out of anyway?

That one's a well-known troll in gaming newsgroups. If I'd seen this
thread earlier, I'd have warned you just to point him to the file and
be done with it. He /always/ turns nasty.