Scanning XP computer over the local network

[Steve Pope]

Sorry if this is an elementary question but:

I have one machine with NAV installed, and a second running
Windows XP Home on the local network. I can scan filesystems
on the XP machine from the first one, however the directories
C:\Windows and C:\Program Files are not shareable, therefore
are not scanned (Symantec silently skips over them). Of course
these are also the directories most likely to have viruses
in them. The normal Windows dialogue box for sharing does not
operate due to their being system directories.

Is there a way of making them shareable/readable? (A brute-force
approach would be make readable copies of them, and scan those.)

Thanks,
Steve

 

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Steve Pope" <[email protected]>

| Sorry if this is an elementary question but:
|
| I have one machine with NAV installed, and a second running
| Windows XP Home on the local network. I can scan filesystems
| on the XP machine from the first one, however the directories
| C:\Windows and C:\Program Files are not shareable, therefore
| are not scanned (Symantec silently skips over them). Of course
| these are also the directories most likely to have viruses
| in them. The normal Windows dialogue box for sharing does not
| operate due to their being system directories.
|
| Is there a way of making them shareable/readable? (A brute-force
| approach would be make readable copies of them, and scan those.)
|
| Thanks,
| Steve

XP Home Edition on both computers ?

XP Professional supplies the administrative shares; c$, D$, etc which is not available on
XP Home.

Perform the scan on the system from the POV of that system.


Download MULTI_AV.EXE from the URL --
http://www.ik-cs.com/programs/virtools/Multi_AV.exe

To use this utility, perform the following...
Execute; Multi_AV.exe { Note: You must use the default folder C:\AV-CLS }
Choose; Unzip
Choose; Close

Execute; C:\AV-CLS\StartMenu.BAT
{ or Double-click on 'Start Menu' in C:\AV-CLS }

NOTE: You may have to disable your software FireWall or allow WGET.EXE to go through your
FireWall to allow it to download the needed AV vendor related files.

C:\AV-CLS\StartMenu.BAT -- { or Double-click on 'Start Menu' in C:\AV-CLS}
This will bring up the initial menu of choices and should be executed in Normal Mode.
This way all the components can be downloaded from each AV vendor's web site.
The choices are; Sophos, Trend, McAfee, Kaspersky, Exit this menu and Reboot the PC.

You can choose to go to each menu item and just download the needed files or you can
download the files and perform a scan in Normal Mode. Once you have downloaded the files
needed for each scanner you want to use, you should reboot the PC into Safe Mode [F8 key
during boot] and re-run the menu again and choose which scanner you want to run in Safe
Mode. It is suggested to run the scanners in both Safe Mode and Normal Mode.

When the menu is displayed hitting 'H' or 'h' will bring up a more comprehensive PDF help
file. http://www.ik-cs.com/multi-av.htm

Additional Instructions:
http://pcdid.com/Multi_AV.htm


* * * Please report back your results * * *

 

[Steve Pope]

From: "Steve Pope" <[email protected]>

| Sorry if this is an elementary question but:
|
| I have one machine with NAV installed, and a second running
| Windows XP Home on the local network. I can scan filesystems
| on the XP machine from the first one, however the directories
| C:\Windows and C:\Program Files are not shareable, therefore
| are not scanned (Symantec silently skips over them). Of course
| these are also the directories most likely to have viruses
| in them. The normal Windows dialogue box for sharing does not
| operate due to their being system directories.
|
| Is there a way of making them shareable/readable? (A brute-force
| approach would be make readable copies of them, and scan those.)
|
| Thanks,
| Steve

XP Home Edition on both computers ?

Nope, NAV is on a Win95B machine.

XP Professional supplies the administrative shares; c$, D$, etc which
is not available on
XP Home.

Thanks for the info, on this and Multi-AV.

Steve

 

[Noel Paton]

Nope, NAV is on a Win95B machine.

You have GOT to be kidding!
you mean you can persuade NAV to install on a Win95 box, and update to
anything like competence in the current climate??

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.crashfixpc.com

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read on how to post messages to NG's

 

[Steve Pope]

You have GOT to be kidding!
you mean you can persuade NAV to install on a Win95 box, and update to
anything like competence in the current climate??

I'm not why this surprises you. NAV was installed
on this Win95B box some number of years ago, and "Intelligent
Updater" (X86 version) runs correctly when downloaded from
Symantec. They haven't quit supporting it or anything.

Steve

 

[Noel Paton]

I'm not why this surprises you. NAV was installed
on this Win95B box some number of years ago, and "Intelligent
Updater" (X86 version) runs correctly when downloaded from
Symantec. They haven't quit supporting it or anything.

Please quote the details of the current database and engine versions - I
honestly do not believe this!

AFAIK, any version of NAV that would install on Win95 was deprecated years
ago - and any more modern version would be so bloated that it would eat the
average Win95 machine for breakfast and come back for seconds.

I can only assume that you got lucky, and have never had to clean-install
NAV onto this system since about 2000?

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.crashfixpc.com

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read on how to post messages to NG's

 

[Steve Pope]

Please quote the details of the current database and engine versions - I
honestly do not believe this!

I will give you this information next time I have access
to the system in question, which will be in perhaps a day.

AFAIK, any version of NAV that would install on Win95 was deprecated years
ago - and any more modern version would be so bloated that it would eat the
average Win95 machine for breakfast and come back for seconds.

I can only assume that you got lucky, and have never had to clean-install
NAV onto this system since about 2000?

Yes, I installed NAV from CD onto this Win95B machine sometime
around 2001. The system has only required one soft re-install
of the OS, which didn't affect NAV. (Perhaps this means I'm lucky?)

I have a only slightly more recent Win98SE machine that also
has also been running Norton all along with no problems.

Steve

 

[Steve Pope]

I will give you this information next time I have access
to the system in question, which will be in perhaps a day.

It's NAV program version 7.50.846, scan engine 4.1.0.6,
virus definition file 80624g dated 6/24/06. (I've been updating
it about every two weeks.)

Steve

 

[Noel Paton]

Finally found the references I was looking for!
http://service4.symantec.com/SUPPORT/tsgeninfo.nsf/docid/2000011107215039
The last version of NAV that Symantec claim is compatible with Win95B is NAV
2001/7.0 - so that fits with your timeline.
According to http://definitions.symantec.com/defs/update.txt, definitions do
still come down for this version - but the list at
http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/download/pages/US-N95.html
doesn't include either NAV2001 or NAV2000 (or even 2002!) - which explains
my confusion, perhaps.

One does tend to wonder, though, whether a program which specifically states
that it is no longer compatible with the OS is a suitable one for ensuring
the security of that OS? Is there anything left of the original NAV6/7 which
ensures Win95 compatibility and effective use?
With Norton's unenviable record of support for Win9x systems since 2000, I'm
still mystified why they have the repeat sales that they do.

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.crashfixpc.com

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read on how to post messages to NG's

 

[Noel Paton]

It's NAV program version 7.50.846, scan engine 4.1.0.6,
virus definition file 80624g dated 6/24/06. (I've been updating
it about every two weeks.)

Heh - just sent a response to your earlier post.
You seem to have a winner there, as the longest surviving Norton client
NAV 2001, installed c2001, updated to currency - well done! - I'd never have
believed it was possible.

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.crashfixpc.com

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read on how to post messages to NG's

 

[Steve Pope]

You seem to have a winner there, as the longest surviving
Norton client NAV 2001, installed c2001, updated to currency -
well done! - I'd never have believed it was possible.

I had no idea this was unusual. It's only five years old.
Much of the other S/W on the computer is two years older
than that.

BTW if there's any further answers to my original question
of scanning the XP system, I'd be appreciative. (So
far, the approach of copying the system directories then
scanning the copy seems to have some value, but I doubt
it's achieiving a full scan.)

Steve

 

[Noel Paton]

I had no idea this was unusual. It's only five years old.
Much of the other S/W on the computer is two years older
than that.

BTW if there's any further answers to my original question
of scanning the XP system, I'd be appreciative. (So
far, the approach of copying the system directories then
scanning the copy seems to have some value, but I doubt
it's achieiving a full scan.)

Sorry - I forgot all about your original question! (mea culpa!)
I'll come back to it in the morning... it's rather late here (and there's
too many beers under the belt, ATM, for a sensible response) - bookmarked
for the morning!

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.crashfixpc.com

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read on how to post messages to NG's

 

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Noel Paton" <[email protected]>


| Sorry - I forgot all about your original question! (mea culpa!)
| I'll come back to it in the morning... it's rather late here (and there's
| too many beers under the belt, ATM, for a sensible response) - bookmarked
| for the morning!
|

You are going to get a Beer Belly Noel !!

 

[Heather]

From: "Noel Paton" <[email protected]>


| Sorry - I forgot all about your original question! (mea culpa!)
| I'll come back to it in the morning... it's rather late here (and
there's
| too many beers under the belt, ATM, for a sensible response) -
bookmarked
| for the morning!
|

You are going to get a Beer Belly Noel !!

LOL!! You obviously haven't seen him. He weighs about 135 lbs. soaking
wet. We zoftig women detest skinny men like him!! (G)

We are off to the Land of Lobster and Anne of Green Gables on Sunday
(PEI and Nova Scotia).....yummmmm. I will diet when I get back.

Cheers....Figgs

 

[Noel Paton]

LOL!! You obviously haven't seen him. He weighs about 135 lbs. soaking
wet. We zoftig women detest skinny men like him!! (G)

We are off to the Land of Lobster and Anne of Green Gables on Sunday (PEI
and Nova Scotia).....yummmmm. I will diet when I get back.

Cheers....Figgs

Not quite, Figgs - I haven't weighed that since 1973 when I left Uni....
normal weight for me is around 145-155 pounds nowadays (but I haven't put
myself on the scales for *years*!)... I still wear size 32/34 waist trousers
though

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.crashfixpc.com

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read on how to post messages to NG's

 

[Noel Paton]

OK back here to try and respond to your original question!
My understanding of your scenario is this.....
You have two machines -
A) running Windows XP Home
B) running Windows 95B, with Norton 2001
....and you're trying to force Win95 to scan the XP machine across a network

I have to ask the question - why not install a proper scanner on the XP
machine, which would solve all your problems? There are a number of free
scanners available, if the budget is zero (and this is a personal-use
installation)

If it's to try and eliminate the possibility of a live infection masking
detection, I can't help thinking that your Win95-compliant scanner is likely
to miss things on the XP machine, whether the shares are available or not.

You can share those folders - by using the NET SHARE command in a Command
window
format is
net share sharename=driveath
(for paths with spaces, enclose the entire driveath in double-quotes)

HTH
--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.crashfixpc.com

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read on how to post messages to NG's

 

[Steve Pope]

I have to ask the question - why not install a proper scanner
on the XP machine, which would solve all your problems? There
are a number of free scanners available, if the budget is zero
(and this is a personal-use installation)

Simply put, I never install anything on any Windows machine
unless circumstances absolutely compel it.

I'm considering this approach; I *had* thought I was scanning
the XP machine correctly (and very conveniently, since I can
initiate the scan remotely), and it's nice having one scanner
for both machines, but since this has proved to be false
I'll have to look at alternatives.

Steve

 

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Heather" <[email protected]>


|
| LOL!! You obviously haven't seen him. He weighs about 135 lbs. soaking
| wet. We zoftig women detest skinny men like him!! (G)
|
| We are off to the Land of Lobster and Anne of Green Gables on Sunday
| (PEI and Nova Scotia).....yummmmm. I will diet when I get back.
|
| Cheers....Figgs


Please email me some Nova Scotia Lox

 

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Noel Paton" <[email protected]>


| Not quite, Figgs - I haven't weighed that since 1973 when I left Uni....
| normal weight for me is around 145-155 pounds nowadays (but I haven't put
| myself on the scales for *years*!)... I still wear size 32/34 waist trousers
| though
|

Luck you

 

[kurt wismer]

Not quite, Figgs - I haven't weighed that since 1973 when I left Uni....
normal weight for me is around 145-155 pounds nowadays (but I haven't
put myself on the scales for *years*!)... I still wear size 32/34 waist
trousers though

hmmm... same weight but narrower waist... i must be taller than you...
or denser (i'm sure lots of people will vote for the latter)..