MozillaZine


FF-3b3 - turning off virus scanner

Discussion about official Mozilla Firefox builds
stephendonner
 
Posts: 6
Joined: January 23rd, 2008, 1:55 am
Location: Mountain View, CA

Post Posted February 3rd, 2008, 9:50 pm

All,

No doubt a few--or most--of you have seen that https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=412204 has finally landed; I hope it helps alleviate the user-experience for those of you whom experience really slow scans (AVG Free/McAfee).

We're still trying to get our perf story better, though, so we'd like your help testing the performance of the rest of the anti-virus vendors that implement the API into which we hook.

To help us, please visit https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=415005 , and download the scanning binary there, and run it against that Microsoft SDK file (dxsdk_november2007.exe, from http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/deta ... laylang=en).

You'll have to run it from the commandline, like this:

C:\Users\Owner\Desktop>ScannerTimer.exe dxsdk_november2007.exe

We already have output from AVG Free and Norton Anti-Virus 2005; if you have Norton AV 2006 or 2007, please attach the tool's output as a plaintext file to Bugzilla; redundant data is not needed, unless Rob Arnold or another developer asks for it.

Thanks!

- Stephen

Fuziwuzi

User avatar
 
Posts: 234
Joined: November 28th, 2007, 8:33 am
Location: Atlanta, Georgia USA

Post Posted February 4th, 2008, 5:33 am

stephendonner wrote:All,

To help us, please visit https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=415005, and download the scanning binary there, and run it against that Microsoft SDK file (dxsdk_november2007.exe, from http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/deta ... laylang=en).
That bug# is invalid, so can't download any scanning binary....
Win7-64 Ultimate, Core2Duo E6700, 2GB PC3200 DDR ram, ATI HD4650 graphics.

Wildmyron
 
Posts: 245
Joined: November 16th, 2004, 6:54 am
Location: Greenmount, Australia

Post Posted February 4th, 2008, 6:05 am

Fuziwuzi wrote:
stephendonner wrote:All,

To help us, please visit https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=415005 , and download the scanning binary there, and run it against that Microsoft SDK file (dxsdk_november2007.exe, from http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/deta ... laylang=en).
That bug# is invalid, so can't download any scanning binary....

Just remove the extra comma...

Fuziwuzi

User avatar
 
Posts: 234
Joined: November 28th, 2007, 8:33 am
Location: Atlanta, Georgia USA

Post Posted February 4th, 2008, 12:51 pm

I'm wondering if part of the problem I noticed was that Minefield is executing a scan twice, once for each application that has the interface indicated in the registry. For instance, on my machine, in the registry setting that Minefield is using to interface with, I have both AVG Pro and Windows Defender. So, which is it using to scan or is it using both of them, and if both, are they in sequence or simultaneously?
Win7-64 Ultimate, Core2Duo E6700, 2GB PC3200 DDR ram, ATI HD4650 graphics.

mrtech

User avatar
 
Posts: 2007
Joined: May 15th, 2003, 7:46 am
Location: New York

Post Posted February 4th, 2008, 1:55 pm

opps, wrong posting
mel reyes • mrtech.com • BlogPlaxoLinkedInTwitter
Support mrtech.com get our toolbar

sdwilsh
 
Posts: 563
Joined: November 6th, 2005, 9:46 pm
Location: California

Post Posted February 5th, 2008, 10:47 am

Fuziwuzi wrote:I'm wondering if part of the problem I noticed was that Minefield is executing a scan twice, once for each application that has the interface indicated in the registry. For instance, on my machine, in the registry setting that Minefield is using to interface with, I have both AVG Pro and Windows Defender. So, which is it using to scan or is it using both of them, and if both, are they in sequence or simultaneously?


It will use both (windows defender actually scans for malware, whereas a lot of virus scanners don't always).

For what it's worth, it looks like IAttachmentExecute will help greatly with the perf issues people are seeing. See <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=408153">Bug 408153</a> for more details.

Fuziwuzi

User avatar
 
Posts: 234
Joined: November 28th, 2007, 8:33 am
Location: Atlanta, Georgia USA

Post Posted February 5th, 2008, 5:32 pm

comrade693 wrote:
Fuziwuzi wrote:I'm wondering if part of the problem I noticed was that Minefield is executing a scan twice, once for each application that has the interface indicated in the registry. For instance, on my machine, in the registry setting that Minefield is using to interface with, I have both AVG Pro and Windows Defender. So, which is it using to scan or is it using both of them, and if both, are they in sequence or simultaneously?


It will use both (windows defender actually scans for malware, whereas a lot of virus scanners don't always).

For what it's worth, it looks like IAttachmentExecute will help greatly with the perf issues people are seeing. See <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=408153">Bug 408153</a> for more details.
I hope the disable switch still remains effective for those of us who DON'T want a scan. Even without Minefield scanning, anything I download and then try to open gets scanned by both Defender and AVG, so in my opinion, the scan by the browser is simply unnecessary. But if it makes someone else feel good, they can have it. I will turn it off.
Win7-64 Ultimate, Core2Duo E6700, 2GB PC3200 DDR ram, ATI HD4650 graphics.

Alfred Neuman

User avatar
 
Posts: 1930
Joined: January 19th, 2005, 10:52 am

Post Posted February 5th, 2008, 5:40 pm

When a project is badly defined or controlled, designers start attaching all sorts of things to it.

I think that explains Places and now this virus scan.

Potentially, if this continues, Firefox will sink of its own weight.

I am going to be very hesitant to go to 3.0.
Do you often feel that you must be from another planet, or wish you were?

hhh

User avatar
 
Posts: 6731
Joined: February 29th, 2004, 11:21 am
Location: Stuart, FL

Post Posted February 5th, 2008, 5:47 pm

Code: Select all
browser.download.manager.scanWhenDone

... works when set to false. Thank you. Reposting the pref here to make it easier for me to find, I have a couple of work machines I want to add this to, the Download Manager has been taking forever to close in the last days' builds due to scanning.

sdwilsh
 
Posts: 563
Joined: November 6th, 2005, 9:46 pm
Location: California

Post Posted February 5th, 2008, 5:48 pm

Fuziwuzi wrote:I hope the disable switch still remains effective for those of us who DON'T want a scan. Even without Minefield scanning, anything I download and then try to open gets scanned by both Defender and AVG, so in my opinion, the scan by the browser is simply unnecessary. But if it makes someone else feel good, they can have it. I will turn it off.


Where was it ever implied that that pref would be backed out or become ineffective? Stop trying to make an argument out of nothing.

iNoles

User avatar
 
Posts: 46
Joined: November 3rd, 2007, 12:11 am
Location: Melbourne, FL

Post Posted February 5th, 2008, 9:20 pm

hhh, your avatars remind me of 2005 :(. it is very useful when it get stuck.

Fuziwuzi

User avatar
 
Posts: 234
Joined: November 28th, 2007, 8:33 am
Location: Atlanta, Georgia USA

Post Posted February 6th, 2008, 5:40 am

comrade693 wrote:
Fuziwuzi wrote:I hope the disable switch still remains effective for those of us who DON'T want a scan. Even without Minefield scanning, anything I download and then try to open gets scanned by both Defender and AVG, so in my opinion, the scan by the browser is simply unnecessary. But if it makes someone else feel good, they can have it. I will turn it off.


Where was it ever implied that that pref would be backed out or become ineffective? Stop trying to make an argument out of nothing.
I think you have that job sewn up. :shock: :crazyeyes: :P
Win7-64 Ultimate, Core2Duo E6700, 2GB PC3200 DDR ram, ATI HD4650 graphics.

PoGo
 
Posts: 64
Joined: March 10th, 2004, 8:24 am
Location: North Carolina

Post Posted February 7th, 2008, 8:00 am

Very interesting reads here, gang ... I (who started this thread) don't get into the forums very often and was surprised to see this thread still so active.

Since implementing the fix described by DeathWolf, I have had NO further problems, my FF-3b3 does NOT scan for virii and the issue has been resolved for me.

I understand and applaud, however, those brave souls who wish a more universal fix or at least an addressing of the issue by the FF developers. I wish all of you the greatest luck.

I would be remiss if I did not also thank all those, bot here and offline, who expended thought, energy and effort in helping me sort this out. I appreciate all who did so.
"If you do it, fix it, forget it or live with it."
http://www.pogo123.com

blisk
 
Posts: 81
Joined: May 8th, 2006, 10:08 pm

Post Posted February 11th, 2008, 8:17 pm

It doesn't look like anyone has done NOD32 which has had some issues for quite some time, just like AVG and NAV. I'm downloading the file now and will update with results however I'm not sure if i should also do this test: http://wiki.mozilla.org/QA/Firefox3/AVIntegration . Will post results at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=415005 when done unless someone tells me otherwise.

Also, to add my own commentary on this... I'd like to say I think that this feature is useless. What you're doing is what the AV scan should already do, which is why its most likely so slow. It seems as if someone doesn't realize that the AV scan automatically detects files being created or copied or accessed, whatever, and scans them when this happens. What you're essentially doing is running it twice at the same time, sometimes 3 different scanners as those who have windows defender and other products have said. If I'm misinformed please let me know, but i think this whole idea should just be scrapped as it really does nothing unless the person has a AV scanner which only scans when asked... which would've made sense, MAYBE, years ago. For some thing that at best causes a minimal security enhancement it sure does seem like an awful waste and is only causing more problems than it solves.

Again, I'm shocked no one realizes that in this day and age if you have an AV scanner installed you're also very likely to have one which scans files automatically upon access or creation which makes this feature pointless... maybe I'm wrong on the reason.. but then I wonder what else could this be included for?

BenBasson
Moderator

User avatar
 
Posts: 13671
Joined: February 13th, 2004, 5:49 am
Location: London, UK

Post Posted February 11th, 2008, 8:38 pm

Alfred Neuman wrote:Potentially, if this continues, Firefox will sink of its own weight.

People have been saying this since 0.8 (well, probably since 0.1). Since then, Firefox's build size hasn't significantly increased, memory use and CPU usage are lower than ever and the number of users hasn't stopped increasing. I don't know where people get the impression that features they don't understand or care about are somehow going to make people run from Firefox. Neither of the changes mentioned have any negative impact.

blisk wrote:Again, I'm shocked no one realizes that in this day and age if you have an AV scanner installed you're also very likely to have one which scans files automatically upon access or creation which makes this feature pointless... maybe I'm wrong on the reason.. but then I wonder what else could this be included for?

Think of all the installers that tell you to stop every single program you have running and disable antivirus. Who does this? I don't. I bet people do though, and I bet they forget to start everything back up afterwards sometimes. Checking to see if the file has been scanned and requesting a scan if not sounds like a good safety net.

Return to Firefox Builds


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests