Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Schouw

  • Rank
    Anti-Virus Expert
  1. This is not a task for VirusLab, but SpamLab. spam@kaspersky.com / notspam@kaspersky.com - they've been informed.
  2. Would you mind sharing the brand, model and where you bought it? If you don't want to do this in public you can send me a PM. Thanks in advance.
  3. Is anyone running Vista experiencing chkdsk errors? I'm interested strictly in Vista user reports. I'm also not interested in stage 2 slowdowns. Your help would be greatly appreciated. You may contact me via PM if you desire to do so.
  4. Try MS' patch for the patch, see http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=24050
  5. Point taken, my mistake.(It still needs to be updated though) Guess I'm not used to that many problem-causing updates a month. Anyway, it's still MS' problem. Quite some other programs suffer similar issues. Although the picture is being painted that it's 'just KAV', it's definitely not. MS are looking into the problem.
  6. http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/...n/MS06-042.mspx - download from here http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=918899 - no, not KB917422
  7. MS have released an update of the patch today/yesterday, please install it. Things should be OK again.
  8. A bit late, but I think it's still worth to respond. The issue with SpyAxe etc. is not as clear cut from a detection point of view as it may seem. I'm actually doing a presentation on this issue at the VirusBulletin conference which takes place in October which unfortunately prohibits me from explaining things in detail at the moment. It's not our policy to blindly add everything for detection, especially not in special cases. Anyway, we will have some form of detection for this type of software - with v6 MP1.
  9. 'Advanced' heuristics with batch files are tricky. Too much chance of 'false positives', which of course wouldn't really be false positives. But users would think they are. Every AVendor uses its own approach in this case.
  10. Hmm, it could - in theory - be that your motherboard doesn't support XD-bit functionality, or that it is turned off by default. For some time now Pentiums have been supporting the XD-bit - as Intel calls its HW DEP implementation. Somewhere there's a list which specifies which (Intel) CPUs support it, but I currently do not have the time to look it up.
  11. It's not restricted to NForce, it's CPU feature. Newer Pentium-M and normal Pentiums also have HW DEP function. If your CPU doesn't support HW DEP Windows will mention this in the DEP settings tab. (Check lower part of tab) With SP2 you can say - in general - that if the CPU is working in PAE mode, it has HW DEP enabled. Although there are some exceptions. You can check this in the System Properties/General tab.
  12. SW DEP is (greatly) inferior to HW DEP. SW DEP for instance was of no use against WMF exploitation. In no case DEP will protect ASPacked packed files. There are other packers which will cause DEP to be turned off for such packed files. However I do not wish to disclose this list, for security reasons, otherwise I would have done so in the post on the weblog. Sorry.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We use cookies to make your experience of our websites better. By using and further navigating this website you accept this. Detailed information about the use of cookies on this website is available by clicking on more information.