Identification of disc volumes in the Kaspersky Rescue Disc environment

[AllanDyer]

I’m using the rescue disc on a system with multiple volumes. When malware is found, the location is shown with a filesystem identifier, but it is not clear which volume that identifier refers to. The same identifier is shown in the rescue tool settings. It is not the same as the UUID shown by blkid:

What is that ID, and how do I relate it to the volumes?

Thanks.

[Yury N.]

 

how do I relate it to the volumes?

 

Try “Add object”

 

 

 

[AllanDyer]

 

how do I relate it to the volumes?

 

Try “Add object”

 

 

 

“Add volume” just shows me the same IDs, which are not the UUID shown by blkid, or anything else I can recognise. How is that ID generated?

If you mean I should look at the volume contents to identify them, they are all pretty similar, so it would be easy to make mistakes. Using a unique ID of limited length would be simpler and more reliable.

[Yury N.]

“Add volume” just shows me the same IDs, which are not the UUID shown by blkid, or anything else I can recognise. How is that ID generated?

 

It’s internal id. They have no relationship with blkid. 

 

If you mean I should look at the volume contents to identify them, they are all pretty similar, so it would be easy to make mistakes. Using a unique ID of limited length would be simpler and more reliable.

 

I mean file system type (NTFS. FAT, EXT, etc), volume size and content. Maybe in the future we will make a one-to-one correspondence of this UUIDs.

[AllanDyer]

“Add volume” just shows me the same IDs, which are not the UUID shown by blkid, or anything else I can recognise. How is that ID generated?

 

It’s internal id. They have no relationship with blkid. 

 

If you mean I should look at the volume contents to identify them, they are all pretty similar, so it would be easy to make mistakes. Using a unique ID of limited length would be simpler and more reliable.

 

I mean file system type (NTFS. FAT, EXT, etc), volume size and content. Maybe in the future we will make a one-to-one correspondence of this UUIDs.

Thanks, that’s a clear explanation of the situation.

I would appreciate your making a one-to-one correspondence in future.