Re: next firewall test - Jetico 1 [last 98 version]
MEB wrote:
| "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
| news:%23DKKBhGZIHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
|| MEB wrote:
|| | AAAAHHHH, I should know better than to make comments before
|| | finishing file analysis. Still not completely finished, but it
|| | appears Bitdefender v10 has a number of function calls and
|| | requirements found only in NT [files and services], so another
|| | possibility apparently bites the dust, unless I hear something
|| | different from support.
|| |
|| | Support HAS contacted me, however the suggestion is an uninstall,
|| | then using their separate uninstall cleanup tool, and a re-install
|| | and manual update. WHY does everyone do that... oh well, I'll give
|| | it a try.
|
| And that worked as expected, NOT.
Uhuh. I guess they wanted to be perfectly sure of a pristine
installation, though. And too bad that wasn't the problem.
| Gees as if I hadn't already tried
| removing ALL aspects with RegSeeker. And the non-surprise, the
| uninstaller actually did NOT remove all the registry entries. SO MSI
| left traces and so did the uninstaller...
That's sloppy, but I believe most are. Glad you caught it all.
||
|| I confess I can't recall all I've read at this NG regarding NT vrs.
|| Win98 & whether there is enough compatibility. I think it will
|| depend as you say on whether Bitdefender v10 uses function calls
|| available only on NT systems like Win2K. Maybe try putting the NT
|| .dll's in the folder that contains the Bitdefender executables.
|| Then, those .dll's will get loaded & used only by Bitdefender, & it
|| will not try to use Win98 .dll's of the same name located in system
|| folders.
|
| Yeah, we've been through that before.
I did eventually remember saying all that before-- but I was beyond the
point of no return!
| Perhaps you don't remember a
| thread in which I discussed actually attempting to place a goodly
| portion of XP's files into 98SE while attempting to find a point at
| which the errors and unresolved calls stopped.
That was a brave & valiant thing to do, & I remember you wore a
double-thick tinfoil hat!
| There is no end,
| ntdll.dll and dozens of other XP files are massively different
| [though similar to NT 4/2000].
NTDLL.dll is the "Win32 NTDLL core component". In my Win98 machine, its
version is 4.10.1998. I can only guess what it does. But, if/when it
must deal with newer capabilities of processor chips, one would have to
replace those chips with XP-irradiated chips for an XP NTDLL.dll to
work-- not just the .dll, but the chips too would need to be replaced.
| Strangely I see 9X to XP mods out
| there, obviously the creators must NOT have done much file monitoring
| beyond "hey its still working and booting, must be Okay", then again,
| maybe they modded some of the files to stop the issues, don't think
| I'll every test THOSE mods though...
They must be trying to write .dll's for Win98 that will do the things
the XP .dll's can do-- but using functions the Win98 chips can
understand.
| I may, try placing some of
| those dlls into the folder if Support doesn't get this figured out
| just to see how that works [hey it worked before].
I think it will depend on precisely which functions BitDefender calls in
the .dll's it uses. If it calls one that is impossible for Win98 chips
to do, then it must fail.
| I suggested in
| the last contact that it may be due to whatever their present
| compiler is.
Yep-- absolutely, they have to get the compiler right! That would take
care of all chip & .dll compatibility concerns.
| Most [programming environments] have drop support for
| 9X/NT, so using a newer compiler will not work for cross-platform use
| anymore. Actually rather stupid of the suppliers, as 9X/NT code is
| STABLE, unlike the presently supported OSs which receive constant
| changes which MUST be allowed for.. but again, its not my code ....
| and how are they going to make money if no update subscriptions are
| involved...
Yep, I more than agree-- no one should ever write anything for an OS
other than Win98!
||
|| STILL, it will fail, if a function tries to do something impossible
|| on Win98. Your own testing will be definitive despite what the
|| Bitdefender people may say.
|
| And that's the issue which should concern SoftWin as they still sell
| Bitdefender and other for the 9X/NT environment.
It is a pity, if they can't get it right.
|| | That's really discouraging as the program found ALL of my local
|| | test files for email hacks, network hack tools, and other spyware
|| | and virus test files unlike the other programs I had been
|| | using/testing recently {AVG, AVAST] which completely missed the
|| | email hacks [actual dbx and eml files containing Trojans or other]
|| | and stealth spyware, some of the virus files real and stub, and
|| | ALL the network hack/testing tools. Granted these aren't the
|| | newest variants, but still impressive.
||
|| Was E-Mail scanning enabled in avast!? If so, each post in this NG &
|| in your InBox should say (at R-Clk it, Properties, Details tab)...
|
| Yes, but these files have been localized (saved) to check the
| various A-V programs. One I created myself because I couldn't find it
| [receive it] in the wild. Three came in using AVG, two using AVAST.
| You missed that point, that these are local, not functioning/used
| DBX/EML files which the scanners in the other progs missed.
| Bitdefender's A-V scanner and configuration, does a double check, not
| just as it comes in or goes out [which it also does, or rather would].
Besides scanning at post & when first read in, I do know I can also
R-Clk a .dbx, & choose to scan it. Then, avast! will scan each post
inside. Other than that, I'm not sure, but I do suppose its On-Access
scanner would catch something trying to do damage when opening a
transported .dbx for reading in OE.
||
|| X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 080130-1, 01/30/2008), Inbound message
|| X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
||
|| And I've seen it work with a test file of my own! (Actually, it was
|| that false alarm in SetupMDM.exe that triggered an avast! alert when
|| I tried to E-Mail it to myself or a virus testing site.)
|
| That was a VIRUS [actually a stub] not SpyWare or other... big
| difference and not an accurate test... we're discussing two different
| issues. Bitdefender has anti-spyware/phising/Trojan/whatever pluggins
| which it uses in its various functions. You did look at that A-V
| testing results site, right?
I'll have to go look, but I am well satisfied & much impressed with
avast! despite the sundry minor peccadilloes I have discovered & posted
elsewhere.
||
|| | Sent them some more info to digest.
||
|| Keep us informed.
|
| Yeah, that's the purpose ..... of course this is anti-virus we're
| discussing NOT Jetico Firewall X-{
I'll take a look at that BitDefender site to see whether there is a FAQ
that may apply to your case. But your communication with the BitDefender
people & your own experience & testing is what really will decide the
issue.
|| | --
|| |
|| | MEB
|| | _________
||
|| --
|| PCR
||
||
|
| --
|
| MEB
|
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
| _________
--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net