Avast WEBforum
Consumer Products => Avast Free Antivirus / Premium Security (legacy Pro Antivirus, Internet Security, Premier) => Topic started by: PaulAuckNZ on May 29, 2009, 11:00:48 PM
-
Hey folks, whats Comodo got in it, that Avast (I'm using Home), doesnt like? Comodo Internet security isnt even installed on this (but I've got the latest install files). If I go to the Comodo folder, (and if Avast is running), Avast freezes the system for a few secs (it must be scanning this folder). Then I can click on whatever. Now, I've noticed that not only does Avast do this (freeze), it'll will also crash explorer.exe (If I open the Comodo folder). It did this previously (with previous versions of Avast). BUT, its the 1st time, I've noticed / seen it crash explorer.exe (the shell). I'm usng XP Pro x64.
Avast doesnt crash when I open any other folder (there's 63 folders (in the same folder the Comodo folder is in).
-
There are issues. I think consensus would be run comodo firewall as standalone with Avast.
From what I recall full CIS suite does not sit well with Avast and vice versa. If you go to general topics and search keyword 'comodo', there are a lot of entries. Likely someone from the forum will reply and the issues will be aired again to keep things up to date. I think also may have to configure in comodo frewall control set for comodo firewall to overrule one of avast's responsibilities, but I'm not sure because I cannot find the relevant post. Likely someone will reply.
I dont use any comodo. But I can almost say for sure - rule out full CIS and Avast running error-free together on same computer.
Edit: Also - XP Pro x64.
Many security agencies have yet to accommodate wares to 64bit the way they have for 32bit.
My 64bit is gathering cobwebs in storage. I think time to set it up running again.
-
Like I said, its Comodo's install file/s, Comodo ISN'T installed (So, I'm not running Comodo's firewall, or AV). So, thats not the issue, just opening the comodo folder (that the install files are in), freezes the system and crashes the shell. (If Avast is running in the background).
-
There are issues with comodo installer as well.
I can only repeat:
But I can almost say for sure - rule out full CIS and Avast running error-free together on same computer.
-
What? Just having the install file in a folder? I dont think so. You dont have to do anything for it to crash. Just opening the folder (like I said), crashes explorer.exe. Like I said (for the 2nd time). I'm not even touching the install file / I'm not double clicking on it. So, I'm not installing it.
-
What if you disable avast! resident protection (or just the Standard Shield) beforehand? (and, e.g. try to display the properties of the mentioned executable)
-
Well its fine, if I kill Standard shield, since it disables Avast. What makes Comodo so special from any other file on the hdd? lol. There's 20000+ files on the hdd, and the comodo folder is the only folder that makes the shell crash (If Avast is running).
-
So, Comodo is not installed, but you're keep on mentioning "Comodo folder". Do you mean folder where Comodo installer is located? Because if that's the case, you have to thank Comodo team for creating the dumbest installer ever. Whole installer is packed with a runtime packer. If your system is low end one, i can assume the system will lockup or crash.
-
Thats right the folder. I wouldnt call this PC low end (XP Pro x64, 6 GB ram, 250 GB hdd, dual core 2.5). It DOESN'T crash the system (as in BSOD). It crashes the shell / explorer.exe. If I open the folder the Comodo installer is in (while Avast is running)
-
Well, it's still to blame the crappy installer made by Comodo ppl. Who on earth would compress a 80MB file with a runtime packer. Its just ridiculous.
-
Is it a 64bit installer, or 32bit one?
Not that the 64bit one wasn't rather ugly, but it's not packed - at least when I checked last time (as there's no 64bit PECompact at the moment, I assume)
-
Both. Both installers are in the folder
-
I went to comodo website. They seem to have separated packages 64bit and 32bit, but too big to bother downloading to check. Is the version you have of comodo dated earlier?
-
No its the latest versions of 32 and 64 bit. And yup, theyre separate downloads
-
You really need to take this up with comodo.
I can give you a local connect if this really is important. As I say I am looking to set up my 64 xp pro again soon, so may provide some useful thoughts for me. you can email through Avast 'My Messages' on menu bar - search my user name and send your email address or some kind of connect in Auck.
-
Have a read:
Criminals using Comodo to attempt legitimacy
http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/200922/3750/Criminals-using-Comodo-to-attempt-legitimacy
Oh Comodo here we go again!
http://msmvps.com/blogs/hostsnews/archive/2009/05/23/1693034.aspx
-
Hmm well I dont really care what their SSL certs do. Or who uses what / when and how. Since I dont use it, and dont intend to use it. Thats not what the topic is about, or what I'm trying to find out. I'll check out the comodo forum and either post the same ? Or see if someone has already posted a similar prob
-
You really need to take this up with comodo.
I can give you a local connect if this really is important. As I say I am looking to set up my 64 xp pro again soon, so may provide some useful thoughts for me. you can email through Avast 'My Messages' on menu bar - search my user name and send your email address or some kind of connect in Auck.
Well its not the end of the world, if I cant fix it. Its just annoying that noone at Avast seems to know WHY it happens. I dont think anyone in Auckland will know WHY this happens either, or HOW to fix it. I'll check out the comodo forum. As stated in my previous post. It also used to happen in 32 bit (but I didnt see it crash the shell), so its probably not a x64 problem.
-
You still havent posted the properties of the offending file(s) in the comodo folder.
Reply post details here.
-
What do you mean properties?? As I posted earlier, ones the 32 bit version, the other is the 64 bit version. Of the latest version of Comodo internet security. There's only 2 files in the comodo folder obviously (x86 and x64)
-
I see you downloaded each of the packages 32bit and 64bit to your folder.
This thread is getting a bit pointless. The packages are a bit large to bother downloading to look over. If it is that necessary, someone will be taking time out to do it. Or they already done that. Which is why the properties of the executables might be helpful, as Igor said. A clearer picture. For your benefit obviously.
Did you see this post - http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=45714.msg382944#msg382944 (http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=45714.msg382944#msg382944)
Avast works / has always worked for me. And I mess with a fair bit of software.
Offer to email is always open. Regards.
-
I didnt say Avast DOESN'T work. Its installed and working now. If youre talking about post 6 (Igor's post), I said it was fine in post 7. But that doesnt HELP if Avast is disabled, does it. It does open properties (when Avast is enabled), but it takes its time, freezes it (it says not responding in task manager for about maybe 5-10 secs). Then properties decides to open.
The link you posted is NOT the error 1002 I was talking about in the other post / link either. So, doesnt apply.
-
Install Comodo with avast! temporarely disabled. Once you get past fat installer it should work just fine.
Just don't forget to enable avast! back when you're done installing Comodo.
-
Err I didnt say I was going to install Comodo, I posted the ? here, to see why Avast was causing the freeze, when I opened the comodo folder. Nevermind, forget I asked. Since noone here knows the answer.
Neither do comodo.
-
OK. I HAVE finally found the answer in the Comodo forum. Ashserv (Standard Shield, which is what I thought, since it doesnt happen, if you disable Avast) is causing the high CPU usage, when you hover the mouse / open the folder the Comodo files are in. Someone else (in the Comodo forum), had EXACTLY the same prob, as me. With the 32 bit version of Windows (it froze for a few secs). I know the prob isnt with x64 (since I've also noticed it in 32 bit). So, it probably has something to do with what Comodo is packed with (PEcompact 2).
-
I tried to reproduce the problem, but without "success".
Yes, if avast! resident protection (Standard Shield, in particular) scans the file, it takes quite a lot of CPU (and memory) because it's unpacking the stupid PECompact wrapper. The scanning must be triggered by some access to the file (from Explorer maybe? do you have any special setting of the Standard Shield, e.g. the scanning "on open"?)
So yes, Explorer "freezes" for a few seconds, I admit that... however, I didn't get any crash (and I don't see how avast! could cause it, because the scanning takes place in other process).
-
It only crashed explorer.exe in 64 bit once. It hasnt happened since (However, I didnt see it crash explorer.exe in 32 bit tho). Umm, I havent touched any of the settings. All are set at their default settings. Its just funny, that it doesnt do this, with any other file, or folder. And explorer.exe doesnt crash normally. The only time it did crash, was when I opened the folder the Comodo install files were in
-
Yeah, I tried in XP x64... no crash.
-
Hi Paul n others.
Here is the link to the Comodo forum discussion on the issue.
http://forums.comodo.com/feedbackcommentsannouncementsnews_cis/comodo_and_avast-t40406.0.html
And here is what i posted there:
Hi Speedy.
I am on XP 32 bit with Avast with Comodo 3.5
I too had noticed the same thing when i had installed Comodo, thought it happened to me alone because of my low-config setup. I have the Comodo 3.5 installer file still saved on my hard drive, and after reading your post, did a quick test.
You are right, just hovering the mouse over the file makes the system freeze for a few seconds. I then redid this after putting on Process Explorer, and its ashserv.exe (the Standard Shield module of Avast) that hogs the CPU and records furious I/O activity.
However, i would like to point out an interesting thing. I momentarily disabled the Standard shield. then right clicked the Comodo file and did a quick scan. ashquick.exe worked fine without any freezes. Scan report was:
"Number of scanned files:147
Total size of scanned files: 120MB"
Thats huge compression. May be causing the freeze. But strange why only Standard Shield freezes, not the Quick Scan.
-----------------------------------------
In my experience, it is only a temporary freeze for few seconds, thankfully the explorer does not crash.
IMHO, there are only about three good popular free firewall programs - Comodo firewall, Online Armor free and to an extent Agnitum Outpost. Not counting Zone Alarm free as 'good' though its quite popular.
And compatibility issues between the best of the bunch need to be discussed. I really do not know whose bug it is, but seems more likely to be an issue with comodo's packer.
-
Hi Cimmind.
Thanks for the post. The forum was getting a bit heated at times over this issue. I think your post has confirmed many of main points. I could point to the packer issue with the comodo package but I think your point about compatibility issues is more important. Necessary to work out a layered defense where everything works together without issues. The indication I get from this Forum is that avast works best with comodo firewall running as a standalone. But there may be some minor tweaking needed there as well. Someone else who uses the comodo firewall might say something more about this.
There has been some talk of avast hogging CPU but I have noticed also that CPU running max has settled down to lower percentage with Standard Shield still running. I have other services and processes running from Startup as well as avast. Also Standard Shield is expected to run more in depth scan than quick scan. I'm not sure about quick scan. I use quick scan with Mbam. I dont use it much at all with avast. Again, someone else may add to this.
I run Online Armour (paid) with avast, and I also have WinPatrol (free), Defender, and default Windows firewall running at the same time on one computer simply because there have been no compatibility issues that have caused me uninstall anything. Though I might uninstall WinPatrol if I find the spare time.
Your post will likely rouse some interest in this forum, so good move posting here.
-
However, i would like to point out an interesting thing. I momentarily disabled the Standard shield. then right clicked the Comodo file and did a quick scan. ashquick.exe worked fine without any freezes. Scan report was:
"Number of scanned files:147
Total size of scanned files: 120MB"
Thats huge compression. May be causing the freeze. But strange why only Standard Shield freezes, not the Quick Scan.
I'm sure the quick scanner also took a few seconds to scan the file (actually, the unpacking of the big chunk here takes place before the quick-scanner progress starts to appear, i.e. when the window shows "initializing engine..."). It's exactly the same for the resident protection - just a bit worse because the scanner has higher priority.
Also Standard Shield is expected to run more in depth scan than quick scan.
Not really - the "quick scanner" is called that way because it's expected to be used for quick checking of single/downloaded/... files. However, it uses the highest possible sensitivity/depth.
Anyway, the most CPU consuming task here is the unpacking of the outer layer - which is the same both for the quick scanner and Standard Shield.
-
Thanks for correction Igor.
-
Thanks Mkis for the positive comments,
but I think your point about compatibility issues is more important. Necessary to work out a layered defense where everything works together without issues.
Yes, totally. Thats the main point.. If there are products that are leader in their own fields, i think compatibility issues should be taken seriously. However, i have an apprehension. Comodo has recently introduced their own AV product, and they are wanting it to piggyback ride in on the popularity of its existing Firewall. Thats the reason why they offer only a CIS suite (the recent version is a mammoth 72MB installer!), and not separate installers for the AV and the Firewall. You need to download the full suite installer, then uncheck the AV option while installing, if only firewall is needed.
I am really skeptical that compatibility with Avast would be anywhere on their priority list, now that they have their own rival AV product. I have a hunch that the freeze issues are only due to AV packer. Probably they would not be there in case the installer file was for a standalone firewall only.
Also Standard Shield is expected to run more in depth scan than quick scan. I'm not sure about quick scan. I use quick scan with Mbam. I dont use it much at all with avast.
Thanks Igor for clarifying on that. Mkis had got me worried by stating that quickscan is not as deep as Standard shield.
Mkis... need a clarification on your quote. MBAM is a anti-malware product, not a AV. I do also have it. How can its quickscan be a substitute for Avast quickscan?
There has been some talk of avast hogging CPU but I have noticed also that CPU running max has settled down to lower percentage with Standard Shield still running.
On the contrary, i chose Avast precisely because of its low CPU usage. Its nothing compared to the monstrosities like Norton! I do not know how CPU intensive AVira is, but i can definitely vouch for that Avast is better than AVG in resource usage.
In case ppl are experiencing high CPU use, rest assured other AV engines would hog even more in the same situation. The best thing i like about Avast is its modules, i can switch off temporarily or permanently the modules that i do not need, to save on system resources (e.g. P2P shield, Outlook shield). Did a lot of research on this. the modular structure, the memory use, the incremental virus database updates.. all are great for a low-resources config.
-
Hi Cimmind
Good move to reply post to the forum. There will be interested readers. Obviously I wont be looking to go comodo because I already have my hands full. I still haven't fully mastered my Online Armor yet, but so far I have reason enough to be confident.
MBAM is a anti-malware product, not a AV. I do also have it. How can its quickscan be a substitute for Avast quickscan?
My mistake. I meant Mbam Quickscan compared to Mbam Fullscan. I used to do full until I was advised that quick is sufficient, provided it has latest update. Initially I had intended to use avast Quickscan a lot, but for some reason I just never did - its so fast, and the files are so small - so perhaps thats why I got the idea about less sensitivity / depth (all cred to Igor's reply). But I do have both Mbam and avast quicks at the ready. I use the Mbam regularly.
See link - http://pics.livejournal.com/emkis/pic/0002gak2/ (http://pics.livejournal.com/emkis/pic/0002gak2/)
-
I then redid this after putting on Process Explorer, and its ashserv.exe (the Standard Shield module of Avast) that hogs the CPU and records furious I/O activity.
My mistake again. Bit confusing. I read you wrong. In the meantime I ran a few tests of my own. The results can be found in the pictures below. Autoruns were IrDa mouse and keyboard, and a SmartRam module (IObit) which I run because PC only has 384 Rambus (sells at a phenomenal price second-hand - recently 2GB in 4x512 sticks went second-hand for $1000 at auction - I'm not that much of a devotee). Otherwise, only basic XP engine running and what you see in the pictures.
Anyhow, in the first capture, provider Standard shield has been running for one and half hours. You can see it in the picture. For (all but)all that time, avast GUI has been scanning thorough with archive checked. I should say that the scan through Docs and Setts was more demanding than through System32, so I am showing the easier run as far as CPU performance goes. I have two performance monitors running - to the left is the SmartRam module, and to the right is Windows Performance monitor in MMC Console.
-
The second capture is taken about five minutes later, after avast GUI has been stopped and turned off - took a few minutes to close down. A red line has been added above MMC module to show how far the reading has progressed through its current cycle. Some earlier fluctuations in CPU can be seen, probably from when CPU picks up request to close down avast scanner. Otherwise the readings look good - granted, like I said, the scan through System32 was the easier run. Standard shield is still on. I think avast comes through alright. I'm not sure how robust are my testing parameters but I do have time constraints. Someone else might run more stringent tests.
Anyway, best regards and thanks for reply.
Edit - I guess I should have run these tests with the internet hooked up. Anyone got an idea of how difference it would make.
-
.. which I run because PC only has 384 Rambus (sells at a phenomenal price second-hand - recently 2GB in 4x512 sticks went second-hand for $1000 at auction - I'm not that much of a devotee).
Mkis, you keep shocking me! :-)
Whats 'rambus'? I hope you are referring to RAM.
You only have 384.. i am running on 256MB RAM! And till a few months back, on 128 MB RAM!! Hell, i ran XP SP2 WITH AV WITH A FIREWALL on 128 MB RAM for nearly seven years!!! And played GTA III on it!!!!
Running out of exclamation marks..
Whats with the price of RAM you have quoted, i couldnt believe the price you wrote.. Agreed, it may be NZ$ you may be quoting in, but still.. $1000!
Here in India, 2GB DDR2 RAM stick costs the equivalent of US$25.
Reason i dont upgrade my own RAM is that unfortunately my RAM stick is SDRAM, thats twice as expensive as DDRAM here, as its an older less available technology.
{you can find a fun international comparison i started here:}
http://forums.comodo.com/general_discussion_off_topic_anything_and_everything/in_terms_of_pepsi_and_apples_an_international_comparison-t40425.0.html
Btw, do u follow cricket? You guys beat us in the T20 warmup ydy.
I just observed your siggy.. You have a very good defence set up. Even i was contemplating OA before i turned to comodo. MBAM rocks. Might i make a suggestion.. why are you using IE? Why not switch to Firefox? I think thats one of the most imp security measures you can take.
-
Hi Cimmind
Sorry about the delay. I've been busy doing things.
I will do my best to reply to you question by question. You might have guessed that I’m firstly a hardware tech. In fact, I think I might start a thread in the forum specifically on hardware.
Whats 'rambus'?
I dont really know where to start here - probably best I just post a link to answer this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RDRAM - the story of Rambus, rdram, RIMMS. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RDRAM - the story of Rambus, rdram, RIMMS.)
Edit - link disappeared ! :o ! Try this one - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambus)
My system is an Intel server board. At the time of manufacture, sdram was still most commonly used ram. Rambus were considered to be very fast technology. Compared to DDR, however, they are not. But they are stable. The two PCs I've got with RIMMS are identical - one runs an even set(= all exact same brand) of 4 x 64mb, the other, 2x 128mb and 2 x64mb and the two sets are different brands. In which case, I'm lucky they do run. That not all brands of ram will run together, is even more true with Rambus.
The purchase of 4 x 512mb Rambus was on local trade and exchange website - trademe.co.nz - about a year ago, and well before the market slowdown. The sticks were an even set. Very rarely do you see even sets Rambus of that size. With 2 GB of Rambus on my PC I would need to tie the machine down to the desk. ;D I don’t know what price the 4x512mb would fetch today. I think perhaps a little less, but there will always be enthusiasts who will bid the price up, regardless of a depressed market. Here is a current auction item for Rambus though the memory is EEC, which is not much use to people whose mainboards only support NON-EEC (which is the majority who has Rambus, in this country anyway). http://www.trademe.co.nz/Computers/Components/Memory-RAM/1-GB-or-more/auction-222409444.htm (http://www.trademe.co.nz/Computers/Components/Memory-RAM/1-GB-or-more/auction-222409444.htm). More realistic pricing.
These Rambus that I have were discontinued about 6 or 7 years ago. DDR were simpler, cheaper to make, and compatible across most motherboards. But people still do run Rambus machines as servers. They are not just hobby projects. The person who bought the 4x512 set will likely be putting the rambus to work, which is what they re good at. I always thought they make a good hardware firewall.
Here in India, 2GB DDR2 RAM stick costs the equivalent of US$25.
I buy DDR 1GB brand new from a retailer for bout $NZ50, and bit cheaper from within the trade. DDR2 a bit more expensive. And there's loads of sdram around. But like you say, not that cheap to buy. http://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/SearchResults.aspx?searchType=0002-0359-0164-&searchString=SDRAM&searchregion=100&type=Search&pay=paynow&buy=now&Y=0
(http://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/SearchResults.aspx?searchType=0002-0359-0164-&searchString=SDRAM&searchregion=100&type=Search&pay=paynow&buy=now&Y=0)
i am running on 256MB RAM! And till a few months back, on 128 MB RAM!!
384mb is not much memory. check out some of the profiles in the avast Forum for some real big rigs.
Hell, i ran XP SP2 WITH AV WITH A FIREWALL on 128 MB RAM for nearly seven years!!! And played GTA III on it!!!!
I used to run P3's with sdram with avast for years (first introduced to avast 2006 and never looked back). Actual just finished a machine to go out to a client - small form factor IBM NetVista with two IBM 128mb sticks, 677 CPU, tiny 10GB hard drive with 5GB spare, No Office installed, Adobe Reader, Player, Shockwave installed, and of course avast Home, in this case a new avast installation. This PC has been used by so many people over the last three years, while I work on their machines, and the PC has always been well protected by avast Home, without incident, despite being such a tiny unit by today's standards. The lady who gets this PC is the one who only uses internet to bet on the horse races. She will probably keep it for good this time, and return my laptop to the company, and I now use P4's for lending out as courtesy service, while I repair. All these people such as her, my clients, have accepted avast and often remark how much they like it. Thats whats most important. And surprising how many people round here know about avast. I get good feedback, avast Home works good across many different platforms.
I just observed your siggy.. You have a very good defence set up.
My defense setup is good, but likewise I dont think its foolproof. I am using Firefox, I just hadn’t brought my profile up to date.
As for Rambus 2009, they look like they might possibly sort out the legal issues they have had with lots of different chip conmpanies, like Nvidia and Hynix, that have kept them tied up for years. Whether things go their way or not, we dont know yet. http://news.google.co.nz/news?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=s&hl=en&q=RAMBUS&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=etsnSujTOZaIkAXHzKDoDQ&sa=X&oi=news_group&resnum=4&ct=title (http://news.google.co.nz/news?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=s&hl=en&q=RAMBUS&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=etsnSujTOZaIkAXHzKDoDQ&sa=X&oi=news_group&resnum=4&ct=title)
Rambus are now looking for their XDR line to take the PC market beyond DDR3 memory. I have a feeling we will be hearing a lot more about them in future. http://www.rambus.com/us/products/multicore.html?utm_source=rambus&utm_medium=link_home_page&utm_campaign=beyond_ddr3 (http://www.rambus.com/us/products/multicore.html?utm_source=rambus&utm_medium=link_home_page&utm_campaign=beyond_ddr3)
As for the cricket, India always lose their warm up matches, then come out blazing in the real games. But New Zealand are very tenacious and hard to get on top of when they're on their game. Plus we play the short game well. I pick NZ to win the tournament (but then I would, wouldn't I?).
Best regards
-
i have no problem with the cis installer on my computer.
as for avast being fast/slow compared to others, i used avira free for approx 10 months and i always thought it was the fastest ever, but now i use avast and i recon its about the same.
i have intel core2 duo with 3gb ram on vista 32 SP2 and i dont notice any performance loss with avira/avast, however my isp offered me mcafee, i tried with it and uninstalled in a matter of days because its slow and generally just sh/t.
i think avast is perfectly fine with performance, its not slow so it has no problems, every av program will have some degree of performance loss but its so small with avast that its not worth bothering with.
in my opinion if its creating less performance drag than firefox then its perfectly fine with me.