Can I run F-Prot for DOS in XP's DOS window?

badgolferman wrote:

> I'd like to know what your setup is and if you have examined the log
> file carefully to see if scanning is truly being completed.

It's not my setup; I've used it on other people's PCs (friends, family)
for ages. Most of them have XP with FAT32. I concede I haven't checked
logs, but there weren't any error messages during the process either.

This message is not archived

Franklin <no_thanks RemoveThis @mail.com> wrote:
> On Wed 13 Apr 2005 15:23:59, Zvi Netiv wrote:
>
> > I suppose you won't argue with frisk, the author of F-Prot. It
> > depends *what* doesn't work. Scanning a specified file will
> > work, on condition that its short form pathname doesn't exceed
> > the DOS limit of 79 characters (including the filename).
> >
> > What won't work is scanning all directories on a drive. For a
> > reason that Frisk explained here, a few years ago, F-Prot for
> > DOS may miss directories and skip them when scanning from the
> > DOS box under NT derived OS (NT / W2K / XP). Frisk also stated
> > in that post that he did not plan to further develop the DOS
> > version.
> >
> > I just checked for XP on FAT-32 and the last FP version for DOS
> > missed the entire "Program files" directory and its subs, when
> > ordered to scan the entire drive.
>
> Hello Zvi, I am the OP and I am interested in running F-Prot in XP's
> DOS emulation as an on-demand scanner specifically for individual
> folders, individual files or individual zip archives.
>
> I want to do this in order to get an extra "opinion" on the
> likelihood of the

Of what? Seems that you pushed "send" prematurely.

> Do you see any other problems with using F-Prot for DOS for this
> (apart from the 79 character name you mention)?

The max length for the DOS pathname, actually 67 characters (pathname, less the
file name) for the *fully qualified* directory string (wildcards are not allowed
in directory specification) is not a light limitation.

Another troublesome handicap of F-Prot for DOS is its inability to properly
parse long filenames in the command line. Try the command F-PROT "C:\PROGRAM
FILES" and see what happens. You must pass to F-Prot the correct and full DOS
equivalent of the pathname or it will not find the directory where to start the
scan!

Another limitation that I noticed is that F-Prot for DOS doesn't interpret
properly file / directory names that contain characters that aren't in its
default characters set. This problem manifests itself more under certain
localized OS versions, e.g. Hebrew for example.

See my other post in this thread for a few suggestions.

Regards, Zvi
--
NetZ Computing Ltd. ISRAEL www.invircible.com www.ivi.co.il (Hebrew)
InVircible Virus Defense Solutions, ResQ and Data Recovery Utilities

This message is not archived

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 13:57:34 GMT, Franklin wrote:

> I am interested in running F-Prot in XP's
> DOS emulation as an on-demand scanner specifically for individual
> folders, individual files or individual zip archives.
>
> I want to do this in order to get an extra "opinion" on the
> likelihood of the
>
> Do you see any other problems with using F-Prot for DOS for this
> (apart from the 79 character name you mention)?

Just to give you an additional opinion on your question: I've been using
F-Prot (DOS) as on-demand scanner on *top level* Download directories
for (many, many) years. In this time I never encountered a problem on
either FAT32 or NTFS.

It has always been my habit to watch the output of the scanner *and* to
create a log file. If I somehow get the feeling that I missed something
on the direct visual inspection I always cross-check the log. Besides,
I let the console window auto-close a few seconds after scan. But I set
an editor window to unconditionally pop up the log if the errorlevel of
F-Prot is not 0 on exit...

I think you can use likewise precautions if you don't need to check very
huge amounts of files. In fact: You furthermore could create a setup
to automatically test a filtered output of the F-Prot log file against a
directory listing of files (short names necessary!).

This way you should get a setup which should be sufficient for the
'extra opinion' scenario you described. Problems related to localized
OS versions (like Zvi described) should show up after a few tests (if
a substantial part of your files is affected). Than you really should
drop the F-Prot solution. In all other cases you just should take a
more carefully watch at the results of scans if files with unusual
characters appear...

HTH.
BeAr
--
===========================================================================
= What do you mean with: "Perfection is always an illusion"? =
===============================================================--(Oops!)===

null.TakeThisOut@zilch.com wrote:

> If F-Prot DOS put up error messages when it can't scan a folder or
> whole set of subdirectories, people wouldn't have been fooled into
> thinking it was scanning them