When adding AV exclusions via the Browse method, the paths look like they could be malformed.
An existing default exclusion that looks correct is:
But when I add an exclusion via Browse it looks like this:
Note how the backslash is missing at the end.
Is this second exclusion path valid?
It is valid but there could be a to wide “exclusion”
Would also exclude
And not only all files under:
Also note that for some curious reason, excluded files are still scanned…
The only thing that is actually excluded is an alert if any detection is found, as alerts are ignored on excluded files.
I’ve yet to hear from the developers if this is operating as they had intended or not. I suspect not because of the way the help file is worded on the topic of exclusions.
It would not surprise me that this is by “design”… they have to check for hashes etc so they will need to touch it…
If that is the case, at the very least they need to make it clear exactly how it functions in the help file.
This is what it says currently:
All items listed and all items added to the ‘Exclusions’ list will be excluded from all future scans of all types.
This is a bit misleading if what they really mean by exclusion isn’t that the file will be excluded from the scan…
If this is intentional, they may want to rethink the way their engine operates. I know I am not unique in having quite sizable folders on my HD that gain nothing from being scanned. In the interests of saving scan time, I would very much like to have CIS leave them alone. Surely they must have a way to simply say, don’t touch this folder. To not have such a capability seems like a very poorly designed scan engine.
Well there is a difference between “do not scan files larger then X” and an exclusion.
An exclusion should only be used for a (false) detection you wish to keep, not to “bypass” large files or folders.
I agree that the help file needs a bit more clarification on this though…
Like HeffeD, I have many files on my HD, and most of them don’t need to be scanned.
Comodo currently has no real way to exclude things you don’t want scanned.
Even if I create a custom scan profile, it doesn’t allow you to specify what you want to scan in a useful way. The inclusions are too inclusive, since they include everything at or below the folder you specify. If I only want to scan the root of my C drive, or the root of any other folder, that’s not possible.
And the exclusions don’t keep files from being scanned, at all. The whole point of exclusions is to not spend the time and resources on scanning files that don’t need scanning. Thankfully we can exclude entire drive letters from being scanned. Now we just need to be able to exclude specific folders and files from being scanned.
Comodo really needs some ways to specify exactly what you do and don’t want to be scanned.
I think the “scan profile” “do/do not include subfolders” is already on the wishlist…
For the exclusions and other “scan features” please post them on the wishboard, I’m confident they will add more features if the scanner matures…
Thanks Ronny, I was wondering if that missing slash in the paths would do what you said. For safety, the paths should include the slash.
The exclusions wish was already there, so I’ve added my two cents, and hopefully better inclusions and exclusions are in the works…
I guess we’re just talking semantics then…
For that type of operation, exclusion is a poor term for the list.
From the very definition of the word exclusion itself, I don’t think you’d find many English speakers that would take ‘exclude’ to mean anything other than the item being excluded is being completely left out of whatever process is being undertaken. That is after all what exclude means!
In other words, a file being excluded from a scan means that it is left out of the scan.
To look at it another way, wouldn’t you scratch your head if you were listening to the news and heard the announcer say: Jimmy had a previous knee injury that excluded him from the game. None of the goals he scored during the match will be tallied. ;D
When you get a virus detection alert, and you want to ignore it, you can choose to “ignore always”. Interestingly, these “ignore” choices get remembered in the “exclusions” list. There’s a mismatch in the terminology being used.
Given this, then Comodo currently has an “ignore list”, but it does not have an “exclude list”, since no excluding is actually being done.
I will suggest that the current “Exclusions” tab and list be renamed, maybe to “Ignored”, or “Ignored Items”, or similar.