What you did: USED ANTIVIRUS TO SCAN .VPK FILE (packed and unpacked), just downloaded from the game and map support pages
What actually happened or you actually saw: TOOK AGES FOR PACKED; DOESNT SCAN SOME OF THEM ANYWAY EVEN IF UNPACKED FROM ZIP. IF IT SCANS THEM UNPACKED, IT PRETENDS TO HAVE SCANNED 300MB IN LESS THAN A SECOND. SOMETIMES EVEN SAYS “0 files scanned, no threats detected”. ITS LIKE A RANDOM MACHINE PRETENDING.
What you expected to happen or see: THAT IT SCANS ALL FILES IN THE VPK FILE. THAT IT DOESNT PRETEND TO SCAN 300MB IN UNDER A SECOND, AND THEN FAILS IN RESULT. OTHER ANTIVIRUS PROGRAMS SCAN MANY FILES INSIDE THE VPK. AND THEY CAN DO IT IN A MUCH LOWER AMOUNT of SECONDS IF VPK IS PACKED. (while comodo can need minutes, until you stop the scan annoyed).
How you tried to fix it & what happened: I WROTE ABOUT IT LONG AGO, NOTHING HAPPENED
Details & exact version of any application (execpt CIS) involved with download link: maps for example for left4dead http://www.l4dmaps.com/files.php?cat=3 (if i remember right, this map should be one that isnt counted as scanned: Quedan 4X Morir)
Whether you can make the problem happen again, and if so exact steps to make it happen: JUST LOAD A CUSTOM MAP FROM A STEAM GAME. SOME “seem to get scanned”, SOME ARE NOT EVEN COUNTED BUT CALLED SCANNED. ORIGINALLY PACKED CAUSES VERY LARGE SCAN TIMES, FOR SURE IF YOU SCAN MORE THAN ONE PACKED
Any other information (eg your guess regarding the cause, with reasons): its strange that it “seem” to scan some, while others not at all.
Files appended. (Please zip unless screenshots).
Screenshots illustrating the bug:
Screenshots of related CIS event logs and the Defense+ Active Processes List:
A CIS config report or file.
Crash or freeze dump file:
Screenshot of More~About page. Can be used instead of typed product and AV database version.
CIS version, AV database version & configuration used: i tested it with several versions over at least 2 years
a) Have you updated (without uninstall) from CIS 3 or 4: i made allways a fresh install with added antivirus
b) if so, have you tried a clean reinstall (without losing settings - if not please do)?: allways, i make allways the settings for antivirus to maximum, change file size, DISABLE CLOUDS ECT.
a) Have you imported a config from a previous version of CIS: i import settings (as long as its not mentioned to make a new set for a new version)
b) if so, have U tried a standard config (without losing settings - if not please do)?: you are free to test it with your standard settings.
Have you made any other major changes to the default config? (eg ticked ‘block all unknown requests’, other egs here.): i INCREASED FILES TO BE SCANNED TO THE HIGHEST LOGICAL AMOUNT (HARD DRIVE AMOUNT), DISABLE CLOUD THINGS
Defense+, Sandbox, Firewall & AV security levels: D+= , Sandbox= , Firewall = , AV = : AV statefull, on access too. what i am describing happens OBVIOUSLY, when you manually scan these files… my doubts are then about what happens at all.
i tried to scan two folders with around 96 unpacked vpk files. 23GB !
now, guess, how long did comodo antivirus need to scan this big amount?
one second! it counted 81 files of them.
so, it missed to scan +12%, and it scanned with a speed which tells us, this is maybe no scanning.
Here ends the bug reporting part of this topic. the following is something else.
We would very much appreciate it if you would edit your first post to create an issue report in line with the bug forum guidelines and format here. You can copy and paste the format from this topic.
To understand the reasons why we ask you to follow these guidelines please see below.
WHY WE ASK YOU TO FOLLOW THESE GUIDELINES
Bugs/issues can be impossible or very time consuming to fix if developers don’t have enough information to reproduce them. Since CIS is free, development time is limited. So if you want your issue fixed, please use the format below to describe it.
To avoid clutter, issues not described in the format below your post will not be moved to the ‘moderator verified’ issues topic. This means that the developers may not look at it.
The only possible reason for not supplying a full report is you have been contacted by a Staff member please supply details, otherwise this topic will be moved to Orphaned/Resolved/Outdated Issues - CIS.
For starters, the AV default is to not scan files larger than 40MB. Since you have stated your files are of a larger size. Note too, you may have the option checked to do cloud scanning/analysis, which takes longer.
BTW if i choose a file to be scanned manually with right click… i usually WANT it to be scanned… why should an (possible default) amount restriction have any effect on my actual choice for such a scan, and give out a result window, instead of a warning?
i was able to go through all windows of the user interface. i dont know what you try to tell
what i meant in the BTW was this:
usually “manual scanning” is the other side “of scheduled scanning”. manual scanning does not mean the same as “the scanning started by right click in context menu of a file”. so i would bet, that comodo has not made this mistake, and you are just wrong in your assume, a file larger than 40 mb would not be scanned by context menu started scan per default. because that would make the context menu started scan absurd per default.
anyway, this has nothing to do with my bug. as i had increased any possible amount-setting in the whole userinterace (otherwise according to your theory 100% of the files had not been scanned, because the files in question are usually larger than 40 mb). just wanted to clear this up.
so, did you test to right click scan a file larger than 40mb with a “dont manual scan larger files than 40mb -setting”… it doesnt work? are you sure?
and why should i be able to choose “scan this file with comodo in the context menu” while i actually “cant”?
doesnt make much sense to me.
manual scanning is using the predefined policies, my computer and so on. while scheduled uses the same… easiest example: is your antivirus database automatically updated, each time you right click scan, or just when you make a manual scan “policy scan”, when you make the setting for “update before manual scan”? another hint for that
I just tested this theory. I ran a right click scan on an installer. Manual scan, do not scan files larger than 40MB (default). File is an installer, size 11MB. The object count when scan completed was 114.
I changed the (Manual scan) do not scan files larger than size to 1MB. right click scanned the same file. Objects scanned: 1.
This was repeated to ensure the results were correct.
So, to reply and confirm, Manual scan, do not scan files larger than setting does indeed reflect on right click scan (context menu scanning).
wow, that seems to be a bad decision for a default setting. it pretends for the user, the object he choosed would be scanned, but it partially doesnt.
the reason to make reducings for scan files, is to save perfomrance. it should not prevent someone from scanning the individual choosen file by context menu scan. no one wins something from that. the user knows how long “it should take” to scan a 1gb file, when he chooses to scan it. he want a scan, not a performance increase or what.
WAIT , i see what happened :D. the 114 files are not all in the installer. like when you choose a “scheduled scan which scans only ONE txt.file, to initiate an antivirus update” (as an individual sheduled way), the scan will NOT only scan the txt file.
as this happens while manual scanning (what you found out), BUT NOT by right click scanning (what you found out), its another hint for my theory
EDIT: i misread the sentence “Manual scan, do not scan files larger than 40MB (default). File is an installer, size 11MB. The object count when scan completed was 114.” thought, it was about a manual scan, but it meant the made setting.
and about the bug,
this about manual and context menu scan has nothing to do with the bug. thats why i asked to seperate this.
the bug is, that some vpk files are not counted as scanned. WHATEVER settings you make. they are just not counted or scanned or whatever. i made a report to read.
read the bug report separate from what we try to find out at the moment