NOD32 Error Downloading File from Update Server – retval 0x1105

Mark Berry October 19, 2009

I’m running ESET Remote Administrator (ERA) 3.0.105 as an update mirror on a Win2003 R2 server. There are six NOD32 3.0.684.0 clients that connect to that server (including one client on the server itself). The setup has been working fine for months.

nod32_client_failure

More...

Excluding HTTP Sites from NOD32 Version 3.0

Mark Berry June 2, 2009

I’m running NOD32 Antivirus Business Edition version 3.0.684.0.

Zenith Infotech monitoring sometimes downloads files that trip NOD32’s HTTP filter (e.g. SpyBot and BitDefender executables). Zenith recommends excluding “update.itsupport247.net” from antivirus scanning. It’s not hard to do in NOD32, but it is hard to find someone who knows how to do it!

More...

ESET Remote Administrator (ERA) Event ID 502: Update Failed

Mark Berry April 14, 2008

Symptom 

I’m running running ESET Remote Administrator 2.0.56. After upgrading from the trial to the purchased version, I started receiving the event below in my Application Event
Log.

Source:  ERA
Event ID:  502
Type:  Error
Description: The description for Event ID ( 502 ) in Source ( ERA ) cannot be found. The local computer may not have the necessary registry information or message DLL files to display messages from a remote computer. You may be able to use the /AUXSOURCE= flag to retrieve this description; see Help and Support for details. The following information is part of the event: Error: Update failed, code: 4, additional code: 8193.

Solution 

Here’s the solution provided by ESET support:

  1. Open the Remote Administrator Console (RAC).
  2. Go to Menu >> Tools >> Server options…
    >> Updates tab.
  3. Make sure you have the correct user name and
    password.
  4. Click on Update Now button.

Sure enough, although I had updated the username and password in the 2.7 mirror setup, I had forgotten to update them in the RAC as well (where the 3.0 mirror is configured). Once I made that change, the errors stopped appearing in my event log.

More...

Comparing NOD32 2.7 to Trend Client-Server 3.6

Mark Berry March 15, 2008

A response to my previous blog post asked a fair question:  what sets
NOD32 apart or even on par with Trend Client-Server Messaging? I decided that I
would do some testing with Trend. Since I am using NOD32 without the Exchange
component, I tested Trend Client-Server without the Messaging component.

KeyFinder Problems

I've been building a UBCD4WIN version 3.12 ISO file as my test case. UBCD4WIN includes a
large number of plug-ins. One of them is keyfinder.exe, the Magical Jelly Bean
Keyfinder version 1.51. This handy program can display and update Windows and
Office installation keys.

I installed the Trend 3.5 agent on my workstation and tried the UBCD4WIN
build. The build failed because the keyfinder.exe file was missing. By
uninstalling and re-installing UBCD4WIN, and temporarily disabling the Trend
agent, I confirmed that Trend is deleting this file without logging it as a
virus or spyware and without sending it to quarantine. Trend is supposed to
encrypt and save suspicious files on the client in C:\Program Files\Trend
Micro\Client Server Security Agent\Suspect, but that folder is empty. I finally
got Trend to leave the file alone by adding keyfinder.exe to Trend's exclusion
list.
 
Is this a bug? I guess I'd better try the latest version, Trend 3.6 with Patch 1.
I downloaded the 336MB installation file, upgraded the server, and let it push
out the 3.6.1095 client. No reboot was requested.
 
After removing the file exclusion from the Trend configuration, I opened Windows
Explorer and highlighted keyfinder.exe (but did not execute it). The Trend icon
in the system tray indicated activity, then I got a message from Windows
indicating that my system may be vulnerable because Trend was not running. The
Trend system tray icon disappeared when I put the mouse over it. So scanning
keyfinder.exe caused the Trend Real-Time scanner to crash.

I rebooted the client and did the same test, highlighting the file in Windows Explorer. This time keyfinder.exe was
not
deleted and the Trend real-time agent did not crash. However, the
UBCD4WIN build process, which actually copies keyfinder.exe, failed again
because access was denied on that file. When I went back to look at
keyfinder.exe in Windows Explorer, it was deleted before my eyes. The Trend
Client/Server Security Agent real-time scan window still tells me that there are
0 infected files; “Last virus/malware found” is blank. So Trend is again
deleting it without any warning or logging. I had to add the file back to the
exclusion list so I could complete the UBCD4WIN build.

The Numbers

Once I got the UBCD4WIN build to complete, I tested it with various levels of
extension exclusions as I had NOD32. The results, along with the NOD32 2.7
results from the previous post:

  Trend Client-Server 3.6.1095 NOD32 2.7.39
Trend Intelliscan 14 minutes N/A
Scanning only specific extensions 12 minutes 14 minutes
Scanning all extensions 15 minutes 20 minutes

Some other numbers that are interesting from a system administration point of view are
installation size and memory overhead. The table below summarizes these numbers
for both server and workstation installations.

  Trend Client-Server 3.6.1095 NOD32 2.7.39
Server    
Installation File Size 336MB 25MB
Installed Folder Size 1010MB 86MB
Memory Usage 163,992KB 41,152KB
Workstation    
Installation File Size
(from client packager)
49MB 13MB
Installed Folder Size 197MB 28MB
Memory Usage 59,072KB 27,564KB

The server install of Trend Client-Server includes its web-based management
console. The server install of NOD32 includes the
ESET Remote Administrator Server and Console 2.0.56.

Conclusions

ESET NOD32 has a reputation for being lean and fast. Compared to Trend Client-Server 3.6, NOD32
definitely looks “lean” on disk space and memory footprint. However, Trend
allowed the UBCD4WIN build to proceed a little faster than NOD32.

My greatest concerns with Trend come from areas other than performance. One
was the experience back in February 2007 of Trend passing on a “possible worm”
to the client desktop, which would have allowed users to run the worm. I was amazed that there
was no way to configure Trend to not pass possible malware to end users. The
other experience is the one described above:  deleting a file without
warning and without logging. I wonder if I have lost other files that way and
will never know.

Clearly there is no perfect anti-virus solution. Both NOD32 and Trend CS(M)
have their own configuration hassles and “gotchas.” I do
appreciate the reduced memory footprint of NOD32, and the fact that my SBS
server no longer sends me a daily alert that it is running out of allocated
memory. We'll see how well it performs in the long term.

More...

Comparing NOD32 Version 2.7 to Version 3.0

Mark Berry March 9, 2008

Version 2.7:  The Fine Print

As I mentioned in the updates to my previous blog post, after encountering some issues with NOD32 version 3.0, and on the advice of experienced NOD32 system admins, I downgraded to version 2.7. 

What I didn’t realize is that by doing so, I would be giving up the ability to exclude files and folders from my scheduled and on-demand virus scans. Why is that a problem? Some years ago, I wrote and sold a set of Microsoft Word macros. NOD32 calls these a “possible unknown macro virus.” Fair enough, but I know what they are so I want to exclude them from scanning. In NOD32 version 3.0, I can exclude them from both real-time and on-demand scans. In NOD32 version 2.7, I can only exclude them from the real-time scanner. With 2.7, if I want the virus alerts to stop, I have to submit the macros to ESET for evaluation. I’m not too keen on sending my intellectual property to a software vendor for review.

Performance Comparison

The main reason given by other system admins for using NOD32 version 2.7 is that it performs much better than version 3.0. After seeing version 2.7 using 50% of the CPU during an in-depth server scan, I started wondering about this. I wondered more when I noticed that my desktop occasionally seemed to “stall out” for a few seconds running 2.7–an issue that I had not had with 3.0.

The final impetus for doing a real comparison was the sluggishness of the desktop when building a UBCD4WIN ISO file. I decided this might be a good test, since it involves copying a large number of files from both a CD and from disk.

About Extensions

One thing that 2.7 and 3.0 have in common is that by default, they both scan all files, regardless of extension. This turns out to make a big difference in performance. For example, during the UBCD4WIN build process, there is a step that appends data to a 450KB file called txtsetup.sif. From observing the process in FileMon, I see that this process accesses the file thousands of time, apparently working with file offsets to copy one line at a time. When NOD32 (either version) is set to its default to scan all extensions, it takes six minutes to append to this file. However, if I uncheck the “all extensions” box in the NOD32 setup dialog and allow it to scan only its pre-defined list of extensions, UBCD4WIN blows by this append step in about five seconds.

The Numbers

My comparison between the versions was not terribly rigorous. I just ran the UBCD4WIN build process multiple times, noting the start and stop times. Since I didn’t note seconds, there’s at least a ±1 minute margin of error. I ran the tests on an old Dell Dimension 2400 (Pentium 4 2.66GHz) with 1GB of RAM. I compared NOD32 2.70.39 to 3.0.642, both with current virus signatures.

The times to build the UBCD4WIN ISO file were as follows:

No antivirus software installed:  9 minutes. 

NOD32 version 2.7, real-time scanning disabled:  9 minutes.
NOD32 version 2.7, scanning only specific extensions:  14 minutes.
NOD32 version 2.7, scanning all extensions:  20 minutes.

NOD32 version 3.0, real-time scanning disabled:  10 minutes.
NOD32 version 3.0, scanning only specific extensions:  14 minutes.
NOD32 version 3.0, scanning all extensions:  24 minutes.

With both versions, watching Performance Monitor, I saw the antivirus process frequently exceeding 90% CPU usage, especially during the six-minute scan of txtsetup.sif.

Conclusions

Perhaps the most obvious conclusion is that, regardless of NOD32 version, it’s hard to justify accepting the default to scan all extensions, since it adds 40% or more to file access times. When set to only scan extensions that ESET identifies as vulnerable to viruses, there is no significant performance difference between the versions.

If performance is about the same, what other factors might influence one’s choice between 2.7 and 3.0?

  • Both versions have quirks that make it difficult or impossible to deploy some configuration settings using ESET’s .xml configuration files.
  • Version 3.0 has the important ability to exclude files and folders from on-demand and scheduled scans. It may be possible to work around this in 2.7 using Task Scheduler and NOD32’s command-line scanner.
  • In Version 3.0, the correlation between the client and the configuration editor (used for mass deployments) is less clear than in 2.7.

As the newer product, version 3.0 may still have issues that make 2.7 the safer bet for the short term. However, it’s encouraging that version 3.0’s real-time performance is on par with 2.7, at least with the specific-extensions list. I’d be interested to hear if others get similar results.

More...

Setting Up ESET NOD32 Antivirus 3.0 Business Edition on SBS 2003

Mark Berry February 15, 2008

Yet Another Antivirus Program

The time had come to renew my antivirus program. I decided instead to try one that I’ve been reading good things about on some Yahoo forums:  ESET‘s NOD32. The main attraction is the promise of a fast, lightweight, and accurate scan engine.

More...

About

Welcome to MCB Systems!

MCB Systems is a San Diego-based provider of software and information technology services.

Our software services include customization and programming to make software work for you.

Our proactive I.T. services help businesses control costs by providing a fixed monthly bill for routine I.T. services.

We take a consulting approach that listens first and provides solutions tailored to your business.

Contact MCB Systems today to discuss your technology needs!

Copyright © 2017 MCB Systems. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use - Privacy Policy
Created in WordPress using the Afterburner theme by RocketTheme.