Here's The Solution To Update Failures After Scan Complete
SOLUTION FOUND!
I have been debugging an issue for a couple weeks and have finally identified the problem. Because the original symptoms (license expiring every night) mutated over time as BD attempted to fix the problem, I have created a new thread. The original long thread was here: /index.php?/topic/12843-bitdefender-anitvirus-2009-keeps-shutting-down/" rel="">Original thread
As BD made updates to address that problem of constantly-expiring licenses, and with those fixes, I have been able to identify the problem that prevents updates after scans are completed!!!
Here's the deal, verified several times.
1) Updates are occurring normally
2) Scan initiated (can be manual or scheduled)
3) When scan completed, window pops up with results (!!!!! THIS IS IT)
4) BD's confusion about if the scan is complete is caused because the USER HAS NOT CLOSED THE RESULTS WINDOW!!! BD doesn't consider the scan fully completed until you close the results window and therefore will not perform updates because the "scan is still in progress"!!!!!
5) Other parts of BD (notably the history window for Virus Scans) say the scan is done, while the rest of BD thinks it is still in progress. This is the point where BD is confused about scan completion.
5) As soon as you close the results window, BD now *fully* believes the scan is done, and then updates are IMMEDIATELY re-initiated and are successful.
!!!!!! BigDefender - this is it! - All BD wanted to start updates again was for the user to close the final scan report window.
Attached pic - see BD thinks scan is still in progress while finish window is there. As soon as I clicked OK to close the window, the "Virus Scan" and "History and Events" module immediately updated to show scan finished and an update initiated and completed successfully!
Comments
-
I think I have had the same experience. I have a scheduled scan running now and updates are showing "update error" because an "Update Setting" states "Don't update if scan in progress". I will wait till scan ends and see if updates automatically resume.
0 -
Hello Invalid_key_queen and Ron,
This behavior is by design and it's not a bug. As you can see in BD's interface (also in the screenshot posted in the first post here), under the User tasks category, that task is showed as "Status: Scanning".
An update cannot take place without stopping any running scans and that is why updates are prevented to be made while scanning is in progress. And yes, a scan is officially and finally over when the user clicks Finish, and not before.
Also, this behavior is not new at all. This behavior was also present in BD2008 and BD2009 had the same behavior since it's first release.
Cris.0 -
Hello Invalid_key_queen and Ron,
This behavior is by design and it's not a bug. As you can see in BD's interface (also in the screenshot posted in the first post here), under the User tasks category, that task is showed as "Status: Scanning".
Yes, I do see this. But this conflicts with the history file which says it is FINISHED. The history tab in the user interface says the scan is FINISHED. So, is it done or not? Can't you see why we are confused?An update cannot take place without stopping any running scans and that is why updates are prevented to be made while scanning is in progress. And yes, a scan is officially and finally over when the user clicks Finish, and not before.
Well, if this is "by design," then it is a darn poor design. The USER defines the end of a scan? That makes no sense! (Especially when I want to schedule a couple different scans the same evening.)
Consider the effects - the actual scan is done, but the computer remains unprotected from updates until the user presses a key. BitDefender ITSELF in its different windows reports conflicting information (some "done" some "in progress"). Why is this conflicting information reported to the user then?Also, this behavior is not new at all. This behavior was also present in BD2008 and BD2009 had the same behavior since it's first release.
Ahh, so the bug has been around for a while. Whether you want to call it a bug or not, it is a bug.
It should be fixed, or there should be some sort of option available to us to have it automatically COMPLETELY quit (i.e., NOT wait for us to hit that key). I cannot find a way to do that, and I don't want to run from the command line. So Cris, please tell us how to do this automatically, without user intervention, so that updates do not fail for hours (or perhaps days) while we are not at the computer?
How do we configure BD so that when scans are complete (and I mean complete when the actual WORK is done, and NOT when I wander back to my machine), that updates are not stalled endlessly?
Regards0 -
Hello Invalid_key_queen and Ron,
This behavior is by design and it's not a bug. As you can see in BD's interface (also in the screenshot posted in the first post here), under the User tasks category, that task is showed as "Status: Scanning".
An update cannot take place without stopping any running scans and that is why updates are prevented to be made while scanning is in progress. And yes, a scan is officially and finally over when the user clicks Finish, and not before.
Also, this behavior is not new at all. This behavior was also present in BD2008 and BD2009 had the same behavior since it's first release.
Cris.
I want to add my two cents to this thread. There needs to be a way to have the scheduled scans auto complete without user intervention.
And, I must say that I do not consider the command line version found in the \common\ directory to be the solution, because as far as I can tell, it is not integrated into the GUI log files at all. If I use Windows Scheduler to use the command line, I cannot give the command line more then one option for cleaning items it finds.
Is there a way to have the BD scheduled scans complete by themselves?
Does the command line virus scanner integrate fully into the GUI/main version of BD?
Kevin0 -
Hello Invalid_key_queen and Ron,
This behavior is by design and it's not a bug. As you can see in BD's interface (also in the screenshot posted in the first post here), under the User tasks category, that task is showed as "Status: Scanning".
An update cannot take place without stopping any running scans and that is why updates are prevented to be made while scanning is in progress. And yes, a scan is officially and finally over when the user clicks Finish, and not before.
Also, this behavior is not new at all. This behavior was also present in BD2008 and BD2009 had the same behavior since it's first release.
Cris.
Surely you are not serious? Perhaps BitDefender support people stay at their computers all the time but I don't. I might leave it up for days at a time without checking. I have a scan scheduled once a day. So from the time the first scan finished (but does not finish per your design) I will receive ZERO updates? No way.
What happens if I uncheck the box in Update/Settings that says "Don't update if scan in progress"0 -
Yes, I do see this. But this conflicts with the history file which says it is FINISHED. The history tab in the user interface says the scan is FINISHED. So, is it done or not? Can't you see why we are confused?
Yes, I see why you are confused. This contradiction between info provided in two different sections is indeed a bug. I will forward this to the testing department. Thank you for reporting it.Ahh, so the bug has been around for a while. Whether you want to call it a bug or not, it is a bug.
Quote from WikipediaA software bug is an error, flaw, mistake, failure, or fault in a computer program that prevents it from behaving as intended (e.g., producing an incorrect or unexpected result).
"By design" means it's "by design" and it's not a bug. A bug is something that is not "by design". "By design" cannot be a bug because, by definition, they are opposite terms.
However, "by design" is subject to criticism, because not everyone likes the original design, thus resulting in complaints and "change requests". If you don't like a certain feature of a product, whatever the product, it doesn't mean that the product is flawed. It just means that the author(s) thought of it different than you do.It should be fixed, or there should be some sort of option available to us to have it automatically COMPLETELY quit (i.e., NOT wait for us to hit that key). I cannot find a way to do that, and I don't want to run from the command line. So Cris, please tell us how to do this automatically, without user intervention, so that updates do not fail for hours (or perhaps days) while we are not at the computer?
There's nothing to be fixed, as it's not a bug.
But there might be change.
I see your point in this matter, and I will forward your suggestions. For what it's worth, I will support adding an option of closing the window if there are no threats remaining on the system (so if the system is clean, or if infections were found and were removed, the window should close...otherwise, it should remain, so the user can take action).
If it will be implemented or not, and how fast it will happen (if it will happen), that's out of my hands.How do we configure BD so that when scans are complete (and I mean complete when the actual WORK is done, and NOT when I wander back to my machine), that updates are not stalled endlessly?
Currently, you can't.Surely you are not serious? Perhaps BitDefender support people stay at their computers all the time but I don't. I might leave it up for days at a time without checking. I have a scan scheduled once a day. So from the time the first scan finished (but does not finish per your design) I will receive ZERO updates? No way.
And why on Earth would you leave your computer up and running for days in a row without touching it?
Besides the case when your system is used as a server (in which case you should be using a server-type antimalware protection, not a home-use one), I really see no point in wasting energy keeping a computer turned on for no reason. Do you have any idea how much energy it consumes?
Yes, I know, it's offtopic. And please don't start saying "it's my job how I use my computer. Just fix BitDefender", because I already said I will forward your suggestion.What happens if I uncheck the box in Update/Settings that says "Don't update if scan in progress"
Probably the scan will stop if an update takes place while scanning. I never tried it.
Cris.0 -
"I really see no point in wasting energy keeping a computer turned on for no reason. Do you have any idea how much energy it consumes?"
This is probably not a good place to debate this but I did look at electrical costs of leaving my laptop on and it is "small". What is "small?" Depends on what the electricity supplier charges, if the rates vary by time of day, on one's own situation etc. Turning the system on and off has its own cost in terms additional wear on some components, in some cases. But for me, the bottom line is that my PC has become a utility -I use it all the time in short bursts, to check on a variety of things - weather, whats on at the movies, am I overdrawn at the bank (again), who said that,and so forth. Switching it on and off whenever I decide to use it is just not an option. And I would guess that holds true for many people as well. So I need an anti-virus system that does not assume a human being is looking at it all the time.0 -
Yes, I see why you are confused. This contradiction between info provided in two different sections is indeed a bug. I will forward this to the testing department. Thank you for reporting it.
Thank you."By design" means it's "by design" and it's not a bug. A bug is something that is not "by design". "By design" cannot be a bug because, by definition, they are opposite terms.
Ah, no. What you state assumes that all designs are perfect. Please, let's not get into some debate about what a bug is and isn't, and adding external quotes. Let's focus on the issue, which I am happy to see you are acknowledging. Thank you. Please see below:However, "by design" is subject to criticism, because not everyone likes the original design, thus resulting in complaints and "change requests". If you don't like a certain feature of a product, whatever the product, it doesn't mean that the product is flawed. It just means that the author(s) thought of it different than you do.
Without trying to flame some debate, I recognize the process you have explained. I'd like to relay that I've been designing software and hardware products for nearly 20 years - "designs" *themselves have bugs. I've created thousands of change requests and fixed as many. This is why a very common design cycle is called a Waterfall Model - to see how unintended design flaws can be wrapped back into the system in all phases of the design cycle from requirements through testing.
True, people don't *design* bugs into a system, but it often happens anyway. Thousands of product "designs" are so poor that products fail. I've written a successful and funny BOOK about debugging - skills to identify and fix bugs, including many DESIGN bugs. I don't say this to be obnoxious, but to relay that I've had extensive and successful experience in the process. Bugs happen everywhere! :-)
So, in my experience, change requests often come when the company realizes the users are using their products in unanticipated ways. I've been surprised several times that users have figured out BETTER ways to use our products than we originally intended !!! - and even though our original design was *not* a bug, users identified conditions we didn't anticipate.
Sometimes we've implemented changes to support their implementations as the "recommended way" to do something, because they found a better way. Or they identified a feature we hadn't considered.
So, perhaps what I/we are requesting here as a feature addition, if that sounds more appropriate.I see your point in this matter, and I will forward your suggestions. For what it's worth, I will support adding an option of closing the window if there are no threats remaining on the system (so if the system is clean, or if infections were found and were removed, the window should close...otherwise, it should remain, so the user can take action).
If it will be implemented or not, and how fast it will happen (if it will happen), that's out of my hands.
Great - thank you. I am very happy that you are trying to see this from a customer's point of view. This change will help many people who desire automation.
And yes, let's not get into why I leave my computer on. Quite frankly, is isn't relevant to this discussion at all.
Thank you for your considered reply.
Lisa0 -
Lisa and Ron (and to everyone reading this topic and interested in the suggested idea), until this matter is solved officially (one way or the other), I've written a small tool that should fix your problem in a basic way.
What it does: when a scan finishes (appears in BD's History as finished, even if the final window is still open), the tool will force the scan window to close. If anyone is interested to BETA test the tool, please contact me through PM. It's written in Java, so you need Java installed.
I tested it briefly on WinXP SP3, BD Total Security 2009 latest, Java 6 Update 12 (latest is Update 13) and it worked. For security purposes, I'll only give the tool by direct contact (PM) to anyone who is willing to take a chance in testing it.
If everything works ok, and you want to use this tool, some more tweaks can be done, like:
- close the window based on scan result (like "don't close if threats were found")
- filter monitoring based on scan type (like "close on Deep Scans", or whatever)
Cris.0 -
For security purposes, I'll only give the tool by direct contact (PM) to anyone who is willing to take a chance in testing it.
Cris.
Is via PM the only method available?0 -
PM, mail (you can send me an email from my profile on this forum), whatever... the important thing is for me to have direct contact with whoever wants to test it, because I need to give some instructions and debug procedures (in case anything goes wrong).
Cris.0 -
PM, mail (you can send me an email from my profile on this forum), whatever... the important thing is for me to have direct contact with whoever wants to test it, because I need to give some instructions and debug procedures (in case anything goes wrong).
Cris.
Your choice to require it be this way. Then I will decline to participate in the testing. I am not willing to receive any more of the personal comments you made to me in previous private conversations, as I already told you.
Hopefully others will reply here with their experiences and I will test when the fix becomes more public. It would be good to discover a fix that works for everyone looking for automated performance, and I hope that one is found soon.
Regards.0 -
It is my choice, because I made the tool on my own and I can't guarantee anything for it, at least until it's properly tested under controlled conditions. I am not willing to throw out an untested application, risk breaking up God-knows-what on certain systems, and then have users coming back on me because I only wanted to help. You should understand this logic, and you can't say you don't agree with it.
Cris.0 -
It is my choice, because I made the tool on my own and I can't guarantee anything for it, at least until it's properly tested under controlled conditions. I am not willing to throw out an untested application, risk breaking up God-knows-what on certain systems, and then have users coming back on me because I only wanted to help. You should understand this logic, and you can't say you don't agree with it.
Cris.
Cris
I would expect that BD has routine procedures for releasing such "tools" as you mention. At least they should.
Please release it via the approved channels at BD.
Fungus0 -
if it was me i would want to update b4 i scanned.
0 -
I would expect that BD has routine procedures for releasing such "tools" as you mention. At least they should.
Please release it via the approved channels at BD.
Fungus, BitDefender HAS official procedures of releasing such tools, and these procedures usually involve either automatic updates, either KnowledgeBase articles.
However, this tool is made by me, and me alone, without any direct involvement from BitDefender, so there is no "official way" of distribution. It's just a simple 3rd party tool designed to somehow fix the problem presented in this topic.
Invalid_key_queen: I've sent you download information on PM. You are welcome to try it and post any comments in this topic (if you don't want to send them by PM).
If anyone else wants to test it, please send me a PM, or post your request in this topic and I'll send you download instructions.
Cris.0 -
Hello,
I found out myself that's the scenario that update will fail but another solution is to schedule a scan task and choose to "minimize to tray", that way update will continue after scan task finished.
Hope it helps.0 -
I found out myself that's the scenario that update will fail but another solution is to schedule a scan task and choose to "minimize to tray", that way update will continue after scan task finished.
It doesn't work like that on my system.
It's the same behavior: Update canceled due to scan in progress.
Cris.0 -
Hello,
I found out myself that's the scenario that update will fail but another solution is to schedule a scan task and choose to "minimize to tray", that way update will continue after scan task finished.
Hope it helps.
I tried that last night and it did NOT work on my system (SP2). The scan completed at 7:06am but the update failed again at 7:43am and 8:43am. It only resumed after I clicked on the scan icon in the tray, looked at the log, and then closed out the windows.0
