Periodically On Access Scanner turns itself (?) off. Is there some way to force it to restart other than rebooting?
This thread was automatically locked due to age.
Guest User!
You are not Sophos Staff.
Periodically On Access Scanner turns itself (?) off. Is there some way to force it to restart other than rebooting?
fish95 wrote:I too am having the same problem.
Currently I can not find any way to re-activate the access scanner. I am considering re-intallation however from reading other peoples atempts, that seems unlikely to help.I have however found the exact time in the logs where the situation occured. It seems to have happened alongside an update check/update.
com.sophos.intercheck: espion-f.ide
com.sophos.intercheck: vbdro-ag.ide
com.sophos.intercheck: age-abqa.ide <--- Here it was finishing up a normal scan
com.sophos.intercheck:
com.sophos.intercheck: Info: On-access scanner started at 22:09 on 07 May 2013
com.sophos.intercheck:
com.sophos.autoupdate: Update completed at 22:10:00 07 May 2013
com.sophos.autoupdate: Info: Checked primary server at 22:10 on 07 May 2013
com.sophos.autoupdate: Sophos Anti-Virus was updated
com.sophos.autoupdate:
com.sophos.autoupdate: Updating catalogue information at 23:10:00 07 May 2013
com.sophos.autoupdate: Catalogue updated at 23:10:01 07 May 2013
com.sophos.autoupdate: Download started at 23:10:01 07 May 2013
com.sophos.autoupdate: Download completed at 23:11:41 07 May 2013
com.sophos.autoupdate: Software is up-to-date at 23:12:13 07 May 2013
com.sophos.autoupdate: Info: Checked primary server at 23:12 on 07 May 2013
com.sophos.autoupdate: Sophos Anti-Virus is up to date
com.sophos.autoupdate:
com.sophos.autoupdate: Updating catalogue information at 13:04:01 08 May 2013
com.sophos.autoupdate: Catalogue updated at 13:04:07 08 May 2013
com.sophos.autoupdate: Error: Failed to get remote version at 13:04:07 08 May 2013 <---- First error
com.sophos.autoupdate: Failed to authenticate at 13:04:07 08 May 2013
com.sophos.autoupdate: Error: Could not contact primary server at 13:04 on 08 May 2013<- Something blocking access to home server?
com.sophos.autoupdate: URL is invalid
com.sophos.autoupdate:
com.sophos.autoupdate: Updating catalogue information at 17:18:36 08 May 2013
com.sophos.autoupdate: Catalogue updated at 17:18:38 08 May 2013
com.sophos.autoupdate: Download started at 17:18:38 08 May 2013
com.sophos.autoupdate: Download completed at 17:19:18 08 May 2013
com.sophos.autoupdate: Update started at 17:19:18 08 May 2013
com.sophos.intercheck: Fatal Error: Unable to initialise virus detection engine [0x0010b500] <---- Big problem
com.sophos.intercheck: Sophos Anti-Virus cannot continue
com.sophos.intercheck:
com.sophos.autoupdate: Update completed at 17:20:16 08 May 2013
com.sophos.autoupdate: Info: Checked primary server at 17:20 on 08 May 2013
com.sophos.autoupdate: Sophos Anti-Virus was updated
com.sophos.autoupdate:
com.sophos.intercheck: Fatal Error: Unable to initialise virus detection engine [0x00401480]
com.sophos.intercheck: Sophos Anti-Virus cannot continue
The last two lines are continueously repeated. Clearly something is stopping the virus detection engine.
One thing I seem to have noticed is that often (although not always) the problem seems to occur when the computer is in low-power (sleep) mode. Perhaps this is merely a coincidence and that what is really happening is the update process is not working correctly regardless of the power state or perhaps there is some relationship between the two.
Reading through the various posts in this thread, I have to wonder if the problem is at least partially tied to the computer being constantly "on" in some form. I've simply never seen the On Access Scanning issue happen on either my Mac Pro 5,1 or a rMBP 2013. In both instances the computers are either running or shut down. They never sleep, since, when booting from an SSD the wait is very short, and I believe the sleeping process involves writing RAM contents to permanent storage which, with a HD is irrelevant but with an SSD is eating into its usable life. I've also seen on the Apple Communities that seemingly obscure problems that people have are sometimes solved by simply rebooting, which is a lot less common than I would have thought. I also wonder if the transition-to-sleep-mode process may be a bit less orderly than a clean shut-down, especially for third party software that's busy doing something when that happens. On occasion I've seen something I'm doing slow down as Sophos starts its periodic update, especially to a whole new version. That's why part of my startup process is to force Sophos to "Update Now" so it's done before I get busy.
That's not to say that constantly running software shouldn't be immune to being run non-stop, but with so many other things going under the hood, sometimes simply shutting down in orderly fashion can be a good thing.
ZRL1 wrote:Reading through the various posts in this thread, I have to wonder if the problem is at least partially tied to the computer being constantly "on" in some form. I've simply never seen the On Access Scanning issue happen on either my Mac Pro 5,1 or a rMBP 2013. In both instances the computers are either running or shut down. They never sleep, since, when booting from an SSD the wait is very short, and I believe the sleeping process involves writing RAM contents to permanent storage which, with a HD is irrelevant but with an SSD is eating into its usable life. I've also seen on the Apple Communities that seemingly obscure problems that people have are sometimes solved by simply rebooting, which is a lot less common than I would have thought. I also wonder if the transition-to-sleep-mode process may be a bit less orderly than a clean shut-down, especially for third party software that's busy doing something when that happens. On occasion I've seen something I'm doing slow down as Sophos starts its periodic update, especially to a whole new version. That's why part of my startup process is to force Sophos to "Update Now" so it's done before I get busy.
That's not to say that constantly running software shouldn't be immune to being run non-stop, but with so many other things going under the hood, sometimes simply shutting down in orderly fashion can be a good thing.
I would think that any software which has processes sensitive to disruption due to the system transitioning to low-power or sleep mode would be designed to take the possibility into accout and have some means of preperly recovering those processes that were interupted. At least, to my thinking that would be intelligent design. That being said, I do recognize that far too many -- perhaps not the majority, but still too many -- programmers and software designers operate in a fantasy world where every user only does things the way those software designers demand and any user who does anything differently than those software designers demand get what they deserve when the application misbehaves. Sorta like a car designer telling a driver that if the car misbehaves when the make a left turn it's obviously the drivers fault because, after all, the car was designed only to make right turns and don't expect them to "fix" the problem because there isn't a problem: drivers simply have to stop insisting on making left turns -- THAT'S the problem!!
LDMartin1959 wrote:
...That being said, I do recognize that far too many -- perhaps not the majority, but still too many -- programmers and software designers operate in a fantasy world where every user only does things the way those software designers demand and any user who does anything differently than those software designers demand get what they deserve when the application misbehaves. Sorta like a car designer telling a driver that if the car misbehaves when the make a left turn it's obviously the drivers fault because, after all, the car was designed only to make right turns and don't expect them to "fix" the problem because there isn't a problem: drivers simply have to stop insisting on making left turns -- THAT'S the problem!!
I agree but I think that can go both ways. I have my computers set to run in verbose mode so I can see at least part of what's going on as they boot and as they shut down. On occasion, shut down will be delayed because some processes are still at work and the OS gives them a chance to end cleanly. I haven't tried that in a transition to sleep but I suspect that the OS is in more of a hurry to finish because, at least with laptops, the user assumes that with the lid closed, he can grab it and go, something which could be dangerous for a machine still in a transitional state. And with many processes needing to close at once, cooperation among them can become problematic, even assuming the every one of the programmers had concern for such cooperation.
I don't know what Developer Guidelines there are (if any) for programmers dealing with an abrupt sleep transition but it couldn't hurt for the user to have some appreciation for (if not understanding of) what goes on under the hood and give his computer a break.
And while the first defense of a manufacturer is often to blame the customer, I still remember a co-worker who thought that anti-lock brakes meant that he didn't have to steer out of danger either. There is a middle ground...
