Exclude subdirectories

Hello ttl,

like the other Virus scanning recommendations you have to take this one with a grain of salt. Arguably its wording is IMO the best Microsoft has come up with in this area in the last years. Nevertheless it is, like the others, somewhat contradictory.

Won't engage in the discussion this time how feasible it is to efficiently implement these rather complex exclusions. Instead, as the answer to How can I put in these exclusions is: You can't (at least not in an easy, general and economic way), I'd like to point out the subtleties of the mentioned article (all emphasis/underline mine unless noted otherwise):

The INTRODUCTION describes the contents as recommendations that may help an administrator determine the cause of potential instability and further notes we recommend that you temporarily apply these procedures to evaluate a system. If your system performance or stability is improved ... we recommend that you evaluate the risks that are associated with implementing this workaround and finally If you implement this workaround, take any appropriate additional steps to help protect the computer (whatever these are or could be).

This doesn't look like a sine qua non to me. It then goes on with a warning, an interesting almost-repudiation (we do not recommend this workaround) of the article's subject and the dire Use this workaround at your own risk.

The rest is the (usual) mix of mentioning more or less outdated potential problems (older versions of most vendor software inappropriately change a file's metadata as the file is scanned) and "tetchy" components (e.g. FRS) where problems might arise without AV involved and interspersed general security and performance recommendations.

Thus, do you have issues which you suspect to be caused by scanning? And are you trying to assess whether the exclusions help?

Christian

Hello ttl,

like the other Virus scanning recommendations you have to take this one with a grain of salt. Arguably its wording is IMO the best Microsoft has come up with in this area in the last years. Nevertheless it is, like the others, somewhat contradictory.

Won't engage in the discussion this time how feasible it is to efficiently implement these rather complex exclusions. Instead, as the answer to How can I put in these exclusions is: You can't (at least not in an easy, general and economic way), I'd like to point out the subtleties of the mentioned article (all emphasis/underline mine unless noted otherwise):

The INTRODUCTION describes the contents as recommendations that may help an administrator determine the cause of potential instability and further notes we recommend that you temporarily apply these procedures to evaluate a system. If your system performance or stability is improved ... we recommend that you evaluate the risks that are associated with implementing this workaround and finally If you implement this workaround, take any appropriate additional steps to help protect the computer (whatever these are or could be).

This doesn't look like a sine qua non to me. It then goes on with a warning, an interesting almost-repudiation (we do not recommend this workaround) of the article's subject and the dire Use this workaround at your own risk.

The rest is the (usual) mix of mentioning more or less outdated potential problems (older versions of most vendor software inappropriately change a file's metadata as the file is scanned) and "tetchy" components (e.g. FRS) where problems might arise without AV involved and interspersed general security and performance recommendations.

Thus, do you have issues which you suspect to be caused by scanning? And are you trying to assess whether the exclusions help?

Christian