This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

How to configure on-access scanning to avoid unacceptable delays with trusted applications?

OS X 10.6.8,

Sophos Anti-Virus 9.0.11:

Recently, I experience unacceptable delays the first time I load an application after a period of not using it.  This may be the result of the most recent update of SAV; I'm not sure.

This is a Java application that I am writing, using a large number of Java libraries that I've installed.

It appears that what's taking so long is Intercheck, and I am guessing that this is running the On-Access Scanner.

At present, I don't want to disable the On-Access Scanner completely.  Seems like a good thing.  My guess is that I could speed up access to my Java app if I disabled scanning inside compressed files (e.g. jar files), but that seems like a good thing to have, in general, too.  Not for the stuff that I knowingly installed, though.

Questions:

Does what I just wrote make sense?  I'm just guessing, so I'd like confirmation.

How does SAV decide when it needs to scan the application when the application runs?  Every time I reboot?  Is there a time period?  Can it be configured?

How can I disable the on-access scanning for things that I install and trust?  It appears that the excluded items dialogue allows this.  However, the Choose dialogue does not allow me to choose anything under /usr.  Why not?  I install parts of the application under /usr/local.  I've entered /usr/local by hand, but I don't know whether that will work.

Sorry to ask these questions without doing further experimentation.  However, since I don't really understand what SAV is doing here, I'd rather not waste time if I am guessing wrongly about what is happening.

(I tried searching the knowledge base for information about this, but didn't find anything.  My questions are pretty straightforward, and the information may be there, but it's difficult to formulate a search that will find the appropriate information.)

Thanks!

:52032


This thread was automatically locked due to age.
Parents
  • Thanks very much for the clarification, Sandy.  These were things that I didn't understand.  It wasn't clear to me from the Sophos site that these forums were not intended as a substitute for tech support, and it wasn't clear that I have to contact my IT department given that I have a site license.

    I will admit that this is a bit disappointing for me personally.  Our IT people very good with certain kinds of problems, and I have a lot of respect for them.  This problem, which I do see as the result of the most recent release of Sophos, feels to me to me like the kind of thing that's not the sort of thing they're good at addressing.  That's just a guess, and it's entirely possible that I'm wrong.  I'll contact them.

    Thanks!

    :52565
Reply
  • Thanks very much for the clarification, Sandy.  These were things that I didn't understand.  It wasn't clear to me from the Sophos site that these forums were not intended as a substitute for tech support, and it wasn't clear that I have to contact my IT department given that I have a site license.

    I will admit that this is a bit disappointing for me personally.  Our IT people very good with certain kinds of problems, and I have a lot of respect for them.  This problem, which I do see as the result of the most recent release of Sophos, feels to me to me like the kind of thing that's not the sort of thing they're good at addressing.  That's just a guess, and it's entirely possible that I'm wrong.  I'll contact them.

    Thanks!

    :52565
Children
No Data