Re: BitDefender again

["Joe Smith" <unknown_kev_cat at hotmail dot com>]

"Michael Kairys" <kairys@comcast.net> wrote in message 
h73co7$tt1$1@ger.gmane.org">news:h73co7$tt1$1@ger.gmane.org...
> Thanks for the replies...
>
> > the suggestion to use a base address in the 0x35000000 area (or indeed
> > any of the others they mentioned) is going to horribly frag your heap and 
> > bork
> > your maximum allocatable memory limit, isn't it?
>
> I don't know. How would I tell?
>
> >  Wonder if it wouldn't work just as well to rebase /their/ DLL?
>
> I don't know. Sounds scary given the liberties an AV program seems to take 
> with the operating system... Should I try? How would I?

If you can figure out which DLL they are injecting, you can do exactly what 
they tell you to do, except using their DLL instead of the cygwin DLL.

Or you can go the easy route, and follow the instructions they have provided 
to rebase cygwin.dll. The person who wrote the message you quoted is 
obviously familar with Cygwin, since he has you use Cygwin's rebase utility. 
This indicates to me that he has actually tried the solution he mentions, 
and it has fixed the problem for him. 



--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple