Leaderboard

  1. GT500

    GT500

    Emsisoft Employee


    • Points

      368

    • Content Count

      9435


  2. Kevin Zoll

    Kevin Zoll

    Emsisoft Employee


    • Points

      103

    • Content Count

      18415


  3. Elise

    Elise

    Emsisoft Employee


    • Points

      90

    • Content Count

      8117


  4. Fabian Wosar

    Fabian Wosar

    Emsisoft Employee


    • Points

      87

    • Content Count

      4403



Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 10/23/15 in all areas

  1. 6 points
    As announced earlier, we are changing our firewall strategy and will soon merge Emsisoft Internet Security with Emsisoft Anti-Malware, effective as of our next release in October. Instead of developing our own firewall module, we’re going to rely on the built-in Windows Firewall core that has proven to be powerful and reliable. Its only weak point is the fact that anyone can freely change the firewall configuration. In other words, if malware manages to run on the PC with sufficient administrator permissions, it’s able to allow itself to get through the firewall. To resolve this vulnerability, we’ve developed a new Firewall Fortification feature for Emsisoft Anti-Malware’s Behavior Blocker as part of our 2017.8 release. Firewall Fortification detects and intercepts malicious actions from non-trustworthy programs in real time before they can cause any damage. Behavior Blocker alert: Firewall manipulation All 2017.8 improvements in a nutshell Emsisoft Anti-Malware New: Firewall Fortification feature that blocks illegitimate manipulations of Windows Firewall rules. Improved: Forensics logging. Fixed: Rare program freezes on opening the forensics log, confirming of surf protection notifications and during malware detection. Fixed: Computer restart instead of computer shutdown executed, when set for a silent scan. Several minor tweaks and fixes. Emsisoft Enterprise Console Improved certificate handling to avoid connectivity issues. Several minor user interface improvements. Several minor tweaks and fixes. How to obtain the new version As always, so long as you have auto-updates enabled in the software, you will receive the latest version automatically during your regularly scheduled updates, which are hourly by default. New users please download the full installer from our product pages. Note to Enterprise users: If you have chosen to receive “Delayed” updates in the Update settings for your clients, they will receive the new software version no earlier than 30 days after the regular “Stable” availability. This gives you time to perform internal compatibility tests before a new version gets rolled out to your clients automatically. Have a great, well-protected day! View the full article
  2. 4 points
    Guten Tag, Wir haben mittlerweile mehrfach etabliert, dass Emsisoft nicht das Programm Ihrer Wahl ist. Sie haben sich bereits anderweitig ein Antivirus gesucht, dass auch noch dreißig weitere Funktionalitäten mitabdeckt. Fakt ist jedoch, dass viele Leute eben auch ein Antivirenprogramm suchen, dass nicht noch fünfzig Extras mitbringt, die man nicht will oder nicht braucht. Für diese Leute gibt es eben Emsisoft Anti-Malware und die meisten unserer Kunden sind mit der Tatsache, dass es eben 'nur' ein Rundumschutz für den Rechner ist und nicht mehr, zufrieden. Für all die angesprochenen Features - Passwortgenerator, Kinderschutz, etc - gibt es bereits gute Programme, die man sich bei Bedarf installieren kann. Viele Leute haben aber entweder keine Kinder oder wollen diesen den Zugang nicht beschränken, warum sollten wir diesen Leuten einen Kinderschutz mitinstallieren. Einige haben eben auch nicht RAM oder CPU im Überfluß, für diese Leute ist es noch ärgerlichr wenn das RAM durch ein AV belegt ist, dass aufgrund von ungenutzten Features die Ressourcen auffrisst. Fazit: Es gibt viele Antivirenprogramme, die die eierlegende Vollmilchsau sein wollen und versuchen alle Programme in einem zu vereinen. Es gibt User, die diesen Ansatz nicht mögen und nur ein Antivirenprogramm wollen. Nicht mehr. Für diese Leute gibt es, zum Beispiel Emsisoft Anti-Malware. Sie gehören nicht zu dieser Gruppe und das ist ok. Mit freundlichen Grüßen Kathrin
  3. 3 points
    It means that the tests done by AV-C and AV-T have a clear image of how they think AV software should work. The problem arises when your product doesn't fit the mould. Then you get penalized for not doing what everyone else does, even though what everyone else does may not be in the best interest of the user, to begin with. Best example: Snooping around in your encrypted connections, which literally every AV vendor screwed up at least once in the past and probably will continue to happen, exposing users to potentially greater risks than most malware does. For starters, the test sets aren't nearly as representative anymore. When we participated in AV-T and AV-C both tested with less than 200 samples a month on average. 200 samples out of literally tens of millions. The exact selection isn't clear and not representative of what users deal with either. None of them tests with PUPs for example, even though a simple look at any tech support community will tell you, that it is probably by far the biggest problem users are dealing with. So no, neither of those test scores represents real-life performance and it becomes blatantly obvious when you go to places like Bleeping Computer, GeeksToGo, Trojaner Board, Malekal, and all those other communities where people infected by malware show up for help and look at what products these victims used at the time they became infected. Then you will notice that a lot of these products with perfect scores don't look nearly as perfect in real-life conditions. The reason for this discrepancy is quite simple: Most AV vendors will specifically optimise their products for these tests. The most severe cases are where vendors end up outright cheating and detecting the test environments which then results in a change of behaviour of the product (think Dieselgate, but with anti-virus). But there are many ways you can game these tests. For example: you can try to figure out the threat intel feeds the companies use, then just buy those same threat intel feeds so you have all samples in advance you can track their licenses and supply different signatures to them or use your cloud to treat those test systems differently some particularly shady organisations literally also sell you their sample and malicious URL feed, so you can just outright buy the samples and URLs your product will get tested on later What you end up with as a result is a product that is optimised really really well for the exact scenario they are being tested under using the exact type of URLs and samples these testers use, but that is utterly useless when it comes to anything else. We just really don't want to create this type of product. So when we were asked whether we wanted to continue to participate this year, we discussed the matter internally, looked at what we get out of these tests (meaning: whether these tests have a discernable impact on our revenue) and decided that they are simply not worth it and that the tens of thousands of Euros we spent on them every year would be better spent on extending our team and building new ways of keeping our customers safe.
  4. 3 points
    Please note that Emsisoft Anti-Malware for Windows XP hasn't been updated (as in program updates) in over 2 years, and we never intended on continuing long-term database update support for it. In fact, we discontinued our own database updates for it over a year and a half ago, and those still running Emsisoft Anti-Malware on Windows XP have only been receiving BitDefender database updates. We've decided that it is time to stop redistributing those BitDefender updates for Windows XP, as all they are doing is giving those on Windows XP a false sense of security. In addition, it is extremely dangerous to continue using Windows XP. It has (for several years now) had well-known and major security vulnerabilities that Microsoft will never fix. These vulnerabilities make it trivial to infect a Windows XP system, and there is no security software in the world that is capable of preventing it. We can not, in good conscience, continue to provide any support for this version of Windows, as we announced on December 31st, 2015: https://blog.emsisoft.com/2015/12/02/why-we-believe-its-not-ethical-to-sell-antivirus-software-for-windows-xp-any-longer/ We highly recommend that you upgrade to a newer Operating System that is still supported. It doesn't matter if that's a newer version of Windows, or something free like Linux or BSD, as long as you'll be receiving security updates from whoever makes it. New vulnerabilities are discovered almost every day for every major Operating System (Windows, Linux, BSD, MacOS, Android, etc) so it is absolutely critical that you are able to receive security updates from whoever made the Operating System to help keep you and your data safe.
  5. 3 points
    Wenn alle Features eingebaut würden, die Galaxy wünscht, dann würde ich EAM sofort deinstallieren. Ich mag das Programm so wie es ist und hoffe, das bleibt auch so.
  6. 3 points
    Is this working OK now for everyone else? If it is, then there's no need for any more logs. All we needed was a traceroute to send to our CDN provider to help in identifying the server that was having the issue, and I managed to get one of those the other day.
  7. 3 points
    @achtsam Es wird eher langsam Zeit, dass Du deinen privaten Kreuzzug einstellst. Das nimmt ja wirklich paranoide Züge an.
  8. 3 points
    Hello, a2guard.exe is the visible protection process (to put it simple, the Emsisoft icon you see in the system tray). However actual protection drivers start a lot earlier. For example epp.sys (the Emsisoft Protection Platform driver) starts very early in the Windows boot process in order to ensure a protected system even when no user is logged in yet and no other programs have been started.
  9. 3 points
    For the following ransomware, we have decrypters: Actively spreading ransomware: MRCR or Merry X-Mas Globe Globe 2 Globe 3 Nemucod Philadelphia Stampado Xorist Actively spreading ransomware, but the decrypter only works for older infections: Al-Namrood NMoreira LeChiffre PClock FenixLocker GlobeImposter Inactive ransomware: 777 Apocalypse ApocalypseVM AutoLocky BadBlock CrypBoss CryptInfinite CryptoDefense DMALocker DMALocker2 Fabiansomware Harasom HydraCrypt Gomasom KeyBTC Marlboro OpenToYou OzozaLocker Radamant
  10. 2 points
    I've been told that the time window for being able to figure out keys for .kiratos has ended, however I will go ahead and pass this on to the developer of STOPDecrypter so that he can archive it just in case he's able to figure out the decryption key at some point in the future.
  11. 2 points
    Hi Marshall. To add the MVPS Hosts list to uBlock Origin, perform the following steps (see images for more details): (1) Go to the following link: https://filterlists.com/ (2) Enter "130" in the page field. (3) Click the blue "Details" button on the "MVPS Hosts" line. (4) Click the blue "Subscribe" button. You're all done! The MVPS Hosts file should now be added to uBlock Origin in your browser. To check you can look at the uBlock Origin "Options" page by right-clicking the uBlock Origin icon in your browser, as per images. Hope this helps. Best Regards, Steen
  12. 2 points
    Hallo Moreau, vielen Dank für Ihre positive Rückmeldung. Immer wieder gerne und vielen Dank für die freundliche Kommunikation. Ich wünsche Ihnen einen guten Start in die (noch fast) neue Woche!
  13. 2 points
    > Thanks how do I turn off the notification please ? See: Settings - Notifications - Browser Security verifications
  14. 2 points
    Hello, This is legitimate. You can read more about it here: https://blog.emsisoft.com/en/32517/new-in-2018-12-safe-web-browsing-with-emsisoft-browser-security/
  15. 2 points
    Are there any plans of introducing an anti-malware for Mac in the near future? I'm very curious. We see more and more interest of our customers that are demanding a good mac protection software. Now we deliver Emsisoft for Windows but we can't for MAC OS. By canceling development of EIS is there now more of a possibility for a new product?
  16. 2 points
    Other companies have 10 to 100 times the number of employees we do. Having one person there that fixes bugs in Windows Insider builds isn't much of an issue there. However, us doing that would mean ~30% of all development time disappears to keep a couple of hobbyists happy who use a system that is not intended for use in production systems on their production system. We do include insider builds in our QA runs, so we know if or what is broken so we can fix it in time for a release. But unless something is fundamentally broken, risking system security or stability, we won't fix bugs specific to insider builds before a release to web is close.
  17. 2 points
    You could also use a third-party DNS service that has DNS filtering and protects against DNS security issues. A popular example is OpenDNS (although there should be others as well): https://www.opendns.com/home-internet-security/
  18. 2 points
    You can see this on several programs. Service and drivers are up, but GUI hasn't caught up. It's not a problem.
  19. 2 points
    It is not the UI doing the protection, it is the service/driver, and they are the first things to be loaded during boot even before your desktop appears.
  20. 2 points
    According to several reports, the latest Windows 10 Update pushed on Jan. 3rd is supposed to address the "Meltdown" security problem. However, due to changes to Windows kernel, Microsoft didn't make the update available to users without the "ALLOW REGKEY", and directed users to confirm with AV vendors if their products are compatible with the latest update. So is the current version of EAM compatible with this update?
  21. 2 points
    Thanks Umbra. I've also done step 2, and I suspect your right that is good enough.
  22. 2 points
    Ich kann EMSI-Soft nur bestärken bei dem bloatfreien Konzept zu bleiben. Jeder der Ahnung von der Materie hat, weiß dass diese extra Features Mist sind und nur die Angriffsfläche erhöhen. Siehe diverse Project Zero (google) Security-Bugs bei AV-Herstellern.... EMSISOFT scheinen der einzigen AV Hersteller mit Verstand zu sein, dem man sogar in diesem sensiblen Bereich die Achtung der Privatsphäre abnimmt. Das wissen genug Leute zu schätzen!
  23. 2 points
    Arbeite doch einfach selbst Deine Profilneurose auf, oder suche Dir professionelle Hilfe. Ich bin ziemlich sicher, daß das Sammeln von likes und dislikes Dir nicht wirklich weiterhelfen wird...
  24. 2 points
    From (very) humble beginnings in a Windows XP Service Pack update, the Windows Firewall has evolved into a capable security tool. Today, its performance is on par with – if not better than – any modern third-party desktop firewall on the market. In light of this, and after a lot of careful consideration, the Emsisoft team made a very conscious decision to rely on the Windows Firewall moving forward, which ultimately led to us merging Emsisoft Internet Security with Emsisoft Anti-Malware. This will allow us to concentrate our efforts on building a bulletproof product while using our Behavior Blocker technology to further strengthen the already rock-solid Windows Firewall. To put it simply, using Windows Firewall in conjunction with Emsisoft Anti-Malware will provide better protection for our users, and that is our number one objective above all else. Since our announcement of the Emsisoft Internet Security and Emsisoft Anti-Malware merger, we have received a lot of positive feedback. However, we also got a lot of questions. We want to take the time to answer the most frequently asked questions in a bit more detail: So are you going to remove the firewall completely? The answer to that question is not as simple as it may seem at first. Firewalls are usually divided into two parts: A so-called packet filter, which usually deals with incoming packets and is therefore often called an inbound firewall; and an application filter that deals with applications wanting to access the network or internet, which is why it is often also referred to as an outbound firewall. Emsisoft Anti-Malware has always had an application filter as part of its Behavior Blocker and that will continue to be true. The difference between the outbound firewall in Emsisoft Anti-Malware and Emsisoft Internet Security is that the former makes decisions autonomously, while the later, at least in theory, allowed you to also use your manual rules. In practice, the default for Emsisoft Internet Security was to automatically allow all outbound connections and the majority of all our users never changed it. Why did you make the change? Was Emsisoft Internet Security less secure than the Windows Firewall? No. All firewalls on modern versions of Windows are based on the same technologies provided by Microsoft. In addition, inbound firewalls in particular are incredibly straightforward to implement, as they only block or allow access based on simple rules. That is why there is absolutely no difference in protection provided between any of the inbound firewalls on the market, including the Windows Firewall. However, the Windows Firewall does have some benefits: Support for Windows Networking like Home Groups is a lot better in the Windows Firewall out of the box. There is no need to tweak any rules manually as was often the case for Emsisoft Internet Security. It is easier to use. This is mostly because third-party applications will take care of creating all necessary firewall rules for you. That is not an option that Emsisoft Internet Security could provide, as most software vendors don’t care about third-party firewalls. The Windows Firewall also provides much better compatibility. Third-party software vendors usually test their products with the Windows Firewall as it is part of Windows, but almost never test their product’s compatibility with aftermarket firewall products. Last but not least, the Windows Firewall also provides a lot more configuration possibilities to expert users and allows for much more complex rulesets than the inbound firewall offered as part of Emsisoft Internet Security. But there are also a couple of disadvantages, which is where Emsisoft Anti-Malware 2017.8 comes in: Intelligent outbound firewall: The outbound firewall part of the Windows Firewall will by default allow every application to connect. This behaviour is actually identical with Emsisoft Internet Security, which also allowed any application to connect to the network or the internet unhindered by default. While both products can be manually configured to block programs from accessing the internet, most users don’t want to deal with this responsibility. This is where the intelligent outbound firewall that is part of our Behavior Blocker comes in, which will prevent malicious applications from communicating with the internet automatically while not getting in the way of benign applications. Enhanced malware protection: The Windows Firewall on its own does not provide any protection against more sophisticated attempts to bypass its outbound firewall through advanced techniques like code injection. Code injection essentially allows malware to take over a trusted program in order for its internet communication to pass through the firewall unhindered. Again, the Behavior Blocker in Emsisoft Anti-Malware is incredibly good at detecting and preventing these kinds of attacks. Windows Firewall Fortification: The functions Windows Firewall provides to software vendors to automatically create rules for their applications in the Windows Firewall for ease of use are also pretty much unprotected. That means that malware can and does create rules for itself automatically. In version 2017.8, we extended our Behavior Blocker technology to protect the exposed Windows Firewall functions from malicious usage. This gives you control over which of your applications are allowed to create Windows Firewall rules for you and which aren’t. This is what we refer to as “Windows Firewall Fortification”. To sum things up, for inbound filtering, the Windows Firewall is just as solid a choice as any other firewall product on the market, including Emsisoft Internet Security. It provides better compatibility and is easier to use for the majority of users. Its drawbacks mostly revolve around its outbound filtering capabilities, which are perfectly complemented by the enhanced Behavior Blocker that is part of Emsisoft Anti-Malware 2017.8 and later. Where can I find the new Windows Firewall Fortification options? The new options are part of the Emsisoft Anti-Malware Behavior Blocker. As such, you can find them under Protection/Application Rules: In addition, whenever the Behavior Blocker sees any application it doesn’t know to be trustworthy attempting to create new firewall rules or change the firewall status, it will attempt to auto-resolve the situation by blocking the attempt: If you have auto-resolve disabled, it will simply ask. Where can I find the “advanced configuration possibilities” you talk about? My Windows Firewall only has a couple of options! The default dialog to configure the Windows Firewall can be incredibly deceptive at first. The advanced configuration dialog is stashed away behind an innocuous looking link in the normal Windows Firewall configuration dialog: Windows Firewall dialog with link to Advanced settings Clicking that link will expose the real configuration of the Windows Firewall where you have full access to all the rules it adheres by. That looks awfully complicated. Are there easier methods? There exist a slew of additional applications that sit on top of the Windows Firewall and attempt to enhance it by making rule creation and management easier. Some of the most popular are: TinyWall (Free) – http://tinywall.pados.hu/ Windows Firewall Control (Freemium) – https://www.binisoft.org/wfc.php Glasswire (Paid) – https://www.glasswire.com/ That being said, we think that the majority of users probably won’t find these tools to be necessary. That is also why we decided against creating our own Windows Firewall front-end and focus our development efforts on improving the complementary and enhanced technology in our Behavior Blocker instead. So what do you recommend I should do? We strongly believe that the combination of Emsisoft Anti-Malware and the Windows Firewall is the best option for almost every user. For the past 12 years while developing our product, we used this exact combination in all of our internal performance evaluations of our technology. Our malware research team works hard to make sure that even the most advanced threats are blocked immediately across all our products. So yes, Emsisoft Anti-Malware blocks the same malware that Emsisoft Internet Security blocks out of the box – no configuration, paying extra or jumping through hoops needed. If you do feel the need to make sure that certain legitimate applications can’t access the internet, the Windows Firewall does offer the ability to do so via its Advanced Settings. If you find that method to be too inconvenient, going with one of the many front-ends may be an option for you. We do know that a small minority of Emsisoft Internet Security users believe that the Windows Firewall must have backdoors implemented by Microsoft to allow them to spy on their users. In all our research, we haven’t found one and neither have hundreds of other security professionals that constantly review Windows for possible backdoors and vulnerabilities. We also think it is important to keep in mind that every single firewall product for Windows Vista and later uses the very same frameworks to implement packet and application filtering. There is no difference between the Windows Firewall, Emsisoft Internet Security and any other third party firewall from a technical point of view. If Microsoft were to backdoor their products to allow unhindered communication, this backdoor would probably be part of the Windows Filter Platform or the NDIS Lightweight Filter Framework, which are the underlying technologies all firewall products are built upon, and affect every firewall product equally. If you still prefer to use a firewall product other than the Windows Firewall, we recommend you contact the software company creating your new firewall product of choice beforehand to ask them whether they implement their own firewall or rely on the Windows Firewall as well. Most firewalls and internet security suites dropped their own implementation in favour of the Windows Firewall many years ago. So we suggest you ask them first to make sure you don’t end up with a Windows Firewall front-end instead. Do you have more questions? Post them in the comments and we’ll answer them. Have an excellent (malware-free) day! View the full article
  25. 2 points
    Local is your machine, "this end" of a conversation. Remote is whatever machine's at the other end.
  26. 2 points
    I think you have made your point of view crystal clear for everyone, iwarren. Do we really nede more posts?
  27. 2 points
    Ah, I see everyone already saw the stable build. You're welcome.
  28. 2 points
    I believe everyone here are all frustrated that we still can't recover our file back. So am I. I'm also thinking the possibility to pay to the terrorists to get my file saved. But I still have some hope that Emsisoft Team can make the decryptor . I hate cry36.
  29. 2 points
    It doesn't matter if it is securely transmitted or not. Your browser decrypts the HTTPS traffic when it is received, so the file would be saved in its original form, and our protection would catch it either way. HTTPS (secure connections) are only intended to keep information being exchanged over the Internet private. For instance, if you do a search on your favorite search engine, and the connection to their website uses HTTPS (and thus is secure), then when the NSA records the data that is sent from your computer to the search engine tell it what you want to search for, that data is encrypted, and thus the NSA can't actually tell what you searched for if they were to review the data they had collected (obviously they may have other ways of finding out, but at least they can't get it from the HTTPS traffic). Of course, I'm using the NSA as an example due to the various leaks revealing that they record everything that is transmitted across the Internet. The original purpose of HTTPS was to secure online purchases and other information you submit to websites from criminals snooping on data sent across the Internet. If malware is downloaded over a secure connection, then all it really does is keep anyone from snooping on your Internet traffic (or government agencies recording everything you do online) from seeing what you downloaded. That sort of thing would generally be done either with malicious extensions, or some sort of malicious program on your computer. If there is something malicious on your computer, then everything is compromised, and not just a single tab. Note that most modern browsers (except maybe Firefox) have a sandbox for each tab in the browser, which should isolate the tabs from each other. I have never saw these words before and do not know what they are . ClassicShell is a program for Windows 8, Windows 8.1, and Windows 10 that adds the classic Windows 7 Start Menu to these newer versions of Windows. AmmyAdmin is a remote access software similar to TeamViewer. There are testing organizations/companies that will test websites for security problems periodically, and some website owners will sign up for those services to ensure their websites are secure. With paid services the website owners are usually allowed to put some sort of graphic on their website that links back to the latest test results to allow visitors to verify whether or not the website is secure. If you see one of those graphics on a page, and can click on it to verify that it is valid, then the website is more than likely secure. If there is no such graphic on a website, then there will be no publicly available way to verify the website is secure, however this does not mean the website unsafe. As an example, GT500.org doesn't have a graphic/button/etc. that you can click on to see if the website has been tested, however it is tested weekly for security vulnerabilities by Beyond Security and is almost always given the highest possible score (when it isn't, any security issues are dealt with quickly).
  30. 2 points
    The secure connection (HTTPS vs HTTP) has nothing to do with whether or not the website is secure. It has to do with whether or not your connection to the website is secure, which is intended to prevent snooping on communication between you and the server more than it is anything else. Man-in-the-middle attacks can still expose the contents of secure connections, but if a website is configured correctly then it is extremely difficult to do that. A hacker can compromise a website and replace legitimate downloads with infected copies, and this has happened before (ClassicShell and AmmyAdmin are a couple of examples). With popular software (7-Zip for instance) there shouldn't be a BB alert, since it would be trusted by our Anti-Malware Network. With less popular software, it does become more problematic, however a user can search for the SHA-1 hash provided in the alert and try to find information about the file in question.
  31. 2 points
    Hi LandLord323, Unfortunately, we can't decrypt your files for free. I suggest either making sure you change the RDP password to be more secure or disabling it if you do not use it as that is how they get access. Regards, Sarah
  32. 2 points
    Fabian who works on the decrypters has been ill recently, but we are looking into this. Please be patient. Regards, Sarah
  33. 2 points
    Hi Deco, You can get the beta version of our software by switching to "Beta" feedback in Settings > Update settings, you can choose it from the dropdown menu. You can switch back to the "Stable" version at any time. We give a free license to the testers that participate actively in reporting any bugs or feedback. Orlando
  34. 2 points
    That would help in this particular instance (alerts during an uninstall), however every rule that exists can decrease performance, so rules are generally not kept if they are not needed.
  35. 2 points
    Hi CBMan, Thank you for your suggestion. As the idea seems fair to me, I added your suggestion in our tracker. Will be discussed soon and then we will decide if discard or work on it. Thanks again, Orlando
  36. 2 points
    Zum AV-C Test: Bei dem Test gab es ein Problem mit dem Testsetup. Es ist nicht ganz klar ob entweder das automatische Testsystem von AV-C oder EAM versagt hat. Allerdings gab es 13 Samples die als nicht erkannt klassifiziert wurden. Weder AV-C noch wir konnten das Problem reproduzieren, weshalb nach einem Nachtest alle "misses" in "user decisions" umgeklariert wurden. Allerdings ist auch die Klassifizierung irrefuehrend. Das Problem ist, dass unsere Cloud die meisten Anfragen automatisch haette beantworten koennen. Allerdings wurden alle Nachtests ohne Cloud durchgefuehrt, weil wir halt schummeln und alle Dateien in der Cloud haetten Blacklisten koennen und AV-C keine Moeglichkeit hat, unsere Cloud zum Zeitpunkt des Originaltests zurueck zu drehen. Fehlalarme wurden durch Setups verursacht die Double Signed sind. EAM hatte in dem Fall Probleme die digitalen Signaturen korrekt zu erkennen. Das Problem wurde mittlerweile allerdings behoben.
  37. 2 points
    Ich kann diesen beinahe hysterischen Umgang mit dem Virenschutz ohnehin nicht nachvollziehen. Ich vertraue Emsisoft, weil es im Unterschied zu sehr vielen anderen nicht spioniert und keinen Crap mitinstalliert bzw. anbietet. Das ist fast ein - und mir persönlich sehr wichtiges - Alleinstellungsmerkmal. Außerdem arbeiten an der Software Menschen, da kann es durchaus vorkommen, daß jemand temporär mal ein Brett vorm Kopf hat, es urlaubsbedingt oder aus anderen Gründen (Todesfall) zu personeller Unterbesetzung kommt oder man kurz hinter einer Erkennungsrate herhinkt, weil da jemand bei XXX einen Geistesblitz hatte oder besonders empathisch war. In solchen Fällen wird dann schnellstmöglich "aufgeholt". Folglich kein Problem und bei jedem Hersteller so vorkommend. Außerdem soll und kann jeder Schutz ja auch nur "Spitzen kappen". In erster Linie ist bei jeder Maschine derjenige gefragt, der davor sitzt, also brain.exe. In Grunde hat dieses permanente Vergleichen der Tests mit etwas Abstand betrachtet so'n Beigeschmack von Pimmellängevergleichen - oder auch dieser Anspruch, daß Deutschland gefälligst die Goldmedaillen holen muß, das ist eine verzerrte Sicht aus der gleichen Ecke. Gelassenheit und ehrliche Fairness, daran mangelt's immer häufiger. Und das obwohl das ständige "cool" doch in aller Munde ist...
  38. 2 points
    Thanks, works great, thanks for all the feedback in this thread and for getting it sorted.
  39. 2 points
    Actually, as I am reading some information I was sent about the changes to Game Mode, we no longer check for fullscreen applications periodically, so there should no longer be GPU spikes regardless of the state of the above option. We now check if it is appropriate to display notifications in a completely different way, which shouldn't have any bearing on GPU activity or clock speed. There's also an option in the settings for Notifications to toggle displaying notifications when in Game Mode.
  40. 2 points
    Perhaps add to EAM an option to disable this feature? Not all of us are gamers ..............................
  41. 2 points
    Hi, So I think, change the text is better. Thank You!
  42. 2 points
    Yes, this is normal. It's possible that there may be something we can do to prevent the extra notification, so I'll talk to our QA team and see what they think about this.
  43. 2 points
    We have made a workaround for the above mentioned incompatibility. If you are experiencing the above behavior, please try the following build (no need to uninstall first). HitmanPro.Alert 3.1.7 Build 357 PreRelease Changelog Fixed incompatibility with Emsisoft Internet Security 11.0.0.6131Download http://test.hitmanpro.com/hmpalert3b357.exe Please let me know if this update fixes the incompatibility.
  44. 2 points
    Hallo und vielen Dank für die Anfrage bei uns im Support-Forum. Bitte vielmals um entschuldigung, bei einem Upgrade zu Emsisoft Internet Security wurde scheinbar die Rabattstufe nicht richtig auf den neuen Lizenzschlüssel übertragen. Ich habe das nun für Sie nachgeholt und eine Verlängerung mit angemessenen Kunden- und Mengen-Rabatt ist nun über unsere Verlängerungsseite möglich: http://www.emsisoft.de/de/order/renew/ Da das Lizenzende schon sehr bald eingetreten wäre habe ich die Lizenz ein wenig verlängert so dass genügend Zeit für eine Verlängerung übrig bleibt. Vielen Dank dass Sie unsere Softwarelösungen verwenden. Sollten noch weitere Fragen bestehen, so stehe ich gerne dafür zur Verfügung.
  45. 2 points
    just click the 'more reply options' button and attach any file to your post.
  46. 2 points
    I know, that is why I only counted signature updates. Whenever you see an exact signature count in the change log above, one of our signatures was updated. Sorry, what you ask is impossible. It should be obvious to anyone, that if you have a scan engine that already detects 95% of all malware out there, that the other engine can't suddenly detect more than that without causing gross redundancy. In general we can choose to waste hundreds of megabytes of RAM on hundreds of thousands of systems to keep duplicate signatures around so you feel validated in your purchase, or we can choose not to do that, not to waste everyone's resources. To be honest, that's not even a choice really.
  47. 2 points
    Upgrade from EIS 10.0.0.5735 to EIS 11.0.0.5847 (Beta) I currently have for the 'Advanced Firewall Settings' to "Ask" to allow incoming/outgoing firewall rules. (all 4 options are set to Ask) Application Rules did not Update after Upgrade ----------------------------------------------------------- After the upgrade/restart i deleted the custom rules to allow ports 80/443 and yet it still allowed the connection even after restarting firefox and did not prompt me to allow it again either. So I went to Settings -> "Factory Defaults" this seemed to do the trick, and this time asked me to allow the port connections 80 / 443. Real-Time Firewall Blocking ------------------------------------ At first I allowed port 80 / 443, and then tried adding a BLOCK TCP/UDP 0-65535 (below to the first rule) i could still browse successfully (where before in v10, 0-65535 was over-riding everything) However then i removed the rules, then tried this time to "block" the connections, except it was still allowing the connection, even though 80 / 443 were blocked. It wasn't until I restarted firefox that the blocking rule took effect. so it appears real-time firewall blocking of the application is not quite working. Real-time Application Blocking (or Suggestion) ------------------------------------------------------------------- Another issue ,prevalent in v10 also, is when you block an application in Application Rules or Behaviour Blocker, it does not close the application once blocked, it just prevents it from running the next time. Where in v9 i remember it used to close the application immediately once blocked. Automatic Custom Montioring (Suggestion) ------------------------------------------------------------------- Even though I have automatic firewall settings set to "Ask" about trustworthy applications, the behaviour blocker still sets everything to "All Allowed", so each time I do say.. a Factory Reset or new install, I have to reset each application to "Custom Monitoring" if I want to be confronted with potential behavioural threats. The behavioural blocking is the pride and joy of EIS, so I think it should be an option in "Advanced Firewall Settings" to set "All Allowed" to "Custom Monitoring" by default. Which will warn you about code injection and such. Automatic Behavior Blocking Template(Suggestion) ----------------------------------------------------- Also think you should be able to create something like a Template that applies to all applications by default, for example.. "Block Backdoor Related Activity" "Block Spyware Related Activity" could be set by default, based on your template you created. More Detailed Information About Intrusions (Suggestion) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I mentioned in the previous suggestion about behavioural blocking, and how it warns you about code injection and potential intrusions. These errors can come from system applications, for example... when changing personalize settings, a message appears saying Explorer.exe wants to change something, or when Firefox tries to run a program from the downloads menu, it will say something along the lines that Firefox is acting like a trojan or something to that nature. These are scenarios where it was likely a false detection, but was warning of a potential problem, which is great! However, there are also scenarios where Explorer.exe or Firefox.exe may be doing something it shouldn't, and yet the options are to Allow something potentially bad, or Block, which closes the application, not really knowing what you just blocked. So what i'd really love to see.... is the offending command, i believe v9 had it right... when it popped up the behaviour, it gave you much more verbose input, like Explorer.exe -> Shell32.dll -> hotdog.dll -> somethingweird.exe then i could tell the difference between, a simple desktop entry being modified, or of an actual threat that needs to be dealt with. So would really really love to see an option in "Advanced rule settings" for [ X ] verbose behaviour messages Application Rules & Behavior Rules Merging (Suggestion) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I think v9 also had it right in this case.... all of the application rules were all in one neat tidy window, maybe i'm a little daft, but i don't quite understand why these two are seperated, and why some applications will show up in Behavior Blocker and not in Application Rules, and if i want one in the other, i have to create the rule myself. Then tediously set everything to Custom Monitored, to get it to monitor its behavior. Theming (Suggestion) ---------------------------- I know i've said this before, but i'll say it again... i'd love to have an option to theme/skin the EIS application, maybe to something with more neutral colors. Insights ---------- If everything gets automatically allowed, then its only passively protecting the system for the sake of letting Windows run smoothly, The goal here is easy to use security, i think its important not to let security take a back seat for the sake of making it easy to use. In the Blog you make mention that everything should be kind of behind the scenes without much intervention and fiddling around with settings, however I think a lot of people don't really mind the extra popups as long as they know their system is actually being protected. Special Thanks -------------------- I'd like to thank the emsisoft team for their dedication and hard work on this amazing application. I hope everything i've said has not been discouraging but has inspired you to keep working to make this program even better. Keep up the good work, and please tell Santa about everything on my wish list.
  48. 2 points
    You have to be careful if you are behind a router. You may just be testing that.
  49. 2 points
    A summary of the improvements in version 11 can be found in our blog as usual: http://blog.emsisoft.com/2015/10/24/a-sneak-peek-on-emsisofts-version-11-series/ Keep in mind that it is currently only available via the Beta updates option.
  50. 2 points
    It's been more than a week now since the issue was reported here. Is there a deadline to get this issue fixed?
  • Newsletter

    Want to keep up to date with all our latest news and information?

    Sign Up