Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Lynx

  1. Hi Guys, This is well known MS bug. You can find hundreds if not thousands discussions all over the place Unfortunately MS itself admitted Currently there are no Microsoft Knowledge Base articles available for this specific error or event message Hi johnl, Well, sure please test what H_D suggested, but keep in mind that you have to turn all disabled features back "On" after all, since MSConfig can be used for testing purposes only(!) That is not a proper way to disable any Startup's / Services/ ... etc. You would rather use Autoruns by SysInternals I hope that you will find something using suggested MSConfig use (despite I have doubts) Further, definitely follow H_D's advice re: Mutual Exclusion Rules by any security in use If no luck - after all disabled by MSConfig are set back, please - Reboot and then - Reboot again in Safe Mode (F8) - Shut down Any differences? other than that … below are several points that worth to be considered & tested Usually the said error can be caused by: 1) Legacy Software in use . Do you have any, that is set to start with Windows?; 2) Please disable the following: - Hibernation (waste of resources... no less than...); - Fast User Switching – that is a major troublesome feature, which must(!) be disabled; 3) Please consider to install and use User Profile Hive Cleanup Service ; 4) Since you encountered the issues after EAM was installed, as far as I got it from your initial post, consider to disable Guard > File Guard Tab > “Protect PC even if no user logged on” There could be some other tips, but if you really wanna find out & pinpoint the cause - please be patient and follow the above one-by-one … meaning returning every and each option back if the issue persists Not easy, and time-consuming , but if you are really committed that will be a great help to other users, facing the similar trouble Cheers!
  2. Good morning, seagoblinNo! you do not want & you do not need to delete 830.738 Traces Again – as above – that is just a total number where EAM As many times you scan that will be the number and it may grow if the developers discover any other new entries that may represent potential (stressing) threats (see examples below) So in order to receive another “10 words answer”, please answer the question asked Here is an old example of Traces flagged in this case I released some flagged Traces from WhiteList Here is my current scan (just prior to posting) Pay attention to the following 1) nothing was detected (because previously detected Traces are in my WhiteList); 2) see the number of Traces scanned - highlighted in the 2nd image (taken today) and compare that to the number depicted in the 1st image (taken last year). You see the difference I hope that clarified at least few things now My regards
  3. Thank you for the reply, ojn Well, sure - no WINx9 anymore. We have to move on At the same time, if you are using old PC with dual-Boot, please consider to install some Linux flavour on that partition instead of ME (say, Kubuntu) You will be amazed,... believe me Cheers!
  4. Hi ojn, welcome to the forum The simple answer is: No, not anymore There was a special edition of Emsisoft Anti-Malware offered in the past and it was available for a long time ... actually it was there for download much-much longer than advertised & expected, but that's over as far as I know Anyway, "Windows 98/ME" is gone forever. It is not supported neither by MS nor by most of security Software(s) out there ... simply because it cannot possibly be protected My regards
  5. 1st, you've posted only the header, where EAM just sate the number of Traces scanned in the Registry.You did not post neither the rest of the image nor the saved report, that can be attached. After doing the latter you can ask any questions about the scan results and the real detections and/or (better) you can submit the entries you are not sure about (Submitting suspected False Positives for analysis) or you can WhiteList those entries that you trust and consider being False Positives(FP) Basically, nothing can be advised without having such info . Do you have any flaggings as a result of scanning? Note: as for Traces - keep in mind, that you can perform just a Quick scan and all Traces will be scanned again, so you do not need either Smart or Deep scans for that Again, scanning Traces as a procedure - is not only about what you "have" or not, it's about checking the specific locations in the Registry where Software(s) can (potentially) place those Traces. Sometimes those are created by real Spyware or Malware,... sometimes those could be FPsAs for finding associations - there are several techniques and Software 1st, you can use CCleaner in order to delete unneeded unused entries. This Tool is quite soft compare to others , but still you must have experience as with any Reg. Cleaning Software Then you can use such Utility as RegScanner by NirSoft for very thorough and fast search inside the Registry as a start point in order to find associated Software Finally, as it was discussed in referred thread Traces , even being removed can reoccur as soon as you use the Software next time (until you WhiteList the trusted ones) My regards
  6. Hi seagoblin, welcome to the forum Traces are Registry Entries created by the Software(s) installed. Therefore there could be many of them , which is not correlated with the number of files. Please read about Traces. See the following (similar) request. You may not read whole thread if you don't want to, start say from the reply #6 , were you find the reference to Emsisoft's article about Traces and more or in order to make it easier for you - just read Spyware Traces in Detail My regards p.s. 1) It's a matter of asking and learning. Here in the forum there are many people who will answer & help. ... No need to start from "...this is stupid..." 2) You can use Search feature of the forum e.g. for "Traces" and find related topics. For example, this thread
  7. Hi AXE,No, v5.1.0.14 became a stable version see Changelog This version is available for download and installation Moreover, at the moment stable and beta versions are in sync As it was pointed above, (replies #3 and #7) you can use Custom Scans in order to scan cookies My regards p.s. Even if you saved old Setup of v5.1.0.10 - the very 1st update will bring you new version
  8. Hi suliman258, Sure as H_D posted please check if there are any existing rules in OA about EAM In addition, if not done already - please mutually excluded both Software from monitoring each other. One thing is not clear from your post EAM asks for restarting itself when some executable modules were changed, but there should not be any request for rebooting the computer. Was it?or you performed the Reboot yourself while EAM was at its updating stage? a aside note: the restart of EAM after update can take some time … could be ~30sec and more Finally, if the said files are missing from EAM's folder as a result of a failure it would be better to follow the advice given by H_D and clean reinstall Despite it is possible to send you those 2 DLLs we cannot possibly know what else could went wrong My regards
  9. Hi darkelixa, We were discussing the matter with H_D The only way I can reproduce the grey coloured shield is: when all options in Guard configuration are Off That is way it was very strange seeing all options set ON (green) & having grey shield we are glad you are having right coloured shield now As for the WSC - that is a different matter that was discussed above My regards
  10. That's a bit different to what you've posted in reply #4 if by “that colour” you mean the correct one as in my image The area could be implemented as a placeholder for several images: shield - main screen/display – Scan PC / animated horse, when scanning Are those images changing their color dynamically as well after a while, compare to the initial scheme? Just curious ... and I'm sure the developers have an answer – you can raise a Support Ticket, as a matter of fact What I mean and completely agreeing with H_D – I wouldn't rush to reformat yet, if that is the only issue at the moment and you don't have other demons to fight with re: system's behaviour My regards
  11. Hi Guys, Apart from WSC issue... I could not reproduce non-coloured shield by changing settings that's how it looks like on both XP & win7 x64 darkelixa, Are you using standard windows theme? Did you have “normal” colour of the shield before? Have you upgraded anything related to your graphic card? But as guys pointed - the grey one is not an indication of the Guard being inoperable - Right-Click on Notification Area (NA) icon (little arrow at the right bottom of a Task Bar). You will get some options. Choose “Customise NA” …Then find needed Application (EAM in this case) and set respective “show” option from the drop-down box That's what H_D meant, but this should not change the appearance of the Logo on a main GUI screen Let's hope that we'll get some ideas about it My regards p.s. As for the special Removal Tools discussed, if you still want to check proper cleaning you can use avast! Uninstall Utility Visit ZA forum zone alarm removal tool - ZoneAlarm User Community and/or ask ZA support since the special removal Utilities could be version related
  12. Hi darkelixa, welcome to the forum 1st, keep in mind that the messages from Window Security Center (WSC) do not have any sense - it is useless That was discussed hundreds of times in this and other forums You can easily disable that useless service. That's done here from the very beginning and many users are doing the same ... you are and will be protected anyway that is a matter of testing EAM and/or OA At the same time if you are concerned you may in addition post to OA section providing additional info For example, problems may occur when & If you were using different security (AV or firewalls) in the past Practically none of them can be removed (uninstalled) properly - therefore you have to find specific Uninstall Tools for the specific Security Package ... but without the knowledge of what was installed previously it's hard to assist you My regards
  13. That's good to hear Sure, & I hope you got my point as posted aboveYou can do that & I do that as well sometimes several times a day, but not by using any Security Software, ... moreover you can use "Private Browsing" feature whether it is IE or Fox - Session closed - those "pancakes" and other info, which's usually being saved - are gone! Cheers!
  14. That is your choice, AXE if you wanna ask for refund, but the reason you are stating, honestly, has no grounds - Tracking Cookies are never ever representing any threats to the system; - every security Software has an option to disable scanning cookies, and most users are disabling the feature at the very beginning when they are setting up their AV solutions; - that was discussed so many times in this and other forums. You have no benefits from scanning cookies. On the contrary your saved report contains sometimes hundreds(!) of unneeded entries; - There is no need at all to manage cookies by your security. Quarantining those make no sense, if you remove them(qurantine or delete) - you'll get them back as soon as you visit the same sites... You can manage (remove) cookies by your browser prior to the scanning by any AV or you can use such Tools as CCleaner in order to get rid of them, leaving only those you need when you browsing specific trusted sites on a regular basis My regards
  15. Hi AXE, Thanks for the confirmation re: "13beta" In order to revert to the stable version, just untick "Use beta updates" (Configuration > Update Tab)You can perform manual update straight after that or wait for the auto-udate At the same time, keep in mind what Fabian Wosar posted - that's done in purpose - and eventually such implementation will be transferred into the stable release (scanning cookies option will be available for Custom Scans only) My regards
  16. Thanks or the reply Fabian, Actually that is good and correct move!... but it would be nice to get that from the changelog for beta in the 1st place Was that published or we just missed that? That's is noticeable for beta as posted, and is working fine. That's how it should beFinally, I hope that AXE will confirm using current beta(13) My regards
  17. Hi sloba, welcome to the forum The best and fastest way would be sending an e-mail to the developers Have a look at Contact Us and find Sales/Licensing: [email protected] Sometimes there are discrepancies in published prices e.g currently: AUD 51.91 as in your 1st image, and a little bit less - AUD 49.07 in ordering page My regards
  18. Hi AXE, What version of EAM you are using? Current stable v5.1.0.10 will scan cookies, but it seems that v5.1.0.13 beta has a bug where it always reports 0 cookies scanned I was never bothered about Tracking Cookies, so after reading your post I reverted to .10 and got the number of cookies > than 0 In addition I reviewed the latest saved logs produced by .13(beta) - where I found "cookies= 0" under "Scanned" I'm sure the developers will look into that My regards p.s. {added} The bug in v5.1.013(beta) was confirmed by ctrlaltdelete. At the same time if you are using Custom Scan or Scheduled Custom Scan, where option for cookies is set (the default is unchecked) - 13 beta will scan cookies for such type of scans only Another confirmation - it works fine for any type of scan with the stable v5.1.0.10
  19. You are welcome, Nick,I do understand that, but as it's maintained currently - there is no difference regarding the scanning/detection/ability to clean/etc. between EAM & EEK Therefore, I was trying just to clarify the "DDA" mentioned by JWC - that's all Cheers!
  20. Hi Nick,I think JWC is referring to "Direct Disk Access" (DDA) - the new feature introduced in v6 (currently in internal beta testing). See short description in "What is new?" Cheers!
  21. That is not just a “bit of help” - that's the real help Well formulated question is a help Decent conversation and willing to solve a problem (if any) – is a help Willing to help to improve such a good Software as EAM is a help (“buttery butter ) All that is much appreciated I've tested the discussed feature from the very beginning, since it was introduced … & … it worked, ... but that's not clear when & why it was lost in stable version, and still being maintained in beta (at least for some dedicated users) Rest assured that will be addressed by the developers & fixed – must not be a major issue by any means Cheers!
  22. Few hours later. After my conversation with ctrlaltdelete (the man, who is never sleeping ) he performed the similar test as above. He confirmed that it is not working in v5.1.0.10 stable ... but it is working for both of us when using v5.1.0.13(beta) So, the developers will look into that closely and probably they'll need some additional info from you re: "13-beta" in order to find out why it's working here perfectly for us, but does not apply in your case Cheers!
  23. Ok, Roy 1st, thanks for the reply I have to confirm what you are reporting but only for the stable v5.1.0.10 See below the difference and correct Custom Scheduled scan carried by v5.1.0.13 (beta) - I added full licensed EAM to my Free edition on XP; - reverted back to v5.1.0.10 stable Scheduled Custom Scan settings - created \Family\ folder with sub-folder, where few items must've been detected; - Rebooted; - sure the <>.a2s file remains listed in "Additional Settings", as we discussed - the time of the scheduled scan was correct 12:15 PM (see attached “Not a Custom Scan_110528-121504.txt”); - … but... despite it says Custom – see the content of what EAM was going to scan; - I stopped the scan after 3 min running; - sure that shouldn't have anyting to do with \C:\Documents and Settings\... and so on; - the real custom scan lasts ~1min & 40 sec and that is an expected result; ======= v5.1.0.13 (beta) test ======= - I set accepting beta updates and reset the scheduled Custom scan time. That went according to the chosen time … and that was performed perfectly (see attached “Correct Custom Scan Beta 13_110528-130504.txt”); So, as ctrlaltdelete stated – “beta 13” is working fine, which is precisely what happened here according to my test I cannot tell you at the moment what went wrong with your beta a side note: unfortunately the reports do not show the whole version , but just 5.1 despite many repeated regarding the matter , but that will be fixed (I hope) My regards
  24. Hi RoyD,That's a bit strange, but have you tried beta v5.1.0.13 as suggested and in addition can you attach the saved scanset file? {added} I forgot to ask: do you have scanset file in the respective box after Reboot or it appears empty? (see "Additional Settings") My regards
  25. Hi Nick,Please use one of the methods described in Submitting suspected False Positives for analysis My regards p.s. I have no flaggings neither for 32bit nor for 64bit versions of CurrPorts (cports.exe) that I have here. Current version is 1.91 compare to what you have Can you check the latest one, please
  • Create New...