Jump to content

gricardo21

Member
  • Posts

    104
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by gricardo21

  1. not really, i only force memory dump only when ram reachs a critical 95% (less than 100 mb free) if i dont do this, then my pc gets unresponsive for a long time... my complain is just because with windows 8.1 this wasnt an issue i can use all my apps at the same time and even in this way ram usage was at a 80% not 95%, with windows 10 ram is always at 60 or 70% is there any sense to use an OS that leaves nothing to open? by the way did you read the first link i posted here? http://malwaretips.com/threads/windows-10-taking-too-much-ram.49097/#post-417584
  2. for me yes... because i use some apps at the same time, lets say netbeans and mozila and both eat ram, so imagine: system process:500mb/netbeans:300/mozila:300 so then my poor pc that has only 2gb of ram will be almost colapsed... almost always i face the problem that i reach 95% of ram usage, them i have to force memory dump to the DD to solve the issue and i dont like that...
  3. thanks Fabian, i also suspected this was the cause, well is a silly question, but, is there anything you can do to "fix" that?. This can be a problem with people that have less than 2gb of ram...
  4. have you tried to reinstall the app? that will solve the problem most of the time
  5. yes, as normal first the upgrade (to get the promotional offer) and then a clean install and for both (clean install and upgrade) the problem was present...
  6. yes indeed you are right but i cant link the problem directly to emsisoft itself, the only thing i know is that system process goes crazy (up to 500 mb of ram) when EAM is present but when it is gone this usage drops to a "normal" state, as for private memory usage, well i can give you a screenshot but it would be better if you look yourself inside my pc...
  7. firefox is expected to eat memory the point here is system process, with EAM installed system process eat about 500 mb and when EAM is gone this usage decrease to almost 50 mb or less and no, my pc runs 2 gb of ram and it is x86 based system. So EAM has something to do here... i dont think that is mere casuality that without emsisoft ram usage is normal the reason why you see firefox in some screencaptures was because i thought firefox was the problem but believe me it has nothing to do with it update: actually with firefox open system process eats 140 mb which is not normal, however with emsisoft this usage gets worse and goes to almost 500 mb, i think that it has something to do with how EAM (and firefox) deal with ram. firefox open + emsisoft=500mb only firefox open (emsisoft not installed)=120 on boot (no apps open) just emsisoft= 300 mb here is a capture with firefox open as you see system process is about 90 mb so firefox i think has nothing to do with this high ram usage... pdt: did you check the link i posted below?
  8. hi there, recently i upgraded my pc to windows 10, but i noticed that system process is taking a lot of ram while EAM is installed, am saying this because after i uninstall EAM the ram consumption when normal, but while EAM was installed ram was at almost 80%, i reinstalled the app twice just to make sure EAM was the problem and indeed the ram usage was normal when EAM was uninstalled, please i need help since i am with no AV at the moment. Also i have noticed that this problem is happening with others users.... Below are some captures of ram usage while EAM is installed and whe it is absent pdt: this problem was present since first upgrade from windows 8.1, so the same settings that worked correctly on 8.1 caused problems on win 10, actually i did a clean install to avoid any conflict and the problem was still present.... memory optimization was always enabled, but no matter if this was on or off the problem still persist
  9. I know that but i was just saying that your product is well designed that runs completely well in a beta OS, so far i havent see any relevant problem, just that the internet protection is not able to filter properly websites... but that is not a big deal, for scan stuff is running completely ok
  10. jajajajajaja i call my pc " my love " and just that xD . well guys EAM 10 is working just fine in latest build 10056 of windows 10 TP ​
  11. as long emsi doesnt prompt that the update just crashed everything shall be fine, it seem that MSE is another AV that flags temp files as malware, you are not alone as eset is doing the same thing with emsi temp files. I wonder how MSE will detect a FP, generally MSE doesnt give any false positive due to their low detection rate :X
  12. the problem should be fixed now... that was an issue they had yesterday :/
  13. in my machie it took 1:35 awesome, the only thing i would like to be back is the panel update where you can see which files are being downloaded, for example thanks to it i manage to see that version 8.1 was downloading so i stopped immediatly. It is true that we can use logs but still i liked that feature you had in previous ver.
  14. Same happened to me yesterday, i had beta enabled so after it downloaded ver 10 i run update again and it was downloading version 8, hopefully i figured out and run update again, it started to download ver 10. My only concern is the fact that update servers were down i couldnt update for several hours i set up a VM to see if my pc was the problem and the same issue happened also i tried to update EEK but it wont update. However updates are working fine now . I wrote this to let you know the issue. Emmm why your servers have old version in their database?
  15. as said before it seems that they are having issues with their update servers, so is not recommended to uninstall the product as you will have very old signatures... at least on my end (and until now 2:35am utc-6) i had problems with updates with a timeout error in freeware mode the product becomes red and all you can do is make scans... may be the servers have issues so your license is nor properly identified
  16. buenos dias mi estimado, en general emsisoft es compatible con Avira, pero dado el hecho de que emsisoft es una solucion completa de antimalware, creo no es necesario que lo tengas instalado (avira), si bien Avira tiene buenas tasas de deteccion, emsi posee un bloquedador de comportamientos que te protejera, cosa que avira no posee, por eso y mas te sugiero uses emsisoft en vez de avira, como sea, puedes añadir ambos programas a la lista de exclusiones (de cada uno) para evitar conflictos. Sobre el soporte en español, hable con fabian y me dijo que ellos no soportaran el idioma español para soporte de nuevo (dado que una vez lo hicieron mas sin embargo poca gente lo usaba) saludes..
  17. first dont get mad at me am just asking am not fighting with any one here well if that would be true then all the major AV industries would have a hard time with that feature, still you can cure a infected system with out any further damage, if they cannot disinfect a file or the damage level will be more than repairing the file, they will just tell you "hey we couldnt clean that" but yes i agree with you that some times if would render the file damaged but still usable, in past i faced an infection while eset disinfect the file but it wasnt able to run it, i was able to open it with winrar... i understand your point but most ot the users are not going to ask "hey, men my pc got infected would you mind if you please copy a clean replacement of the file to my USB" they dont even know the difference between malware and viruses. I think that is much better to TRY rather than delete or quarantine the whole file in that position you are telling the user, ok that file is no longer usable and you need to find another replacement. if you say "AVs will actually end up damaging the file trying to disinfect them more often than not" then just leave the user that choice, rather than delete the whole file... i was younger by that time, know i do use macros for almost all my duties, as i stated above if the file can not be disinfected then the AV will tell you... "hey i couldnt handle that" but we are talking about less complicated infections... however... lets say that yours "days of works" become infected with a macro that modifies the current one... that file will be useless no? what is the point to keep it? that where backups become important... but again i would prefer to have a file with out macros rather than begin from the scratch to build up a new file. again let the user decide what he/she would do to handle that infection with that file.... disinfection is a risk that every user should take at her/his own. how would yo handle an infected MS file that contains a lot of information that is vital to you? you cant just open word and edit the macro... or can you edit a macro witout using word? well sorry you are right i cant make an argument here as i dont know your code and dont know how easy would that be... however am giving my opinion some users of your product ask for that feature... in some other places... so i was wondering if you can add that... but as i can see you will never do that.... i didnt mean to offend you, am a coder, am i know that some times it isnt easy as it seems... but that is your choice you have the tools... well there is no point to make any more argument my first point was if you will add a disinfection tool in EAM, it seems that not... the pros and cons of disinfecting file have been discussed in other forums, so i dont see the point to continue with this arguments. I still believe that disinfection of a file is a risk that user may they as it own. regards
  18. indeed true but you are pointing one probability out of 100 most of the times MS scripts just attach their code at the end or the beginning in that way is very easy to clean the mess, the same applies to viruses they just add their code to the beginning or the end of the file (but not always), it is true that in most of the cases disinfecting files is not possible but hey... all AV states that cure is not always possible but at least they try to do it... back to the topic most of the scripts i´ve seen they just add the code at the beginning and the end, once i got infected with one macro virus. by that time all my homework was infected, i wasnt using any macro and bitdefender manage to clean very well the infection... well the point here is not the fact that it will work or not, we are aware that disinfection is not always possible but at least you can try to, as you use bitdefender engine you can easily implement their disinfecting core
  19. well that´s right, however what about MS documents, they can be easily cleaned by just deleting the script that is embedded within them, if a personal file gets infected by a macro virus there must be the option to clean that mess.. no?
  20. which are related to on-demand scans??? for me on-demand scan is when you tell the AV to scan an specific location or file, as bitdefender offers you more features in those cases... i´ve read about that, however why some AV are still offering that feature, as it will be useless. and for an infected OS is much better formatting than disinfecting? in the case of MS scripts most of the times it is just an script that is embedded within the file, it is just to remove that script and the file will be clean right?
  21. so it means that EAN is no longer based on users decisions? instead your own black list?
  22. for me the full scan option is ok where it is right now, if you ask me i wouldnt agree with your suggestion for removing that feature, however it is true that full scans are some times useless but yet necessary as some times malware that are not blocked by real time protection /in default mode/ (for example js files and some other) may be there for a long time, it is true that those innactive files are harmless as they arent in active mode, but it is not like WE would like to have them wasting space in our hard disk... I like your idea of SMART scan, actually i think that is the real concept but please dont remove full scan i know that most of the people here will agree with me...
  23. With the exception that emsi doesnt disinfect viruses and ms scripts, doesnt remove malware within archive (they remove compressed the whole .rar .zip etc file instead) and doesnt scan password protected files. However you can live without those features... by the way what if we find an infected file by a virus, how can we cure/disinfect that file or a ms script?
  24. Dont understand your question... remember that the section 'help my pc is infected' is the place where you can ask that...
  25. today i tested in another real machine and indeed it does some stuff that good programs would not do... however due to the fact that i was using sandboxie in my real machine i believe that this is why BB didnt do anything as well, it seems that the file just sit there a does nothing, i wouldnt call this anti-sandbox feature, am not sure what it did there... well if you say that BB catch the file men you are the expert and i believe you Actually there are some malware that are detected by signatures, malware coders use to modify some piece of the code to fool the AV in this case for example ESET made a generic signature for this malware that covers all other variants with out the need to analize them, in this case we saw that emsi engine detects only known malware but it isnt able to detect their modifications... my complain is that emsisoft must have that technique that may cover most of the variants of known malware.. just that... i think that signatures are the first layer of security as some times BB may work or not...
×
×
  • Create New...