Sintharius

Tester
  • Content count

    353
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Sintharius last won the day on November 24 2015

Sintharius had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

18 Good

About Sintharius

  • Rank
    Forum Regular
  • Birthday 04. Mar 1995

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    Westfalen, Germany

Recent Profile Visitors

4024 profile views
  1. The only difference between EAM and EIS is the firewall, and if they do not test the firewall then both products are equal. BitDefender and Kaspersky earned their places IMO - after all they have been around a lot longer than Emsisoft in the AV industry.
  2. I uninstalled v11 of Emsisoft Internet Security in Safe Mode via Apps & Features, then run EmsiClean followed by a second reboot prior to installing v12. However EIS v12 was unable to launch, and it gave me an error message stating that it was unable to connect with the protection service. So I had to uninstall v12. If there is some kind of log I can get for this I would gladly do it, but for now I do not know if there is anything I can provide.
  3. Adding one more Hosts file should not be a problem.
  4. Emsisoft does not have any Hosts file on its own, you can import other Hosts file (i.e. Malwarebytes' hpHosts) into EAM or EIS though.
  5. And exactly how does that work? The AMN is fine the way it is now. (I have never used Panda though) The Behavior Blocker does that just fine and without the additional resource usage a sandbox creates on the computer, since both are based on behavior analysis. Besides sandboxes can be bypassed, but it's pretty difficult to hide malicious behaviors. There are many browser extensions that allow you to prevent cookies from being created and added. Other vendors add cookie detection to their scanners purely for the purpose of inflating their detection count, and make it look like the computer was infected when in reality it is not - to me that is unethical, preying on the lack of knowledge on the users' side. What exactly do you need that Emsisoft has not did already? Protecting against malware in general will accomplish all the things you listed above. Emsisoft does not have a cloud engine (unlike i.e. HitmanPro or Reason Core Security). Network monitor is unnecessary - again, it is just bloat. Instant notification should be there already. Automatic report of crashing should be on by default, unless you turn it off. Emsisoft refuses to compromise users' privacy by intercepting the users' connections to scan what they access. The real reason why most AVs fail to detect phishing pages is because the majority of phishing sites are short lived, so the moment they got added to the database the site would already be dead. If a program tries to add itself to startup without asking then the Behavior Blocker would catch it. Version 11 has this, I have not tried version 12 to see what has changed.
  6. I recalled Fabian saying that Kaspersky did not want to license their engine to Emsisoft, and using anything other than BitDefender will means that the Emsisoft side of the code has to be restructured to be compatible with the new engine. It is a lot more complicated than swapping a puzzle piece.
  7. Means they will have to rewrite the code base to make it Mac friendly, and then there is the issue of the BitDefender engine. Is the profit from having a Mac version worth the labor of creating and maintaining it? I do not think a small company like Emsisoft would be able to handle that.
  8. Then they are welcome to use another AV that includes an updater, or they could use a separate updater software. Many came for Emsisoft precisely because it does not include all the bloat other competitors like to put in their products. Why? Secure Boot, UEFI and many other modern features have rendered the need of boot scans redundant since they mitigated malware that starts early in the boot process. Crypto ransomware do not need to start early to make your life miserable. To my knowledge Emsisoft already does that - when scheduled scan starts the GUI pops up, and when the scan finishes it either stays there or disappear (if you have Silent Scan turned on).
  9. Why? There are already software updaters like Secunia out there, why would you need one in an AV? Putting one in AVs like Avast would just makes it unnecessarily bloated. Do you mean to choose the language with a drop-down menu instead of using the system language by default? If you do not want people to sneak peek from your camera, unplug it or put a sticker over the cam for laptops. Personally I do not see the need of a webcam protection module if a tiny bit of work resolves that problem - and if somebody manages to control your camera then Emsisoft did not do its job and got you infected anyway (which I doubt it). Since Autoplay is disabled in Windows 7 and later, there is no need to scan every removable drive when they are plugged in (try 1TB hard drives... it is going to suck). Any malware that might be inadvertently executed from the removable drive will be caught by the Behavior Blocker - so no need for automatic scanning of removable drives.
  10. There are already addons such as Web of Trust for that, I think adding that to Emsisoft would only complicate the team's work and does not really increase security (since any malicious site will be blocked by Surf Protection already).
  11. Emsisoft Emergency Kit is basically a portable scanner with Emsisoft's scan and clean technologies. If you are already using EIS you won't need EEK.
  12. It directs you to the changeblog if you have beta update feed enabled - otherwise it leads you to the normal blog for stable or delayed, I believe.
  13. Not sure if an antivirus vendor forum is the best place to ask this, but I would not use driver updaters. Never Download a Driver-Updating Utility; They’re Worse Than Useless - How-To Geek Best place to get drivers is to go straight to the manufacturer's website.
  14. Clicking on Manage Whitelist will bring up your whitelist - the list of things that EAM will ignore when it scans. To remove an entry, just click on the cross under Remove on the rightmost column.
  15. My guess is that it removed his Windows crack software (AVs do not touch the actual key if you have a legit copy). I do not see a problem with that.