Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Cavalary

  1. So which products are designed for those? Assuming similar price, keep saying, tell me where to go and I'll go, don't want to "bother", just looking for something to suit me too (don't find the antimalware side of Comodo reliable enough, if you're wondering - great firewall but needs pairing with something). Not your call to make either way, but nope. Have in the past (rather distant past, but still) used software I knew had malicious features, but those required connecting to certain servers, so by carefully only allowing it to connect when and where I wanted it to, thanks to the firewall (BitDefender's at the time, was back when the prompts BD had offered a fair bit of information and quite a number of options from the prompt itself), I stayed safe. And by default I rather see what a program tries to do before deciding whether to trust or not. And for example I don't trust Microsoft, not in the least, but kind of stuck using their OS, so need something that can be used to control some unnecessary OS activities as well, and made by people who don't try to persuade me to trust it. Again with the "most people" thing. You're free to make the default settings for them and they're free to use them, not my concern. My concern is having the stuff I can use as well. Which, again, should be easier to implement than the automated behaviors. ... Again, why do I keep replying? We just keep talking of different things.
  2. Mine is. But, again, it's less about protection and more about system monitoring and control. Don't usually allow things to "call home" unless I specifically make use of said on-line feature, for example. Same with their HIPS. I want to know what programs do and to be able to allow or block behaviors separately if I care to do so, not the whole program. Sometimes maybe just to see if it still works if I stop something I don't think is necessary, if we're talking of programs that shouldn't mess around in the system, like games or such. And hardly see what's annoying in their HIPS. It tells you what programs try to do and gives you control, which is the basic thing security software should be able to do. Automatic behaviors, determining what is and is not malicious, making decisions, are the advanced features that come on top of that. (That said, no, it never so far prevented actual malware from operating. But no behavior module ever did, in all the years I've used computers. Usually keep a keen eye on things, had an active infection precisely once on a computer I was not only the only, but even just the primary, user of, in '99 or around 2000, and some three, give or take one, more cases where I found something present which I didn't think was actually active but couldn't be absolutely sure. All those times, they were found on scans, based on definitions, and definitions were also what blocked a few other things from running in the first place. Definitions and, most notably, network packet scanning, to stop things from getting on my computer in the first place, particularly true for things like infected ads or scripts. And you know what, EAM doesn't even offer that! It only acts after the infected file ends up on the computer.)
  3. Been through this with them a lot before, in comments on news posts, in e-mails, they don't give a damn. Most people do this, it's how the security market goes, they follow it. Because the point obviously isn't to keep users safe, despite what they say, but to sell a product marketed as keeping people safe. If you're left out in the cold by it, tough luck, not their problem. And soon enough I assume they'll close this topic for going too much off topic and the matter at hand supposedly being solved, by the way. (Should probably mention that the support people seem least to blame in it. Some may even agree that the direction is bad and want the more advanced stuff, options, monitoring and control, but decisions are taken at the top and they have to deal with the fallout.)
  4. Comodo's its own different thing, definitely not a GUI for Windows Firewall. Normally Windows Firewall will be disabled with Comodo installed.
  5. Oh, they specifically recommend using only Windows Firewall, and say there's no point in anything else. Like here: https://blog.emsisoft.com/en/28637/emsisoft-windows-firewall-protection/ and in comments on the release threads around the time EIS was discontinued.
  6. From what I saw, EAM checks once per minute, maybe give or take a second (though marko's logs show a bit more of a variation). So if you have something full screen for 59 seconds starting right after a check, it may not trigger, but something that's up for a split-second at the right time will, and then it'll be a minute till it'll switch back.
  7. Fixed that for you. Are you messing with me here? Meant that what you said, being done intentionally, would signify malicious intent. Outcome can be malicious (or not) regardless of intent. EAM is not a complete security software by any stretch to be able to be used on its own, at least by those who know what they want from their computers. It's a piece of software with some specific purposes, which shouldn't get to make any requests about what else runs alongside. Plus, one of your selling points a few years ago was that you specifically advertised as being compatible with other security software, even in case of overlapping features, not to mention complementary ones. You may have moved away from that, as well as from most other good things you had going, but a part of your users, those who came and stayed in part for those features, aren't going to just drop their expectations and, more importantly, drastically change how they use their computers just because you say so. As far as I'm concerned, having security software including EAM on a computer would typically mean either EAM+CFW or EAM+ZA+Sandboxie. There would be a number of other options past that, of course, but at the very least those should be the basic test setup.
  8. Can't have anything to do with my case at least, as I just have the Intel integrated graphics.
  9. Yeah, noticed that long ago. First problem being that game mode is automatic, another feature that can't be disabled by the user that I kept ranting against since it was introduced in such a forced manner, apparently there just can't be an option to turn off that check either, eh? Anyway, yes, sometimes there are brief game mode entries logged for no apparent reason... Though I was thinking it's possible they're caused by file dialog boxes.
  10. That's malicious intent. Intent doesn't matter for a malicious outcome. And security software is far more likely to mess up systems than most programs. And in this case it was something you should have seen early in testing. Said that since you decided years ago to no longer provide a proper firewall (not to mention HIPS and sandboxing, don't know if you had that even then), you should thoroughly test your software paired with at least the leading alternatives that provide those missing features, making a full suite when put together. But, again, talking to walls. Or worse.
  11. Of course they shouldn't be. They should only be liable for damage or unpleasantness caused by the hammer itself, like when it's released to the market not being properly tested... If customers hold them responsible for how they themselves use it, that's the problem of the customers. Preventing a computer from booting would sure count in my book. Blocking or otherwise hampering legitimate software from running, as in not just throwing up a prompt that the user can then create a rule from and move on as if nothing happened, also would.
  12. Road to Hell and all. What you mean is not relevant. The point is you're doing it. And I paid you to use your software, however I see fit. It's a tool. If I buy a hammer, I'm paying to have that hammer and use it however and for whatever purpose I think of, not necessarily and specifically just to drive nails, most likely into wood, though that's what most people would use a hammer for. Just talking of me, what most customers do doesn't concern me, and I'm not saying do anything that takes away their right to use the software as they wish or even make them do anything to have those generic settings and am willing to read documentation, tweak settings, even edit registry entries or .ini files if it's a properly documented feature intended to continue being supported and not break things down the line, so why is the reverse true, taking away mine to use it as I wish? And when even delayed may cause some issues, including simply being installed at an inappropriate time, maybe leave EAM in a state that doesn't complete the update, maybe require a reboot, as will be the case now, likely leading to less protection. And what definitely does lead to less protection is forcing someone who wants to control updates to not update at all until they feel ready to deal with it, instead of allowing them to delay and/or select at still get something. (Same as with Win 10, the one way to go is to completely disable the update service I guess. Because that's way safer than letting the user decide what to install and when, eh?) So far the release posts specifically said delayed updates were at least 30 days after the stable one. So even that's changing? And what about those not in that "vast majority"? The first order of business for an antimalware solution is for it not to become in itself malware. For however many or few users. And if some can look up and avoid it... And the general idea of updates being unexpected remains whenever you release them, if it's not just notify and let user decide. But it all is justifications and I don't see why I even bother to reply. I did say "At all. Ever. For any reason.", right?
  13. What versions people keep and why, or anything else your users do on their computer for that matter, is not for you to decide. At all. Ever. For any reason. You are being paid to grant the customer the right, not the obligation, to legally use your product and receive updates for a certain period of time. How they use your software (in the sense of options and tweaks, not reverse engineering and actual program modifications, of course) and their update behavior, determining when or if they install updates and which updates they choose to install, is not your decision to make. Besides, there keeps being this justification for it all that most people don't change the default settings. In that case said "most people" wouldn't disable program updates either. If they did, they had a reason, and knew at least enough to do that. What happens past that is their responsibility. Yours is to keep guaranteeing their right to update if and when they so wish during the period covered by the license, and to not unnecessarily restrict their use of the product due to their decision. Tying definitions to program updates is definitely unnecessarily restricting the use of the product, especially in case of the BD definitions, which are quite version-agnostic, as back when I used it I knew they still offered them even for versions some 10 years old. In my case, Windows updates for the past several years have taught me to give the unpaid beta testers other valued customers a few days after a security update is released to try it out, then look up to see whether issues are reported and decide about installing based on that (and set nonsecurity updates aside unless they fix an important bug that actually affects me, and while it was possible to pick individual updates, install them if they seem safe whenever I next install a security update, then once they bundled it all together only install the security bundle and ignore the full one completely ever since). Your software doesn't offer that option. Doesn't even offer what little options even awful Win 10 home would offer, for that matter (as far as I heard, at least). Anyway, back on topic, if the fix for the CFW issue is in 2018.5, can I assume there will not be an update to delayed this month, but only at the start of July, as in 30+ days after the release of 2018.5 on stable, and that IF and ONLY IF this is confirmed fixed and no other significant issues pop up?
  14. Since it's the start of the month and I see that a new update was already pushed on the stable feed, I must say again that I really hope the delayed won't be updated until and unless the version you mean to update it to will be very thoroughly tested to ensure that this issue, or any others which may pop up with it, have been fully fixed, on all supported versions of Windows, both 32 and 64 bit, and in case of this particular issue with various versions of Comodo Firewall as well (I am still and will definitely stay on 8.4, and remember when looking on the forums there at various points that I saw people still on v7, or even 5 or 6, and swearing by it - I mean, if used paired with another security solution, such as EAM, CFW is largely for system control and monitoring, the other solution is for actual security, so if you have a version you're happy with, it's fine). And also definitely hope there will be advance warning about such an update to delayed... When so far you can't find out whether the delayed has been updated anywhere, there's a beta updates feed on blog, the stable ones are posted visibly, but nothing for delayed. Of course, what is absolutely needed is separating program from definitions updates and not automatically installing program updates, instead prompting user if one is found at a check and respecting the decision. But until you decide your users are not all clueless and at least some may have a little bit of an idea about how to use their computers and can make a decision...
  15. [Nevermind, seems like it was a momentary thing. So I guess server issue indeed.] Original message: Getting could not connect to update server notifications right now. Server issues? On delayed of course, 2018.2.1.8483. Hope it's not some slip making it no longer update for this version after putting up that new beta now... Doing a tracert works, but Comodo Firewall only showing connection attempts with 66 bytes in and usually 0 out, one has 66 out too, so seems like a fixed reply, some error maybe?
  16. I'll just leave this here then, recorded now (after checking to see how, ah well...): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuJt5gsIbgs Does seem to be a delay in registering that hours between updates change, doesn't it? And I did say do a manual update, not wait for it to update again...
  17. While I wouldn't be particularly surprised that it doesn't work after getting the recent version (should teach people to stay on delayed... not that it in any way gives the control that should be absolutely mandatory for any program whatsoever, namely to just notify of available updates and let the user decide if and when to install, but at least avoids some of the worst things like this to some extent), make sure it did indeed do a full update after it actually registered the switch to delayed. Noticed that settings changes may take a while, maybe up to a minute, to register, at least according to logs, so after installing do not reboot, even if it asks to, even if it updates. Let it do its business, then switch to delayed, give it a moment (check logs? think that such a switch should be listed there... but not going to switch to stable now to check, not even for a moment and with updates disabled, nope), then manually run an update, and then reboot. Alternately, if it runs in safe mode (never tried), boot in safe mode with networking, open EAM and update it to the delayed version from there. Delayed version should be 2018.2.1.8483.
  18. EAM v10 is the one for Windows XP, which I saw in a recent thread ( https://support.emsisoft.com/topic/29508-cant-update/ ) they said they discontinued updates for in February. Also recall a thread with somebody installing a v10 kit and then hoping the program will update itself to the latest version and it didn't do so, and they said it indeed won't, but can't find that anymore. So I'm guessing EAM was installed recently from a very old offline installer? So, yes, you should install a new version if you want to keep receiving updates, but keep in mind that 2018.3-2018.4 conflict with Comodo Firewall (and apparently also with the old Emsisoft Online Armor, for those who kept it around), so if you use any of those (and possibly other stuff as well) you will want to switch to the delayed updates, in order to get 2018.2.1 (yes, it will also downgrade if you installed the latest version first, just don't reboot, as that will trigger the conflict).
  19. You should be able to still use EAM paired with CFW if you switch to the delayed branch, right?
  20. Settings -> Permissions If you want it to apply to all accounts, I think you must first restrict everyone's access, including that of administrators, and then set the master key password.
  21. On the business aspect, you can have a product that generates losses if you think it brings awareness and may draw clients to other products that do pay, consider its costs as advertising costs for your brand. And otherwise, some don't do what they do for the profits, or see it as a business at all. If all did, you wouldn't have open source software, wikis or other collaborative projects, or volunteering of any sort if going away from IT... Speaking in general, I mean, since you moved this to a general discussion. (Will I be told it's off topic again?)
  22. I was thinking they're earning from certificates, plus the (optionally) paid CIS. As for that, as long as you can uncheck everything in installer, so it won't affect anyone who actually looks, no complaints from me.
  23. Hey, you pointed me to the discussions here, of course I'll be saying the same things I've been telling you... And this is one heck of a major issue, and like I said, testing with security software that offers the features you don't (anymore) should be a priority (likely second only to testing on all currently supported Windows versions, including 32/64 bit and different patching approaches), to ensure people who want the whole package can mix and match. (Meanwhile, I'm still browsing awkwardly to avoid the other issue, quite critical if I may add.)
  24. ... while unfortunately they seem to be sacrificing compatibility with security solutions dealing with separate aspects that they no longer provide. Referring here to the incompatibility with Comodo Firewall (so firewall, HIPS, sandboxing, monitoring of connections and program behavior, all of which being features no longer provided by Emsisoft) introduced by this version that supposedly fixed compatibility problems with those other security solutions that offer overlapping features. Way I see it, especially since they decided to no longer include those features (long ago, with the elimination of Online Armor), thorough testing to ensure compatibility with programs that do offer them should be mandatory. And I mean internal testing, before anything even gets to the beta channel, not pushing it even on stable as they did with 2018.3. (At least there's delayed, where they didn't push it (yet), but...)
  • Create New...