Raynor

Member
  • Content Count

    92
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Raynor

  1. Dear all, I have one little improvement suggestion. Recently, I had do add quite a few program paths (mostly to .EXE files) to the exclusions in EEC (Exclude from monitoring) because the Behaviour Blocker behaved a bit overzealous on our client PCs. The problem with that was that most of the EXE files and paths that I wanted to exclude did NOT exist on our Windows Server 2016, as they pointed to programs that were only installed on (some) client PCs. But when adding an exclusion path in EEC, you are only given the chance to pick an existing file (in this case on the server). So I always need to use a workaround: First pick a file that exists on the server (e.g. "C:\Windows\notepad.exe" or whatever) and then manually change the path by clicking on it in the exclusions list and typing the real/desired path. This works as intended, the file is correctly excluded from scanning on the Client PCs. But all this is a bit cumbersome. So please let me kindly suggest that an option like "Manually add path" that allows to type in (or copy+paste from a textfile) any path (even to files that do not exist on the server) is added to EEC. Thanks and best regards Raynor
  2. We have bought 50 EAM keys for our corporate network. Not surprisingly, we have to decommission old PCs and replace them with new ones from time to time. Is it necessary to somehow remove the EAM license from the old PCs, or can the license key simply be reused on new PCs without us running out of activations (provided that, of course, the total number of PCs in operation at a given time does not exceed 50) ? Thanks and best regards Raynor
  3. Thanks for fixing! About the second issue: I saw these two options logged in as a local admin user with read-only permissions By the way: Is there any behaviour blocker test file/exe available, similar to the EICAR AV test file ?
  4. Dear all, is there any news on this issue? Did the logs provide any meaningful insights? I still got more workstatios to upgrade from 1709 to 1803, so I could gather more logs if needed. Thanks and all the best Raynor
  5. OK, fair enough, I guess it comes down to personal preference. Everybody is entitled to their opinion, and I just wanted to express that I personally absolutely do not like the recent interface changes. Again, it's intended as constructive criticism, even if my wording might indeed have been a bit harsh (sorry about that 😇). But on a factual level, I stand by my opinion 🙂 To give two concrete examples: 1) The behaviour blocker program list in the protection section is in itself a scrolling list, so now we have a scrolling list view within a scrolling preferences list. 2) The navigation tabs at the top (Behaviour Blocker, File Guard, Surf Protection) are still there, creating the illusion of a tabbed preferences window. But clicking on the tabs only scrolls down the view to the appropriate section. This just does not feel consistent/logical to me....
  6. Well, the new scrolling settings view in 2018.06 already annoyed me (as well as many others), but back then I didn't feel the need to speak up because it was just one window. Now, with 2018.07 the scrolling view has been added to the "protection" section of the Interface as well. The usability of this scrolling view is HORRIBLE in my opinion, it is jumpy, makes you dizzy, and just somehow feels wrong. And as a bonus, I have added a little treat (see attached screenshot). On one of my PCs, I have increased the DPI scaling because I need bigger fonts. Now the main window is just a tiny little bit too large to fit the screen, which results in the rightmost scrollbar. But because of the scrolling settings, I now have TWO scrollbars. Now isn't that cute... no, wait, it isn't. The whole thing is just an abhorrent abomination. Bottom line: Please stop making the UI worse. There has been criticism by other users about the scrolling settings view in 2018.06 already. In fact, telling from the comments, nearly nobody seems to like it. Which is not surprising, because it's a bad design decision. The new On-Demand scanning default in 2018.07 is also a change to the worse, as Piotr has rightfully pointed out in his comments (especially in the second one) below the following article: https://blog.emsisoft.com/en/31683/new-in-2018-7-improved-file-guard-performance/ Sorry for the scathing criticism (it is intended to be constructive!), but these recent changes indeed feel a bit like like making changes just for the sake of change... 😰 All the best and best regards Raynor
  7. Thanks for your reply. I'm puzzled, because our whole domain setup is pretty much run-of-the-mill, nothing fancy... EEC uses its default ports, there are no fancy firewall settings in place, nothing. We use the update proxy (default port 8080) and that works fine as well. Some weeks ago, I installed EEC on the Server 2016, added the PCs, created manual deployment packages (we don't use remote deployment), installed them on the Win 10 v1709 clients via "Install.bat", and the connection to the Server worked flawlessly. On the clients no windows settings have been changed / no preparations have been made prior to deployment (if I understand correctly, preparations are only necessary for REMOTE deployment). Everything has worked fine for the last couple of weeks. Today, I upgraded some client PCs to v1803 through Windows Update (by removing the feature update deferral policy we had in place before), the upgrade itself went fine, but after that the clients all showed "connection" failed. Manually reconnecting was necessary and immediately worked fine (see above). I have just sent a mail to support asking for further instructions. I will be upgrading more clients tomorrow, so lots of logs will be there I guess
  8. System environment: Windows Server 2016 Domain About 40 domain-joined PCs, some Win 7, some Win 10 EEC 2018.06 on the DC EAM 2018.05 (delayed feed) on the workstations First of all: installing and initially connecting EAM to EEC worked fone on all PCs. But: I have just upgraded a couple of our company's Win 10 v1709 PCs to Win 10 v1803 using the normal Windows Update installation process. On all of the upgraded PCs, the connection to EEC is lost after the upgrade. This is annoying. After all the connection problems in the past (see this forum) I thought that these issues were a thing of the past. Obviously not. Connection stability sill seems iffy and unreliable, at least after upgrading domain-joined workstations from v1709 to v1803. I had to manually disconnect the PCs (using the interface within EAM itself, not from the server console) and then manually reconnected them (also from within EAM). After that, the connection was back up again. Still, unacceptable behaviour in a coroprate environment 😪 Thanks and best regards Raynor
  9. Thanks! By the way: The Surf Protection messages are also NOT read-only! ("always block" and "don't block" can be selected by the user) Best regards, Raynor
  10. I have now deployed EEC+EAM in our company. The read-only GUI setting works fine, but I really can't seem to find a way to make the behaviour blocker quarantine notifications read-only. Example: The behaviour blocker shows an alert because a suspicious program is trying to "change firewall settings". Users are told that the program will be quarantined after a couple of seconds, but are ALSO given the choice of clicking "Wait, I think this is safe"/"Thes program seems safe" (I can't remember the exact wording). I want to take that choice away from users, and NOT allow them to skip the behaviour blocker messages. They are the last line of defence, and I can guarantee that some users WILL allow new viruses to run by clicking "this is safe". So, please let me ask again: Is there any way to make the behaviour blocker prompts read-only without the option of skipping them ? I want them to work just as the normal "malware found" prompts (i.e. quarantining the program with no way around it). In there is no way, please let me kindly suggest again that an option to make these prompts read-only be added. Thanks and all the best Raynor
  11. On the topic of "playing around": I just installed a fresh copy of EEC (for pre-deployment testing purposes) in a fairly basic Windows Server 2016 virtual machine (VirtualBox), and stumbled over two obscure "Value does not fall within the expected range" warnings in the log. Again, quite basic & fresh Server 2016 VM, just installed EEC (2018.3.0.3338) a minute ago (first thing was taking a look at the logs). Any insights ? Best regards, Raynor
  12. Thanks, beta 2018.3.0.8528 seems to have fixed the problem. I had added an exclusion of the file VirtualBox.exe before, that helped as well. But with the recent beta, the exclusion is no longer required.
  13. Hi, starting yesterday (Friday 23-03-2018), VirtualBox always throws an error (see attached screenshot) when starting a virtual machine, be it an existing one or a new one. I was puzzled because I had extensively used VirtualBox just the day before (Thursday 22-03-2018) and everything worked fine (as it always had). This thread lead me onto the right track: https://forums.virtualbox.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=83791#p397261 "The "process has more than one thread" error implies, I think, that some other process was trying to access VirtualBox process memory. So, either malware or antivirus. [...] It would be something invasive: system monitor of some kind, developer debug environment, crash manager maybe." And indeed, If I shut down EAM, VirtualBox starts to work again just fine (no errors whatsoever ). So some very recent protection/signature update must have made EAM more invasive, thus causing this error. Please fix this. I am using EAM 2018.1.1 (delayed feed), Win 10 x64 v1709, VirtualBox 5.2.8. Thanks, Raynor
  14. Hmmm ... maybe with a BIG FAT "potential security issue" warning message ? Oh, and one more thing: The console window does not seem to remember its size and position, could this be fixed?
  15. PS: Could we please get a "remember password" checkbox in the EEC login/connection screen in the future? (no security risk for us, as only domain admins are allowed on the server anyway)...
  16. Thanks, yes, I had figured this out already. I only need to lockdown normal users (for now).
  17. 1) Other context menus seem to be a bit wonky, too: Under "User Policies", If you right click on "Default for admins", you get a greyed out context menu, and if you right-click on "Default for non-admin", you get a normal, not greyed out context menu, but the "Edit" and "Delete" menu items do nothing. "Clone" works. Suggestion: Add a "New" Button at the bottom , and make the behaviour for context menus on non-deleteable default groups consistent (i.e. consistently allow "clone" and grey out "edit" and "delete"). 2) Thanks, yes, that makes it clear. May I suggest that you rename this section from "Scanner Settings" to "Scanner settings for console-initiated scans" and/or add a little descriptive text like "These settings are applied when performing a manually initiated scan from EEC". This might save some confusion for future users. 3) Thanks, this makes sense! Best regards, Raynor
  18. I've been playing around with EEC in a virtual machine prior to possibly deploying it in our company. A few questions and issues have arisen: 1) (See attached screenshot 1) For testing purposes, I have deleted all groups under "Polices-->Computers-->Groups" except the "New Computers" default group. Now I can't create any new groups, because the "clone" option is greyed out in all context menus and there is no "new" option anywhere. 2) (See attached screenshot 2) Why on earth is there a "Scanner Settings" section under Settings-->Options? I thought that all the settings for the clients, including the scanner settings would be configured via policies! And the same scanning options are indeed (as expected) present in the policies. To top it off, there is no mention of this section in the help or the manual 3) How often does the Update Proxy update its data? (signatures and downloadable EAM program updates) I can find nothing about this in the manual. Thank you in advance! Raynor
  19. Or would assigning "read-only" access to all normal users via EEC actually do what I described above? After all, the popup help for that setting states: "[...] All alerts and events are handled automatically. Read-only notifications." So, does this setting also apply for Behaviour Blocker Alerts? Thanks, Raynor
  20. Just to let you know, Windows Server 2016 does NOT automatically turn off Windows Defender when Emsisoft Anti-Malware gets installed. It does nothing. It doesn't even lift a finger. Zip. Nada. I just tried it in a virtual machine. More info to corroborate my findings here: https://partnersupport.microsoft.com/en-us/par_servplat/forum/par_winserv/disable-windows-defender-on-server-2016/3b19d95c-0969-44ba-b9c1-e348be7a7a98 So, that leaves me with 2 options: - Powershell: Set-MpPreference -DisableRealtimeMonitoring $true - Or removing Windows Defender completely (Add/Remove Roles&Features Wizard) I haven't decided what to do yet ... hmmm ... Oh, and one more thing: While the Anti-Malware Download page now lists Server 2016 as supported, the Enterprise Console download page does NOT (Server 2012 R2 only) (???)
  21. We are considering deploying EAM with EEC in our company in the near future. One thing that I am really worried about is that (if i'm not mistaken) at the moment there is always an option for users to skip the "suspicious program" alert popups of the behaviour blocker module. In other words, users could always choose to manually allow the action taken by a suspicious program. Why is this a problem? Well, users tend to be dumb, and clicking on "Allow" (or, as it is called starting with EAM version 2018-02 "Wait, I think this is safe") would allow a malicious program to run and infect our network, rendering the AV useless... Believe me, people really do click on stuff without knowing what they're clicking. It's ridiculous but true! We absolutely need to lock down all client PCs, with users not being given any way to manually allow suspicious program activity. At the moment, the only two options for the behaviour blocker are "Allow" and "Auto resolve with notification". I would kindly suggest to add a third option named something like "Always auto resolve (no allow option)" that still shows the suspicious behaviour alert to client PC users, but provides them with no way to cancel the auto resolve (quarantine, etc.) action. This is the one and only issue that keeps me from being 100% certain that EAM is the best option for our network . If I got it all wrong, and there already is a way in EEC to configure the alert popup in the way described above, I would like to apologize for wasting everybody's time Thanks, Raynor
  22. By the way: Does that mean that even UEFI Secure Boot would be supported? As mentioned above, we don't use that at the moment, I'm just curious...
  23. OK, thanks. We will be deploying EAM on our Windows Server 2016 in the not-too-distant future (in a couple of months - not too distant in Server OS terms ) I'll report back if there are any problems with the "automatic" disabling of Windows Defender...
  24. One more Question: What are your "official" recommendations concerning Windows Defender on Windows Server 2016 when EAM is to be installed on the Server ? A) Remove Windows Defender completely as a feature via the "Add Roles and Features" wizard ? B) Leave it installed, just disable realtime protection via the following Powershell command: Set-MpPreference -DisableRealtimeMonitoring $true C) Leave it installed, do nothing, as Windows Defender gets disabled automatically by EAMs Installer? (does it ??? if so, only the realtime protection???) Thank you Raynor