Partha

Member
  • Content Count

    59
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by Partha


  1. Arthur, this is exactly the reason I've been saying that you guys should check properly what I write. It is not that difficult. You just have to read with your eyes. Try it.

     

    This would be like the millionth time I am saying that I know that they are test sites and I intentionally wanted to test the software. Test sites designed to check how effective an anti-malware is, are not supposed to be safe just in case you didn't know

     

    If a test site that is designed to test how an anti-malware performs, turns out to be completely safe, then it just defeats the purpose of having a test site

     

    I have already specified that the files that were downloaded were detected as threats by the File Guard. THIS MEANS THAT THE SITES THAT HOSTED THOSE FILES WERE NOT SAFE

     

    I have also specified that those links have been reported as unsafe by various other trusted vendors and I have verified it. If you want the names, just check my previous posts. AGAIN, JUST READ. I AM NOT ASKING YOU TO BUILD A ROCKET

     

    I mean Emsisoft's built in list has been updated with that host after I made the request. Why on earth would you guys blacklist the host then if it had been safe?

     

    If the File Guard wouldn't have stopped those threats, my computer would've definitely been compromised BUT, THIS IS NOT ABOUT FILE GUARD AND THIS IS THE LAST TIME I WILL BE SAYING THIS

     

    THIS IS ABOUT THE FIRST LAYER OF DEFENCE - SURF PROTECTION AND NOTHING ELSE

     

    I have to say that you guys know how to test someone's patience. Please stop this, Arthur.


  2. There's a difference between not being able to do something, and not thinking it is necessary to do something. ;)

    I am so tired of these cocky one liners by the staff of Emsisoft. It has to stop now. I am seriously tired of these arrogant replies.

     

    If you really think Emsisoft considered it unnecessary, then all I can say is that it shouldn't have because after all, that host was blocked right after I made the request and so there has to be a reason for blocking the host

     

    The problem is that Emsisoft didn't think what should've been necessary in the first place and that was to block the host

     

    I've lost count of the number of times I've stated that those sites were not safe and I have given all the evidence. If you still continue to say that they weren't, I would have to say that you are in denial.


  3. That is true and a casual user might probably not even end up visting such sites but there's still a very little chance that he just may or maybe he is just like me who likes to experiment and test things out

     

    That said, even if the malware make their way in somehow, the file guard or the behavior blocker would probably block them right away but still, why take a chance

     

    I therefore believe that it's always better to prevent the malware from accessing the PC in the first place and that is why it is important that the Surf Protection performs well


  4. This reply of yours just made my day. If just blocking malware is what you are concerned about, then why even have something like Surf protection. It has a purpose after all and it should fulfil it.

    I know that EIS/EAM excels in blocking malware. No complaints there. I was actually pretty sure that if for some reason, some malware was able to make their way in to my PC, Emsisoft would be able to block the malware.

     

    The reason I performed this test was to check how effective just the Surf protection component was and I expected Emsisoft to excel in blocking suspicious sites as well but sadly, it didn't

     

    Like I said, I ran the same test with K7 and Kaspersky and then later with Bitdefender and some other FREE anti-malware too and their web protection components were pretty effective in blocking the sites

     

    I also decided to give a free Firefox add-on called Fox Web Security a try and it was able to block all the sites in the test too 

     

    Microsoft's Smartscreen filter which is known to offer the most basic levels of protection against installing any malicious software and that helps detect suspicious websites, was also able to detect that the sites in the test were suspicious

     

    Emsisoft's Surf protection on the other hand was not even able to detect a single site in that test, until I made a request here to block the host and so as a customer who has paid for the software, it was not pleasant and it did let me down. I am sure no one would've liked that.

     

    I am not so fortunate. I barely make ends meet. Someone like me cannot afford to pay for an anti-malware, let alone a rather expensive anti-malware but I still wanted to use Emsisoft and the reason was that I didn't want to compromise with security

     

    If I were you, I wouldn't have made such sarcastic remarks. It only makes matters worse.

     

    If there is a software component like Surf Protection that is meant for a specific purpose, it should work well and that was the only reason I started this topic. 


  5. The technology can only block domains and subdomains. We can't block specific files or folders on their website without filtering HTTP traffic. This means that to add those tests to be blocked, we would have to block their entire website, or at least anything at malware.wicar.org.

    I know it can only block domains and subdomains and that is exactly what I meant, Arthur and by the way, malware.wicar.org is already blocked. I never spoke about any specific files that could be blocked by Surf Protection because I know Surf Protection is not meant to block files.

     

    If you check my first post, I clearly stated that the files that were allowed to be downloaded, were later detected by File Guard and so I never said that Surf Protection could detect or block malicious files.

     

    Let's not make this complicated please. I would appreciate if you check properly what I have specified . The reason the other thread turned out to be a disaster was that someone did not check my posts properly

     

    It's very simple. The reason those URLs are now blocked is that the subdomain malware.wicar.org is in the built in list of known malicious hosts, where it is set to blocked.

     

    If you click on Surf Protection from the main user interface and unhide the built in list, you will see this subdomain there and that it is set to blocked. This is exactly what I wanted in the first place when I started this topic.

     

    Since all those URLs are part of this subdomain malware.wicar.org, they are now being blocked by Surf Protection. So basically I've got what I wanted.


  6. I never asked you to block their entire website and the objective was not to pass the tests. The objective was to make sure that the URLs which are reported unsafe by the other vendors and by Microsoft, are blocked by Surf Protection.

     

    The malicious host malware.wicar.org is now added to the built in list and because of that, those URLs are blocked. That's what was expected in the first place.

    By the way, the problem with Edge that I was talking about does not occur if the beta updates are installed.


  7. malware.wicar.org is now blocked.

    Yeah, I just saw that it's added to the built in list and the sites are now being blocked but for some unknown reason, if I try accessing those sites from Edge, they are still not blocked by Surf Protection.

     

    I therefore thought of creating a rule where bing.com would be blocked. I created the rule and as expected, it wouldn't let Firefox and Chrome load the site. Interestingly, the site was allowed to load on Edge


  8. All those sites are now also blocked by Microsoft Smartscreen because they were reported as unsafe but the Surf protection doesn't block any of those sites yet. It will continue to allow those sites unless their database is properly updated.

     

    I do not understand what more evidence does Emsisoft require about the unsafe behavior of those sites. Microsoft knows about this too.


  9. I understand that the File Guard is capable of detecting malicious HTML and JavaScript when it is saved in the browser's cache while loading a webpage and I am glad that it works that way but, the concern is not with File Guard in any way

     

    Look, I am well aware that Emsisoft maintains a built in list or a database of known malicious hosts and the Surf protection either blocks or doesn't block hosts based on the rule that's defined there

     

    It basically means that it's NOT supposed to let the browser load hosts that are set to blocked. My concern is that the Surf Protection component let the browser load those malicious html pages in my test

     

    If this database of known malicious hosts had been updated properly, then these hosts would have been blocked and that is exactly what is expected from Surf Protection


  10. Thanks, Siketa. I will do that but I am sure you would agree that just blacklisting these handful of sites won't help.

     

    There are thousands of sites like this which host malicious files. Emsisoft's Surf Protection should be capable of identifying those sites or at least most of them and this can only happen if they rework their Surf Protection component.


  11. I am very disappointed with Emsisoft's Surf Protection component. I tested the component today and to my surprise, it did miserably. I've heard from other sources about the ineffectiveness of the Surf Protection module but I never expected it to perform like this.

     

    There is this website called http://www.wicar.org/test-malware.html/ designed to test the effectiveness of anti-malware. I ran the tests but none of the malicious sites were blocked by Surf Protection

     

    The malicious files were allowed to be downloaded from the sites that hosted those files and they were then later detected by the File Guard. I was not even sure if all the files were detected or not and therefore had to run another scan with Hitman Pro just to make sure

     

    I am actually amazed that none of the sites were blocked by Surf Protection. Just to let you know, I ran the same tests with some other anti-malware software like K7 Ultimate Security and Kaspersky Internet Security and both their web protection modules were able to block the sites

     

    K7's Safe Search component in particular denied access to all those sites where as Kaspersky's web protection was able to block most of the sites.

     

    This is not the kind of protection that I expect from a brand like Emsisoft. The Surf Protection component needs some serious work and improvement.


  12. not scanning 1 file has no influence on the total scantime.

     

    I think you meant to say that scanning 1 file has no influence on the total scan time because if I understand, it does scan the excluded files. It just doesn't detect them.
     
    I understand that the scanner is fast but no matter how fast it is, the scan does take some time and resources and therefore I think that the scan time should be invested properly.
     
    I am just saying that this scan period where the excluded files are scanned which won't be helpful in any way, could be avoided.

  13. I was able to reproduce the issue like before. Maybe the problem is just with EIS. Nevertheless, the debug logs are in the attached ZIP archive.

     

    Please be aware that this time, the VideoLan folder had 621 files and so ideally, Emsisoft was expected to scan just 620 files since the vlc.exe file was excluded but it scanned all the 621 files. So basically the issue is still there.

    Logs.zip