plat1098

Member
  • Content Count

    46
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by plat1098

  1. OK, done! Hopefully, this is no longer an issue and the scanner has been doing well regardless since I reinstalled the EEK package. OK, thank you, GT500 and also @JeremyNicoll, this has been highly informative and helpful. plat
  2. a2cmd /update a2cmd /malware /pup I deleted the existing EEK and reinstated it from your website yesterday. Twice the scanner has behaved properly with the above commands. So, it seems academic as to why it was messed up like that previously. Since the issue is/was sporadic, running the extra CLS command every time was something I wasn't really keen on because I'm lazy. Also, this machine is odd and annoying since the Fall Creators Update, causing numerous headaches with its borks and misbehaviors. Again, if the issue doesn't affect the scanning capability or is harmful in any other way, it's something to put up with on occasion. Thank you for your time and help. It is always appreciated. plat
  3. See, this doesn't happen each time but often enough, so the extra step may or may not be necessary. As long as the issue doesn't compromise the actual scan, I guess I can put up with it. But if there's a new version coming up that addresses this issue, I'd appreciate it. I blame this machine as usual though there are no indications in Event Viewer or elsewhere that would point to its being the culprit. Don't know why the signatures seem to complete downloading and then continue when the scan is initiated. I'll delete and reinstate the EEK download and see. OK, thanks again. plat
  4. This could be minor but then again, it's cosmetically not my thing. Recently, the scanner begins and is displayed smack in the midst of the signatures. Obviously, you can't start the scan until you get the prompt. Why, and what can be done besides not updating prior to scanning (not a great alternative)? Does this have to be reinstalled (hope not)? This is version 2017.12. Thanks!
  5. Out of interest and curiosity, can at least some of us expect an increase in scan times due to kb4056892? Example: on machine w/NVM-e, scan time increased from 30 sec to 50 sec. It's all relative but I wonder if there is correlation. Will this slowdown be mitigated in due time?
  6. Hello JeremyNicoll and GT500, and Happy New Year. First, thanks very much for the impromptu tutorial, clearly this was out of my atmosphere and I apologize for the extra trouble. It seems that if you want a report, you have to tell EEK every time--here it was just placed in C:. Is there a way to permanently do this, do you modify the ini file or something? Nevertheless, I got it, it's good. I swear, this was operative without the additional commands before, don't know what happened. If this is it as far as report logging goes, OK then, this is satisfactory as-is and I'll just use the command every time I need a formal report. Thanks again, much obliged. plat logfile.txt
  7. OK, I see. This seems a little messed up and confusing on here and this just started happening. Before, I was using this w/no issue whatsoever. After applying your above command, the first scan report ended up in the bin64 folder. The second landed in Reports. There was no third--does your above command for a report have to be applied every time you want it? Here is a malware scan with the /pup command entered prior to the /malware one. The report is below--pup detections don't seem enabled. I enable the detection, the Scan settings say "ON" then I initiate the scan. When the scan is initiated, the PUP setting is changed to OFF. a2cmd.exe /malware or a2cmd /malware, both work. I don't see the reason to un/reinstall a third time but I will if you find it's necessary. Edit: I'm going to uninstall OSArmor and see if that changed anything. Cmd_Scan_2017_12_30.txt
  8. Actually, the report predates the issue and should be disregarded, I see no further scan reports are in the EEK file on C:. In fact, I just ran another scan to get a report and there isn't any. I'm also using OSArmor but those logs don't indicate anything having to do with this.
  9. OK, thank you for this information. I'd un/reinstalled EEK a day or so ago but nothing changed. Maybe this is something I should be shrugging off as the report states pup detections were in fact enabled. But the snip (which shows the version you requested) displaying the desired feature first on, then off is a little intriguing. Another machine w/no connections to this one likewise showed this. Admittedly, I haven't been using EEK via commandline for too too long. I'll go by the report and ask for info just for education, OK? Thanks for your help. logs.db3 a2settings.ini scan_171223-204707.txt
  10. Hi, GT500, thank you for your reply. Is there any more information forthcoming? I can "live" without the PUP scanning capability but it's better to know and not waste time trying to make it work. To update and run the malware scan takes all of maybe 40 seconds for 74,000 items. If you can let me know how/if the PUP detections can be brought back, that would be good. Thanks for the bin32 tidbit, I'll leave it alone. plat
  11. Hello everyone. Was using the above for a while when it spontaneously stopped scanning for potentially unwanted programs. Tried the /pup command and the /p one with and without the space after a2cmd, it still says "off" in the list of scanner options. Can someone assist me with this please? Also, does one need the bin32 for a 64 bit system? I have searched this forum for answers to this issue before posting. Thanks! plat
  12. No, there was never an idea this feature would have its own interface (lol) but you said it will be in the application rules section. That's what I wanted to know. Can I request an upcoming, more detailed blog on this feature? Many thanks for info, plat
  13. Hello everyone Have EAM on an alternate machine so not using this too much and noticed the upcoming firewall fortification in EAM--where would be its location in interface? Will this pretty much eliminate the "need" for third party firewall enhancements or do some still recommend their use? Emsisoft AntiMalware version 2017.x with Windows 10 64 bit/15063.540 Just using Windows Firewall with a few custom rules. I have searched for similar, basic questions before posting and read the latest blog on the subject. Thanks! plat
  14. Oops, missed the forest for the trees. Thank you both for your help, I'm good now.
  15. Thank you for reply. This is exactly the feature I need but this doesn't seem to be available on the version you get when you install EIS from the electronic purchase receipt. What must you do or install to get this feature? Insofar as certain custom scan features adding to CPU load, this is certainly understandable in your scenario but I keep them. Myself, I have questions about the option for the quick scan--is it superior in any way to the malware scan--besides being "quick"? It only adds around 20 seconds (for me) to do a malware scan, and I stopped being enchanted by zippy scan speeds long ago. Nevertheless, just because there's a scan option doesn't mean you have to use it--just wondering.. I considered the other software on the machine as factors in the CPU issue. There is only a little stand-alone anti-executable with zero impact on anything, and some browser hardening (uMatrix). That's it, this is a fairly well-secured machine, but as far as scans go, everyone has a paranoid moment now and then, right?
  16. Hello: The machine's CPU has 4 cores/8 threads (processors). There haven't been any system freezes so far and you can use browser during scan, albeit timidly. The custom scan is set to examine zipped and archived folders. Thanks.
  17. Hello: I apologize if this has already been answered somewhere or if this should be common knowledge already. Here is Emsi Internet Security version 12.0 with stable update feed on a Windows 10 64 bit, version 14393.693. machine. A scan (malware or custom) starts off fine then builds until it's pegged at 100% CPU use and it stays there until completion. This doesn't occur in a quick scan, which is 4 sec. but for malware and specifically custom, which is over 3 minutes, it's at 100% for about 1 minute. Windows is set to see all the processors. Is this natural? Thanks, plat
  18. I wouldn't dare agree or disagree with anyone who possesses the inside knowledge I lack. Still, Emsisoft used the term "vulnerability" in its own update log. That is a loaded word, especially when it applies to your trusted security software. Even though "bug" and vulnerability are mutually exclusive terms, I'd think a technical bug would make things inherently vulnerable, no? Bug + vulnerability = even bigger vulnerability. So it's back to: When/if there's a more unbiased article with less of an apparent agenda, I'll look for it here.
  19. Oops, missed your link to the article, found it independently. No, I wasn't aware of this. The term "patch" was used, wasn't it? Why was the term "vulnerability" used in the original update log, then? Something that can facilitate an exploit in conjunction with an existing vulnerability looks like a vulnerability to me. The article named some big brands, including a Microsoft product, so yes, this in itself was significant, and I see efforts at public relations and damage control here and there. The article, however, is pretty obscure. That tells me something also.. Thank you for posting that link, that article was an eye-opener!
  20. There was a published report recently on those vulnerabilities and it contradicts to a large extent what you say above. It's now moot since it appears generally patched, but at the time, it was hardly something to pooh-pooh to the side. Hardly!
  21. Sorry, this kind of veers away from Firefox, so if you want to move this, I totally understand. Is it possible the previous items actually did get wiped out and then reload with a subsequent update? That would have me reconfiguring my update time slot to every hour again if so. This is pretty concerning, who wants to be without any part of EIS databases for even a minute? OK, well if you haven't heard anything recently about any HMP-A/EIS conflicts, I'll risk installing the Alert again, though I thought the death grip between the orphaned HMP-A driver and EIS pretty much killed my machine-- not exaggerating. I had the fully updated 373 build at the time with a current EIS, this shouldn't have happened! Please provide instructions on how to exclude one from the other so I'll have this for future reference. EIS support advised against this combination, however--do you agree? EMET seems to have some shortcomings recently with flash player, so I'm leaning back toward HMP-A, albeit cautiously.
  22. The issue corrected itself. The concern was that still-relevant signatures or other modules were wiped out, leaving only the most recently updated items in place. OK, well everything seems OK currently. Add: Sorry, had to dump HitmanPro-Alert due to its support driver getting stuck with Emsisoft and wreaking major havoc, causing me to get the support desk pronto. I see people here and there have both installed and everything is great, but I'm not feeling it. If somebody can tell me when it's "safe" to have both installed at the same time again (if ever), I would greatly appreciate that. Probably too risky, right?
  23. Hello: thank you for the whitelisting advice but it turns out, the issue was somewhat better with Firefox 47.0 and then got really good with latest Windows update, maybe KB3149135? Hope I don't jinx it. So OK but now after EIS installed some modules, I get this: I hope you don't mind my asking questions now and then, simply because I seem to be blundering into one onerous situation after another, and every little bit helps! Is there any compromise to EIS in general or is this just confined to a log-glitch? Thank you!
  24. Hi paulderdash: sorry, I just logged on--yes, though for me the inconsistent webpage loading, prolonged loading and unsmooth browser function have eased a little but it's still apparent. Just now Firefox issued another update on the heels of its last one and EIS flagged the installing process, snip below. That's never happened before and indicates to me there's some issues there, maybe? When version 46 was first installed not even a week ago, Firefox crashed immediately. In this case, it was due to something with HitmanPro Alert, though that hasn't happened since. Edit to add: thank you for the links, that explains a little bit more.