• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Quirky

  1. Hello everyone, a couple of questions: 1. I have a fairly lengthy range of IP addresses (both single addresses and some IP ranges) stored in a .txt file that I want to block. This older post suggests that the Firewall should be used for this instead. Is this still valid? I imported this .txt file into Surf Protection, everything seems fine and the IP's are listed normally. I cannot find something similar (file import) in the Firewall and it'd be impossible to import them one by one. Unless there's another way? 2. About Surf Protection: does it block the list entries globally at OS level or only via web browsers? Thanks.
  2. I meant the latter (for EIS to enforce scaling prevention on its own, perhaps via a user-selectable option) but anyway, thanks for looking into it. I re-enabled custom scaling which solves the issue for all applications (including EIS) and Windows components, and only rarely revert to standard/default scaling for the one application that needs it.
  3. You are right, that's probably the cause. Perhaps adding an option within EIS itself would be easier to implement than using Windows' file properties system?
  4. Updating Windows might solve your issue (you should update anyway). Another option would be the excellent Windows Repair, make sure to read and follow all instructions. Read the descriptions of each repair and select the ones that could help (don't just select all of them).
  5. Thanks GT500, I know about the general blurring issue but the particular problem of the a2guard compatibility setting auto-disabling itself (and thus causing the blurriness that can be bypassed) seems specific only to Emsisoft. I don't recall other exe's not maintaining the "Disable scaling" setting, unless you are saying that that's how Windows 10 works for some programs, and that setting is not retained after a restart in some cases. If that setting was retained as one would expect (and it does on the programs I've tried), we could bypass the problem for Emsisoft software, too. About the blurring issue in general: that tool has been very helpful but now is only rarely required because after the W10 Anniversary Update, selecting a custom scaling level in W10's settings, achieves the same effect as that tool and solves the problem. Using the older scaling method in Windows 10 (described as "custom"), might cause other issues with some programs but that's irrelevant here.
  6. This works, but unfortunately after the second restart that a2guard compatibility setting is automatically disabled/unticked and the blurriness comes back (W10 x64). Hope you can fix this.
  7. Doesn't look it's related to ShutUp10. Try the suggestions here.
  8. This seems to be correct, EIS performs the auto-update a little later when Fast Startup is not used. If you could change it to behave like this in Fast Startup mode too, it would be an improvement. However, as Windows 7 users still experience PC startup delay issues (there is no Fast Startup in W7) it would probably be best to delay the initial auto-update a bit further (for example, 3-5 minutes after startup sounds reasonable).
  9. If I remember correctly, the feature activated without requiring the PIN, which urged me to post here. I have the "do not ask the PIN for 30-seconds..." option enabled and I probably had unlocked an App just before that. Will it not ask for the PIN in this case? Can't remember if I had already adjusted the settings, but it now seems the message is not reappearing. In any case, I still think you should remove that pop-up for both security and user-annoyance reasons. Your decision, of course.
  10. Then it would only be a matter of maintaining two separate installers with just a few renamed descriptions differentiating them. Unless this involves too much extra work, I don't see why it can't be done. Anyway, I'm not insisting (hardly a big issue) but since these are clearly separate products -even if using same code base- they should be described as such, even in the esoteric processes properties.
  11. With the new version, I noticed that quite often this message pops up: (wording is not exact) "You seem to dig this wi-fi network, would you like to disable App Lock... etc." This essentially allows any user to bypass all app locks with one click. What's more, it keeps coming back rather annoyingly, even if the user refuses. Please consider completely removing this security-hole message, the Settings are perfectly adequate to handle this. Also, the ability to lock EMS itself seems lost.
  12. GT500, I never argued about all of them being the same, not sure why you insist on that. My only point was: that (same) Product Name should be EIS, not EAM. It is just wrong, that's all.
  13. The same applies to the other processes.
  14. Small issue: all EIS a2xxx.exe processes are described as Emsisoft Anti-Malware components. Can lead to mild confusion with applications that list installed programs/running processes based on their description. (I cannot see my attachment - "no permission" message)
  15. If you have several security software installed, you are asking for trouble and problems are bound to appear. This is known, well-documented territory and certainly not specific to Emsisoft (which I think is one of the most compatible ones anyway). The main purpose of security software is to protect your computer, not to be compatible with each other. It would be nice if they all played along together, but by their own technical nature, it is almost impossible (and understandable). Having said that, it'd be good to know exactly which programs cause problems, for the benefit of other users who might encounter similar issues.
  16. Ok, you got me a bit confused now. The difference here is not between how the Exclusions module and Behavior Blocker module work, but between Exclusion (single process) and Exclusion (folder). Exclusion (single process) reports in the UI: Monitored (No) (correct) Exclusion (folder) reports in the UI: Monitored (Yes) (wrong) I would still consider this a bug, and definitively not a cosmetic issue unless the folder exclusion is supposed to do something different, other than to exclude ALL processes inside the excluded folder and subfolders. Exactly, the new system (first listbox) now excludes BOTH scans AND File Guard. The previous version allowed a separate selection (Scans and/or File Guard). The new version seems a more "all or nothing" approach which I think is less secure. I hope this is reconsidered.
  17. Please remember that the UI wrongly reports "Yes", so it's not a mere matter of changing "No" to "No (exclusions)", but from "Yes" to "No" - or "No (exclusions)" which is even better.
  18. It'd be good to know which component is preferred to temporarily disable to minimize such alerts during installation/uninstallation of programs while maintaining an acceptable amount of system security. File Guard? Behavior Blocker? Both? Disabling everything seems excessive (Pause protection). Perhaps it'd be an interesting idea to create a special quick/tray setting/shortcut for this ("Pause for install/uninstall" or sth.)
  19. Ok, I think I've confirmed this, there are no Behavior alerts in this case. I switched folder exclusion on/off and managed to identify such alerts. Please fix the UI issue though since it reports the wrong status and we can't be sure on what's been monitored and what not. Also, I think that while the new exclusion system is indeed simpler to use, it seems there is also less control over it? In the previous version there were three type of exclusions (in the form of tick-boxes), Scanning, File Guard and Behaviour (I could be wrong on the terminology), now there are only two (Scanning and Monitoring). Can you please confirm this and let me know exactly what is being excluded in each of these two categories and how it relates to the previous versions' exclusion system? Thanks.
  20. Ok, I replaced all of my single .exe exclusions with folder exclusions and report back if required but this is probably something you need to test internally. Please note that all these processes are now being reported as monitored ('Yes'), contrary to what happened before when they were excluded as individual processes. I cannot tell for sure whether the real-time monitoring is actually taking place or not, I can only rely on what the UI reports.
  21. Also, even just toggling "Hide fully trusted applications" will send the CPU usage to 25% momentarily.
  22. In the Application Rules list if I try to type anything in the search bar, the keyboard presses are not reflected immediately but in a slow-motion fashion, the a2start.exe process will spike at 25% CPU usage and EIS will not respond at all until all keyboard presses are acknowledged and completed. This happens whether "Hide fully trusted applications" is on or off. Searches in other UI lists seem to perform better (Surf Protection, Behavior Blocker).
  23. Ok, but I'm not sure how to try and trigger those alerts. I tried with a program that I thought could trigger them, deleted its application rule but not getting any alerts, whether its folder is excluded or not.
  24. Ok, but please understand that we are talking about default/automatic behaviour here that potentially affects several users. You can't expect everyone with a slow or non-SSD hard drive to have to adjust custom update schedules and turn on their PC on a specific time like you do.
  25. No, it's not UI-related. What you are describing (Behavior Alert? - this is not about alerts) seems differrent from what I'm reporting here. Firstly, let me say that I see no relation between the Behavior Blocker setting in the Application Rules, and the Monitored status in the Behavior Blocker window. They seem unrelated because there are many processes in the latter that are reported as Monitored (Yes) and they also have everything allowed in their respective Application Rule (Behavior Blocker/Firewall In/Firewall Out - All Allowed). Back to this issue, here is an example. Let's say we have a folder named "My Program" inside Program Files and that this folder contains "myp1.exe" and "myp2.exe". If I go to Settings/Exclusions/Exclude from Monitoring and add myp1.exe and myp2.exe separately by using the "Add Program" button, then these processes will not be monitored after being restarted, which is correct (Monitored/No in the Behavior Blocker window) Now, if I remove these two processes from the Exclusions and use the "Add folder" button to add the "My Program" folder to the exclusions, then these two process will still be Monitored/Yes in the Behavior Blocker window - which basically means that folder exclusion doesn't do anything, at least in the Monitoring section (I think the Scanning folder exclusions work normally but this is about Monitoring exclusions).