Jump to content

Yilee

Member
  • Posts

    41
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Yilee

  1. Thanks for the additional info. There are a lot of tangents that I could go off on, but I will try to limit myself. I'm glad that I noticed your topic because in the end I will end up becoming more familiar with proper memory usage. I did what you suggested. I enabled most all the memory columns in task manager and wrote down all the values for a2sevice as well as values for physical and kernel memory values and will monitor for changes over the next few days. I also could use Sysinternals process Explorer if you believe it would be much better for this situation. My physical memory usage is at 53 to 54%. A2servise uses the most memory out of the running processes at an average of 5,800,200 K for working set, peak working set and private working set with commit at around 6,375,656 K. I have been booted for about 2 whole days. The next process in line runs at around 165,000 K, which is much lower and then the other remaining processes are much lower. The following is applicable in my case: Win 7 Ultimate 64Bit, Sandboxie with dropped rights for most internet facing programs, External Security Gateway(Zywall USG100) with daily IDP and Antivirus Definition updates and I have all compressed HTTP packets that can't be inspected by the external antivirus destroyed. I am very comfortable without having my EAM signatures updated for a few days. I also block all unused or unassigned IANA protocols at the Security Gateway in all directions. I also for now force only IVp4 and block all forms of IVp6(too hard to design IPv6 firewall rules). I also only use TLS 1.1 and 1.2 and only allow strong ciphers and encryption signatures. The few times that over the last 6 yrs that something got onto my computer were either quarantined or only a fragment was caught up in the Sandbox which disappeared when I deleted the Sandbox. I also run in a non-admin windows profile most all the time but having Sandboxie run with reduced rights has always prevented malware from executing if it wasn't quarantined in time. Plus I am quite sure that much of the incoming malware are in the form of compressed HTTP packets all of which are destroyed before getting to my LAN. I'm conservative as I don't use Remote Access or Cloud services which why I don't yet need a VPN. So, I will monitor my memory values for a few days to see if they get out of bounds. I also should mention that I am using the same version .6315 that you first noticed your issue. Also, I can be very critical when it comes to software but in general I am very pleased with EAM and my system is running very fast and stable as long as I don't download any bad Microsoft patches(I'm selective) and as long as I continue to avoid the Win 10 nagware. I like the fact that EAM downloads the signatures to my OS and doesn't use the cloud(deal breaker) to process my files. I also read their recent article about memory usage and it made sense to me. I'm not sure what normal memory usage values are for a2service but my values do seem a bit high compared to the other processes. On the other hand, it makes sense that an EAM(anti-malware) type program would be using the most memory. Also, I have the option under EAM settings to "activate memory usage optimization" unchecked which will increase my physical memory usage and increase EAM processing speed, but 53% physical memory at 1st glance seems like a lot since I am not running any VM's and I have 16 GB of memory. I mention VMware because I believe you mentioned that you were running a VM. I suspect that the huge amount of signatures that exist these days is the reason why most venders now use the cloud to process your files instead of loading the signatures on the users OS. It is likely that Emsisoft is doing a good job with memory usage considering how many signatures are processed, while other venders just gave up and went to the cloud. I am willing to deal with some increased memory usage in order to avoid cloud processing(I am old school and plan to die that way). I have considered using VMware Workstation but I'm not sure that I would really have a need for it.(just something I wanted to get familiar with). I have successfully (many times) used Acronis for Restoration mostly for Bad MS Update Patches. I originally thought a VM setup would be advantageous for restoration but VM's do come with their own set extra complications and a good restoration program seems much simpler than VM, plus I do not perform a lot of testing. I plan to lock down Win 7 in the year 2020 and run Linux Mint with Win 7 as a dual boot instead going to Win 10 or using VMware. I came to the conclusion because it just seemed much simpler. On the other hand, I'm already at 53% physical memory usage which to me is not that good if I were to install VMware Workstation with a guest OS. I do remember that my memory usage several months ago before I installed EAM was well below 53% physical usage. So, although I am concerned, I have not noticed any performance problems at the moment and I'm mostly bothered because I am already above the 50% physical memory usage point without even using a VM!!! Also, I thought I should point out(tangent) that in 2020 after Emsisoft stops supporting Windows 7, my having an External anti-virus(Kaspersky signatures) and IDP on the External Security Firewall/Gateway will allow me to continue protecting Win 7 and the Linux Mint OS's. At least that's how I hope everything goes. The only reason that I went off on so many tangents was to put a few extra ideas out there that I have found useful in order to help others find additional ways to protect their OS. However the External Firewall/Security Gateway will cost you some $, but is well worth it if set up to it's full potential. What are your thoughts about the memory values that I posted? Thanks
  2. Hi and thanks for all of your hard work on this issue and others that I have followed. I'm still using the stable update .6315 from April 6, 2016. I stopped updating since the last stable release .6338 on April 18, 2016 to read the Blog Issues so as to avoid bad update patches etc... I prefer to do without signature updates until I am sure the coast is clear. You state that the problem is a result of a recent update. I presume you are referring to .6338 and that the problem would also apply to Emsisoft Anti-Malware (EAM) also??? If so, if the problem does turn out to be a real bug, how bad is it? The issue is not something that I have experience with but I do understand the gist of what you are explaining. So, for the average user not running any VM's with 16 GB of physical memory, no paging file on drive c:(use SSD) but I use a paging file on Drive D: to capture a Complete Memory Dump; How long would you say in Days that it would take for the problem to crash the OS? I ask because if this is a real problem then very soon other members will soon be blogging about this issue. This is potentially a bad problem if it turns out to be accurate! Thanks
  3. I was still running the ver. prior to 6247 (2 days since last updates) and per comments above I decided the coast was clear to move over to the new build 6247. However, the program was unable to retrieve information from the server and I decided I should post my problem. But at the last moment I checked my TCP Viewer program and discovered that the update request were now directed to a different server IP that belonged to Highwinds Technology located in Winterpark, FL. when using the SSL Encryption option in privacy settings, which are different servers than used previously. So it dawned on me that Emsisoft uses compressed HTTP zip.dat packets for encryption and I remembered that my External Firewall with IDP and Anti-Virus is set to destroy compressed HTTP files that it cannot open and I had previously had to create a Whitelist Rule to allow the new IP/zip.dat exception passage (not get destroyed). Once I corrected the IP address for the whitelist exception, everything worked fine. This information is being provided as a courtesy to those out there that might be using External firewalls with such features and have had trouble getting Emsisoft to update using the SSL encryption option. If so, check your Hardware Firewall to see if it has a whitelist feature and if you are blocking compressed HTTP files that cannot be examined. This is a great feature because blocking such files do not negatively affect surfing content but blocks many unwanted compressed adds and links that the websites does not want you to easily discover. Also, I never get hit with malware because of I also block incoming and outgoing unrecognized or unassigned IANA protocols and use Sandboxie with dropped rights and no remote connections. I learned a long, long time ago that fixing problems was not the way to go. Instead, I read some good info from some very good authors that talked about malware prevention first and removal as something that should never happen. But, I use Emsisoft just in case something gets by. As for Emsisoft Support, as you can see, for a small minority of your customers and probably quite a few Corporate Customers it would be nice to get a heads up in the Update releases if any changes have been made to the update servers IP address. Thanks
  4. So you are saying that the recent Stable Hotfix dated 022316 is OK, but that the Beta dated 022316(02-22-16,if you hover over the link) is slightly different and causes you this problem. This would indicated that the 2 patches have differences. Thanks for the input. I always hold off when reboot patches or any changes are released in order to be mostly certain the patch is without issues. I would like Emsisoft support to confirm your conclusions before I proceed to allow updates as it's been 2 whole days since it was released. I will stay tuned. Thanks
  5. I'm not sure how to contact a moderator to open my original thread although I'm sure I could figure it out. I just want others to know that the Beta Hotfix dated 020816 works very well for me in all respects and did fix the issue of the missing tray icon at startup after installing the Hotfix dated 020416. I put my OS through quite a few hoops today and everything is fast and smooth. I hope it works well for others with different setups and different programs in use as well. Thanks for the effort and Best Wishes as well.
  6. Thank You for your reply as it was informative. So it seems I will have to enable beta updates in order to get the Hotfix released today on 02-08-16, but I'm game. However, I am not thrilled about it. After I get the newest hotfix and if it hopefully resolves the missing tray icon issue without causing other issues and based on my needs not to be hindered by unopportunistic OS Restart request; Going forward, I will be forced to go to manual updates(disable auto updates) and only when the change log doesn't indicate a recent Version/build/hotfix release will I update definitions in order to avoid Hotfixes that are not stable for the whole group and/or just to give it 3 or 4 days to make sure everything looks good which is fine with me. Lastly, I won't be back to this post unless the Beta Hofix(020816) causes me trouble. However, I would like to share my thoughts about the TRUE underlying problem that has caused this whole unnecessary(lengthly) conversation. The underlying problem would not exist If the Version/build/hotfixes were not combined with the definitions or if a Warning of a "Possible Reboot Required" would be issued with every definition update that included Version/build/hotfix's. In my case(and others that operate the way I do) I would have waited a few days to see if there was an issue with a hotfix such as the "missing tray icon issue" and I would have delayed until the coast was clear just like I do with Windows 7. For me, it's important to avoid such troubles. How do you think I have been able to avoid WIN 10 nagware, newer Windows 7 update client patches as well as several Windows 7 upgrade to Win 10 preparation patches? I completely disable windows 7 auto updates in gpedit and disable the Windows update Service and don't address Patch Tuesday issues until the 4th week of the month after I have read about which patches are ok or troublesome or include telemetry or are win 10 prep patches or whatever doesn't seem critical or could possibly cause Win 7 not to work well with older programs. At that point I re-enable the Windows 7 update service and get the patches that I want and hide the others and I don't sign any new Eula agreements such as the new Eula that started appearing with the Windows Malicious Software Removal Tool(I don't uses it anymore_Read the Eula Carefully concerning future Automatic Updates). You have to look at everything Microsoft does these days. If its a new idea or approach then there is an agenda behind in many cases when the patches are recommended. Anyway, there are a lot of users who do not appreciate Microsoft cramming bad patches and unwanted feature changes and aggressive telemetry data mining features down their throat. Emsisoft as I have stated in some ways has an almost perfect Anti-Malware program except for having the issues with OS reboots at inopportunistic times and/or the inability to delay a Version/build/hotfix to a version of the USERS CHOICE. I really don't understand why your policy in much stricter than in Windows 7 and every bit as strict as Windows 10 when you must know how most experienced user hate Windows 10 Patching policy. Also, as far as their delayed updates and Enterprise Update Exceptions, they have changed the rules and goalpost so many times that in the end, you really can't depend on them to keep their word. Don't get me wrong, I love Windows 7 and prefer IE11 over Cyberfox(Firefox) anyday but I use both to increase my options. On the other hand I very much appreciate that Emsisoft is not into Data Mining and a user can opt out of Telemetry Tracking is they want to. That's the reason I chose Emsisoft and then I saw how small of a footprint it had and was fast at doing its job as long as you don't enable block and notify for Privacy Risks(just use block silently). Also, the idea that the Emsisoft Update Team will be able to code version/build/hotfix upgrades that do not require reboots is a waste of time, thinking and logic. Microsoft will continues at a rapid pace to change everything on it's head and 3rd party program coders will not be able to code much at all without OS reboots. I could be wrong but I believe that the velocity of users switching to Windows 10(most were tricked and forced) is about slow way down and Emsisoft will be stuck with servicing Windows 7 even longer past its support date of 2020 than it did for XP users. If the masses loved XP then they must really love Windows 7 sp1 twice as much. The experienced users that continue to use Windows 7 do not like being unable to avoid inopportune OS reboots or the inability to avoid the occasional bad patch and will eventually find a vender that suites their needs. I believe Emsisoft is in a position to grab major market share if you would change your update policy. If not, then I'm sure Microsoft will be happy to see your contribution to occasionally breaking some windows 7 machines as they go forward with their own changes that will eventually bloat Windows 7 till it is slow and eventually they will break it ability to use older programs that are not more like applications for a phone. Personally, I will stop Windows 7 updates once they cross the threshold. I will use acronis to restore, use Sandboxie and maybe VMware in a locked virtual setup for as long as possible or switch to Linux Mint. I can do this because I use Win 7 sp1 Ultimate full retail and I bought extra Ultimate licenses early on with the idea of using VMware near the end of Windows 7 Support. Basically, I just don't buy your arguments about combining signatures with program patches or not having adequate alternative options and I apologize for expounding so much but that's what people should do more often as long as they have manners and don't get personal. Thanks for Listening
  7. Update from Yilee Well I'm not satisfied with using version 11.0.0.5958 as it produced an "Invalid Pointer Operation" error dialog box that occurred while surfing and I confirmed that it occurred at the same time as a "WER-Diagnostic Log" indicating a "Possible Heap Corruption" which I now remember I was previously(before version 11.0.0.6131) on an occasional basis getting the "invalid pointer operation" errors and the "WER-Diagnostic Log" Heap Corruption errors during most of Nov,Dec and Jan but I didn't make the connection plus they stopped after Feb 1 2016 when EAM version 10.0.0.6131 came out. After reverting back to 11.0.0.5958 (caused by the delayed update feed) the Pointer error and WER log error both reoccurred again at the same time. After reading about how many bugs were fixed between version 11.0.0.5958 and version 11.0.0.6131 and since the "WER-Diagnostic Log" indicating a "Possible Heap Corruption stopped occurring as of 2-1-16 I would prefer to go back to version 11.0.0.6131 without the recent Hotfix, and keep it there until a fix for the Hotfix is released to fix those that are affected by the missing tray icon issue. On the other hand, the Invalid pointer operation never bothered me in the least because it didn't cause any real issues and since I always run my browsers Sandboxed I not much worried about any permanent negative effects. So to be clear, I am not concerned or need help concerning the Invalid pointer operation. I have read previous Emsisoft blogs by other users who have seen this issue and there have not been any forthcoming answers or obvious negative after effects. Plus I'm very confident with Sandboxie. It also crossed my mind that Fabian had mentioned about the many programs that were affected besides Hitman and Coraldraw including Internet Explorer which I use IE11 just as much as I use Cyberfox and I never had any problems with the original 11.0.0.6131 version release. So basically I'm getting a little irritated about the underlying mess. ***I do not believe the recent Hotfix should be considered stable. 1. So, if I perform an Acronis Restoration to version 11.0.0.6131 without the Hotfix how can I keep it that way without the Hotfix re-installing once I perform the next manual definition update? If I enable the delayed update feed at that point, will the program not download the Hotfix the next time I perform a manual update? 2. I still really don't understand why the Delayed Update Feed reverted me back all the way to version 11.0.0.5958. After further consideration I don't think it has been planned well and is not ready for Prime Time. This whole issue is compounded by having to face OS Restarts when it's very inconvenient. If version 11.0.0.5984 and version 11.0.0.54 were stable then why did it revert me so far backwards to version 11.0.0.58. I would think that the proper logic would be for the delayed feed to revert to the last previous stable version before the one that was most recently released!!! ****Can someone comment on this matter? 3. I would still like a reply from Fabien concerning my revised suggestion in post 24 as I believe the issue is important: I am generally OK with your answer concerning not providing a "warning dialog box" about a required OS reboot before downloading version/build/hotfix updates/patches. I suppose each system is different and not all behave the same and not all require an OS reboot while some do. So I will again compromise and make another revised suggestion: a. Wouldn't it be simple to just ALWAYS SEND a "warning dialog box" about a POSSIBLE required OS reboot before downloading and updates that contain version/build/hotfixes so that the user can act accordingly? I am certain that your coders could easing include such a warning with those types of downloads without much deliberation or time and effort required of the Emsisoft team. Fabian: Is my revised suggestion a possibility? b. Otherwise, does Emsisoft offer an Enterprise version that will give me the type of control over the OS reboot process that I am looking for? I am looking forward to your suggestions and comments. Thank you for your time.
  8. Update from Yilee: 1. I finally got around to enabling the "delayed update feed" and then ran the update manually and the download required an OS reboot for which I complied. To my surprise it restored my EAM backwards to version 11.0.0.5958. This means that the delayed download feed took me back 3 whole versions/builds backwards skipping over 11.0.0.5984 and 11.0.0.6054 plus the original release of 11.0.0.6131 which is all the way back to Nov. 2015. I'm not complaining because all of those versions were working perfectly for me. However: a. There are quite a few noted improvements that were made after version 11.0.0.5958 (in theory). Hard to say if they are noticeable to most users. On the other hand, I was expecting to be put back to the original release of version 11.0.0.6131 which also was working just fine before the Hotfix was released. All this tells me is that some users are also having trouble with other versions between version 11.0.0.5958 and version 11.0.0.6131. I actually like this approach(very conservative) of not letting anything out on the delayed feed that still has a bug for certain enterprise users. b. Also, I didn't have to un-install/re-install EAM or perform an Acronis Restore to get rid of the buggy recent Hotfix. However, I find it hard to believe that the Emsisoft Helpdesk personnel didn't describe in detail that I didn't need to perform an EAM re-install or 3rd party restoration(as previously kind of suggested but unclear) and that by just enabling the delayed update feed and then updating would in itself downgrade me back to a previous stable version. Fabien mentioned that the delayed update feed would be delayed by around 2 weeks but it took me back 2+ months. So, for those of you out there with problems, just do as I did if version 11.0.0.5958 was working well for you. It's still full 64bit and better than version 10.xxxxx. So Fabien thanks for twice mentioning to use the delayed update feed but I wish you would have expounded a bit more especially that it can actually downgrade the version you are currently using to an older version(but a version of Emsisoft's choosing) which is OK as I sure they are making an informed decision. 2. Lastly, Fabien, could you respond to my previous question in post 24 : I am generally OK with your answer concerning not providing a "warning dialog box" about a required OS reboot before downloading version/build/hotfix updates/patches. I suppose each system is different and not all behave the same and not all require an OS reboot while some do. So I will again compromise and make another revised suggestion: a. Wouldn't it be simple to just ALWAYS SEND a "warning dialog box" about a POSSIBLE required OS reboot before downloading and updates that contain version/build/hotfixes(anything other than standard definitions) so that the user can act accordingly depending on whether they are busy or not? I am certain that your coders could easily include such a warning dialog box with those types of downloads(ie: make it standard protocol) without any deliberation or time and effort required of the Emsisoft update team. Fabian: Is my revised suggestion a possibility? b. Otherwise, does Emsisoft offer an Enterprise version that will give me the type of control over the OS reboot process that I am looking for? As Always, Thanks for your Patience as I'm just trying to make the product perfect and reduce customer service issues.
  9. Thanks again for everyone's replies. Please confirm if I have got everything straight. To fix my immediate problem concerning the "missing tray icon", I should do the following: 1. I should go back to the original EAM version 11.0.0.6131 before the Hotfixes were released and then use the delayed update feed "which will not send me the problem hotfix" until at least 2 weeks(in cases where no problem is reported) or until the problem is sorted and a fix to the hotfix is released or a proper workaround is published(in cases where reproducible problems occur). Am I reading in between the lines correctly or am I way off base? 2. Also, I have 2 choices concerning how I can choose to go back to the original EAM v 11.0.0.6131 by doing the following: a. I can perform a restoration using Acronis True Image which will work and will allow me to change the feed to delayed. OR: b. I can: Uninstall Emsisoft Anti-Malware, Restart my computer twice, Download and reinstall Emsisoft Anti-Malware from this link." I was wondering, if I choose option b. won't I have to disable my internet connection to keep EAM from installing the newest Hotfix during the installation process?? I have the EAM clean uninstaller (never used) should I run it prior to re-installing EAM?? 3. I am generally OK with your answer concerning not providing a "warning dialog box" about a required OS reboot before downloading version/build/hotfix updates/patches. I suppose each system is different and not all behave the same and not all require an OS reboot while some do. So I will again compromise and make another revised suggestion: a. Wouldn't it be simple to just ALWAYS SEND a "warning dialog box" about a POSSIBLE required OS reboot before downloading and updates that contain version/build/hotfixes so that the user can act accordingly? I am certain that your coders could easing include such a warning with those types of downloads without much deliberation or time and effort required of the Emsisoft team. Fabian: Is my revised suggestion a possibility? b. Otherwise, does Emsisoft offer an Enterprise version that will give me the type of control over the OS reboot process that I am looking for? Once I am clear about items 1 and 2 above I am hoping to move on to new business. For the near future, it is obvious that the only way to avoid an inopportune OS reboot request will be to look at the most recent change logs before performing signature definition updates to make sure they don't contain any version/build/hotfixes and to only use the manual update procedure(disable automatic updates). It's not that hard to get used to. A desktop shortcut to the EAM Change Log URL will be fast and efficient and will provide clear direction plus the Delayed Update Feed can also be used to avoid the occasional bad hotfix etc.... My game plan is clearer now but I still would appreciate feedback concerning questions 1. and 2. above. Thanks
  10. Just a quick thought "more details" in case the support team needs more info. 1. Both of my 2 computers a laptop and desktop tower with each having multiple user profiles are behaving the same. They are mostly both run as non-admin users and regardless if I boot to a admin user or non-admin user or use "switch user" to log on to another user the tray icon is missing until I click on the EAM shortcut and then the tray icon appears and everything seems fine and it updates fine except that there are (2) a2guard.exe's showing in task manager. Also the scheduled scans work fine. Is this a widespread problem?
  11. Thanks for your reply's(GT500 and Fabian). I would like to get this wrapped up but I'm still confused a bit. I now understand that the "CMD Batch File" does not apply to my problem, but I still have further questions and 1 comment: 1. The only actual problem I am having is that the "tray icon does not show up after reboot" and to get it to show I click on the EAM shortcut to make it appear. At that point the program and tray icon seem fine. It scans, it gives surf protection alerts, it auto updates successfully. I'm confused about what GT500 states in the post 18 above: "You don't have to use the batch file to update Emsisoft Anti-Malware. Since the hotfix was released as a stable version, you can do the following if you would prefer: Uninstall Emsisoft Anti-Malware. Restart your computer twice. Download and reinstall Emsisoft Anti-Malware from this link." a. But I don't have trouble updating so why GT500 above instructions unless doing so will fix my actual problem described above ? I can only guess that he got in on my post late and there was miscommunication. b. Is his above described fix what I need to perform or is the fix I need still being worked on ? 2. Fabian stated in Post 19 above: "Or just switch to the delayed update feed that gets updates with hotfixes included a couple of weeks later." Sounds like a good improvement. I will try it after my actual problem is fixed. I don't plan on switching to Win 10 until around 2019 (maybe or Linux mint) so I did a lot of research on the topic of "Win 10 Delayed updates" as well as looking for specific details about the Emsisoft "delayed update feed" to get a better understanding of both. Your above comment about delaying updates with hotfixes "for 2 weeks" is the most comprehensive information to date on the WEB concerning details of how it works. I believe the topic should be expounded on a bit more if you don't mind. Please? However, it doesn't sound like using delayed updates will warn a user beforehand that even a delayed hotfix will require a reboot of the OS. I do see the advantage of the 2 week delay in that the delay will give plenty of time to pull or make changes in case a hotfix causes problems, thus the user can avoid the problem hotfix. Good idea! a. So, specific to the idea of providing a "warning dialog box" about a required OS reboot before the User(manually) or the EAM(automatically) performs the update in order to give the user a choice to opt out of the update until the user can finish whatever activity he may be involved in thus avoiding in some cases a huge disruption. If the user is manually updating or using automatic updates it is obvious that he wants to use the program properly. Also, when the user decides to later update and reboot, he will still be getting the matching signatures and program updates etc... Also, at the end of the yearly subscription, I'm sure that Emsisoft can cause the program to stop updating and/or working all together thus stopping unauthorized use and loss of revenue. So: ***Question:Fabien, what is your opinion concerning my suggestion in item a. above concerning a "warning dialog box" ? I won't bother anyone else about my above suggestion again if you can justify in the slightest way why this idea would not be feasible. Based on the many Emsisoft blogs that I have recently read, the topic of unhappy users complaining about forced reboots is fairly common. I am just trying to help. I have not seen my specific suggestion mentioned before, so what do you think? Thanks for Listening
  12. I appreciate the reply. Earlier today I had glossed over GT500's response before realizing that he was the one who sent me the cmd batch file fix and was from the support desk. The latter part of his response in post 6 above kind of made me move on because I was not interested in such a workaround that involved Process Explorer(which I have and Sysinternals Autoruns) with possible hangs etc... and I didn't absorb the first part of the message (my bad). I will wait a bit for now and again, Thanks for replying. 1. However, since a fix is not out yet, I am still curious about the general changes that the cmd batch file was to make since the final fix is not out yet? Maybe GT500 could reply with 2 or 3 sentences about the intended changes? Was the intention to return the installation to a state before the Hotfix was released? If so then I would be interested to try it. However, that wouldn't make sense since the hotfix has not been pulled. I still believe a hotfix should be released to return the general population that are not using the conflicting programs(Hitman, etc..) to the original release and have the others use a separate cmd batch file. 2. Concerning how EAM is working for me at the moment, it is fine as far as appearances are concerned, but I do have (2) a2guard.exe running in task manager(abnormal, I know) but I do not know if there are missing exe processes that should also be showing??? I also still have to click on the program shortcut to have it appear in the tray. Please inform me if there should be other exe processes running? I will make a note for future reference!! 3. I read Fabian's 2011 reply concerning offline signature downloads and understand the companies concern about using expired or unlicensed EAM versions and I agree. However, I am not interested in having to access separate website definitions on a regular basis. I also believe that the reasons I have for not wanting to be hit with a reboot request at inopportune moments is quite reasonable. Maybe an alert could be triggered (dialog box) to ask the user if they want to delay the download (when a required re-start is needed) till a later time could satisfy everyone?? (not after the download has occurred!!!) Is that a reasonable request? Otherwise, I will have to just turn off Automatic Update and perform them every couple of day and only when there are no version/build/hotfix updates listed in the change log URL . Of course if I am not involved in an activity that requires my not rebooting I am mostly always OK with signature/version/build updates but I'm now reluctant concerning Hotfix's for problems that do not concern my setup. I believe in my logic and truly believe Emsisoft should take a look at the issue of a required re-start request without prior warning and implement a future change in a manner that is mostly seamless to the consumer. The product as it is, is almost perfect except for this issue, especially if the company continues their policy of giving the consumer a choice about sending additional information such as infected data files and etc.. Plus I really like Surf Protection and the the ability to easily add custom URL blocks concerning privacy risks and basic data mining. Very nice!
  13. After further investigation, I noticed that the above cmd batch file : http://www.gt500.org/emsisoft/commandline_update.zip was written and sent by GT500.org. I looked him up at www.gt500.org and his website indicates that he currently works for Emsisoft and he has a user profile within this Blog and the Emsisoft Help Desk. That's good, but I'm old school and I don't normally install batch files unless others have tried them(documentation) and the patch has been released as a Hotfix for the public. I actually didn't expect a cmd batch file when I sent the email. I was looking for a reply stating that a fix was in progress and to stay tuned to the blog or that they would send me and email when the Hotfix was released to general users. I am not afraid to apply the patch. I have plenty of verified Acronis backups that have saved my (?) manytimes on both out laptop and Tower Desktop. Schuduled Acronis backups which is my most important program from day 1 is another reason why I don't want programs trying to update themselves whenever especially when such updates can include system re-start request which will certainly cause my Acronis backups to hang and then probably cause Emsisoft to hang and then hang Explorer and I will need to hit the re-set button and enter safe mode to perform a diskcheck. Been there, done that stuff too many times over 15 yrs. I would suggest the fastest way to get me to stop rambling is to give me a decent answer to what's going on with this issue. Trust me, I will disappear, and then readjust my Emsisoft update procedure going forward. Just a thought, why not release a Hotfix to return to the initial version 11.0.0.6131. In fact that's what I will probably do by using Acronis to restore back to 020316 before the Hotfix if I don't have any direction by Sunday 020716. Thanks
  14. I would like to hear from Emsisoft with an explanation of what the batch file does and why it's not being offered to the masses. I know what a batch file is and lots more. This issue is holding me up. I still can't figure out why a Hotfix for selective users with specific application conflict problems was released to the masses. It would seem to me that they are the ones who should have downloaded cmd batch file (not me or the masses). I will not install this patch until I hear from Emsisoft. I need for them to let me know that a fix is coming and I should check back in a few days. I want this resolved so that I can implement a different update strategy going forward since it's doubtful that they will separate their signature updates from Version/build/hotfix updates. As a compromise, they should at the least separate the Hotfix updates for specific conflicts from signature updates or keep them on beta for longer periods of time. As I mentioned in my initial post, I sometimes need to run my computer for 1 to 3 weeks without rebooting. Their update process by combining the signature updates and the version/build/updates cause for me to have to reboot at the most inopportune times. As an informed user, I do not usually blog, and figure out answers on my own by reading. This is one of my favorite newest programs, but it is the only program that I use that holds me hostage to updates in this fashion. I use IE11 and Cyberfox both. Cyberfox does not enforce automatic updates like Firefox does, they can be turned off as with Win 7 MS updates, at least until I am ready to address those issues and I do. I do patch my computers on a regular basis but when it's convenient for me and doesn't interfere with my activities. In then short term I will settle for a more robust answer concerning the "icon missing in tray after hotfix applied". Thanks
  15. Sorry for not responding sooner. I'm just now evaluating all of the various info from other blog links as well as an email response from Emsisoft with a link to fix the "missing icon in tray" upon reboot. Link: http://www.gt500.org/emsisoft/commandline_update.zip I am certain that my problem was caused by the Hotfix released yesterday on 02-04-16 Fixed: Compatibility issue with HitmanPro.Alert. Fixed: Compatibility issue with CorelDRAW and several other applications I have not yet installed the commandline_update_zip yet because it did not come with an explanation. I want to apply a fix that has some documentation and has been vetted. Questions to Emsisoft: 1. Can someone elaborate about what the above "commandline Fix" addresses and why hasn't it been released as a Hotfix for the majority of uses who do not use Hitman or CorelDraw as well a the logic behind why the above fix will work? I do not want to be a guinea pig, as I prefer to read documentation first. 2. Also, please elaborate about why new Version/Build/Hotfix releases HAVE to be included with Definition updates? This approach is the cause of this type of unnecessary delays and hassle. Personally, for all types of updates including Microsoft, I practice the wait and research approach to avoid bad patches etc.... I rely on sandboxie(with dropped rights) and Emet 5.2 and External Firewall USG100 and running in standard user account for main protection. Using Sandboxie with dropped rights on standard user account will stop most anything. 3. I suppose I will have to turn off Automatic updates and going forward I will have to read the change logs before performing definition updates. Also, when there are version/build/hotfix updates I will just wait a few days until it's convenient to read the forum blogs to see if the coast is clear. That's how I treat Microsoft Updates. I apologize for venting about the Update Issue but I feel strongly that Definition Updates should be separated from Version/Build/Hotfix updates. Also, I'm only venting because otherwise I really like Emsisoft Anti-Malware the best out of the other Anti-virus programs and it is compatible with the other security programs that I use including an older ZoneAlarm Pro (Firewall only). I prefer to keep the Firewall separate from all other programs so it is better able to stop programs from calling Home including itself. Just block the whole IP Range to stop nag Popups. This episode has only confirmed my conviction that Definition Updates should be separated from Version/Build/Hotfix Updates. ***So should I use the above "commandline fix" or wait for a general Hotfix with documentation to be used for the other users in my category?
  16. 1. Problem started immediately after Emsisoft requested a re-start computer. After Reboot the tray icon was missing. I do not use Hitman. Everything else is normal. Emsisoft setting look correct. Windows 7 sp1 64bit Action Center reports Emsisoft is protecting computer. Emsisoft is behaving normal. I clicked on Emsisoft program and it appeared in the tray normally and works normally. It would seem that the newest HOTFIX has broken something for those that do not use HITMAN. ***This happened exactly the same way on my laptop and desktop, back to back. 2. *I replaced Microsoft Security Essentials(light on resources, but useless and is tied to Window Updates(not good)) with Emsisoft because I like your privacy policy, the way the program is light on resources and is fast as well as the manner in which signatures are delivered to the computer instead of running my files through some cloud server(NOT). It's a wonderful approach. However, since I first started using it, I would have preferred that program updates as well as any update that requires a computer re-start would be separated from signature updates. For this very reason, I only update once a day because such program re-start request will interfere with scheduled daily Acronis Backups. Also, I perform some activities that require my computer to stay running for at least a whole week or more sometimes. Re-booting causes me a big hassle. Plus HOTFIX's such as this one should not be put out for the masses but only as a beta or individualized and is an example of why program version/builds/hotfixes should be separated from the signature updates. As far as I know there is no way to know when a re-start will be required unless you can inform me otherwise ? ***I would suggest coding the program in such a way as to alert the user about program updates and let the user perform the version/build update when it is convenient and without any hassle for the user. I understand the security concerns but users such as myself should have the option to choose. Like I mentioned I run certain programs activities for several days at a time without the intention of having to re-start my computer. Thanks, any input about the above issues would be greatly appreciated.
×
×
  • Create New...