Fabian Wosar

Emsisoft Employee
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Fabian Wosar

  1. Ich habe dort genau das gesagt was ich hier jetzt wiederholt habe. In keiner der beiden Varianten steht, dass wir das zu der Standard Option gemacht haben, weil sich Leute vermehrt fuer eine Option entschieden haben. Es gab fuer Nutzer nichts zu entscheiden. Die Verteilung wer welchen Bestellvorgang zu sehen bekam war ausserhalb der Kontrolle des Nutzers. Ja, das wird derzeit ueberarbeitet. Derzeit ist es so, dass es Nutzer gibt die den User Account verwenden und andere die nur einen Lizenzkey benutzen. Ueber die naechsten Monate werden alle Nutzer zu Nutzeraccounts migriert, was dann auch einen komfortableren Bestellablauf ermoeglichen sollte. Ich habs mal weitergeleitet.
  2. Das ist nicht was bei dem A/B Test gemessen wurde. Beim A/B Test wurde gemessen, welche der Optionen zu allgemein mehr Verkaeufen fuehrt. Bedeutet: Es wurden mehrere tausend Testserien mit den unterschiedlichen Bestellverlaeufen gemacht und welcher Verlauf dann ueber mehrere Monate hinweg am Ende die meisten erfolgreichen Bestellungen vorzuweisen hatte, wurde als neuer offizieller Bestellvorgang uebernommen. Es ist also nicht so, dass sich mehr Leute fuer das Abo entschieden haben, sondern dass das blosse Vorhandensein der Option fuer ein Abo bzw. das Fehlen eines Abonements im Bestellvorgang zu mehr abgebrochenen Bestellvorgaengen gefuehrt hat als Abonements fuer alle standardmaessig anzubieten. Das war uebrigens in allen Teritorien der Fall, inklusive Deutschland, was uns letztlich selbst ueberrascht hat, da Deutschland eigentlich eher als Abo-feindlich gilt. Das spiegelt sich letztlich allerdings nicht in den gesammelten Daten wieder. Nein, das ist wie Online Payment Processing und Clearing funktioniert. Wenn Du beim Baecker mit der EC Karte zahlst, gehst Du ja auch nicht davon aus, dass der Baecker im Hinterzimmer nen Server stehen hat, der mal eben die EC Zahlungen cleared. Die Auflagen die Banken und Kreditkartenfirmen auferlegen damit man ueberhaupt am Zahlungsverkehr teilhaben kann sind komplett unrealistisch zu erfuellen fuer jede normale Firma. Daher gibt es spezielle Firmen wie Cleverbridge oder 2Checkout, die sich darauf spezialisiert haben und es entsprechend als Service anbieten. Mir ist nicht ein einziger AV Hersteller bekannt, der Online Bezahlungen selbst abwickelt, voellig egal wie gross die Firma letztlich ist. Nein. Die Uebersetzungen wurden deaktiviert, da der Forenanbieter offiziell nur Englisch unterstuetzt und in der Vergangenheit die inoffiziellen Uebersetzungen immer wieder zu Problemen fuehrten.
  3. Es ist alles Englisch ausser der von Usern verfasste Content und der Forenname fuer das Deutsche Forum. Sofern Invision keine offiziellen Uebersetzungen anbietet, wird sich daran auch nichts aendern.
  4. Hallo, Da die Forum Software keine offiziellen Uebersetzungen anbietet und Community Uebersetzungen letztlich allesamt unvollstaendig oder fehlerhaft sind und teilweise zu erheblichen Problemen bei der Installation von Sicherheitsupdates fuehren, haben wir uns dazu entschlossen alle nicht-offiziellen Uebersetzungen, inklusive der Deutschen Uebersetzung, zu entfernen. Fuer den Fall, dass jemand mit dem Forum jetzt nicht laenger zurecht finden sollte, bleibt stets der Weg uns via Chat oder Email zu kontaktieren: https://help.emsisoft.com/de/ Vielen Dank fuer das Verstaendnis.
  5. Hello everyone, We would like to inform you that due to a corrupted MySQL database we had to restore a recent forum backup. This means that all changes made since 2019-04-25 at 18:08:37 UTC have been lost. This includes among others: Posts, topics, registrations and profile changes. We apologise for the confusion and inconvenience this may have caused you.
  6. Nobody knows. Again, nobody knows. A couple of them were caught doing it (Qihoo most recently IIRC). If the testers become aware, it usually results in disqualification and sometimes a block from future tests for a certain time period. It probably depends a lot. I mean, do people still remember Panda being disqualified and hold it against them? I don't think so. Outside of a very small circle of enthusiasts nobody cares about these results. The rest will buy what PC Mag or a quick Google search tells them to buy. There is also like a huge grey area. If AV-C and AV-T publishes the exact PC models they perform performance tests on including an exact list of software and an AV vendor goes and buys the exact same hardware and starts tuning his product to work very well on that specific hardware, maybe even to the detriment on other more commonly found hardware, is that cheating already or just bending the rules a little bit? It's not strictly against the rules, but it also makes the test results not very applicable to the general public. We can't tell you as Cruelsister neither shares details nor samples. It may or may not be fixed. We will never know.
  7. Last time I checked standardised tests in education are just as controversial. But even if you ignore that: Tests in school are accumulative. Maybe it is different wherever you live, but at least here to even get to university you had to go through all the prerequisites. Meaning the fact that you are even allowed to take the test is the result of those thousands of tests you did before on the various topics through your school career up to that point where you demonstrated that you understood each of the sub-topics in question. Since the material taught doesn't radically change every couple of months, your previous achievements and test scores are still valid and proof that you at least have the capacity of understanding these topics, even though you may a bit rusty now. Such an effect doesn't exist when it comes to malware, as unlike algebra for example, the threat landscape and body of malware you have to deal with changes almost every day. Therefore, results obtained just a few months ago are completely obsolete as they (if at all) reflect performance in an environment that in that form no longer exists. We are still participating in several tests and continue to participate. We just dropped our AV-C engagement as many other companies did before us.
  8. I agree and there were a couple of things in the last tests that I unfortunately am not able to talk about. One of the first things most testing companies make you do is sign an NDA. Otherwise they won't even tell you their prices or tell you anything. That's also why Arthur mentioned that we can't really comment as in depth as we would want to. I imagine people would be quite surprised about the amounts of money that exchange hands and all the discrepancies going on. I can completely understand why more and more companies drop out of testing. It almost feels arbitrary at times and unless you start building your products for testing specifically, you can't really compete and for us at least the return of investment wasn't there to further justify it. The real world protection tests for AV-C are a one year commitment in general, so participating just once to show that the bug is fixed (which you wouldn't know in the first place, as the samples are completely different every time) isn't really an option. That being said, we may still participate in one time tests with AV-T or AV-C occasionally if we release some major changes.
  9. As Jeremy already mentioned: Most cloud storage providers offer revisioning. Meaning they keep old revisions of your files. Dropbox has support for it and Google Drive does as well (just click on the file in question, click on the hamburger menu and select "Manage versions"). It can be kind of a pain to roll back all your files though as there is often not a way to do it for your whole cloud storage but only on a per-file basis.
  10. It means that the tests done by AV-C and AV-T have a clear image of how they think AV software should work. The problem arises when your product doesn't fit the mould. Then you get penalized for not doing what everyone else does, even though what everyone else does may not be in the best interest of the user, to begin with. Best example: Snooping around in your encrypted connections, which literally every AV vendor screwed up at least once in the past and probably will continue to happen, exposing users to potentially greater risks than most malware does. For starters, the test sets aren't nearly as representative anymore. When we participated in AV-T and AV-C both tested with less than 200 samples a month on average. 200 samples out of literally tens of millions. The exact selection isn't clear and not representative of what users deal with either. None of them tests with PUPs for example, even though a simple look at any tech support community will tell you, that it is probably by far the biggest problem users are dealing with. So no, neither of those test scores represents real-life performance and it becomes blatantly obvious when you go to places like Bleeping Computer, GeeksToGo, Trojaner Board, Malekal, and all those other communities where people infected by malware show up for help and look at what products these victims used at the time they became infected. Then you will notice that a lot of these products with perfect scores don't look nearly as perfect in real-life conditions. The reason for this discrepancy is quite simple: Most AV vendors will specifically optimise their products for these tests. The most severe cases are where vendors end up outright cheating and detecting the test environments which then results in a change of behaviour of the product (think Dieselgate, but with anti-virus). But there are many ways you can game these tests. For example: you can try to figure out the threat intel feeds the companies use, then just buy those same threat intel feeds so you have all samples in advance you can track their licenses and supply different signatures to them or use your cloud to treat those test systems differently some particularly shady organisations literally also sell you their sample and malicious URL feed, so you can just outright buy the samples and URLs your product will get tested on later What you end up with as a result is a product that is optimised really really well for the exact scenario they are being tested under using the exact type of URLs and samples these testers use, but that is utterly useless when it comes to anything else. We just really don't want to create this type of product. So when we were asked whether we wanted to continue to participate this year, we discussed the matter internally, looked at what we get out of these tests (meaning: whether these tests have a discernable impact on our revenue) and decided that they are simply not worth it and that the tens of thousands of Euros we spent on them every year would be better spent on extending our team and building new ways of keeping our customers safe.
  11. Every time you log in, we will email you a code you have to type in before you get access. So standard Two Factor Authentication via email pretty much.
  12. Please don't create multiple threads in different forums with the same content. You won't get a reply quicker and it only makes you look like a spammer. I will close this thread here, as Elise already addressed your concern in your other thread here:
  13. It's just the way the forum software works. And yes, it will do a redirect. Yeah. Just shows how many people clicked it. It's email. So no. Send it manually to [email protected]
  14. If you don't have any application linked to the "mailto:" protocol, it will ask you which of your installed mail clients you wish to use. It's expected behaviour. We decided to remove the forum and move all feedback to an email group instead that can be read by everyone at Emsisoft.
  15. You can technically just remove all entries from your hosts file using Notepad. Just delete everything except the " localhost" entry if there is any. Lines starting with "#" are comments by the way. Pretty much. We are not an ad blocker, no. You use uBlock Origin which is pretty much the best adblocker you can get. So you are well covered in that area already. Correct. When you try to click the link, it will block access to the site. But I do understand that a lot of people would like to know before they click, which is why we consider adding it. Interestingly enough WOT got in trouble for the very same thing that some AVs are doing with their extension. You can always set up your own DNS server locally or in a cheap VPS box online. DNS also can be tunneled via various secure protocols (DNS-over-HTTPS for example). Those use methods that provide k-anonymity. Firefox in addition also sends "fake" requests if I remember correctly so the hoster of the block list does not know whether that was a website you actually surfed to or a random request. If you are so concerned, just host your own VPN. Get a cheap VPS with bitcoin at njal.la for example, host OpenVPN and your own DNS server on it and there will be no link between you and the VPS. It's serious overkill though.
  16. uBlock is exceptionally good at removing duplicate filter rules. So if you enable the MVPS filter list there, it will only enable it for stuff that isn't covered by other lists. That's also why in the rules list it says "x used out of y". Because it tells you how many rules it actually used out of that filter list. The rest was already covered by other lists. uBlock is also a lot more efficient as parsing and applying these filter rules than the DNS API in Windows is, which is the component that parses the "hosts" file. Depending on the browser you use, the "hosts" file may actually get ignored entirely. Some browsers like Chrome, for example, implemented their own, faster DNS client as the Windows DNS API isn't the fastest. So in the worst case scenario, you were having this huge hosts file, slowing down every program that does remotely something with networking, while at the same time your browser completely ignored it. Yeah, most people aren't aware of it and it is the main reason why we decided to create our own browser extension. The worst part is, that it is completely unnecessary from a technical point of view as well. But yeah, as it is often the case: If something a free, you pay with your data. Unfortunately not. If you find one, let me know which one and I can check how intrusive it is for you though. We are also considering adding search indicators in our extension. So you may want to wait for that. There is no ETA though.
  17. Just don't. You will hurt your general performance considerably. Better to just enable the MVPS filter list in uBlock. Kind of pointless. uBlock does a better job. Ad hosts blocked by uBlock can't set cookies in the first place. That's all it pretty much does if you are using Firefox. For someone who is concerned about their privacy it is interesting that you willingly send your entire surf history to any company in clear text: Literally every single website you browse to will get submitted in that way. Bitdefender Traffic Light isn't the only extension that does this. Other extensions known to do this are Avira Browser Safety, Avast Online Security, Norton Safe Web and Comodo Online Security Pro.
  18. Sorry, der Beitrag wurde aus Versehen verschoben. Sollte jetzt wieder richtig sein. Ansonsten war die Inkludierung von Emsisoft, wie vom Autor in seinem Forum bereits bestaetigt, ein Versehen seinerseits. Wir verschicken keine vollstaendigen URLs. Wir verschicken nichtmal Domainnamen im Klartext. Wir verschicken ausschliesslich Hashes von Teilen des Domainnamens, die von uns nicht einmal zurueck in einen echten Domainnamen umgewandelt werden koennen. Die Idee ist im Endeffekt nicht, dass wir wissen wo da jemand grade rumsurft, sondern nur, dass wir genug Informationen haben um 99.9999% aller schaedlichen URLs die wir kennen auszuschliessen. Das Ziel ist die Liste an potentiell moeglichen schaedlichen URLs soweit zu reduzieren, dass es praktikabel ist sie zurueck an den Browser zu schicken, damit dieser dann schauen kann ob sich der User grade auf einer bekannt schaedlichen Seite aufhaelt.
  19. You can use these two sites: http://malwaretest.emsisoft.com http://phishingtest.emsisoft.com Both of them should be blocked as malicious websites by both the surf protection as well as the extension.
  20. It depends on the type of scan. There seems to be some issue with scans using both Direct Disk Access and Alternate Data Stream scans on some systems. We are currently looking into it.
  21. Das Problem wird mit dem naechsten Programupdate, welches sich bereits in der Beta befindet, behoben.
  22. Anything above 2 GB is probably okay.
  23. https://blog.emsisoft.com/en/30775/emsisoft-anti-malware-2018-3-beta/
  24. Other companies have 10 to 100 times the number of employees we do. Having one person there that fixes bugs in Windows Insider builds isn't much of an issue there. However, us doing that would mean ~30% of all development time disappears to keep a couple of hobbyists happy who use a system that is not intended for use in production systems on their production system. We do include insider builds in our QA runs, so we know if or what is broken so we can fix it in time for a release. But unless something is fundamentally broken, risking system security or stability, we won't fix bugs specific to insider builds before a release to web is close.
  25. In general, we don't pay much attention to the insider builds until they are closing in onto a new RTW. This particular issue will be fixed in the 2018.3 release of EAM so a fix will be available in time before RS4 is officially made available to all users in early April.