Jump to content

EAM 2017.12.1.8340 not updating (for 2 days now)


XIII
 Share

Recommended Posts

For 2 days now EAM 2017.12.1.8340 is not updating; it fails with this error message:

Failed with error "Other error 2" (51 min. 46 sec.). Details below.

How can I investigate this further?

General Information:
 
Version 2017.12.1.8340
Update started: 24-1-2018 05:40:00
Update ended: 24-1-2018 06:31:45
Time elapsed: 0:51:45
 
Unable to retrieve update information from server
 
Detailed Information:
 
680 modules, 384614178 bytes
a2hosts.dat (1521852 bytes) - not updated
a2trust.dat (306527 bytes) - not updated
a2wl.dat (793224 bytes) - not updated
Signatures\20180123.sig (5552 bytes) - not updated
Signatures\BD\auto.cvd (348797 bytes) - not updated
Signatures\BD\cevakrnl.rv3 (1047302 bytes) - not updated
Signatures\BD\cevakrnl.rv5 (506772 bytes) - not updated
Signatures\BD\cran.ivd (0 bytes) - not updated
a2hosts.dat (1521852 bytes) - not updated
a2trust.dat (306527 bytes) - not updated
a2wl.dat (793224 bytes) - not updated
Signatures\20180123.sig (5552 bytes) - not updated
Signatures\BD\auto.cvd (348797 bytes) - not updated
Signatures\BD\cevakrnl.rv3 (1047302 bytes) - not updated
Signatures\BD\cevakrnl.rv5 (506772 bytes) - not updated
Signatures\BD\cran.ivd (191454 bytes) - not updated
Signatures\BD\dalvik.ivd (20664529 bytes) - not updated
Signatures\BD\docfile.xmd (36902 bytes) - not updated
Signatures\BD\e_spyw.i00 (13994 bytes) - not updated
Signatures\BD\e_spyw.i01 (0 bytes) - not updated
a2hosts.dat (1522322 bytes) - not updated
a2trust.dat (306527 bytes) - not updated
a2wl.dat (793224 bytes) - not updated
Signatures\20180123.sig (5552 bytes) - not updated
Signatures\BD\auto.cvd (348797 bytes) - not updated
Signatures\BD\cevakrnl.rv3 (1047302 bytes) - not updated
Signatures\BD\cevakrnl.rv5 (506772 bytes) - not updated
Signatures\BD\cran.ivd (191454 bytes) - not updated
Signatures\BD\dalvik.ivd (20664529 bytes) - not updated
Signatures\BD\docfile.xmd (36902 bytes) - not updated
Signatures\BD\e_spyw.i00 (13994 bytes) - not updated
Signatures\BD\e_spyw.i01 (632627 bytes) - not updated
Signatures\BD\e_spyw.i02 (0 bytes) - not updated
a2hosts.dat (1522089 bytes) - not updated
a2trust.dat (306527 bytes) - not updated
a2wl.dat (793224 bytes) - not updated
Signatures\20180123.sig (5552 bytes) - not updated
Signatures\BD\auto.cvd (348797 bytes) - not updated
Signatures\BD\cevakrnl.rv3 (1047302 bytes) - not updated
Signatures\BD\cevakrnl.rv5 (0 bytes) - not updated

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like it's this blocklist: https://iplists.firehol.org/?ipset=bbcan177_ms1

this particular list hasn't been touched since january 8, 2018 - not like stuff on the internet changes all that often, right? :rolleyes:

imo, a lot of these user-submitted lists are junk and are really poorly maintained - this particular list includes IP ranges belonging to CDNs used by a ton of reputable services including github (and emsisoft, and any other customer of highwinds). maybe that's why the maintainer hasn't updated - he can't push his changes to the git repo :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/24/2018 at 5:32 PM, XIII said:

I'm not sure it supports wildcards, but I did add emsisoft.com (before trying cdn.emsisoft.com) and that was not enough...

It's unfortunate when firewall doesn't have a basic feature like wildcard support. Subdomains and IP's can change at any time, so it's imperative that the domain itself be excludable in a way that also applies to subdomains. The excuse they gave ("Skynet resolves addresses and blocks their IP's directly") makes no sense, as if they can support whitelisting an IP based on the domain or subdomain that resolves to it, then it would be trivial to support doing that with wildcards as well.

 

3 hours ago, m0unds said:

this particular list includes IP ranges belonging to CDNs used by a ton of reputable services including github (and emsisoft, and any other customer of highwinds).

Any blacklist that would include IP's from major CDN's like Highwinds, Akamai, EdgeCast (now Verizon Digital Media Services), etc. isn't worth using. They'll block a ridiculous amount of legitimate stuff. We are not the only legitimate company that uses Highwinds as their CDN provider, so they're blocking a ton of legit services with that blacklist if they have Highwinds CDN IP's on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...