Which version of EMET do you use?

[Mman79]

Originally Posted by Page42

I don't use EMET.
I do recall having tried it once on an XP system, but for one reason or another I lost interest (or perhaps didn't feel like putting in the time required to learn it) and uninstalled.

I've had that happen, the "program did not install correctly" error (Which happens to many programs on Win 7 I've seen.) and I've had it not want to uninstall. It's a Windows system tool, things get weird with those

[moontan]

Originally Posted by moontan
i tried 2.0 before.

not using it any more.

the less of these things installed the better i think.
i'm more concerned about security software than malware, to tell the truth.
i certainly got way more aggravation over the years from security apps themselves than malware.

Originally Posted by Escalader

Gentlemen: Lets just not slip into name calling like paranoid. Not needed.
You didn't answer the question put. Saying you are a systems engineer and if EMET were good all in your location would know it and use it makes no sense.

you got the posts mixed up.

[Escalader]

Originally Posted by Mman79

To be fair, I didn't see Moontan resort to any name calling. I do believe you quoted the wrong poster. I also believe Moontan has a fair point in that you're more likely to have your system choke and have issues by constantly playing with security apps than you are randomly getting infected. I one hundred percent believe that. To answer the actual question, I used v3 but have since removed it.

Yes, I dropped the post for Aventador in the wrong poster! My bad


It's true users can go overboard on security I also believe that. BUT the amount of security you need may be quite different than mine due to varying risk profiles and www behaviour. There is no size fits all set of tools. If you had to reduce to say 3 tools what would they be?

1) Router
2) Two way firewall
3) Sandboxie


If I am allowed 3 more I would add

4) EMET 3.x
5) A realtime AV
6) An IP blocker I can manage

[Mman79]

Originally Posted by Escalader

Yes, I dropped the post for Aventador in the wrong poster! My bad


It's true users can go overboard on security I also believe that. BUT the amount of security you need may be quite different than mine due to varying risk profiles and www behaviour. There is no size fits all set of tools. If you had to reduce to say 3 tools what would they be?

1) Router
2) Two way firewall
3) Sandboxie


If I am allowed 3 more I would add

4) EMET 3.x
5) A realtime AV
6) An IP blocker I can manage

I personally use my router, AV (One with a web shield. Avast in particular has a very effective one in my experience.) and a good browser like Chrome or Firefox with NoScript. Just those few things have not kept malware from finding me, but have kept it from infecting me, which is all that really matters.

Thinking about IP blockers, I've used Peerblock for several years during my P2P sessions (Yes I do go over to the "dark side" occasionally). I've never thought to use the spyware/malicious IP lists for simple surfing though. Perhaps that is something I may look into and use so long as it isn't so aggressive I have to constantly manually edit out entries.

[Osaban]

Originally Posted by Page42

I don't use EMET.
I do recall having tried it once on an XP system, but for one reason or another I lost interest (or perhaps didn't feel like putting in the time required to learn it) and uninstalled.

Exactly how I felt. I thought it had the same learning curve as HIPS (God forbid) and decided that my setup doesn't really need it.

[Osaban]

Originally Posted by moontan

i certainly got way more aggravation over the years from security apps themselves than malware.

I couldn't agree more. I 've never had to restore an image because of malware. On the other hand malfunctioning of the OS due to conflicts among security applications was one of the main reasons to restore. A police state can cause more problems than petty crime.

[roger_m]

Originally Posted by moontan

i tried 2.0 before.
the less of these things installed the better i think.
i'm more concerned about security software than malware, to tell the truth.
i certainly got way more aggravation over the years from security apps themselves than malware.

Definately. Just two nights ago on one of my computers I was getting an error when trying to install Windows updates on a failry new Windows 7 install. After much searching on Google, it turns out is was a problem with Windows firewall. I disabled it and Windows update started working right away.

I've had lots of problems over the years with security apps such as:

• Firewalls blocking access to a shared folder on a remote computer or even blocking internet access completely
• Antivirus software slowing Windows down to a crawl
• BSODs from antivirus software
• An antispyware program deciding to use many hundreds of megabytes of RAM - making my PC unusable
• Email scanners in antivirus software preventing any email from being received
• Website blocklists blocking access to legitimate websites
• Etc...

That is why I choose to use as little security software as possible.

[Escalader]

Originally Posted by roger_m

Definately. Just two nights ago on one of my computers I was getting an error when trying to install Windows updates on a failry new Windows 7 install. After much searching on Google, it turns out is was a problem with Windows firewall. I disabled it and Windows update started working right away.

I've had lots of problems over the years with security apps such as:

• Firewalls blocking access to a shared folder on a remote computer or even blocking internet access completely
• Antivirus software slowing Windows down to a crawl
• BSODs from antivirus software
• An antispyware program deciding to use many hundreds of megabytes of RAM - making my PC unusable
• Email scanners in antivirus software preventing any email from being received
• Website blocklists blocking access to legitimate websites
• Etc...

That is why I choose to use as little security software as possible.

Well I can tell you that Windows FW does not in and of itself block windows updates. Unless of course the setting the user has blocks the MS Update sites.

[roger_m]

Originally Posted by Escalader

Well I can tell you that Windows FW does not in and of itself block windows updates. Unless of course the setting the user has blocks the MS Update sites.

I think it might be a problem with the ADSL modem being used. I know this is really strange behavior for Windows firewall to block updates, but it was doing so. However, I downloaded software which fixes Windows Update and it didn't work. I downloaded Microsoft's fix for Windows Update but that would not run properly as it couldn't communicate with Microsoft's Fix-It website. Then I found a web page suggesting disabling Window Firewall, and immediately the issue was fixed.

[jo3blac1]

I use SBIE, I honestly don't see a reason to use EMET anymore. I also had trouble with version 3.5 for some reason. I may go back to 2.1, it felt much nicer on the resources.

[Tomwa]

I'm using EMET 3.0, I have not given 3.5 a whirl yet though I'm sure I will when I do my next windows install.

I don't use EMET.

[AMIGA500]

I do not feel i need it at the moment and is just another unwanted process running ,and from what i recall it was using approximately 30mb of ram.

[mattdocs12345]

EMET 2.1, fastest one out of all of them.

[xxJackxx]

Using the 3.5 Tech Preview on Windows 8. you'd think they would have a final version by now. No problems running it, have run one version or another since version 2.

[Noob]

Updated to EMET v3.5. No issues so far.

[mechBgon]

Originally Posted by tomazyk

Which version of EMET do you use?

I've used all versions. I was using 3.5 Tech Preview at work for a while, but when I realized it leaves the final decision (to mitigate or not) in the hands of the users, I decided to put them back on EMET 3.0, which will mitigate without asking the user whether it's OK or not.

I heard that 3.5's final version is due out mid-year. Once it's available, I'll switch my users over to 3.5.

[Krysis]

I use 3.5 - as far as I'm concerned it's a set and forget program which sits in the background doing it's stuff.

I have no problem at all with v3.5 TP (upgraded always from previous versions).

The only "thing" on another system (not mine) which made trouble was a wrong setting for Skype. If you enable all the default protections for Skype your home screen in Skype probably won't load anymore. If you are enabling only the setting at the right and disabling all the others your Skype problem is gone.

I believe that people having trouble had the wrong settings for certain programs. It's NOT a tool for the average clueless Joe, you have to know what you are doing and also to remember that you have EMET installed (it's always a possible culprit if something isn't working suddenly). Of course I won't uninstall it (for sure not just only because people say "it's phoning home!!!" and getting a severe panic attack, since I am not THAT paranoid! ) because it is very welcome protection against unknown exploits or at least so do I believe.

I remember that I have disabled that "new" tray icon (which was not implemented in first versions) since I don't want or need that.

[Sampei Nihira]

EMET 3.5 T.P. W.XP.
EMET 3.0 W.7.

[Kerodo]

Originally Posted by tomazyk

Which version of EMET do you use?

Looks like you need to add 4.0 beta to the poll now:

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/downl....aspx?id=38761

[Solarlynx]

I tried it but don't want to learn it.
I agree with this:

Originally Posted by moontan

i tried 2.0 before.
i certainly got way more aggravation over the years from security apps themselves than malware.

[Sampei Nihira]

XP = EMET 4.0 (beta)

[safeguy]

Trying out EMET V4 Beta. There are a few bugs which I hope gets squashed before it's released as 'stable'.

[mattdocs12345]

EMET 2.1 - never gave me trouble and no slow downs.