User switching Clarification

In light of the issues that some have had with user-switching, I would be grateful if some knowledgeable and helpful member might clarify how it all
should work. I always ran as Admin until a few months back, when I made a
Standard User a/c for better security.
1. Is it the correct and only way to switch user via Start>"switch user",
or should you be able to log-off a pw protected Admin a/c and then
into Standard User, and all processes should load correctly, and does it
matter?
2. Does a boot-up password also make any difference?

Just want to be really sure about how it should work, because I feel it
shouldn't make any difference how you go, since other applications don't
seem to have any problems user-switching.
Thanks for any input http://www.prevx.com/blog/150/Take-care-of-your-PC-with-a-limited-account.html

 

Just an idea, could people install Prevx for every user ? If so that might solve some of the problems.

 

Then there might be a license issue?

 

Not if it's on the same comp surely ?

 

I would like to know also, even though I have always run in Admin mode with 'Fast user switching' disabled in XP Pro SP2/SP3.

Always hoping to learn and understand.

P.S. Not presently, in a snapshot that has Prevx installed, BTW.

 

Well, whatever way is correct, I've finally established that user switching is only working properly for me via "switch user" in Start menu, because when I
log off one user Admin or Standard and into other Prevx doesn't start.
Decided to reinstall, and despite running Force uninstall and rebooting, Prevx
was still there. Tried again, same result. Ran Revo and removed all traces, plus CCleaner. Installed again, and can't switch user except as I've said above, so something is very wrong methinks, and looks like I'm in the same
boat as STV0726, presuming you shouldn't have to stay logged into one to
start Prevx in other user. So looks like I was wrong about database adjustments working after all, so it's best to recognise the truth if that's what
it means, and not sure what's next step. Got a feeling some other program is
stopping Prevx unless you stay logged in. Not too happy now since I was flagging this up about 7-8 days ago, and received no advice from Joe at the
time. Oh well, I'm off to get some sleep, had enough.

 

No, this should work properly - Prevx's protection loads as a SYSTEM process and therefore remains in the background

This also should not make a difference and it should work fine without a problem.

Again, as I've said, if anyone is having any issue at all with user switching/logging off/Prevx starting, please send me a PM with your availability so that we can schedule a remote support session. We've thoroughly tested Prevx across each OS/service pack in a myriad of user switching scenarios and have yet to reproduce any issue so any input would be very helpful

 

Good morning,
In the meantime, I've just sent 2 further scan logs(from both user environments) to Prevx Research, in the hope of shedding light on
all of this. Incidentally, last evening I asked 2 members here(who shall
remain nameless) to clarify how all of this should work, and neither
knew the precise answer, so apparantly I'm not alone in misunderstanding.
I'm sorry now I didn't just stick to running as Admin all the time.

 

Thank you for the scan logs. Unfortunately they didn't really highlight anything - the user switching should work in a fairly straightforward manner: Prevx will always remain loaded in the last user that was made active. You can have many users logged in at once or switch users/log off/log on/etc. and Prevx should remain loaded without a problem.

However, we have still not been able to have any remote support sessions to investigate the issues that other users have been having. As I've said, if anyone has a reproducible scenario, please send me a PM

 

What are you going to be doing in a remote session? Looking at the event viewer on our system?

I assure you most of us are advancies and we've tried all that already. Nothing is shining through. It just isn't loading.

 

No, the event viewer will likely show nothing related to Prevx at any point. The remote sessions allow us to install builds with debug output enabled and interact with the product on a more direct level to try to diagnose the problems first-hand and it will also definitively show correct operation once we do correct the issue during the session.

 

There is definitely something wrong with user switching.
I have Windows 7 32 bits and when switching to a different account, the tray icon sometimes doesn't show up, although Prevx is active.

 

Hello all,
We've had a remote support session now and should have a workaround in place to correct these issues in the next release. In the meantime, you can add the following entry into the registry to circumvent the problem:

HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run - new value of type REG_SZ with a name of Prevx and a value of:

"c:\program files\prevx\prevx.exe" /bootupreg

Please let me know if you have any questions! To save having to hack through the registry, we will indeed be including this in the next update so you can wait until then if wanted.

 

I must add myself to this list of people with the same problem and am looking forward to a reliable fix on the next release. Thanks for this update..Jeff

 

We've released a new beta version which should correct the issues with user switching https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=283726

Please let me know if you have any questions! (It would be best to continue this discussion in that thread if possible )

 

Thank you Joe, let's hope we can then close this thread and user switching will
bring no further issues.

 

STV: Try the new Beta version. Looks like they've fixed the user switch and sleep mode problems. **Jeff

 

I no longer use Prevx. I'm one of the SUA/DEP/SRP guys that everyone hates.

 

Re: OFFICIAL RELEASE - Prevx 3.0.5.209 with SafeOnline

Seems to have successfully resolved a variation of the issue in which switching users or logging off and back on caused a fault, but I still am running into a problem of Prevx failing to load when booting the computer up and logging into a standard user first.

Look, with all due respect, Prevx is "new and different" in about every aspect compared to traditional security solutions, but if you guys would please adjust your philosophy a bit... the ONE thing traditional AVs have right is starting up... they all just WORK. PERIOD.

I've NEVER had another AV other than Prevx fail to start up. This is getting to be a MAJOR issue and design flaw with Prevx.

What say you? Why must we do remote support sessions to continue patching holes in the giant hole of problems Prevx has starting up, and instead, simply redo it to be simpler and more like traditional AVs do, since that's the one thing they have right.

I have to admit...I'm getting frustrated. Reinstall, it still happens, get angry on the forums, uninstall, lose all my settings, rinse and repeat.

 

Re: OFFICIAL RELEASE - Prevx 3.0.5.209 with SafeOnline

I'd like to add some additional information on a new glitch that I believe is specific to this version:

Whatever registry entries you changed didn't solve the start up issue entirely, but what they did do, however, is make Prevx reluctant to uninstall without a reboot.

What I mean precisely is: You click Uninstall Prevx in the start menu, instead of the normal two-click prompts you get, it just hangs there. Prevx isn't gone, it's still in the start menu and in your programs list. When you reboot, the uninstall operation starts with Windows, oddly, and then you can uninstall. Yet, according to my maintenance reports from TuneUp, a software I greatly respect, Prevx left behind about SIX megabytes of junk. What happened to 905 kb? Junk from previous installs?

Anyway, the last few months since I switched to Windows Vista & 7 I feel I have been essentially playing the role of a consumer beta, and if it takes a remote support session fine, but I'd like my money back. I paid for three computers and it wasn't cheap, and I feel I'm paying for unstable, unreliable 50% chance of protection upon log in. So flip a coin, that's the odds Prevx will protect you. Not looking good.

It's obvious now that Prevx's chronic start up issues are a much more complex issue and simply releasing patches to fill holes in the giant abyss of problems is simply not going to cut it. There are always going to be other glitches and the viable solution is copy what every other security company is doing, heck, what every other program that starts up is doing, and make it simple. I have NEVER in my years of computing had a start up designated program behave even remotely as unreliably as this.

For me, Prevx 3.0 is dead. In regards to this, I'm changing my testing standards. To be fair, all security solutions I test in a virtual machine or sandbox of sorts will be required to successfully, completely start with Windows 5 times on cold boot, and 10 times on user switching. If they fail even once, the best score they can get is a 50%, because I don't like flipping a coin to see if I'm going to be protected today or not.

Thank you, and I'm sorry. I didn't think I would ever abandon Prevx.

 

Re: OFFICIAL RELEASE - Prevx 3.0.5.209 with SafeOnline

STV0726 - I've offered a remote support session to you in three different threads and from 4-5 different PMs. This build has been available for beta testing for over a week and has resolved the issues on all other users who have reported loading issues to us. If you still are having any problems, please send me a PM and we can investigate the issue closer. It took one line of code to correct the user switching issues for other users (no registry changes and no changes to the install process) so it is likely that your issues will be very easily fixable as well.

The paragraph complaints are honestly wasting your time: it would likely take less time to actually have a full remote support session and correct the issue than it would to type one of those posts

 

Re: OFFICIAL RELEASE - Prevx 3.0.5.209 with SafeOnline

The paragraphs aren't complaints, they are describing a problem and why I feel it would be best to stop with the "line of code" fixes and instead, simply adjust Prevx to have a more mainstream, simple means of starting up, like everything else does.

The key phrase I wanted you (and everyone) to understand from my paragraphs was: I have NEVER had ANY other designated start up program (or process) behave unreliably, like Prevx is. In other words, everything else I've told to start up, be it security software, power manager for a UPS, you name it, none of them do what Prevx is doing.

"(P30) Improved support for user switching" isn't something that should have to be addressed. It should just WORK. You create a start up entry, and it loads with Windows. This is how every other application works. Why must we think different?

 

Re: OFFICIAL RELEASE - Prevx 3.0.5.209 with SafeOnline

Most other software also does not need to protect itself at the level that Prevx does. Any user process loading issues have been due solely to self protection - most AVs don't have anywhere near the level of self protection that Prevx has and this can certainly be a factor in having the processes load (as self protection is applied before they load).

I've sent you a PM with a link for a remote support session - the goal of this session is to diagnose why this problem is happening, not to fix it on one computer. The result of the session will be a new version which actually corrects the problem.

 

Re: OFFICIAL RELEASE - Prevx 3.0.5.209 with SafeOnline

This is precisely what we don't do because malware can go in and delete said entry to prevent an AV or other product from starting up.

 

Re: OFFICIAL RELEASE - Prevx 3.0.5.209 with SafeOnline

So instead "we" embed ourselves so deep into the OS (or try to, rather) so that Windows doesn't even realize there's something that should start up, and the end result is, malware won't terminate it, but it might just not load.

I'm not sure I believe that no other user is having problems anymore. Perhaps no other user clicked "Randomize file name..." and has their self-protection to high, because I do.