Emsisoft Anti-Malware 8.xx Sammelthread

Thanks for clear explanation

 

Yet another good reason for choosing your software!

Will Online Armor ('Is this file safe'/Anti-Malware Network) alert for this type of crap as well? I ask because I'm a long time OA fan, had a continuous licence from early Tall Emu days but infrequent user nowadays. I am however currently trying it out again but on testing against PUPs today got a lot of orange 'don't know' alerts. If these were red alerts I'd be happier as I'm not the only user of my machines but the other users are clear what red means!

Cheers

 

For real? I'd say, feel free to ignore bollocksrubbish

 

I would ditch Emsisoft products real quick if they started bundling Ask.

 

Do the smaller updates apply to EEK as well, or just EAM?

 

I would say as long as EAM scans the installer and notifies the user that scumware exists and offers the user the option of terminating the install, they are on firm legal ground. Where it gets skicky legally is if EAM blocks the scamware install and allows the base software to install. I am sure the EULA which no one reads covers the installation of the scumware. The vendor can claim Emsisoft is impeding its ability to earn a buck or some other such nonsense.

Emsisoft would be also on firm ground with the customer in denying his request for scumware removal assistance. The customer ignored the scamware warning which by the way should clearly state that by proceeding with the installation, he does so at his own peril.

 

Ohhh what a coincidence.

 

good to know someone cares about their customers

 

Good Evening! Not that it justifies veiled EULA proclamations...and desperate Marketing Campaigns...it's a Vicious Wholesale...Retail Market World Wide at the moment especially in the Eurozone. So practice Understanding and Restraint when dealing with specific vendors. In business always read the fine print...and stick with a company that provides a positive customer first focus. Sincerely...Securon

 

Actually, OA already is a lot more aggressive when it comes to detecting PUPs than EAM is. Mostly because OA is powered exclusively by the Emsisoft Anti-Malware Network, that primarily runs based on statistical data as well as user feedback. So if a lot of users block a certain PUP for example, it will be blocked for all other OA users as well.

I found that request rather puzzling as well.

At the moment only EAM 8.1. EEK will get the feature a bit later as usual. In general though, EEK may not profit as much as EAM does. Primarily because for the new update system to develop its full potential you will have to update regularly, which most EEK users don't do.

In general you can detect and remove whatever you want, as long as you have the user's consent. You can write an Office removal tool for example and Microsoft can't do anything about it. Problems arise as soon as you do it without the user's consent and once you start to imply that the software you remove is something it isn't. So if we detect Office inside EAM for example and call is malware in the dialogs or if detections increase an "infection counter" implying those files are infections, we can get sued for slander for example.

At this point we are adding an extra step to the wizard, requesting consent from users whether or not they want us to detect PUPs for them. The dialog has no default selection and to continue the users have to decide what they want. We will also change up some of the alert boxes. PUP file guard alerts will be different from malware one's for example. While the malware alerts will clearly state the file was detected as being malicious, PUP alerts will state that the file is not malicious, but a lot of users install it by accident so we want to make sure the user was aware it is being installed and actually wants it. Last but not least we will also change up the scan results view. PUPs will have no risk level assigned to them, as they don't pose any risk (not even a low risk). We also go through all official translations to make sure we never imply PUPs to be malware or some kind of infection.

It will take a bit of time to implement all these changes, but we feel it is the necessary leg work that we need to do in order to protect ourselves as well as our user's investment into our products. Our original plan was to release 8.1 this week, but since we consider this topic to be important we are actually delaying the release to include the PUP changes in 8.1 as there most likely won't be another chance to implement them before 9.0.

 

This does bring up the topic of disclosure as it relates to the software industry as a whole. If all countries would get together and create laws that would require manufacturers to disclose at installation time that their software contains adware, spyware, and the like, problem solved. Hum ...., I guess that would mean at least 90% of the software in existance today would have to have such a disclosure.

Sorry Fabian, I'm one of those American's you referred to previously.

Will EAM block the PUP install but let the base software install?

 

I don't think so. I suppose you'll get a warning when you want to install something which also contains a PUP and that's it.

 

I close my eyes and pretend that I didn't read that.

I would do the opposite and send a request to the vendors that DO bundle stuff and tell them to stop doing so ASAP

 

As an interesting sidebar comment, Norton's Safe Search both the stand alone version and the one incorporated into NIS uses the Ask Toolbar.

 

Yes. As a security company, you don't want to prevent your users from updating Java for example . So we won't block the Java setup itself, but the Ask toolbar setup contained within it.

 

Beta updates – 2013-08-05

Emsisoft Anti-Malware 8.1.0.1 with BETA updates enabled:

Fixed a problem in scan engine where a wrong registry path was returned on x64 systems.

http://changeblog.emsisoft.com/2013/08/05/beta-updates-2013-08-05/

 

Fabian, I must say I like the new initiative to fight PUPs. Emsisoft and Malwarebytes are moving in the right direction.

 

I getting the following message at shutdown/reboot...

"Other people are logged on to this computer.
Restarting Windows may cause them to lose data.
Do you want to continue restarting?"

I am on XP. I am have worked out that this happens if I do not Right Click on the EAM tray icon > 'Shut down guard'. This is with EAM v8.1.01.

If do this, I do not get the abovementioned message.

 

Beta updates – 2013-08-06

Emsisoft Anti-Malware 8.1.0.1 with BETA updates enabled:

Improved stability of File Guard modules.

 

You should post it in the Emsisoft forums, you will get a reply within hours or at most 24h.

 

Now this is an eye opener. Per Fabian from the Emsisoft German forum:

I somewhat naively assumed EAM did "cleaning" of malware. The old free versions of EAM did. Or did it just restore from a backup version if available?

 

I see that Emsisoft is running a Special for the month of August:

Buy Emsisoft Anti-Malware for $39.95 and get the following two Free:

1. Cyberghost Premium (12 months)

2. Sticky Password 6.0

 

You are aware that I am referring to viruses specifically and not malware in general, right?

 

This program could be of assistance

-http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=6676-

 

First time I hear about an issue like that. Do you use anything out of the ordinary (remote profiles for example)? How many user accounts do you have?