2 problems (Right click and PDF files)

Discussion in 'Prevx Releases' started by future, Sep 29, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. future

    future Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2009
    Posts:
    25
    Location:
    France
    Hello everyone,

    First, I apologize for my (very) bad English ... I am a new customer of Prevx. I am satisfied because Prevx is really efficient, lightweight and impact on performance is minimal. To all: Congratulations to the development team.

    However, I found some problems / bugs:

    1 / if I right click to scan a folder containing multiple files Prevx tells me I noticed that one result: 0 files, 0 programs. If I start again a scan on the same file then Prevx indicates the correct number of files scanned. Below is a screenshot to show you the result during a first scan:

    Scan_prevx_bug.jpg

    2/ Each day I am testing urls on MDL and I see that Prevx will not detect most infected pdf files ... I changed the settings of the heuristic, but it does not change anything ... Here are some example URLs:

    ~ Virus Total Results Removed per Policy ~

    Thank you for reading. Good day!

    Note:
    I am running Win7 32Bits with Prevx just installed (no other antivirus).
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 29, 2010
  2. Triple Helix

    Triple Helix Webroot Product Advisor

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2004
    Posts:
    12,012
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
  3. PrevxHelp

    PrevxHelp Former Prevx Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Posts:
    8,242
    Location:
    USA/UK
    Glad to hear it :)

    It looks like you're clicking on a Windows 7 library - a library doesn't technically show a file but rather a group of folders and Prevx (and probably most AVs) can't scan from there directly. You'll likely have more luck browsing to the individual folders and scanning them from there or using the custom scan directly. However, see my point below as to the implications of this...


    Prevx's protection/detection are only a very small fraction of what it can detect on-demand. When running scans like these, Prevx only sends a quick ping to our database to check the file but does not perform any of the advanced behavioral analysis or realtime correlative analysis that is applied to actual threats entering the system. Therefore, detection will be significantly lower when running a scan like this.

    Let me know if you have any questions!
     
  4. future

    future Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2009
    Posts:
    25
    Location:
    France
    Ok thank you I'll do :)

    In my screenshot is not a library: sorry for the confusion but I customize the icon :) The problem is the same with all files scanned manually.

    I did several tests with PDF files: scan through the right click, I also performed the PDF in a virtual environment and also I scanned with "Scan my PC" and finally I was in Tools> Advanced Analysis> In-depth analysis.

    I did find that sometimes if you download a file. Exe it takes some time with that Prevx detects (only scan on demand). By cons, PDF files that I moved here were scanned several times, left in my external hard drive (mounted) ...

    With pleasure!

    Ha, another question: when I go to Settings> Automatic Protection> The default setting is "Maximum". I noticed that some applications like Thunderbird and Firefox use a lot more memory. If I change this setting to "Medium" (I've currently selected) RAM consumption returns to normal. My question is: The increase of RAM is it due to the mode "Maximum" because of its strong protection?

    Anyway, I'll repeat myself but for me Prevx is among the best (and. .. maybe the best!) Computer security products available today. I will recommend it to friends and install it on every PC in my family :cool:

    PS: I do more tests about Keyloggers (I also bought Prevx Safe Online) and again I must congratulate you because Prevx is very reactive. Like when Prevx wonder to authorize (or not) screenshot via windows. I also appreciate that the copy / paste is prohibited between the browser and some software as Mega Manager (Manager download Megaupload).
     
  5. PrevxHelp

    PrevxHelp Former Prevx Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Posts:
    8,242
    Location:
    USA/UK
    Ah ok, makes sense :D


    You're correct - with PDF files in particular, there would likely be a very disproportionately low detection rate ondemand as most of the analysis takes place from protection loaded within the Adobe Reader/FoxIt/etc. applications directly to prevent exploits, not necessarily trying to detect them on-demand.



    This shouldn't affect the memory consumption of the browsers but it could be possible. Could you let me know how much additional RAM usage you're experiencing when higher self protection is enabled? Thanks! :)

    Glad to hear it! :) If you would like to get Mega Manager able to copy/paste, we can whitelist it within our central database if you send us a scan log. Otherwise, we block all programs from viewing protected clipboard contents by default :)
     
  6. future

    future Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2009
    Posts:
    25
    Location:
    France
    Think you improve the detection of Exploits in the near future? In my case this does not pose a problem to me because I usually always check downloaded files through virus total but I think to non-specialists who do not think about all this.

    Then, in the case of Firefox it consumes about 50 to 100 MB surcharge; especially on sites like YouTube (I think flash is perhaps one reason ...). I checked with one of my sites because the home page uses a large block flash (lol): http://www.hawamusic.com ...

    Thunderbird on from the launch / execution it consumes between 30 and 50 MB surcharge.


    If you think Mega Upload is safe it may be well to put it in whitelist :)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.