Problem with SSM and screensaver...

Discussion in 'other anti-trojan software' started by fannymites, Jun 9, 2005.

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

    fannymites Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2005
    Posts:
    93
    I'm running SSM and I'm having major problems whenever the screensaver tries to launch.
    I sometimes leave the computer a while doing things like AV scans but when the screensaver tries to startup I get the SSM box giving me options what I want to do.
    No matter what option I try, the computer completely freezes and I have to reset.
    SSM doesn't remember what option I chose for the screensaver either so it is a constant problem that I can't seem to get around.
    The screensaver itself is in SSM's application rules but the special permissions are all blank and I am unable to change anything.
    It seems I need to make a rule for the app launching it (can't remember what it is though).
     
  2. Paranoid2000

    Paranoid2000 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2004
    Posts:
    2,839
    Location:
    North West, United Kingdom
    What exactly is SSM prompting for? Is it to run a program, install a driver, allow DLL/code injection or something else?

    If your computer hangs completely, then it could be that your screensaver (or something else) is trying to access physical memory (this causes hangs on my system). In this case try deleting any entry for your screensaver in the Application Rules section, create one manually (right click on any entry and select Add new...) then in the "Special Permissions" section at the bottom, check the box for "Allow misc low-level operation".
     
  3. fannymites

    fannymites Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2005
    Posts:
    93
    Here is what the prompt says...

    C:\Windows\system32\flurry.scr
    Wants to attach this module to some started process (this may be a dll injection)

    C:\Windows\system32\pmx2ogl.dll

    I tried removing flurry.scr from SSM's application rules then manually made a rule
    to "Allow misc low-level operation" as you suggested.
    That seems to have fixed it, thanks.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.