Problems I found

Discussion in 'Prevx Releases' started by Robin A., Jul 26, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Robin A.

    Robin A. Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Posts:
    2,279
    I tried Prevx for several days, and found these problems:

    1. Piecemeal detection. When I installed it, Prevx ran a scan and detected two problems (both false positives). In the following days, it ran several other scans, but found nothing. Then I scanned the data partition (which contains installers for downloaded programs) from Windows Explorer, and 26 problems were found.

    2. Too many false positives. In fact, all 28 problems detected were FPs. Examples:
    --Teepad.exe -- 2006 executable of the Treepad Lite outliner, that I have used dozens of times and has never been reported as malware.
    -- npmirage.dll -- 2006 file, not reported as malware by avast!, MBAM or SUPER.
    -- gui_mydefrag.exe -- GUI to run MyDefrag.

    3. Prevx interferes with scans done with MBAM or SUPER. The message “authenticating file” appears continuously, and the scans slow to a crawl. The solution I found was to suspend Prevx for 10 minutes (the “installer” mode did not solve the problem).
     
  2. Antarctica

    Antarctica Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Posts:
    1,617
    Location:
    Canada
    Hi Robin A
    You are probably right regarding the false positives but I cannot reproduce the scans problems with MBAM and SuperAntispyware. On my computer it does scan fast and no message either.
     
  3. philby

    philby Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2008
    Posts:
    940
    FWIW, I can't reproduce the scan problems either.
    Prevx takes 50 secs and MBAM Quick Scan 2m 49 secs for 32GB used space.
    Prevx doesn't stir during the MBAM scan.

    Re. the FPs, Joe speaks here.
    I reported the MyDefrag GUI FP and it was fixed in about 2 minutes.

    Isn't that the point with this Cloud business - someone has to be the first? The .exe was very new and VT had 11 counts of criminal intent against it at the time, not just one...

    philby
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2009
  4. PrevxHelp

    PrevxHelp Former Prevx Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Posts:
    8,242
    Location:
    USA/UK
    Hi Robin,
    Thank you for the input. If you could please save a scan log by clicking Tools > Save Scan Results and send it to report@prevxresearch.com, we will gladly check each file to correct any FPs.

    We've heard of some similar complaints with MBAM and Prevx but haven't reproduced them internally. The problem is that MBAM actually does load the files as if it was to try and execute them when it is just scanning them so Prevx gets brought into action to scan the files as well. Other antivirus programs have similar issues when scanning with each other but there is no technical negative effect, just that the files are being scanned twice (which can only be a good thing :))

    Please let me know if you have any other questions/problems!
     
  5. Page42

    Page42 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    Posts:
    5,828
    Location:
    Last Breath Farm
    I disagree about the false positive aspect of your complaint, at least from my experience. Imo, fp's are well in hand and when they do occur, I have never seen such rapid response as I get from Prevx. I had what I felt was an avast! fp the other day and four hours after emailing support, they replied that it was in fact a fp and it would be fixed with the next update... which took place the next day. Prevx, otoh, fixes fp's in 15 minutes sometimes!

    As for the scanning issue, I got into the habit of disabling Prevx during MBAM scans because, as I recall, the scans were taking way too much time, and I recall seeing the "authenticating file" pop ups quite frequently. Because of your complaint, I tested multiple quick scans with MBAM on two computers with Prevx on and off. The scan times were actually remarkably similar, either way. On one machine, I did see the "authenticating files" pop up TWICE only. My method of choice is still to disable Prevx for those infrequent MBAM scans.
     
  6. PrevxHelp

    PrevxHelp Former Prevx Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Posts:
    8,242
    Location:
    USA/UK
    I think this is the best approach when scanning with any two AVs on-demand. Also note that putting Prevx into "install mode" doesn't fully disable the protection - only if you actually suspend the protection will it not scan files in realtime.

    We are working on improving the MBAM scanning compatibility in a future version, however, but we don't want to suffer any risk of lowered protection.
     
  7. Triple Helix

    Triple Helix Webroot Product Advisor

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2004
    Posts:
    12,011
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Can you fix this also it takes so many steps to fully shut down Prevx when we need to!

    TH
     
  8. PrevxHelp

    PrevxHelp Former Prevx Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Posts:
    8,242
    Location:
    USA/UK
    Indeed it is a bit of a headache at the moment :D I'll see what we can do either for v3.5 or for v4.0 :)
     
  9. Page42

    Page42 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    Posts:
    5,828
    Location:
    Last Breath Farm
    Five mouse clicks and it's disabled for 10 minutes. How tough is that?
     
  10. Triple Helix

    Triple Helix Webroot Product Advisor

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2004
    Posts:
    12,011
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Isn't it 10 clicks for 5 minutes :D
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.