Jump to content

dallas7

Immunet Insiders
  • Content Count

    169
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by dallas7

  1. Just stopped in to see what condition this 503 condition is in. I'll try and drop Rob a PM soon. For those pointing to Windows 10 1909 as the culprit... While your observations and reports are accurate, this 503 issue was first reported on August 27 by the OP, GeekDaddy. That was two and half months before 1909 rolled out on November 12. I observed the issue on Windows 7 as well as 10 1903. Even though for a while, no 503s. As the 503 eventually appeared all by itself and didn't go away, the issue is clearly on the Immunet side, not because of something the user has installed. I suspect the server looses track of whatever authentication is used by the client, or the client authentication itself gets irrevocably corrupted. Cheers.
  2. I'm seeing it again, this 503 error, and it hails back to GeekDaddy's August 27 post in that other thread where I posted up, too. In this class of software, one in which purports to provide protection against the dangers of the open internet, any error which persists, intermittently or not, for four months is unacceptable. Think about the error: a cloud based app fails to connect to it. 'Nuff said. While I can't accuse indifference and apathy on the part of the developers, it seems the problem won't be resolved. I suspect Immunet is way, way down on the corporation priority list. Having tried several Immunet versions for a period approaching a decade on test systems (over time, two Win7 and now Win10) and rejecting it for good reasons over and over, I had high hopes for this latest version. Again, it won't be migrating to my day-to-day systems. "Better luck next time" seems to be Immunet's strategy. Best regards.
  3. Hey ritchie58... What I meant by (error 0) is that what was reported in that little Immunet Updater windows instead of (error 503). Not that there were no more errors and I should have been more detailed than that. Sorry. However, today all I see is "Immunet is Up to Date." No (error anything ) ! Server side issue resolved it seems. I'll keep any eye on it. Later!
  4. Today it's error (0). Updates otherwise seemed to DL and install OK.
  5. Sidebar: Hey ritchie58! Glad to see you're still active and kickin'. Installed 7.0.2 today on Win10 Pro 1903 build 18362.418. I'm getting the error 503 exactly as shown in the screen shot in GeekyDaddy's OP. I did have v6.2.4.10819 running for a short while back in December or January, if I remember correctly. It was uninstalled with Revo Pro using its most aggressive cleanup scans. That this 503 error has been an issue for two and a half months isn't very assuring. FWIW & FYI: results for Rob.Turner's quick trouble shooting test: 1) Status: Alive Version: 5.4.2019103021 Build Version: 16992faf6966a6e88c49f3e0e4336c585bcda89d 2) XML text rendered as expected 3) Dialogue for installer...Disabled.exe 4) Dialogue for consumer...0.9.3.exe
  6. There was no mention of 64-bit protection in the 6.3 announcement. Was there a 6.4? Never mind. That's rhetorical. So, 64-bit protection in 6.5?? In-between answers, e.g. using "should," don't cut it. Cheers.
  7. Hello again. 64 bit protection in 6.2.4?? Thanks!
  8. In a thread from last year it was discussed that Immunet 6.0 "...only protects 32 bit processes at this time." 64 bit yet? In 6.0.8? Thank you!
  9. Nice to be back. I don't put too much faith in anyone's home page. I think I'll just bang out a email to support@
  10. Yeah. When he enabled that and game mode I thought, "He'll be back." He caught on to that pretty quick and disabled both.
  11. Very good... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoLFL8gwqSY
  12. Wow. My login still works. Congrats on Immunet 5! I have a Windows 10 Home x64 system which started out as a Technical Preview build on an old clunker E8400 box. But it keeps on updating and works just like retail. Immunet 5 is installed on there and runs well with Defender, Spy Shelter free and Voodoo Shield free. Test results are superb, snagging everything I throw at it from VXVault and malc0de. I also have a new Dell i3-6100 running 10 Home X64 Anniversary Update. I'm a bit reluctant to install Immunet because of, well, you know... Microsoft. Have you folks cleared 5.0.2.10301 for AU yet? Thanks.
  13. Hey Ritchie... Glad to see you're still alive and kickin' too. I'm good, thank you. Except for my memory. The cvd file is there as is that cld file; I should know those well as I supported Clam on a couple of Linux mail servers some years back. I'm sure I was looking for a bit BitDefender folder stuffed with 150+ files. Thanks for the memory jog! Take care.
  14. I remember when I was working with Free v3.0.3 and the ClamAV engine and allow updates were enabled a healthy amount of definition files got downloaded and written to a local directory. I did not see that occur in the v3.0.8 I installed on a freind's system yesterday and I cannot locate any directory containing ClamAV defs. Is this OK? Thank you!
  15. Immunet continues to rock the MRG Flash tests, hitting detections even when Bitdefender fails. Now running about 15-20 percentage points ahead of some of the big-shot AVs and suites and on par with others! My latest spreadsheet compilation... https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0BxamVvlZYmoyNmZhYTQ0MDEtMmY2OS00MzczLTg2MWEtOTU3Yzc2NDNmYjVj&sort=name&layout=list&num=50 Enjoy! Would some one PLEASE disable the Quote function in sweidre's profile. PLEASE!
  16. While I'm logged in for something else, I'd like to once more post up my suggestion for a user interface devoid of the side-banner and orange pane upon a donation-based $12 payment to Immunet and providing the user with the more informative visuals of the Plus version without Tetra's local overhead. Cheers.
  17. Immunet Free v3.0.3.6870 This may or may not be strictly related to the issue(s) under discussion here, but it's as good a thread as any... As reported by Task Manager, agent.exe eventually begins utilizing 400,000-600,000 K of VM Size. I close iptray and any attempt to stop the service returns a failure message (using the services mmc or the net stop command). I have a static 2048kb pagefile so a rampant VM size of that magnitude is causing problems. I should note that when agent isn't problematic, the VM Size is about 120,000 K and stopping the service has always been rapid and successful. I see this behavior on two similarly configured XP SP3 32-bit systems though the hardware platforms are significantly dissimilar. It's been annoying enough for me to have stopped running Immunet as of about three weeks ago. I'll give it another shot with the next upgrade... 3.0.4 or 3.1? Cheers.
  18. Recently while searching for a video related to a significant breaking news event, opening a page in a small city news affiliate presented me with some unusual requests from my browser. I had hit upon a ransomware attack. Using my test system I have observed in three separate tests last month that those ransomware attacks begin with the browser requesting a TCP port 53 connection to a rogue DNS server followed by a request to open csrss.exe with a connection to 127.0.0.1. Blocking either of these stops the attack. Unless you have a firewall that can lock down DNS connections to UDP and the DNS servers configured in your TCP/IP properties and "ask" for any others as well as "ask" for the loop back you'd never know those were happening. (I use Malware Defender to evoke those rules.) However, this is beyond the expertise of even most network savvy users. The latest crop of suites don't even contain the feature set to build such rules which would mimic a real world example of stopping a criminal "at the gate." The best alternative protection is BitDefender's superb new free Traffic Light extension and to use the DNS services of DynDNS Internet Guide or Norton DNS. (I'd also suggest OpenDNS but if you haven't turned off Firefox's or Chrome's filtering you're already taking advantage of that.) As of Tuesday, either one of those has warned of danger when opening a ransomware link as posted up in malc0de and the Malware Domain List. I know that's not definitive but no one can deny it's Better Than Nothing. Failing those, where the criminal makes it past the gate and gets into your home, up-to-the-minute signature data and/or a powerful HIPS is the only protection. And we know the downside in those... the user will usually select OK or Allow. I am not convinced anyone makes a "behavior blocker" that would be any good because there is nothing unusual about the behavior with respect to the network or user activity. And therein lies The Rub. These attacks are socially engineered to prey on the unsuspecting. As ritchie58 said, "Extortion, plain and simple." So sad.
  19. Yeah. Whatever. Good luck with the asking. My reply targeted the original post where I sensed Malcontent's concern that Immunet lacks any behavioral functionality whatsoever. Immunet's core process as delivered by Ethos and Spero is all about behavior and behavior alone. As to it being this analysis or that analysis or that other analysis is a discussion that's a waste of time and bandwidth - a behavior I'm ceasing as of right now. Immunet is for those who seek other than what "so many market vendors have developed" and who've concluded they've succeeded and will continue to excel. EOF
  20. Ethos is Immunet's heuristic engine and in a broad sense Spero could be considered a behavior blocker of sorts. "Behavior blocker" processes are proprietary code unique to the various developers and using the term is like observing a pasta recipe needs "sauce." As for 0-day, MRG's Flash tests to date puts Immunet PLUS (with ClamAV and Tetra enabled) in the 58% percentile which is eight to ten points higher (20 higher than Panda) than most of the suites not empowered with a strong HIPS component.
×
×
  • Create New...