Jump to content

DIVERSE

Members
  • Content Count

    68
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About DIVERSE

  • Rank
    Candidate

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It is strange: I tried it again today (after restarting and shutting down the system a couple of times), and I too cannot reproduce the behaviour. Whereas previously when I paused the protection I got an unresponsive red shield icon in the system tray, this time when I paused the protection I got a responsive grey shield icon in the system tray, and was (this time) able to 'manually' resume protection before the nominated time had fully elapsed by simply right-clicking that grey shield icon and choosing "Resume protection". dh27564: Yes, the shield icon in the system tray is always green for me too when protection is active (provided that databases are sufficiently up-to-date, I think). Thanks to dh27564 and Gjoksi for checking this out on their systems. Disclosure: I have been having some erratic display problems on my laptop, but the above KIS behaviour doesn't/didn't seem to fall into the category of a "display problem". Well, besides a transient bug specific to my system, the only other thing I can think of is that Kaspersky itself patched this yesterday in one of the "Update of databases and application modules" I received. —DIV
  2. I assume that it applies to any time duration. (But I haven't tested it.) First off I am interested to know whether others see the same behaviour, and whether this is by design or by accident.
  3. Hmmm, I wondered if it was worth 'stating the obvious'. Well, maybe it wasn't obvious? Yes, after one minute the protection was automatically resumed, the icon in the system tray changed its colour back to green, and the icon was responsive again. If not, then surely I would have complained very loudly that pausing protection had permanently disabled it....
  4. To test whether Kaspersky Internet Security (version 19.x) might be interfering with my ability to correctly view *.CHM (help) files, I temporarily paused the protection by right-clicking the green-shield icon in my system tray and choosing "Pause protection...", and then selecting the "1 minute" option. My testing was complete in under 1 minute, so I thought it would be appropriate to manually resume the protection before the previously specified 1 minute duration had elapsed. However, the (now) red-shield icon in my system tray was entirely unresponsive. I could not get any response at all by left-clicking, double-clicking or right-clicking. Hence I was unable to manually resume protection after "Pause protection...". This seems inappropriate: I elected to pause the protection, not pause the entire application. For example, I should also be able to launch Tools such as the On-Screen Keyboard, to adjust the application's Settings, or Run a database update — all of which are also usually available from the context menu displayed upon right-clicking the system-tray icon, and which should work regardless of whether protection is active or paused.
  5. Hello, Mefodys. A follow-up: it appears that the KSN rating and Kaspersky VirusDesk do not precisely correlate with ability to access the site when Kaspersky Internet Security is running. I can only access the site when I have added it as a Trusted URL, as detailed in the procedure listed in my Comment above. Otherwise my access is still (currently) blocked. Please refer to accompanying screenshots. (Text is as I quoted before, in my 'hidden' post. Please unhide it!) —DIV
  6. Hi, Mefodys. I am not sure whether the KSN rating correlates with the problem I described in comment 2851779. (By the way, I'm not sure how many others can read that post, because it is still marked as "hidden" after more than a week. Probably only Moderators.) As I mentioned, simultaneous with the problem I described, both VirusTotal and Kaspersky VirusDesk reported the site as clean. The problem I encountered was in going to the home of the website (yellow.com.au) and then navigating through to the link I mentioned. I did not check what came up as the Kaspersky annotation in a search engine. I'm not sure what you refer to with your advice/request: "If there some issues with sites detections, then please provide at least its URL and screenshot of the detection in product." I gave the URL of the site as shown in the browser's address bar, and if you check the record notes I quoted, they also give URL's that were apparently elements of that web page that KIS 'predicted' were risky. I also quoted verbatim the text of the message that came up, and specified the context. Yes, it's true that a screenshot would let you know the colour of the text, for example. But if only an image is provided, it makes it impossible for other users to try to find the error by a text search of the forums! In future I'll include both text and an image, where possible. —DIV
  7. Sorry, this was posted in response to another thread, and then moved here by the moderators (so it no longer makes sense).
  8. Here are the steps to add a website as "Trusted" in Kaspersky Internet Security 2019 (KIS 19): Open the main KIS interface. Click "Settings" (the cog icon in the bottom left corner). From the left-hand pane click "Protection". From the listing shown in the right-hand pane click on the words "Web Anti-Virus". (NOTE: Do not accidentally click on the 'toggle switch' icon at the far right, as this would turn your protection on/off.) From the list of options that are displayed click "Advanced Settings" (at the bottom). From the new list of refined options that are displayed click "Configure trusted URLs" (in the middle). Click the "Add" button at the bottom right of the new dialogue box that comes up. In the little dialogue box that comes up enter the URL into the top field, and leave the Status set to "Active" (so that your preference will/should be respected). Click the "Add" button at the bottom right of this little dialogue box. Your preferences have now been entered. Just close each of the remaining dialogue boxes (red/white "x" box in top right, in title bar). This process is so convoluted that the initial advisory message from KIS saying that the site was blocked should contain a 'deep link' to add an exclusion. —DIV
  9. Um, no. And it's become quite confusing now! I realise you were trying to help, but I think you need to move my post of Saturday, 22 December 2018 at 03:10 PM back to its original location at topic/401103-extremely-annoyed ... by FURRYHUSKY1000. (And, I suppose, the subsequent two/three replies.) After all, I was responding to FURRYHUSKY1000's thread title. Just to be clear, the rebooting problem alluded to (and very briefly described) in my post of Saturday at 03:10 PM was of automatic forced rebooting after using KIS to update a third-party software application. Not connected to the thread at topic/404186-kis-spuriously-asks- ... by DIVERSE which relates to a message warning the user (me) that I should — at my convenience — perform a reboot in order to complete a disinfection (of some unspecified file). The most likely conclusion is I never posted about the forced rebooting problem previously, despite my hazy recollection that I had done. —DIV P.S. Even if those two things had been related, it would have made more sense to me not to move my post, but merely to reply with a suggested link.
  10. Hi, richbuff. You're 100% right that this is a problem afflicting a multitude of software applications. In many of those, as per the tenor of your email, the issue is either not even noticed or else mildly irritating. Those situations include most activities with durations of seconds or minutes, like: updating databases (takes about 10 to 60 seconds); running a Quick Scan (takes about 1 to 10 minutes); installing Kaspersky Internet Security from scratch (takes, maybe, 5 to 15 minutes?). Most users will be familiar with progress bar inaccuracies, and don't really care whether the database update is predicted to take 23 seconds, but actually takes 46 seconds — or vice versa. Similarly with the other two examples: 2 minutes and 10 minutes are pretty different, but (with experience) most users are simply prepared that the tasks will take 'a few minutes', regardless of what the progress bar says. The situations where it becomes a seriously problematic bug are when dealing with activities that have durations of hours and days. For example: the Full Scan I recently performed with KIS that took more than sixteen hours; another user was waiting more than four days for their Full Scan to be completed (using KTS). In my case, after about 8½ hours into the scan, KIS was reporting that about another ½ hour would be needed to complete: that is, a total of about 9 hours. Now, you would think after so many files had been scanned there'd be quite a lot of data to make a 'ballpark' estimate. But instead of the predicted ½ hour remaining, there was actually more like 9 hours remaining in reality. Nobody can say that's 'in the ballpark', and it is against any reasonable expectation. Even worse, after 10 hours into the scan, I was continuously being shown that the scan was "99%" complete, and "less than a minute" was remaining. I was literally sitting there watching it, thinking it'd be over in somewhere between 0 and 10 minutes — because I allow a pretty broad tolerance on what a prediction of "less than a minute" might mean in reality. But when a prediction of < 1 minute remaining is displayed while there was actually more like 7 hours remaining in reality, then that is a major problem for users! I realise there are a lot of high priorities for the software developers, and this can be considered lower down the list. But I can be confident that if the user experience is entirely neglected then the customers will just turn elsewhere: as expressed by aaronmefford regarding McAfee in 2013: "I need your protection, but not at the expense of productivity." Not only that, but IT professionals will stop recommending products that cause inconvenience, as alluded to by the same user in the abovementioned post, and here's a slightly less pertinent example. If Kaspersky cannot get the time estimate right, then just don't show the time estimate, but rather simply enumerate the files scanned and the user can see that the application hasn't frozen. (But still report the actual duration at the end.) It could be advantageous if Kaspersky could show both the number of "unzipped files" and the number of "not-unzipped files" scanned. Users can more easily find out the number of not-unzipped files on their HDD, and hence will see how many have already been scanned, and thus know how many remain. The number of unzipped files would require knowing how many elements were contained inside each installer, each archive, etc., which is quite difficult to know in advance. Better yet, Kaspersky could also show in real time the total number of bytes (or MB, or GB) worth of files scanned, because it is usually quite easy for users to find how much disk space their files are consuming.
  11. By the way, for me personally I would probably be scanning each of the individual disks (one[?] internal HDD and three external HDD's) separately. That way you have more control to get one disk scanned, and then do some hard-core computing (gaming, simulation, ...), or surf the internet et cetera, or maybe even just turn off the computer and go to bed. When you've got those things done, you can then scan another disk, and so forth. [Yes, AV scans do work in the background, but they are also disk-intensive, and can be CPU-intensive, and it becomes wore if the user is regularly reading and writing to disk while the scan is happening.] Another benefit is that after running the scan to completion for one disk, you'll have your own empirical estimate of how long the scan takes on your system, and hence roughly how much time to allow for scanning each of the other disks. And, finally, you'll have a better ability to figure out whether one particular disk (or type of disk, or type of file) is causing problems. Debugging: if you cannot complete a scan of even one single HDD within 24 hours, say, then try scanning individual folders to figure out (i) time required and (ii) any source of slowdown.
  12. Slightly off-topic: it seems KIS is not the only AV product where application/engine upgrades are not always quickly pushed out to users — it was also reported with McAfee (albeit from 5 years ago).
  13. BTW, I was a little lazy — or out of time! — to check the details of the "Parse email formats" setting myself. I've since had a scout around online, and the information I saw is both old (try over ten years old!) and not very encouraging about enabling it! 15045-question-about-the-parse-email-formats-option 78411-parse-e-mail-formats-causing-full-scan-to-take-8-hours/ On the other hand, in 2011 there was one indication that perhaps it wasn't always a terrible idea to enable this functionality, and it could be tolerated in a Custom Scan (which doesn't exist by that name in the 2019 version of KIS). It kind of aligns with an idea I had for this setting, which is that it might be suitable to run once, on-demand, while the email browsing client is turned off.
  14. No worries, I learned a lot too :-) I am happy to leave the information here, and others may then add to it, or maybe get some pointers too. Thanks for all your suggestions, plb4333!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We use cookies to make your experience of our websites better. By using and further navigating this website you accept this. Detailed information about the use of cookies on this website is available by clicking on more information.