Serious Discussion Windows and Office Genuine ISO Verifier detected by Emsisoft BB

[simmerskool]

Specifically whether emsi BB will initially block all unsigned files, I don't know, but it is a key indicator of possible malware. Eg, Voodooshield aka Cyberlock and its component WhiteListCloud alert to unsigned files and suggest you dig deeper to see if the file is safe or malicious. It's a positive feature not a drawback, IMO.

 

[Divine_Barakah]

Specifically whether emsi BB will initially block all unsigned files, I don't know, but it is a key indicator of possible malware. Eg, Voodooshield aka Cyberlock and its component WhiteListCloud alert to unsigned files and suggest you dig deeper to see if the file is safe or malicious. It's a positive feature not a drawback, IMO.

But it generates a considerable amount of FPs.

I most of the time receive alerts when installing almost any software, but most of the time AntiMalware Network steps in and allows the installation.

I believe Emsisoft should allow the submission of hashes during detection to help with FPs. It is very inconvenient to submit quarantined files and wait for support, even if support is relatively fast.

I know I can always add detections to exclusion, but I believe this should not be up to the user because there is the possibility that the detection is correct and not a FP. This is why I prefer BD. First, it has a larger user base and the product itself seems to be more intelligent. Moreover, it requires zero interaction from the end user. I know BD also generates some FPs, but way lesser than Emsisoft does.

 

[Oldie1950]

But it generates a considerable amount of FPs.

I most of the time receive alerts when installing almost any software, but most of the time AntiMalware Network steps in and allows the installation.

I believe Emsisoft should allow the submission of hashes during detection to help with FPs. It is very inconvenient to submit quarantined files and wait for support, even if support is relatively fast.

I know I can always add detections to exclusion, but I believe this should not be up to the user because there is the possibility that the detection is correct and not a FP. This is why I prefer BD. First, it has a larger user base and the product itself seems to be more intelligent. Moreover, it requires zero interaction from the end user. I know BD also generates some FPs, but way lesser than Emsisoft does.

If I were to frequently install new software, I would probably find Emsisoft's alerts annoying. But I rarely install new software. However, today Emsisoft Business sent a notification when HP Support Assistant tried to update the BIOS with a new version. I then just clicked Allow and the update continued. The behavior blocker flagged the action as suspicious.

 

[simmerskool]

But it generates a considerable amount of FPs.

I most of the time receive alerts when installing almost any software, but most of the time AntiMalware Network steps in and allows the installation.

I believe Emsisoft should allow the submission of hashes during detection to help with FPs. It is very inconvenient to submit quarantined files and wait for support, even if support is relatively fast.

I know I can always add detections to exclusion, but I believe this should not be up to the user because there is the possibility that the detection is correct and not a FP. This is why I prefer BD. First, it has a larger user base and the product itself seems to be more intelligent. Moreover, it requires zero interaction from the end user. I know BD also generates some FPs, but way lesser than Emsisoft does.

ok, but I am getting very few false+ with Emsisoft or with Cyberlock, but then I am downloading less and I'm often aware when I am that the file is potentially unsigned.