DonH

I solved the problem by going back to XAMPP.

This morning I tried WAMP again with HIPS disabled but protection and firewall enabled. Just navigating to localhost seemed to hang. The same when I disabled both firewall and protection. I tried again, this time starting WAMP as an administrator. The same hang with HIPS disabled and protection and firewall enabled. When I disabled protection and firewall, access was 'normal'. So, how do I have traffic on localhost not be affected by either the firewall or protection? I still want protection from external sources. I can make sure that WAMP is not open to outside connections.

I tried disabling protection and firewall with no change. Just going to localhost caused IE 10 to timeout. I disabled HIPS and everything seems to speed along as 'normal'. I haven't had a chance to test the WAMP server yet, but it's a huge improvement in all of the other programs that I regularly have open.

I have a WAMP server installed on my local Win7 system to test changes to a website before pushing them to the remote server. Recently, I have experienced very long (several minutes) hangs when accessing the MySQL database. There is no need for the server to face outwards. It is only for testing purposes. I want to satisfy myself that ESS is not causing the hangs, so I can look for other causes. I have right clicked to disable the firewall, but that doesn't seem to make a difference. Does anyone have suggestions? Don

A quick caution about reviews and "experts". Magazines and their website counterparts are advertising driven. They are hardly "unbiased" or "experts". Articles and reviews are written by journalists reporting on tests done by staffers. You have made the assumption that PC magazine reviews are seen as valid. I don't think that I would make that assumption. A site like consumersearch.com is only as good as the reviews that they choose to include. They tend to only include reviews by large, well known sites. Their small sample size, can by itself, introduce bias. Reviews that you can trust are a rare commodity. "Consumer reviews" are often written by company employees investigations have found. Forums like this are a bit more time consuming than review sites, but I find that I can get a much better feeling for a company or product than I can by reading reviews.

I would like to see the ability to exclude a particular file type from a particular URL. For example, I often log into the cPanel of a website I maintain and download backups of the site. The files are all .tar.gz, If I connect using a web browser, the download times out and is corrupted. If I connect by SFTP, I can set ESS to not scan the ssl protocol and the download completes with no issues. Downloading by https is not an option. The domain is a very active email server address, so excluding the entire URL would also exclude mail from the address, not a viable option, either. There is always the possibility of malware being injected into the site, so I wouldn't want to lose that protection, either, I just want to exclude a meg+ .tar.gz from being scanned from a particular URL. Come to think about it, the file type is not something that you would ever encounter in 'normal' web pages. It would probably work to just exclude the file type.

An interesting (to me) observation: Using FileZilla in sftp, the download speed quickly settles into a dead steady 4 MiB's/sec. At the same time, ekrn.exe is using no CPU and memory usage by ekrn.exe never changes. I have set SSL filtering to 'Do not scan SSL protocol' which is probably responsible for the zero impact when using sftp. Now, I thought of excluding the IP address. That would be fine for HTTP, but the site gets enough questionable email that I don't want to exclude its POP 3. Oh well...

Marcos, I was afraid that it was basically applying the limit to all sites. It sounds like that is the case. On the other hand, would malware be detected when expanded? Cyberhash, I usually have Outlook running and other programs that may not be running, but access the internet in the background. Many programs have auto-updaters that check and possibly download and install updates whenever there is an internet connection. I'd rather be more targetted.

I download a website backup that is a .tar.gz archive. In other words, it is an compressed file that is compressed again. They are fairly large. 1.5gig or so. The download stalls and times out. Ekrn.exe consumes well over 50% CPU during the download. This is not a self-decompressing archive, so there shouldn't be any harm if the download isn't scanned in real-time. This is a single IP and a single file type. Is there a way that I can be somewhat surgical in excluding those downloads from realtime scanning?

I know better than to try... I just want to shout, "GROW UP!" The world is not fair. No matter what action or decision is made, someone, somewhere, will cry, "Unfair!" So, I challenge you, just like I would my kids, "what would you do differently?" Does everyone speak English? Do you just release a version in English or tranlate it into other languages...maybe every language, so nobody claims that it's unfair? How would you set up distribution? What do you do if your server or systems can't withstand a sudden high demand? Might there be fewer critical issues if distribution was staggered into manageable bunches? Who should go 1st, 2nd, etc.? And on and on and on. To answer what seems like a perfectly reasonable question to you, would take a lot of effort and require that you have a firm understanding of all the issues. And despite that effort, there will be a sizable group who will still only look at things from their own very selfish perspective. So why bother? If someone is going to be unhappy with any answer, why not give them the short and official line?

No, I have never heard of Email looping. I've experienced a message stuck in the send box, but that's easily fixed and usually of my own doing! Because these emails have what could be considered 'sensitive' customer info, I use POP3 over SSL, downloading all messages so they are not stored on the server. I use Outlook 2007 without an Exchange server. I'm one of the many small businesses for whome Exchange Server is expensive overkill. I keep the pst file well within the size constraints, but it is probably time to trim rules, etc.

Fairly recently orders that are sent from my website are appearing in the Junk E-mail folder in Outlook 2007. I open the folder, rt click the message and choose to classify it as not spam. It's confusing because the subject has ***SPAM***pre-pended to the Subject, something that I set in ESS, though the message is not in the ESSET Antispam folder. An error then briefly pops-up that the sender is already in the safe sender list. OK, I think. Now the message is not found anywhere. Ideas?

Bizarre. If I click to use recommended settings, it turns on Windows Firewall. Then Action Center reports that both Windows Firewall and Eset Person firewall are running and 2 or more firewalls running at the same time can cause conflicts. It's apparent that you can't please both windows tools. It's back to the 'old days' of trusing Eset and ignoring Windows.

Well, it had been that I would see those screens but now they are: Action Center Windows Firewall I have restarted Windows which changed Action Center, but Windows Firewall is still protesting. I just saw another issue. Action Center is reporting that both Defender and ESS are turned on for antispyware and unwanted programs. It protests that only one should run. I hate contradictions!

I'm confused. Earlier this year, I had posted that both ESS and Win7 Firewalls were on. I just read a post somewhere that said that their windows firewall was on but managed by KIS. Out of curiosity, I checked and windows firewall was off and complaining that it was not using the recommended settings. ESS firewall and other protections are enabled and running. Did 6.0.316.0 disable windows firewall, or is my memory that it had been on foggy? Should I renenable windows firewall with recommended settings? Windows 7 64 bit, ESS 6.0.316.0.