32 replies to this topic

[exile360]

 Poutnik, on 03 February 2013 - 05:44 AM, said:

E.g. One would like to paste copied folder pathname, but clipboard content is useless, if he has to pick it up by Explorer.
Even editing of the full exclusion list as a text would be useful.

Just as I said before, it still would not matter. Any APIs used to determine the location of the excluded folder would result in the system reporting it as E: instead of C: because of the symbolic link. As I said, that is the purpose of a symbolic link so what you're asking for is for MBAM to somehow do something that violates the entire purpose of a symbolic link. If that were even possible, then a symbolic link would not be functioning as it is supposed to.

[Poutnik]

 exile360, on 03 February 2013 - 05:41 AM, said:

It's not MBAM that sees it as C:, as I explained, it's Explorer (which is what we use for our browse dialogs in MBAM, including the one used for adding items and locations to the Ignore List).

If MBAM does not see it as C, why it is scanning c:\users\user\downloads and why does not ignore E:\downloads ?
Is E:\downloads that MBAM gets from explorer to exclude different to E:\downloads that MBAM is said to see if scanning ?

You know, I need not to solve it for myself, but at least in business version it should be addressed.

[exile360]

 Poutnik, on 03 February 2013 - 05:52 AM, said:

If MBAM does not see it as C, why it is scanning c:\users\user\downloads and why does not ignore E:\downloads ?
Is E:\downloads that MBAM gets from explorer to exclude different to E:\downloads that MBAM is said to see if scanning ?

You know, I need not to solve it for myself, but at least in business version it should be addressed.

Perhaps it is scanning E: and the GUI of the scanner just shows it as C: (but the file system redirects it to E: while scanning). I can't say for certain if that is the case or not, but that would be my guess.

[Poutnik]

 exile360, on 03 February 2013 - 05:50 AM, said:

Just as I said before, it still would not matter. Any APIs used to determine the location of the excluded folder would result in the system reporting it as E: instead of C: because of the symbolic link. As I said, that is the purpose of a symbolic link so what you're asking for is for MBAM to somehow do something that violates the entire purpose of a symbolic link. If that were even possible, then a symbolic link would not be functioning as it is supposed to.

E.g. latest version of catalogue software Cathy does not follow scanning junctions nor symlinks, as previous versions did,
as well as NTFS Autocompress utility offers option if it should follow junctions/symlinks.

[Poutnik]

 Poutnik, on 03 February 2013 - 05:55 AM, said:

E.g. latest version of catalogue software Cathy does not follow scanning junctions nor symlinks, as previous versions did,
as well as NTFS Autocompress utility offers option if it should follow junctions/symlinks.

And, Cathy is very fast.
MBAM can test folder, if it is symlink, and if it is, if target is in exclusion list.

[Poutnik]

 exile360, on 03 February 2013 - 05:53 AM, said:

Perhaps it is scanning E: and the GUI of the scanner just shows it as C: (but the file system redirects it to E: while scanning). I can't say for certain if that is the case or not, but that would be my guess.

But this looks to me MBAM rather believes it is scanning C.
If it knows it is scanning E, but pretends to me it is scanning C, it is de facto cheating me, ignoring exclusion list.

[exile360]

 Poutnik, on 03 February 2013 - 05:55 AM, said:

E.g. latest version of catalogue software Cathy does not follow scanning junctions nor symlinks, as previous versions did,
as well as NTFS Autocompress utility offers option if it should follow junctions/symlinks.

And MBAM is a malware scanner, not an autocompress utility or a catalogue software. We offer no such option and quite honestly, I see little value in it. The vast majority of our users do not use symbolic links and yours is the first request for such functionality that I've seen in all the years that MBAM has been available. Perhaps as the technology changes in our later releases your issue will be resolved, but I highly doubt that our development team is going to want to put a lot of effort into such a niche feature that would not be widely used to solve a problem that most of our users are not affected by because they do not use symbolic links.

If you would like a test to see which location is actually being excluded and which one is being scanned you may download one of the Spycar.org test files from this page and place it in one of the locations and then run a scan with MBAM. Whether it gets detected or not and in which location will tell you what location the scanner is actually checking and which one is excluded.

[exile360]

 Poutnik, on 03 February 2013 - 06:01 AM, said:

But this looks to me MBAM rather believes it is scanning C.
If it knows it is scanning E, but pretends to me it is scanning C, it is de facto cheating me, ignoring exclusion list.

I posted a test that you can perform above to find out which location it is scanning.

[Poutnik]

 exile360, on 03 February 2013 - 06:02 AM, said:

And MBAM is a malware scanner, not an autocompress utility or a catalogue software. We offer no such option and quite honestly, I see little value in it. The vast majority of our users do not use symbolic links and yours is the first request for such functionality that I've seen in all the years that MBAM has been available.

If you would like a test to see which location is actually being excluded and which one is being scanned you may download one of the Spycar.org test files from this page and place it in one of the locations and then run a scan with MBAM. Whether it gets detected or not and in which location will tell you what location the scanner is actually checking and which one is excluded.

Category of SW is irrelevant, it was illustration od principle.
Concept of ignore lists is the same for all software.

I will try the Spycar, but the result will not change the fact this could be written in MBAM in better way.
I am not sure if the approach fix only what bothers many users is the right one.

[Poutnik]

 exile360, on 03 February 2013 - 06:02 AM, said:

And MBAM is a malware scanner, not an autocompress utility or a catalogue software. We offer no such option....

This was possibly misunderstanding, it was intended as detection of redirections, not as option not to follow redirections.

[exile360]

 Poutnik, on 03 February 2013 - 06:28 AM, said:

This was possibly misunderstanding, it was intended as detection of redirections, not as option not to follow redirections.

I see. Then this likely will change eventually because I believe that later on (though I do not know when exactly) we do plan on changing our browse dialogs to not use Windows Explorer, which means the Ignore List dialog should then show the same location that is being excluded.

[Poutnik]

 exile360, on 03 February 2013 - 06:37 AM, said:

I see. Then this likely will change eventually because I believe that later on (though I do not know when exactly) we do plan on changing our browse dialogs to not use Windows Explorer, which means the Ignore List dialog should then show the same location that is being excluded.

thanks d for communication. I did not want to act as complainer, but rather feedback.

In fact, I do myself prefer Junctions, That one was in place from historical reasons.

From more places I heard Junctions bring less problems, unless it crosses Junctions local or absolute path funtionality limit.
In future, if people learn relative paths and remote functionality of symlinks, it could be bigger issue.

[Poutnik]

 Poutnik, on 03 February 2013 - 06:55 AM, said:

In fact, I do myself prefer Junctions, That one was in place from historical reasons.

PS: It is great to redefine XP user profiles according to Vista/W7 pattern,
or to have \bin32 \bin64 \sys32 \sys64 pointers