Can be situation, when updates comes just with your "9:01" (or later), but automatic-check was "9:00" (when new updates not comes yet) - but it's not likely. :)
Or simply with another words - it was planned to be automatic published around "10:00" (or "9:10" / "9:30" as example), but you trigger it right now.
I also can to think that F-Secure ULAV can to be with delay / pause... if system under overload/network usage or other (such as you have laptop and it under battery-charge or specific mode of usage). It's can be that... automatic-check updates can be "dropped" or missing - but not likely "as stable-behavior" (just if conflict with another software - it's can be.. such as F-Secure ULAV updater goes to check updates and something prevent it.... and happened time-out - if it's possible).
Or during installation goes something wrong and automatic-schedule-point goes be "not configured". You should try to ignore "manual"-update feature and wait some hours. For get automatic-ones. It should be comes and automatic-update should to get it.... per short-time of re-checking. But need to wait when new updates comes again.
Probably it should be with automatically check during launch system. But:
-> what if there TOO MUCH MANY updates.
-> something else.
With Aquarius-engine (and main F-Secure solutions) as most hard part of "updates" downloading/installing can be next behavior:
-> ignored at launch (as delay for check later.. when will be more good situation around usage drive, network, CPU);
-> downloading by parts (time to time) - not sure how it works and can it's be or not - but probably yes (such as download some of recent.. but after that most of fresh).
With Hydra-engine and F-Secure ULAV can be same situation. It goes to check (automatically) with launch of system, but what if there goes be time-out, prevented something or simply network connection was dropped (because too much high usage per moment)? It's maybe goes be with delay.
Or it's can be with check... after five, ten or fifteen minutes.
Anyway... we talk just about re-check updates. And it's can be each three minutes as example. Such as does not take a lot of resources. Such as ... launched services - triggered "automatic check updates". Probably during launch system. most of software goes to re-check around.
But certainly downloading and getting updates.. can be just if they published recently :)
Ultralight beta is currently configured to check for updates every 10 minutes.
The frequency of Hydra releases is not static - we push out Hydra updates when we have new detections. Typically there are a handful per weekday and less on the weekend. The latest Hydra update for today seems to have arrived at about 10am this morning.
ULAV proposed to block a few URLS's that I definetely trust, so I allowed them, in such a case of false positive does my decision to trust and allow them feed the cloud database or is it a lost info ?
I think user's decision about "allow" stay with user's device. And probably it's OK design.
Such as.. current "whitelisting" can be with "exploit"-actions with some of situations (such as... there reason.. why WOT or same things it's not really helpful time to time).
But you able to use next one link -> https://analysis.f-secure.com/ (F-Secure SAS / F-Secure Labs);
And you able to register there (for get response) and create ticket about false-positive pages. Or just as "re-check"-ask - if there have reasons for malicious rating (or suspicious. Block-page with current F-Secure ULAV as malicious-description can be about "suspicious"-rating too; And I think it's nice design also; with FS Protection or F-Secure IS probably "suspicious"-rating it's not a reason for blocking page - and it's not nice). I also have a lot of URL-examples (with F-Secure ULAV it happened more often and also because some of pages was "blocklisted" by FS Protection and content blocker.... and some of points was not visible as blocked), which looks like false-positive. But I not sure.. that it's can be false positive in fact (I think there wrong interception of exploiting or phishing tries). But I mean just current URLs (which I met).
thank you Ukko, in this case it was the url of my vps-seedbox-vpn supplier which I use for long and is 100 % safe, I was wondering wether ULAV database uses my info to reclassify this site (or any other one) as safe.
This topic has been closed due to inactivity. If you would like to discuss this topic further, please start a new post.
You can reference this topic in your post by adding this link:
Visit the Community
Check our Forums or How-to & FAQs for advice or answers
View User Guides
Refer to our getting started guides and product manuals
Talk to our Support agents and get answers to your questions