Dear Matthias,   > SWUP has to fetch the updates from the original vendors (for legal reasons)   Is that still true? I think it is enough if Policy Manager downloads them from the original vendors and then PM can further distribute them to endpoints. That's why FSPM'sdatabase can grow to such large sizes.   The FSPM version 14.10 beta-2 release notes says: "Minimum of 10 GB of free hard disk space. When managing Premium clients, an additional 10 GB is needed for serving software updates."   Yours Sincerely: Tamas Feher, Hungary. ... View more

Dear Serge,   I would like to ask what F-Secure Corp. eventually decided to do about the recent PSB channel upgrade mishap? Will you be able to remedy it centrally or the responsibility rests with the customer?   Thanks in advance, Yours Sincerely: Tamas Feher, Hungary. ... View more

Dear SergeH,   > Due to an error many computers were channel upgraded yesterday irrespective of the date configured. More info in: https://community.f-secure.com/t5/Business/Information-about-the-Channel/ta-p/115969   I wish to ask if F-Secure Corp. will send warning e-mails about this issue to all PSB end-users sysadmins, delivered to their e-mail addresses found in the Account section of the webportal?   (Currently the warning is available here in the community forum and in an e-mail sent to the partners and apparently to all who login to the PSB portal, as they see it in a red pop-up window. On the other hand some end-user sysadmins seldom log in to PSB portal, like once in 2 weeks ... or once in a leap year... and they assume it just it works due to automation. They wouldn't be informed according to the current disclosure scheme.)   Thanks in advance, Yours Sincerely: Tamas Feher, Hungary. ... View more

Dear SergeH,   > Channel upgrade is configured to install the Computer Protection client version 19.1. The reason is that the version 19.2 requires the installation of a recent .net framework that created some issues with the upgrade process   If a computer has channel-upgraded itself to PSB CP 19.1, will it further upgrade to CP 19.2 after a while or does it remain on version 19.1 indefinitely? (I'm asking because it seems remote FSDIAG collection is only available with CP 19.2.)   I would also like to ask what percentage of the PSB computer fleet have you seen experience problems with CP 19.2 adoption (i.e. shortcomings of the .NET pre-requirement)?   Thanks in advance, Yours Sincerely: Tamas Feher, Hungary. ... View more

Hello,   > She'll continue posting false positives here.   Alleged file and website false alarm cases need to be submitted at this URL, you instantly receive an automatic response with ticket ID and the usual time of re-evaluation result is just under 3 hours:   https://www.f-secure.com/en/web/labs_global/submit-a-sample   (Making noise in the forum isn't going to magically solve anything.)   Best Regards: Tamas Feher. ... View more

Dear PSB Team,   We have a PSB EMEA "SoP" account with app. 5300 devices under it. Using the portal account with IE browser is acceptably swift, but the views (e.g. list of computers, list of infection reports) are displayed in a kind of blurry font, even though menus of the browser and OS are sharp at the same time.   Using Firefox results in overall sharper view, but that browser struggles to compose long lists in the portal without freezing, e.g. the rooster of computers with PSB WKS or CP Standard or CP Premium installed on them. Seems like their "Gecko" web rendering engine has lower performance than Microsoft's Triton, which would be hard to fix independently?   Thus, please check if something could be done to offer sharper PSB portal font display for IE browser users, since that one seems to have the necessary list-processing power?   (Being on Win 8.1 OS I don't have the Edge browser and I'd rather not use Chrome, since Google Alphabet Inc. lives off syphoning away and selling data and the PSB portal works with customer's data.)   Thanks in advance, Yours Sincerely: Tamas Feher, Hungary. ... View more

Dear Maaret,   Thank you! Using your instructions I was able to fix the .NET pre-requisite on my notebook, so it received PSB CP19.2 eventually.   On the other hand, I feel the same manual process would be too complicated for un-attended PSB locations and many F-Secure home-user customers, who are now also receiving new FSIS versions with the .NET pre-requisite condition. For example, I had to do the .NET reset process twice with reboot to succeed and the website's description says some people had to repeat it 3x times to be effective.   I feel F-Secure needs to find some automatic remediation for those customers who have problems with .NET v4.72 not installing on their computers. Especially since the minimum version requirement of .NET is likely to increase in the future, so the problem could emerge again and again! F-Secure's ethos has always been about automation and un-obstrusive operation, so the current situation is rather unfortunate.   Thanks in advance, Yours Sincerely: Tamas Feher, Hungary. ... View more

Dear Maaret,   Could you please confirm if the F-Secure home user products, like Internet Security, are now also suffering from the .NET pre-requisite installation failure problem?   Thanks in advace, Yours Sincerely: Tamas Feher, Hungary. ... View more

Dear Fedool,   Thanks for your quick response!   > Woudn't that be nice if you could submit false positive from portal from the "Infections" list?   Yes, certainly!   (The main problem for me currently is when schools use FSAV PSB, where pupils write program code during IT class but Deepguard false alerts on them. Since the files are entirely new, I can't do anything with their SHA1 hash reported in the alert, as they can't be found on Virustotal, etc. They also have zero reputation and zero prevalence, so the virus lab also can't help me without access to the binary file sample.   Another problemful situation is when FSAV PSB makes a potentially false virus alarm, but only the file path and name are provided in the alert, without hash value. I think some of the multiple scan engines inside F-Secure don't support the hash? Anyhow, that way I can't precisely verify if the file is known to Virustotal, etc., so I cannot report it to the virus lab without a binary sample and I can almost never obtain that.)   These kind of catch-22 situations could be solved like a gordian knot only if remote file sample submission became possible one way or another.   In fact, I would say "remote quarantine management" feature is dangerous without also having remote sample submission! I mean the observer of PSB SoP/SeP webportal is physically distant from the end user customer, who experiences an alleged false alarm. It's not responsible to restore and allow a quaratined file without first verifying its benign nature either in person or via Virustotal, etc. (but FSAV seldom provides the SHA-1 in alerts) or having received a second opinion from the virus lab upon sample submission.   It would be risky to rely on just the customer's word over the phone that the file is OK and worthy of restoration from quarantine. (You can't imagine the daily amount of activator, crack, warez, patch, serialz, spyware-in-shareware, fake freeware, etc. related malware alerts in see in an 5000-ish endpoint PSB SoP webportal. I'm in a landlocked country, yet it appears to be entirely populated by pirates and their parrots... I'm fairly sure if asked in person, 99% of the customers would claim to be entirely legal.)   Best regards: Tamas Feher, Hungary. ... View more

Dear Mr. Petri Kuikka,   - I wish to point out that remote FSDIAG apparently only works with CP 19 security software, but now with the remaining FSAV PSB WKS 12.01 computers.   - Please also introduce remote file sample submission, as I have great difficulty reporting false malware alarms in FSAV PSB, owing to the difficulty of collecting binary samples within such a dispersed computer population. I'm afraid that feature wish, while already registered, may remain in the developer's limbo list forever.   Thanks in advance, Yours Sincerely: Tamas Feher, Hungary. ... View more

Dear Maaret,   Thanks for your quick response! I have submitted an FSDIAG as support case number xxxx.   From a broader perspective I find the situation highly problematic as the mandatory F-Secure PSB channel upgrades are supposed to start today (March 11th) on a daily 10% conversion basis, but many computers which are still on PSB WKS 12.01 won't be able to migrate to PSB CP 19.2 due to the dotNET snafu.   Thus F-Secure Corp. has created a big problem for itself, conservating a large number of endpoints on the old platform, possibly for months and likely requiring manual intervention to fix them. (If F-Secure Corp. had let CP 19.1 in place in the channel until the PSB WKS 12 pool fully migrates, those computers would have been able to adopt the dotNET-less product successfully and already be on the new generation protection platform.)   Yours Sincerely: Tamas Feher, Hungary.   EDIT: Removed Case number ... View more

Dear Maaret,   .NET 4.72 installation failed with error code: (0x00000476) ERROR_TOO_MANY_LINKS (attempt was made to create more links than the OS supports).   Please revoce the FSAV PSB CP version 19.2 immediately! It is unacceptable that so many computers are running at CPU full throttle, attempting to install .NET again and again at every hour, in complete vain! Those computers may as well mine crypto-coins as that would be the same with regards to wasting electricity and over-stressing electronic components with protracted 100% CPU load.   I also cannot accept that F-Secure is basing anti-virus security on something as fragile as .NET! F-Secure products already cannot protect against ransomware, because the hindi hackers come in through remote access and turn off F-Secure services and processes, which do not protect themselves with a password against unloading, unlike Kaspersky. Thus encryption of files can then happen undisturbed. Now F-Secure is further weakening itself by relying on a fragile and often changing Microsoft technology.   Considering that .NET is used for nothing but to display the "About" screen in PSB CP 19.2, it is ridiculous that F-Secure caused all these problem just to introduce it. I am now thinking about switching to Sophos after 18 years, due to the .NET snafu and the high false malware alarm rate seen with F-Secure DeepGuard and the Avira Capricorn scan engine.   Best Regards: Tamas Feher, Hungary. ... View more

Hello,   I can also report that "PSB One Client 4.02 build 1067" fails to install on my fully Microsoft Updated "Windows 8.1 Pro 64-bit" laptop. During repeated installation attempts the laptop makes a lot of cooling fan noise due to high CPU load. Because of the above situation "FSAV PSB CP 19.1 Premium, One Client 4.01 build 168" remains in use as of now.   Best Regards: Tamas Feher. ... View more