Poutnik

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

What if we are able to put manually to the exclude list c:\users\user\downloads ? It would be useful even for normal folder cases. Many KBD oriented people do not like Explorer way of picking folders.

That still does not explain why MBAM in one case see E and in other case C.... What if there was manual option to exclude folders ?

Hmm, is not it exactly the opposite ? If Explorer reports it as C:\Users\User\Downloads, would not MBAM add C:\Users\User\Downloads to the list ? And, when scanner reads the location as E:\downloads, should not check it against the exception list ?

It brings another question : Let suppose folder A is scanned by the scan Let suppose folder J is junction to A Let suppose folder S is folder symlink to A Both J and S are in otherwise scanned folders Is scanned just A, or J a/o S as well ?

No, it does not, it scans c:\users\user\downloads. What I do not understand why MBAM acts differenctly at exception addition and at scanning. Should not it see either c:\users\user\downloads. either e:\downloads in both cases ? Cannot be the issue during eception addtition the target is provided to MBAM by Window pick up dialog, while during scan the original symlink is used directly by MBAM ?

Hm, I understand this as MBAM would see it as c:\users\user\downloads in case of Junction, but as E:\downloads in case of symlink. But why than it does not honour the exception ?

Better said, I might forget about that Windows feature, creating symlink, as it is possible for the folder. But it does not change anything on MBAM should be able to add symlink to exception, as the above is applicable to profile folders only.

I mean, I can manage workaround for myself easily. But it would be good if MBAM adds SymlinkD to exceptions by way that works. They are here since 2006.

Greeting to all MBAM developers... Well, it may be more clear from my original post than fro this new thread. If I add symbolic link c:\users\User\Downloads, it adds E:\Downloads to exception list. And keeps later scanning c:\users\User\Downloads I am aware about standard ways of user folder redirections, but I think the Windows did not offer redirecting of this folder, so it is probably the historical reason why I used in deep past this solution. In fact I am more interesting in fixing way how MBAM works with standard NTFS features, than in workaround. I use lot of redirecting for general folders, but usually using Junctions. I can as well logged as admin replace SymlinkD by Junction.

Thanks for the hint, I originally misidentified the proper forum to post.

Retyping the scenario I have in My Vista64 Home Premium SP2 folder c:\users\User\Downloads redirected by NTFS folder symbolic link to E:\Downloads. During scanning of disk C: MBAM scans c:\users\User\Downloads i.e. E:\downloads what I do not want. When I try to add c:\users\User\Downloads to exclude list, it adds instead of the symlinkd the real target folder E:\Downloads. It would not matter, if MBAM respected this. But if I trigger next scan, it is scanning all the c:\users\User\Downloads = E:\Downloads again. For NTFS Junctions it works correctly as expected.

I have realized that setting exception from scanning a folder does not work, if the folder is targer of NTFS Symlink. It does work, if it is a target of NTFS Junction More here, as the topic was originally posted to other forum.... http://forums.malwarebytes.org/index.php?showtopic=119634&pid=642301&st=0entry642301

As free MBAM user I do not require support. OTOH I provide to MB free feedback and opportunity to improve their product. Expecting of few confirmative words is not so much....

I hve to correct myself. It seems setting exclusions for JUNCTIONs works. What does not work is excluding Folder SYMLINKs.

The same is valid for the new MBAM 1.70.

It seems like during exception management MBAM follows reparse points, but during scan itself it does not. It should behave the same at both actions.