Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About alQamar

  • Rank
    Regular Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hi guys, though this is offtopic, I've to disagree with IPv6. Some products even list it in their requirements just as SQL Server and others. Customers has seen issues disabling IPv6 with Windows Client / Server internal services, aswell as Windows Store etc. It back from 2008 but still apply to Windows 10. https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/netro/2010/11/24/arguments-against-disabling-ipv6/ (2010) https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/rmilne/2014/10/29/disabling-ipv6-and-exchange-going-all-the-way/ (2014) https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/yongrhee/2018/02/28/stop-hurting-yourself-by-disabling-ipv6-why-do-you-really-do-it-2/ (2018)
  2. Hi the issues with Security Center could be respawned on 18632.116. I will upload a video.
  3. @exile360, as fair I understand this from a security standpoint one should not disable ipv6 in Windows 10 / Server 2016 or later MS needs the fe80 address for some services and said they expect this to be turned on. on a same subnet ipv6 is said to be used over ipv4.
  4. p.s. What would be interesting how and all these embedded Windows version are affected as most of them use RDP incoming too. There is no note about this aswell. For Wannacry there have been patches for these aswell.
  5. Regarding Vista: there are still patches for Server 2008 (6.0) most of them could also be applied out of band on Vista (Client - out of support). Same goes to Server 2012 and Windows 8.0 (Client - out of support)
  6. Please note that when you read the tech community blog or twitter it reads like only server systems that have RDSH role active are vulnerable. The matter that there is a patch for client OS prove this wrong.
  7. Hi everyone, due to other inconsistencies (in feedback hub) of my Windows 10 system ( a ), I have refreshed Windows 10 completely. The slow startup / logon issues are now better, now that I restored the system to a near similar state after the reinstall. In summary I still see that MBAM is slowing the system. For the other system ( b ) and there have been no improvements yet and we even saw the issues of slowness and freezes even with ransomware disabled - but the system will recover much better. So nothing changed till post #44. It is a pity that the whole thing is quite complex and not to be reproduced for anyone. I proposed my wife to refresh her Windows 10 aswell but she declined as there are no other issues without MBAM. I will contact LiquidTension for further diagnosis and would like say thanks for anyone involved and trying to help so far. Please forgive me if it seemed that I was to ignore the suggestions made. I did not, just wanted to make sure that the product will work as intended with default settings.
  8. next steps refer to system / issue complex ( b ) Thank you @Porthos. @LiquidTension results of clean boot in case ( b ). It is a bit better but not solved. Means the slowdowns still appear often but not that drastic and long, and the PC recovers faster from these phases. I can just reinforce my invitation to make an appointment and to have a look remote on the systems. If Microsoft suggested clean boot does not solve it but MBAM ransonware realtime disabling does, i clearly find it complicated to blame anything else but the protection to cause it. If we cannot find a solution, I guess I'll go on without MBAM premium.
  9. please delete #26 - still cannot edit posts. mixed up A and B As this thread has gotten long: We have 2 sets of remaining issues ( a ) PC 1 (i7 7700k) - your system may take a lot of time for proceeding boot and startup process after login screen has been confirmed - your system may be unresponsive in the login screen ( b ) PC 2 (i5 9600k) - your system may get entirely inresponsive during normal workloads - start screen (start menu), systray, mouse may become unresponsive or lag - screen may get black for some minutes and then all inputs and commands will be stacked and excuted later after the freeze @Maurice Naggar I do not want you to think I am stubborn, I have followed all suggestions but they did not help on both machines. lowering priority has no impact on startup performance ( a ) not registering with the security center (an issue that I marked solved with the latest MBAM version) did not help with ( a ), too. I also tried clean boot -and so far can only say that this does not solve the startup performance / logon issues* ( a ) @LiquidTension - the only measure is to disable ransomware protection. *of course logon got a bit faster due lesser startup processes but the remaining ones loaded up slow. Also I can say that disabling ATIH Ransomware Protection had no effect on ( a ) and ( b ) Wy wife ( b ) has recorded a video of this the issue that I could provide for demonstration as her's is not so easy to reproduce and affects her several times a day. While my issue ( a ) can be reproduced on every startup. I am still confident that this is not a local issue. The fact that clean boot will not help reinforces this, imho. Quite sure this may also affect - an unknown number - of other users when 1903 is released and I personally do not think that reinstalling Windows is a solution when everything else works fine as soon ransomware protection is disabled or MBAM is uninstalled. My goal is to find a solution for me and to avoid struggles that might decrease the good reputation of this otherwise well working MBAM application. We checked that during the affected periods of time no scheduled scan have been running. Next steps: for setup msconfig to clean boot except mbam enable all mbam RTP services leaving the changes (low prio) as proposed by Maurice anything else we could do? How to provide the video? Onedrive is okay?
  10. again I have reason to not alter the settings Maurice. They should work well as default. I will setup a scan to a different time as suggested. now that I can pinpoint that the issue of slow startup is not due to the scan but Ransomware protection I am happy with that - restoring a default setting. About the lag and freezes on the other we will investigate a possible relation to Acronis True Image 2019 Ransomware, means we disable ATIH Ransonware and fully enable MBAM. Again, there were no such issues - in default settings - in 1809 on all affected machines, and I hope that @LiquidTension is able to either get something out of the logs. I would like to reinforce that a remote session via Teamviewer is still a way to demonstrate the remaining issues live.
  11. ok good news, the security center issues seems to be fixed in current state as of mb3-setup-consumer- . Sorry I was focused so much on the performance impacts and did not review this part before posting. With default settings in MBAM it is now possible to enable defender in the settings above and it will remain enabled after reboot, not matter if web protection is enabled or disabled. Enabling or disabling will no longer enable or disable Defender. I will test it on other devices tomorrow. If this is reproducible then it got fixed with the latest release - Liquidtension confirmed the wrong behaviour in post #17 - we can focus on the performance issues on my system with the ransomware protection.
  12. Please let me know if this setting remains enabled with 1903 and web protection enabled after a reboot Disable web protection and experience the difference in behaviour on your own. alternatively as proposed we can have an appointment and live demo on my rigs.
  13. Maurice, I am not ignoring your advice and expertise, but as Porthos said it should work fine by default. If you like we can have a remote session via Teamviewer to demonstrate the issue with Security Center, Liquidtension is invited to join. Please know that these are unrelated to the performance issues. I have to outline that this is exclusive to 1903 and I just to make sure there will be no horrific impact on release. 1809 does not need any changes off the default and work fine with MBAM 3.6.x and 3.7.x. It may be it is a issue that is not widespread, however I would not have spent so much time with this if it was a local issue on one machine. I would like to wait for @LiquidTension analysis of the logfiles and see what's next.
  • Create New...

Important Information

This site uses cookies - We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.