Jump to content

Not functional ignoring of NTFS Symlinked folders


Recommended Posts

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Staff

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Staff

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.
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Staff

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.
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Back to top
×
×
  • 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.