![]() In other words, I'm expected to enable JD2 to ask before starting to download updates in order to disable it to ask starting to download updates? This seems counterintuitive. "Description": If enabled, JDownloader will ask before starting to download Updates.Īs such, should it not follow that it will be understood that unchecking this will result in JDownloader NOT asking before starting to download updates.? "Key": UpateSettings: Do Ask Before Downloading An Update As for misunderstanding these settings, I think it is reasonable to expect the behaviour noted in the "Description" of that "Key", where it states: I will instead check this setting now and anticipate the results I want. effectively you've made it 'ask before installing.'. If you uncheck 'UpdateSettings: Do Ask Before Installing An Update - UNCHECKED' you will get prompted. Once again, you along with some others miss understand those settings Please let me know if I've interpreteted the settings incorrectly or whether there is a solution on your end in order to cease the incessant JD (As noted above, it doesn't do this silently "in the background without restarting rather, it prompts instead.) UpdateSettings: Install Updates Silently If Possible - CHECKED ![]() (But, of course, it doesn't act accordingly, installing on startup and throughout instead.) UpdateSettings: Install Updates On Exit - CHECKED UpdateSettings: Do Ask My Before Installing An Update UpdateSettings: Do Ask Before Installing An Update - UNCHECKEDĪdditionally, I have attempted to "install Updates silently during the next JDStart" by checking appropriately the following: Do you want to restart & install the update now?" Here is what I have in Advanced Settings:īubbleNotify: Bubble Notify On Update Availabe - UNCHECKEDĮven so, I consistently receive notifications on startup AND throughout for instance this prompt emerges numerous times per day: That said, I'm being overwhelmed by several-times daily updates, including on each startup, despite believing to have disabled this in settings. My network attacks alerts started blowing up yesterday morning.Firstly, hello and thanks for all your efforts with the excellent JD2. I don't believe they all got compromised, and there are no other signs. Is anyone seeing that? That is a false positive, correct? It's pretty consistent on machines with Teamviewer. I'm thinking it's some kind of heart beat/checkin thing that Teamviewer is doing, that machine reporting itself in with Teamviewer. It looks like Symantec is calling teamviewer_service.exe an outbound attack. I'm seeing a lot of outbound attacks in SEPM logs for network attack on some machines that have Teamviewer, and different versions of Teamviewer. I've got some machines with Teamviewer installed. So on this one I would have to think Symantec needds to talk to TeamViewer and work this out, or just identify the false positive trigger and fix that if applicable. It's also not ok to just whitelist the exe file, that's lazy secops behavior and rules out real detections later. The problem lacks the regularity of a heartbeat, but happens often enough that I am very much confused by the pattern. Judging by Teamviewer's general behavior over the years I've been using it, I don't think they have a very solid product design that's imperviious to compromise, so I would not be surprised to learn some day in the future that their product had been hacked or something, but having said that, there's currently no reason to think they're any real issue. So far Symantec has not acknowledged the issue in a separate post I had made a while ago, they're busy with other stuff I suppose. I manage a lot of SES customers and most of them are seeing "attacks" on port 5938 almost every day (seen via IPS reports). Yeah I've been annoyed by this issue for well over a month, maybe two months. Subject: False positives with SEP and Teamviewer?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |