cemlsp.dll faulting - Outlook faulting and crashing

[Guest]

[mafk6n9i]

I am running Outlook on 32 bit xp pro, and SecureEmail in LSP mode.  I use Eset Nod 32.

I am getting frequent crashes of Outlook, and the following message that suggests that cemlsp.dll, which I gather is part of SecureEmail, is implicated.  Can anybody shed any light, please?

Event Source:   Microsoft Office 12
Event Category:   None
Event ID:   1000
Date:      08/09/2011
Time:      16:53:35
User:      N/A
Computer:   TOM-I7
Description:
Faulting application outlook.exe, version 12.0.6557.5001, stamp 4db1d555, faulting module cemlsp.dll, version 1.1.0.52, stamp 4b7d04fa, debug? 0, fault address 0x00053600.

For more information, see Help and Support Center at http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/events.asp.
Data:
0000: 41 00 70 00 70 00 6c 00   A.p.p.l.
0008: 69 00 63 00 61 00 74 00   i.c.a.t.
0010: 69 00 6f 00 6e 00 20 00   i.o.n. .
0018: 46 00 61 00 69 00 6c 00   F.a.i.l.
0020: 75 00 72 00 65 00 20 00   u.r.e. .
0028: 20 00 6f 00 75 00 74 00    .o.u.t.
0030: 6c 00 6f 00 6f 00 6b 00   l.o.o.k.
0038: 2e 00 65 00 78 00 65 00   ..e.x.e.
0040: 20 00 31 00 32 00 2e 00    .1.2...
0048: 30 00 2e 00 36 00 35 00   0...6.5.
0050: 35 00 37 00 2e 00 35 00   5.7...5.
0058: 30 00 30 00 31 00 20 00   0.0.1. .
0060: 34 00 64 00 62 00 31 00   4.d.b.1.
0068: 64 00 35 00 35 00 35 00   d.5.5.5.
0070: 20 00 69 00 6e 00 20 00    .i.n. .
0078: 63 00 65 00 6d 00 6c 00   c.e.m.l.
0080: 73 00 70 00 2e 00 64 00   s.p...d.
0088: 6c 00 6c 00 20 00 31 00   l.l. .1.
0090: 2e 00 31 00 2e 00 30 00   ..1...0.
0098: 2e 00 35 00 32 00 20 00   ..5.2. .
00a0: 34 00 62 00 37 00 64 00   4.b.7.d.
00a8: 30 00 34 00 66 00 61 00   0.4.f.a.
00b0: 20 00 66 00 44 00 65 00    .f.D.e.
00b8: 62 00 75 00 67 00 20 00   b.u.g. .
00c0: 30 00 20 00 61 00 74 00   0. .a.t.
00c8: 20 00 6f 00 66 00 66 00    .o.f.f.
00d0: 73 00 65 00 74 00 20 00   s.e.t. .
00d8: 30 00 30 00 30 00 35 00   0.0.0.5.
00e0: 33 00 36 00 30 00 30 00   3.6.0.0.
00e8: 0d 00 0a 00               ....   

[Shane]

Hi mafk6n9i,

Unfortunately..............

https://forums.comodo.com/news-announcements-feedback-cse/notice-of-discontinuation-of-development-and-support-t75933.0.html

Shane.

[mafk6n9i]

A tragic loss.  There is so little choice in this most important area.

[mouse1]

I have the same setup (OS, Outlook) apart from ESET.

So I'd guess that ESET is the problem. Try making
a) all of the files in the CSE directory trusted by ESET
b) disabling ESET antispam completely

I'm assuming you are not using CAS (Comodo Antispam) which is known to cause this problem.

And rebooting.

IF ESET antispam is the problem then, presuning ESET uses an LSP, you probably need to chain the LSPs I'll try to help if this turns out to be the issue.


Best wishes

Mouse

[mouse1]

I have the same setup (OS, Outlook) apart from ESET.

So I'd guess that ESET is the problem. Try making
a) all of the files in the CSE directory trusted by ESET
b) disabling ESET antispam completely

I'm assuming you are not using CAS (Comodo Antispam) which is known to cause this problem.

And rebooting.

IF ESET antispam is the problem then, presuning ESET uses an LSP, you probably need to chain the LSPs I'll try to help if this turns out to be the issue.


Best wishes

Mouse

Alternatively use the plug-in version. Which worked fine for me so long as Word was not set as my email editor in OL 2003 (Outlook default in 2003 is NOT).

(If you are still experimenting that is!)

Mouse

[mafk6n9i]

The plug in is no use to me because it results in the email being encrypted and decrypted by Outlook, as a result of which some of the functionality of Outlook is lost.  In particular, the preview and search functions, and I am told by MS that if there are encrypted or digitally signed emails in the personal folder the archive function will not work properly, although my own experiments suggest that this is at least not always the case, and that there are other problems with the archive function.  Also, if the emails are not decrypted before they get to the email client, and sent from the email client unencrypted, you will have to store expired private certificates indefinitely if you wish to be able to read your email indefinitely.  The central reason for my using a 3rd party program is to have the proxy doing the encryption and decryption.  An effective diffusion path, to use your concept, or more particularly a simple safe and reliable way to get the uninitiated correspondent up and running so that he can reply with encryption, would be very nice, but it seems that no one has yet invented one that actually achieves its goal.

[mouse1]

The plug in is no use to me because it results in the email being encrypted and decrypted by Outlook, as a result of which some of the functionality of Outlook is lost.  In particular, the preview and search functions, and I am told by MS that if there are encrypted or digitally signed emails in the personal folder the archive function will not work properly, although my own experiments suggest that this is at least not always the case, and that there are other problems with the archive function.  Also, if the emails are not decrypted before they get to the email client, and sent from the email client unencrypted, you will have to store expired private certificates indefinitely if you wish to be able to read your email indefinitely.  The central reason for my using a 3rd party program is to have the proxy doing the encryption and decryption.  An effective diffusion path, to use your concept, or more particularly a simple safe and reliable way to get the uninitiated correspondent up and running so that he can reply with encryption, would be very nice, but it seems that no one has yet invented one that actually achieves its goal.

Re encryption and Outlook. My impression when using was that it [the Plugin] *did* de-encrypt before it placed the email in your inbox. So indexing should not be affected. I could be wrong as I did not explicitly test it.

RE diffusion. Comodo was so close to achieving this that it is really frustrating. There were two to three simple failures in my view:

• Certificate application and installation was not fully automated - & did not work in any browser other than IE. On-the-fly (no reboot, no difficult questions, just confirmation requests) app installation would have been good, too.
• Emails sent unencrypted did not (by default) have a signature link to a page that allowed the receiver to initiate encrypted communication in one click. (Those sent one time encrypted did, but this was not the default setting.) Nor was there a way of the sender sending a standard 'invitation to encrypted coms' email - maybe this is just a paste standard phrase button
• There was no simple reassuring explanation of what was going to happen and how you could control it anywhere. Nothing to say how to tell whether an email has actually been sent or received encrypted either - probably just a log would do
• There was probably some lack of control on a per recipient basis. My guess is that a) by default emails should be sent unencrypted, and you should be able to state for a contact that you either want to send encrypted or want to be asked every time you send an email

Only the last one has any complexity in it.

Probably a few other minor bits and pieces if you studied the feedback loop carefully.

To get diffusing you need to a) make it easy b) make it reassuring at every stage.

Best wishes

Mouse

[mafk6n9i]

That all seems about right to me.  And pgp is not a solution really because it is nowhere near being 'diffusable'.  However, I did test the plugin, and found when using the plug-in that email was encrypted and decrypted by Outlook, so that it was all stored in the email client encrypted on the private key, with the loss of functionality that goes with that.

For the time being, sending encrypted information is most easily done in my experience using encrypted pdf files, and PdfPostman by Encryptomatic utilises that.  However, using an encrypted pdf does not enable the correspondent to reply with encryption, and increases the risk of indiscretion in any reply.

One general danger in all of this is the risk of the correspondent replying unencrypted in a way that includes the information that you wanted to protect.  At least the MS soltuion in Outlook defaults to encryption of the reply.

You may like to watch Firetrust's development of EncryptUs, in which they are trying to achieve what we are all looking for.  They say that the first version should be released very soon, but they have been saying that for some time.  I expect that we shall see it eventually.

I tend to think that Outlook's solution would be fine if only it allowed the user to elect to have the email in unencrypted form in the email client, or at least restored the functions that are lost to Outlook in respect of encrypted email.  It should not be too hard to get a correspondent to instal a certificate.

[mouse1]

Re encryption and Outlook. My impression when using was that it [the Plugin] *did* de-encrypt before it placed the email in your inbox. So indexing should not be affected. I could be wrong as I did not explicitly test it.

Thanks. Did you check the above?

You may need to tick an option somewhere.

Don't have the plugin installed ATM, but I can if you wish me to check.

It is easy to switch between the two running the installer (there's an explicit option) and rebooting.

Mouse

[mafk6n9i]

Yes - see my first paragraph.  By all means check it, but I thought I had the answer.  I no longer have se installed.

I cannot get the post to take when replying to your other post, so I will copy my reply here:

I thought it was nearly there too, though I never investigated the diffusion side - I tried sending an unencrypted email to one of my alternative addresses that does not have a certificate installed, with the relevant setting selected for encryption of such email, to see if the online encryption stuff worked, but had a problem - I forget exactly what it was -  but I wondered whether it might be due to the fact that I was trying to read the email from the same computer as sent the email.

I have taken a brief look at the guide, but am very short of time at present and it would take a good day's work to redraft it.  Perhaps I could take a look at it if Melih decides to resume development of the program.  Also, I am still having major problems with posting - its a waste of time having to post over and over again before it takes.

[mouse1]

Yes - see my first paragraph.  By all means check it, but I thought I had the answer.  I no longer have se installed.

Sorry missed that.

Wish we could solve your forum problems

Have you tried an alternative browser? Sees almost like a short browser timeout.

Mouse

[mouse1]

Yes - see my first paragraph.  By all means check it, but I thought I had the answer.  I no longer have se installed.

I cannot get the post to take when replying to your other post, so I will copy my reply here:

I thought it was nearly there too, though I never investigated the diffusion side - I tried sending an unencrypted email to one of my alternative addresses that does not have a certificate installed, with the relevant setting selected for encryption of such email, to see if the online encryption stuff worked, but had a problem - I forget exactly what it was -  but I wondered whether it might be due to the fact that I was trying to read the email from the same computer as sent the email.

I have taken a brief look at the guide, but am very short of time at present and it would take a good day's work to redraft it.  Perhaps I could take a look at it if Melih decides to resume development of the program.  Also, I am still having major problems with posting - its a waste of time having to post over and over again before it takes.

I have checked this and I think if you create a custom policy you can ask CSE to decrypt on download into Outlook.

The option is 'automatically decrypt incoming emails'. I think it's also available as a decryption variant (decryption button in security settings) of the default policy.

From the description in the documentation this will force CSE to take responsibility for decryption.

Whether it actually works on not I have not validated..... But I was certainly under the impression that it was working when I was using the plugin

[mafk6n9i]

Thanks.  I should be interested if you can set it up with the outlook plug in and so that both sent and received email are stored unencrypted by the email client, but of course verification that it actually does so is of the essence.

[mouse1]

Thanks.  I should be interested if you can set it up with the outlook plug in and so that both sent and received email are stored unencrypted by the email client, but of course verification that it actually does so is of the essence.

I can confirm this. As part of checking is I have discovered in Outlook 2003 that the way you tell is to add a column of 'message class' to your email folder. Encrypted emails have class IPM.Note.SMIME*. Unencrypted have class just IPM.Note.

Best wishes

Mouse

[mafk6n9i]

Thanks.  If I install SE again, I will try the plugin and the automatically decrypt setting (is that the one that you are referring to as achieving the desired result?), although I thought I had fully explored that option.  Let's hope that Comodo decide to resume with SE, since there is not much else to replace it.  I doubt whether pgp will suffice, since it messed up my system when I last tried it.

If support is resumed and Comodo get it working again, I should be most grateful if you would let me know.

[Tags:]