Patch

There is Microsoft's Legal terms and conditions for using Windows 10, prohibit blocking their spying and central control of code updates. It is clearly very important to their financial plans As I said, the code is fine, their legal T&C suck

Windows 8 then windows 10 is Microsoft monetizing their virtual monopoly. Windows 8 to buy into the tablet market Windows 10 to buy into the ad revenue / sale of personal data market, a margin on other companies software, and exclude competition. The program code is probably a step forward but the legal term and conditions are a massive and progressive step backwards.

Yep Fixed my system too. Although to be fair I have not retested ESET with Firefox v73.0 t see it ESET have fixed it at their end.

Doesn't work for me. I can readily restore my normal profile and that works fine but ESET appears to create another shadow profile which it uses for secure banking, indexed from the normal profile. Without updating restoring that to the pre Firefox upgrade version, Firefox objects each time I run secure banking and insists on creating a new profile

Same with Firefox 73.0 and ESET Internet security 13.0.24.0 Downgraded Firefox to 72.0.2 64b Firefox detects downgrade and forces creation on a new profile, (loosing all my bookmarks) Restored from backup C:\Users\UsersName\AppData\Roaming\Mozilla\ C:\Users\UsersName\AppData\Local\Mozilla Which mostly fixed the normal version of Firefox but not the profile for ESET Banking protection. Where is that stored?

It appears ESET have added new Windows update prerequisets https://help.eset.com/eis/13/en-US/outdated_os.html?status=&product=eis&version=13.0.24.0&osbuild=6.1.7601&platform=WINNT64 The details of that page varying depending on what Windows updates have been applied

What versions of firefox? I suspect the current firefox is corrupting keyboard / mouse input on one of my computers also. Started after upgrading firefox to the current version. But perhaps I will need to run Firefox is safe mode and do hardware testing prior to jumping to conclusions.

The same is happening for me running Windows 2 professional 64 bit ESET Internet security v 13.0.22.0 English (not sure how to tell if it is 64 or 32 bit) Edit: Although https://support.eset.com/en/which-eset-product-do-i-have-and-is-it-the-latest-version-home-users Says the latest version is 13.0.22.0

I'm upgrading a Windows sever 2012 64-bit Essentials (6.2.9200) domain controller virtual machine from a full installation of ESET file server v6.5.12007 -> v6.5.12017 Enabling program upgrades doesn't work as it reports v6.5.12007 is current. Running efsw_nt64_ENU.msi from the graphical user interface when logged on as a domain administrator doesn't work with this version due to the problem described above. Logging in as a domain administrator, opening a command prompt as an administrator, cd to the directory with the program update, and running msiexec appears to work, ho

I had a similar problem. Domain administrator account did not allow ESET upgrade, had to use a local administrator account. Not that convenient for the domain controller. Note: Windows sever 2012 64-bit, both Std and Essentials (6.2.9200). Fully patched ESET file server v6.5.12007 -> v6.5.12017

Same here on some computers running windows 7 professional 64 bit and ESET Smart security 9.0.402.0 I suppose it comes down to: how long is ESET software maintenance for each software version?

Try downloading the addon as a file, then double click on it to open in in Firefox / install it in Firefox

V9.0.402 is currently available only as a program update (uPCU). OK Will wait till offline version is available as I update several computers at a time

Results show: Exploit testing, ESET endpoint score much better than CylancePROTECT and a little better than Symantec Endpoint Protection In-the-wild malware protection appears to not be reported for ESET. Selective omission of test results I always find concerning or have I just missed it?

After further testing, it seams zones with IP addresses outside of the local network maybe the problem. ESET created local zones appear to function as expected. I didn't have any user created local zones so I haven't tested that functionality. The ESET setting migration code also converts IP ranges to subnets eg 192.168.1.12-192.168.1.30 is converted to 192.168.1.12/18 (or something similar, I forget the exact notation). Unfortunately the converted notation results in a non functional rule. Fortunately they can be edited back to the original notation which does work as expected.