
Patch
Members-
Content Count
43 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Profile Information
-
Location
Australia
Recent Profile Visitors
1,034 profile views
-
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.
-
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?
-
Undetectable Virus
Patch replied to tjg79's topic in ESET Internet Security & ESET Smart Security Premium
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
-
Eset File Security update wont work
Patch replied to DougBrooks's topic in ESET Products for Windows Servers
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 -
Eset File Security update wont work
Patch replied to DougBrooks's topic in ESET Products for Windows Servers
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 -
adding a deregulation for firefox
Patch replied to Veltins's topic in ESET Internet Security & ESET Smart Security Premium
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
-
ESET firewall v8 to V9 migration
Patch replied to Patch's topic in ESET Internet Security & ESET Smart Security Premium
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.