SlashRose

Chciałbym zaproponować funkcję, która ułatwiłaby zarządzanie w programie ESET HOME. Mam na myśli możliwość zlecenia skanowania za pomocą ESET HOME lub przeglądania logów po skanowaniu po wykryciu zagrożenia. Ułatwiłoby to zarządzanie komputerami domowymi w rodzinie, np. jeśli mamy kilka komputerów i laptopów, łatwiej byłoby wydać kilka poleceń w ESET HOME w celu uruchomienia skanowania na komputerach dzieci lub innych członków rodziny. Brakuje mi możliwości głębszego zarządzania instalacjami poprzez platformę ESET HOME, może dałoby się coś takiego wprowadzić w jakimś pakiecie dla rodzin?
 
Machine translation:
I would like to suggest a feature that would make it easier to manage in ESET HOME. I mean the ability to order a scan via ESET HOME or view the post-scan logs when a threat is detected. This would make it easier to manage the home computers in the family, e.g. if we have several computers and laptops, it would be easier to issue a few commands in ESET HOME to run a scan on the computers of children or other family members. I miss the possibility of deeper installation management through the ESET HOME platform, maybe something like this could be introduced in a package for families?

Getting back to the green border or whatever other color is shown issue when secure all browsers option is selected, I suggest Eset do what Kapersky does in their B&PP feature titled Safe Pay. Just show an Eset desktop popup notification that the browser is running in B&PP mode which will fade away as do all popup notifications do.
It appears Kaspersky developers had the foresight to anticipate users don't like modification to the browser's display format.

I would but the replies here also indicate they like this feature. To be honest I hate the feature even if it worked properly and removed the green frame within seconds (again mine doesn't go away and I get yellow and red frames).
For me it is simple, I don't want any borders ever. Even appearing for a few seconds is annoying because again, I have to capture my screen for work so there are many times when I will be recording my screen and then need to load browser fresh, then green frame appears lol even if it goes away it ruins my work and recording and adds more work for me. 
I've had this software for 5 years and it has functioned nicely in the background as it should. Now it is appearing on screen and I cannot get rid of it. I could reinstall and upload logs but that will not fix my issue as this is a design flaw for me and I'm sure many, many others, just no one wants to be bothered to do the work to create an account and come post here.
Anyways I've said what I needed to, I will check back in a month because my subscription runs into early next year and I can reinstall if this border frame feature is fully removed or full remove toggle is added. Otherwise I'll just look into a new solution after 1 month.

I uninstalled the software because I can't have borders for my work. Just being honest, based on the admin replies it seems like the feature is running as you guys intend and you do not see any issues. I have unfortunately invested too much time into trying to fix this, I feel as though a lot of the things I've said in my messages have been essentially ignored. I wish you guys the best of luck but I'm going to find another solution. I never create accounts to bring up issues, I only made this one because I've enjoyed Eset for 7 years now and was hoping I could get a better response. Again, wish you guys the best.

I will add to what marcos has put above  by adding over the years, new features have been introduced e.g. ransomware protection, network device monitoring and just with the new version 15, ransomware shield.
I have seen other AVs in the past change their UI each year and sometimes it felt like a way to hide there wasn't much new. While I always like to try new versions and see changes, changing the UI just because makes no sense. If it is for making things easier then fine but just to change the look could cause more issues. I'd much rather see Eset add more features over changing the interface 

I will check back in 2 years to see how ESET developed, while using another solution in the meantime.

I'm very concerned about that you said this in 2016 and to date it has not been included in the ESET product for consumers. 

Rather from a third party provider, they are usually better.

That's my talk all the time, especially since the bug has been around for a few builds!

If the information is not showing up, the eset product must have a BUG. developers have to fix it.

Here's a simpler "fix" Eset can implement.
Here's a domain, https://imgur.com/ , that Eset CRL checking goes spastic on since it is using a cert. that chains to the DigiCert Intermediate cert. noted in my above posted entry. It also happens this domain is excluded from Eset SSL/TLS protocol scanning via internal whitelist.
What happens if this domain is not excluded from Eset SSL/TLS protocol scanning? Eset does not go spastic when performing CRL validation processing and no Eset Service memory spiking occurs. Why? Because Eset has directly chained the web site cert. to its root cert. eliminating the troublesome DigiCert Intermediate CA cert.. and is using its own cert. for CRL checking.
Therefore all Eset has to do is exclude from Eset SSL/TLS protocol scanning via internal whitelisting any web site using the troublesome DigiCert Intermediate CA certs..

Just like last time, as if by magic Live Grid goes again, I knew why I didn't uninstall it!

1- Now let's wait for the correction by which of the two companies? Eset or Aduard?
2- Probably one will tell the other that the problem is with her. That's the end user who gets screwed.

I like to do manual updates.
I avoid several updates that come with problems.

Unfortunately, I am not one of the users who have a problem every long time, or they may not face problems at all due to the nature of their work or use, as for me, I can send dozens of reports daily, also the nature of my work is different from any traditional home user.
And of course opening a support ticket for each problem is not effective at all, even sending reports related to suspicious and malicious samples/urls etc. Via samples[at]eset.com, it didn't work due to the very slow response, and this basically prompted me to deal directly with Marcos .

@Nightowl I appreciate your opinion and your words a lot but I am looking for the most effective way either for my own benefit or for the benefit of everyone here, of course I know that eset will not be affected by my stopping using their products or even stopping helping with my reports, but I tried to do my best to help, and I find my efforts unwelcome anymore, why should I stay and go on with it ?

eset is not the only option for protection, without which I will not be able to protect my device !, as for the protection of my personal device, today I received my Kaspersky license. As for eset, I actually wished to continue with them, but it will not work that way, unfortunately.
As for @Marcos, I hope that you will accept my apology, believe me, I did not mean any inconvenience through direct communication with you, I was just looking for the fastest and most effective way, I apologize .

Looks like there is a problem with Eset memory usage.
I just checked mine in PE and its showing 368 MB Working Set and 229 MB real memory usage. Previously, I never saw real memory usage exceed 50 MB memory usage.

I'm at a loss Itman, have two connections, once at Telekom and once at Vodafone and with both providers It doesn't work, really don't know what else I can do there, I think that Eset might have to become active!

The primary purpose of the AV-C Malware Protection test is to determine how AV solutions perform when malware tampers with the installation's network settings; primarily those dealing with Internet access. AV-C deploys a larger malware sample set but the malware is in the known prevalent category.

https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/malware-protection-test-september-2021/
The problem with this test is it doesn't show offline protection capability. Therefore, no way to ascertain the cloud protection component impact.
-EDIT- Of note is EIS scored second from last place in this test; missing 18 out of 10,029 sample malware.
One could argue that is a respectable score. However, this was not 0-day malware. Rather, it was malware that had been in circulation for a while. Therefore, one could also argue Eset's signature detection ability is slipping of late. This is also strong justification that LiveGuard needs to be included in all Eset home versions.

Kaspersky is one example and it has proven quite effective against 0-day ransomware. By coupling ransomware behavior monitoring with system snapshot taking, Kaspersky is capable of restoring all files encrypted by ransomware.
Also, Kaspersky is not 100% bulletproof in this regard. I have seen a few ransomware that have bypassed its protections. However, they are a very rare occurrence.
It should be additionally noted that it appears Kaspersky has "worked out the kinks" in regards to previous versions system performance impact issues in regards to its system snapshot processing. System snapshot also gives Kaspersky the capability to "rollback" system modifications done by malware. Of note and in reference to postings in the forum Malware section, Eset might detect malware upon execution. However it is powerless to remove system changes performed by the malware prior to discovery. Those changes have to be manually removed.

This is the issue i have. I'm a fan of Eset but it seems other AVs are looking at extra features.
For example some AVs have a protected folder feature that could protect user files if infected by ransomware e.g. certain documents that the user rated important and/or critical. Notice my use of the word "could" as nothing is every bulletproof but ESET's answer to this seems to be it could theoretically be bypassed so why bother. I mean to me an AV could theoretically be bypassed so why bother?
To me even if something is not 100 percent guaranteed as @itmanmentioned in regards to the ransomware rollback features of Kaspersky (and what ever can be truly 100 percent), surely if they are generally reliable as in they work in most cases, then it worth it. I feel it's better to have that extra layer and extra options and customers will also favour the options.
At the end of the day marketing also plays a crucial role in AV sales and if an AV is offering more features that users want and at a cheaper or even free price then they will go for that AV. As I mentioned in the feedback post I have to plan to leave Eset and hope this doesn't appear to be a threat as it isn't. As someone who tests Beta versions of Eset and helps where I can (although my knowledge is basic) I just want Eset to be the best it can and to grow. I sadly however do feel Eset is holding itself back, possibly scared how to implant some features to avoid complicating users who don't have any knowledge and would be afraid of an alert asking the user to make a decision.

I think you are the one who should have an explanation for that !!

Normally I use IDM mainly for downloads but the ps1 files are downloaded by the browser which was here Chrome, knowing that the zip file mentioned in the same example was downloaded by IDM. 

for me I think I did my part to give you feedback about a LiveGuard issue , you are free to investigate, or just say, "I have no clue", You could at least repeat what I did here then you'll have a clue !!
I've done enough so far. I gave a working example of two files, one downloaded from the Internet as a ps1 file and the other as a password-protected zip file, and explained what happened with both.

We wouldn't have had this discussion until now if it was so important to eset, an investigation would have started by the developers a few days ago.

It is a pity that eset offers the LiveGuard feature at such a cost and that they do not have enough time to try and verify the problem, you do not care about the matter in the first place, see you reply to me days after I posted the problem and just say “I have no clue”.

Since I haven't commented on this point, I will now and "it's a no brainer."
In ESSP, there should be no LiveGrid submissions period. If Eset feels the file is suspicious enough to warrant a LiveGrid upload, it should be sending the executable to LiveGuard instead and blocking it until verdict rendered. This also would provide a backup mechanism for a missed LiveGuard submission upon initial file download.
-EDIT- Just read in Eset ETDT documentation that if one is receiving a LiveGrid submission versus LiveGuard submission, it means that the file was previously submitted to LiveGuard.
Looks like my test.exe is indeed a LiveGuard bypass.👍

Great analysis, based on this I'm thinking that the cost charged to have LiveGuard is not worth it. better stick with the EIS. since we are paying a high amount for nothing. or Kaspersky's Cloud solution, has the best result.

Since there were some questions about Eset local real-time processing scanning my test.exe in regards to my original posting I started this thread with, I retested using the following procedure:
1. I disabled Eset real-time scanning for my test.exe file by adding an exclusion for it.
2. I modified my test.exe using PowerShell to add some code to the end of the file resulting in the file hash being changed.
3. I uploaded the test.exe to a file sharing web site.
4. I removed the prior created Eset real-time scanning exclusion for the test.exe file along with deleting the file from my hard disk.
5. I downloaded the test.exe file from the file sharing web site. No LiveGuard submission occurred.
6. When I ran the downloaded test.exe, I received notification the file had been submitted by LiveGrid for Eset AV lab analysis and the process executed successfully.
Therefore, I conclude that something else within Eset is triggering an upload to LiveGuard and unknown files are not being submitted as stated by Eset. Or, my .exe as created bypassed LiveGuard processing.

I confirm it, as shown in the attached screenshot.
 
But at the same time I strongly object to this, in my view you shouldn't say triviality of the batch is the reason or justification, I come to eset from the background of using Kaspersky for more than 5 years and I have never met a single case detection was not generated no matter what kind of threat, it is worth mentioning "As shown in the second screenshot" Kaspersky from day one created automatic detection for this file which Marcos justified that eset did not create automatic detection for it because of the triviality of the batch !! .
I apologize, but I am not convinced by such justifications. A threat is a threat, no matter how simple or trivial the threat is !.
This is just a quick reply, without deviating from the main topic.