Jump to content

jdashn

Members
  • Content Count

    97
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jdashn

  1. I am guessing there are parts of what is in pre-release that are more complex to test, and could have further reaching impact than the exclusion of a port for scanning. Which would be why they've not released this 'fix' as it's a part of a larger update package, that is still being tested. I wonder, though, if this piece could be released to the general codebase, before the testing on the rest of the 'update' is completed. I would guess that you're just going to be doing the exclusion of the ports for scanning on the back end, so pretty simple to test and know is working. Is this maybe one of those cases where Dev and Testing don't know that this part of the update is turning away home use customers, and causing a lot of consternation among the client base (likely a TON more than what you see here, we all know in support you only ever get 1% of complaints via forums, or email -- easier to buy a new product than complain). Heck maybe if Dev and Testing knew they'd be able to put this available for release, but I can't see that with a fully functional forum like this that the moderators here aren't regularly working with dev/test and letting them know of the daily buzz on the forums (heck a few might even have accounts and read?). I'd imagine that releasing a portion of an Update is relatively simple, seeing as how everything has been made more modular with eset, but honestly I dont know how development works here, could be that to uncouple this update from others would mean far more work and delays in other areas. Could be that a large enterprise customer is asking for a feature, and that has been fast-tracked, and other projects have to wait. I guess really what i'm saying is that who knows why it's taking so long, yes it could be that they're waiting to click that button for no 'good reason' aside from 'thats how we do it' .. or it's a lot more complex than the minimal information that we get via the forums would lead us to believe.
  2. And just to be sure i'm not missing something, there is no way to install Eset AV or Security on a Windows Server OS? No eset web control possible on a windows Server OS, right? Sorry again to pester! Thank you, Jdashn
  3. Does ESET have any suggested applications that would provide this service? (guessing not?) Or plans to add the webcontrol feature to the Windows server protection applications sometime soon? (If not could this be put forward as a feature request?) Thanks!! Jdashn
  4. Sorry to be a pain, but i want to be sure i understand before applying this to (for example) a domain controller. If i implement the logging as you've got the example above: If I browse to a website that ESET in the past has found malware on, and blocks for me, this would be allowed If i browse to a website that has active malware on it, eset should find, and block this (given that it's something that it knows about and regularly blocks anyway, IE not new). So i'm guessing that if i want to have a secure domain controller (one that would be more likely to block a website that could be malicious), and log web activity that happens on that domain controller you're suggesting that i may want to look to another way of logging web activity outside of ESET?
  5. Awesome! Thanks for the warning, and the help!! I had guessed that putting * in under allowed sites, could start logging, but was unsure if that would then mean that i was allowing malicious sites? I'm guessing no? Thanks again!!! Jdashn
  6. @Marcos Thanks a ton for the reply!! These would be application servers, DB servers, Domain controllers - none of which should actually be regularly using the web. So web traffic should be in 0 pages per day range. Not a machine people SHOULD be using for web activity, so i'd guess the logs would actually be very small? (or would this be logging more than i'm thinking?) I dont want to fully block, as you never know what emergency would crop up - But obviously i'd like to monitor and make sure that we're alerted to those situations, and can ask for justification (lets say if we saw someone browsing their hotmail account on a domain controller). Even if the data would just get logged locally, and i could grab the logs regularly and parse them outside of ESMC, i was just thinking that ESET would be the best tool for this job, since it should be monitoring all that traffic anyway. Also, this is in relation to Eset File Security (v7.X) , i think that 'Web Control' rules are only available in the 'Endpoint' products, not the server products-- unless i'm missing something? Thanks Jdashn
  7. I feel like i've seen the answer to this question in the past, but have had no luck in finding the answers. Is there a way in ESET File Security to log all web history? (Blocked + Allowed?) Unfortunately i've got a server where a regular user has Administrative access and i'd like to see if i can utilize ESET to log all web traffic on this machine. Thanks!! Jdashn
  8. Awesome! Thanks, suppose that's what I get for reading an article a few days old. In the future, if I, or more often my boss sees one of these articles with a threat named is there an easy resource i can use (and i can point my boss to) to provide the information you've provided me? It'd be great the next time XYZ threat comes along in the news, i can at least say no worries eset has us covered.. see! Thanks again!! Jdashn
  9. The article i just read on it said no one is currently detecting? Any thoughts on when it might be? https://thehackernews.com/2019/07/linux-gnome-spyware.html Jdashn
  10. @itman thats only for the webserver built into PHP (that is designed for app dev, and shouldn't be forwarded to the net), not PHP it's self, right?
  11. @MichalJ I had thought I had seen a post stating that the next version of ERA was planned to be fully cloud based. This will not work for our org. due to the issues I had mentioned, as long as ESET does not plan on ONLY offering ERA in the cloud then we've got no concerns. Thanks! Jdashn
  12. Description: ERA Accessible without internet access. Detail: Would like to ensure that the newest versions of ERA will still allow a locally installed product that would not become unusable if internet access were lost. If our internet provider were having issues i would still like to be able to manage ESET products within our local network, receive threat notices, manage connected devices, etc.
×
×
  • Create New...