novice

I do not understand the term "cleaning" If a file is altered by a virus, an antivirus performing "cleaning" would try to remove the "virus" part from the file , but preserve the file itself. This is called cleaning. On the other hand if a file is altered by a virus, an antivirus can simply delete the whole file or quarantine the whole file. So, which one is which????

There are three options: No cleaning Normal Cleaning Strictly cleaning Which one will automatically quarantine a detected item?? I just want to quarantine, to review later and decide.

Hi Mohammadreza, You can clearly see that every body here is guessing: try this, try that, "Malwarebytes cant helps you because it is not strong" said another "contributor" If the damage is beyond recovery , for your peace of mind reinstall Windows, make an image for future and start clean.

If I add a license bought retail on License Manager, will be activated automatically? I do not need to activate any license now, I just want to deposit it there.

https://support.eset.com/kb6119/?viewlocale=en_US If I create these HIPS rules in NOD 32 Antivirus v11 , is there any added benefit in protecting against ransomwares??? Thanks!

I followed (recently) most of the posts of 0xDEADBEEF (thank you for your contribution) It seems like, in spite of its sophistication, ESET is always behind in detecting new malwares, at least 2-3 days, compared with other major players. This one, for example: Reported, and yet detected as "a variant of Generik.ZFIODR". My understanding about "generic" detection is that this kind of detection is generated by a non signatures mechanism (HIPS, behavior blocker) and hence should be somehow instantaneous (not after 3 days) In fact, after 3 days should be a signature already. But, of course I may be wrong in my assumptions.

This seems to be the new normal for ESET: add the definitions days after all other major players...

It is not about "the last version" , which is always supposed to, miraculously , solve all problems; is about consistency. I had v8, v9, v10 , all noticeable slow on 3 pc's , so I gave up. Who can deal with a slow version, expecting that one day v.10.123.456.01 will fix the problem????

I do not know, was the latest 10 a month ago when I tried it again.

Yes, version 8 is some slow ( 0.5-0.7sec in browsing) while version 10 is very slow (1.5sec in browsing)

Maybe fast (not on my PC) , but performance wise not so good yet;

When I downloaded and installed CCleaner for my Win7 / 64 PC , in installation folder the 32 bit version was present and deleted by MSE. I do not think the 32bit version ever ran or got installed.

That I understand, but how do you figure out that a HIPS alert is malicious or not?

How exactly do you use HIPS for this detection?

I am pretty sure that some other antiviruses need to " comply with Microsoft's conditions in terms of performance on startup and in order to receive certification" but I did not see this behavior with them.

You cannot be serious recommended Xvirus to run along ESET. Is like recommended Tylenol with Amoxicillin...

Can I also get the instructions, please? Thanks!

see here: "Kaspersky Lab took hold of this opportunity to develop the world's first UEFI-compliant antimalware product...." https://media.kaspersky.com/en/business-security/Threats_to_UEFI.pdf

So ESET advised you to " download and run 'ADWCleaner' from Malwarebytes" ????? Asking you to run somebody's else software to fix their own problems....doesn't seem very encouraging.

It is a rules based firewall with basic HIPS, other than compatibility issues, what is to be "supported"? Isn't the job of the antimalware to protect against "current network threats"????

Thank you for your answer! I am using MSE + PC Tools Firewall Plus on a Win7/64. I had for years NOD 32 installed on my PC and my wife's PC, never found anything in "Quarantine". I still have one active license and one spare for NOD 32v , but v10 is heavy on my computers (compared with v8) , and , even though ESET should offer better protection than MSE , however on all AV Comparatives test in the last year , MSE performed better than ESET. So, why bother?

Hi, you may be right, but in 100% of the situations when a "simulator" is not being detected by an antivirus, the typical answer is "the simulator did not have a malicious activity , and that's why has not been detected"....

Hi, I have been using MSE 4.10 for a while and, again, never got infected, so "not being infected" is not a measure of "effectiveness" of your antivirus solution.

I asked myself the same question..... Why not a simple AV , like MSE? Is free, you do not have to set up anything and has a detection rate of 99.4% , compared with ESET (paid) 99.1% (consistent over 6 months period) hxxp://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php

I do not get it : why do I have to use a free product (Anti-Ransomware free edition) to work with a paid product (ESET) which has a dedicated antiransomware module in the last version (ver10)?