Jump to content

Zuc

Members
  • Posts

    3
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Zuc

  • Rank
    Newbie
    Newbie

Profile Information

  • Location
    Italy
  1. Thanks for reiterating exactly my points: it's good to know I'm not the only one feeling this way. Not sure this is related to the current thread in any way (which, btw, limits the visibility of your post, which does include useful information)... But thanks anyways.
  2. Hi, thank you for taking the time to reply: it's nice to see the community being managed by someone willing to reply to criticism, even when it is expressed in a moment of extreme frustration and may therefore be quite harsh. As for your answers, > 1, As for the "Custom rule" button, I've asked devs why it was removed. I'm almost sure it's not possible to open the rules setup > window due to the new configuration engine but let's see what the devs say. I don't understand why it wouldn't be possible: I believe if the configuration engine allows to create a simple rule it should also allow the creation of a complex one by taking more parameters through an intermediate window... Anyways, I am awaiting the devs' reply. > As for HIPS, even v8 had an option "Temporarily remember this action for this process". Ticking that box allowed only the particular action until the application quit. > So even v8 or older versions didn't temporarily allow all operations for a particular process. In the interactive mode popup for HIPS, which is very similar to the interactive mode popup for Firewall, the application, operation type and target process/file are all indipendently selectable through a checkbox: I assume that, if I only select the application but not the operation, HIPS should allow any operation by that application (same way it works for the firewall: if I select the protocol by ticking its checkbox, but not - for example - the destination IP, communication is allowed for that process via the selected protocol for any destination IP). If that is not the case, I don't understand why and it is counterintuitive for sure (why allowing to select items when you're not taking the selection into consideration?) > You wrote that you are missing a feature for sorting rules by various columns. > However, since v9+ evaluates rules in the order they appear in the list, sorting would also change the order in which they are evaluated. That is EXACTLY the problem: there is no difference between the way rules are shown and the order in which they are executed, which is a major step back compared to the previous UI. You could very well have the rules displayed in order of application (by using a "Priority" value as default order column) but at the same time allow users to reorder the rules based on any other column while maintaining the execution order unchanged. Several hardware firewall interfaces allow that very easily (I'm talking Watchguard and Cisco dedicated clients, and Fortinet even in its web-based interface if memory doesn't fail me). In the end, it's just a list of items, the rule processing engine is (or can/should be) decoupled from the UI component that shows the rule themselves... Finally, I am eagerly awaiting the much needed improvements to the firewall rule editor. I've been a loyal ESET client since ESET was the first software house to offer a top tier, natively 64bit antivirus and firewall solution for Windows 7, and I always appreciated its reliability and the power and simplicity of its UI: I would be sad if I had to go back to Kaspersky... Thank you.
  3. Hello, I upgraded to ESET 9.x a couple of months ago. I immediately found that the new interface presents some serious usability issues, but I waited patiently for following updates to fiss this mess. Unfortunately, in recent Software updates, nothing changed on this front, so I decided to create a user account for this forum to ask whether it is planned to fix at least the most annoying issues, or if this is the "new course" ESET is willing to pursue, in which case I will decide on my next renewal accordingly. The issues - mainly tied just to (very poor) UI design - are the following 1) the Interactive Mode popup is mostly useless: - there is no longer the possibility to "Create a custom rule" from said popup: you only decide to create an Allow or Deny "Create a rule and remember permanently" with the selected options - the "Remember until application quits" option when HIPS popups show up is utterly useless: especially during windows updates, the SAME executable spawns tens of popups one after the other, even if the options selected along with the "Remember until application quits" should basically whitelist that executable for anything it could attempt until it closes (and no, I do not want to create a permanent rule for an executable which will only run ONCE, as my rule list would get incredibly long and cluttered for no good reason) 2) the Rules editor in the Personal Firewall advanced setup has suffered a heavy blow in the last edition of the UI: while I can understand (and appreciate) the possibility of showing rules in order of execution, I permanently lost the possibility to group rules by application, and - even more shocking - there is no way to display the list of rules ordered by any other column! Why on Earth can't I just click on the "Application" or the "Protocol" column to change the order the rules are displayed (not executed) is beyond me... This makes it very difficult (and incredibly annoying) to manage different rules for the same application, especially if those rules were created at different times and end up being all over the place... (yes, I know there is a very cumbersome filter funcion on the top-right, but it's nowhere near as useful as it should be) The previous UI was working way, way, way better, and (even if this is subjective) it was also clearer to read... this one, with its ample white spaces and its low-contrast grays, and the general lack of icons, hinders way more than it helps, and this is clearly a sign something is seriously wrong with it... If this is the new look you want ESET applications to have, I can adapt, but at least don't strip away functionalities when you make these changes (especially if there is no good reason to do that). Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...