doctor-z

Could you please elaborate more on this? What makes ESET unreliable? Your Internet Security solution has made me a lot of problems. One of them was the block of svchost.exe without giving me the opportunity to allow it connect with the net. I opened a thread here in this forum and the only thing that I got was some ironic comments. No serious solutions were given and I was forced to format my pc in order to solve my problem. This cost me enough money. And this problem with the upate process is not new. In the past one or two more times I noticed that it was not upgrading and I had to install the new version manually. And other problems with internet connection and more that none could solve and I didn't know what to do, and I lost more money because the computer was in a technician hands and not mine to work. That's why you are unreliable. I want a software that will not be a headache. In my age of 55 I do not have the time and the appetite to deal with an application like NOD. Sorry, but I cannot. Be good. Bye.

Thanks a lot for your answers. What I get is ESET, for one more time, seems unreliable in my eyes. One point down for ESET. In a month my home lic expires, so do my company's machines. I will have to find a better utility.

I have Smart Security 7.0.302.29 and every time I press the "Check for updates" button it says that it updated. Everyone know that the latest version is 7.0.317.4. Why does it do this? Virus signature database is getting updated without problems but the latest program version is not visible? Why?

Thanx a lot for your words. They are really helpful. I just wanted to say that NOD can be better than it is. Obviously some people is not sharing the same perceptions with me. I am really-really sorry about my topic. I should write nothing. Please delete my topic.

I am afraid we do not communicate correctly. I have a 4-core cpu in my system at home. When I scan my computer for threats, NOD uses ONLY ONE core. I am wondering…… I have 3 more cores waiting for a job to do….. I paid to buy the program, it is NOT freeware…….. so, as I customer I have demands…… and I would like to see all cores scanning my drives…. not just ONE. It could save my time as I do not have the luxury of waiting… and waiting….. and waiting for hours…. for scanning to end. If the programs are unable to use all of my cores then I do not see the need to buy/have a cpu with more than two cores, one for the OS and one for the running program that needs cpu cycles. I never scan separate files manually. I do a full system scan. In this scan I am referring to.

It is because I run smart scan or custom scan for a disk drive. I have to wait for hours to complete scanning. In this case, NOD should have multi-core support to reduce the time. In the case you mention, you couldn't do anything else. You were forced to create a new thread to scan the new file because the program cannot wait forever until the current scanning is done. I can't believe that it is September of 2013 and we don't have all the programs supporting multi-core cpus. It is inconceivable. As long as someone creates a commercial program, he should offer multi-core support as soon as possible.

I read it and I think that Marcos is wrong. I am a programmer (a small one) and I now that multi-core support is inside the application you make using SetThreadAffinityMask Windows API to send a thread to a specific core to run (that means we need to make seperate thread for each core). If Marcos is right then how can he explain the fact that cpu usage with my AMD quad-core cpu is always up to 25% and never above? Tested at work and usage is up to 50% with INTEL dual-core cpu. Τhat means NOD uses only one core. (both computers have Win 7 Ultimate edition.) And something else, not relavant enough but it is somehow: WinRAR some days ago with the new (stable) version 5.0 started multi-core support in the decompression algorithm. Before that, only one core was used in decompression. So...... the OS is not responsible for multi-core support.

It could be nice to support multi-core CPUs for scanning, couldn't it?

I reported the issue in the support forum of utorrent and after disabling all advertisement options the problem solved. I still cannot understand why this message appeared when firefox was closing.

I just unchecked utorent's startup option and I am running firefox normally (Add-ons enabled) and the message has not appeared since then. I did no unistallation/reinstallation. As the message appeared 99% after closing firefox, can somebody explain me why the message was appearing then? Was utorrent creating problem to firefox? Is that possible?

I compared the running services and did some tests and found out that the service responsible for the logs is "Peer Networking Identity Manager". For stopping it, "Peer Networking Grouping" and "Peer Name Resolution Protocol" are stopping too as they depend on "Peer Networking Identity Manager". Now I have a little less logs. I need to search more, as it seems that more services might be responsible. I am wondering why these services are not running on the first computer, when the startup type is set to manual to both computers.

As I told you above, this message appeared rarely when utorrent's window popped up or closed. Yesterday utorrent updated itself to beta version 3.3.2 build 30067. Since then, every time pc starts up the above message appears without any action by me.

I totally agree with you. I use SS since version 4 and I had never problems with viruses. From the other hand, every now and then I have serious problems with the firewall/network.

In my case, I changed nothing. I cannot understand this: I have two computers with similar hardware and the same software, OS and programs. One computer works fine and has too few logs about blocked svchost and the other computer with brand new installation logs blocked svchost every 2-3 seconds. I understand that a Windows service is responsible for this but which is it? Why does a service from the second pc need eagerly to connect to the internet and the same service to the other pc doesn't need?

As you can see in the picture above, there is no other rule for svchost than the ones that SS has by itself and is not allowing me to edit or delete them. Some hours ago, I opened the computer and the audio service was not running and my network card was not working at all. I couldn't ping the router or open router's main page. Weird a lot. I ran SS and performed smart scan and a deep one. Nothing found. So I formatted my disk and Installed all over again. Now I do not have the problem but the only thing i am worried about is the logs that keep appearing in the list talking about blocks of svchost every 2-3 seconds. My main computer with the same OS and programs has not got all these logs. What is wrong?