Jump to content

UKUser

Members
  • Posts

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About UKUser

  • Rank
    Newbie
    Newbie

Profile Information

  • Location
    Great Britain

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Well, here it is again: I would second Skier's criticism of this way of reporting scan results. The same two messages come up when I run the router scan. I have a Netgear router, and yes - 'admin' is sadly fixed as a user-ID. But this is not what the scan report says. My router runs the latest (Netgear) firmware and is not on the list of vulnerable routers (as per TechCrunch) either. As Skier said: "A report is only useful if it can be understood and acted upon" and I would add that it is poor that one has to start digging and guessing like this. The warning of a potential vulnerability ought to be It ought to have more detail relating to the actual specific router and the settings/features that triggered it. Can an eset insider kindly elaborate further and feed back to the developers please? TIA
  2. Thank you itman. And yes, I am aware of that, hence my original mention "...I have noticed this new entry for the OS kernel ...". I'll take the opportunity to appeal to eset again that; when suddenly the kernel appears in the eset tool, with a question mark and no further info, then one has to question it rather than assume 'all is probably in safe (eset) hands...'. Documentation is often as important as the actual product. Regards
  3. Thank you for the answer. Meanwhile, somebody should hastily update the 'help' information. That would have saved me time waiting for support to reply with an ambiguous answer as to what it (question mark and time of discovery) meant. I could of course just have submitted an infection report.......though that would obviously still have left me at the same, diminished, level of confidence with regard to eset smart. I can guess at what you mean by "..reputation cannot be obviously determined". It is also a bit ambiguous, IMO. Yes, it is hard (impossible) for eset to ascertain whether MS is 'good' or 'bad' with their OS and to analyse all their code. Though I thought that you (eset) had some insight that would warrant better than just an undocumented question mark. Thanks.
  4. I have noticed this new entry for the OS kernel as well, in particular that it has a question mark as risk level and that 'Time of discovery' is 'Unavailable'. I've asked support nearly two weeks ago what the question mark means, as it is not documented (!), and been told that in this case the (unknown) risk level is nothing to worry about, - which worries me! I've asked how long it will take before this status is updated and been told that; "...from their wording, it appears it’ll remain marked as ‘unavailable’ until an updated build is released to fix the way it identifies theses processes". When will a fuller explanation within Eset Smart Security be available for this question mark status? Is it likely that status will be upgraded to a green tick-mark? TIA ESET Smart ver. 10.1.210.0
×
×
  • Create New...