Jump to content

illumination

Members
  • Posts

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About illumination

  • Rank
    Newbie
    Newbie

Profile Information

  • Location
    USA

Recent Profile Visitors

676 profile views
  1. Just came in this morning and broke the scanning and detection of connected home.. I uninstalled, restarted the device and reinstalled and it fixed it, but wanted to bring this to your attention, as there are those that will not think of this, and will be disappointed that it is not detecting their devices. Other then, keep up the good work Eset, love the mobile version.
  2. One of you users will need to do as Marcos asked and generate a zip archive, upload it to a safe place and send it to him via PM so they can "confirm" if it is a false positive or not.
  3. If you are looking in quarantine and finding items, and then seeing the original files still intact on the system, those files have been disinfected. With Eset, i have yet to find a false positive, but one can usually tell if they find an entry in quarantine and the application it belongs to is now broken/corrupted, will not launch ect. The user can always upload the file to Virus Total to cross check its validity, or they may if they wish to pursue it further, upload it to an automated sandbox malware analysis site to analyze it further. Unless you find something broken on the system, it is safe to assume eset has done its job as intended and those entries in quarantine can be viewed as a log. If the file has been disinfected as stated above, the user can safely delete those entries in quarantine.
  4. What they are trying to state here is, that when Eset disinfects/deletes the original file, it places a copy of the file in quarantine, so if the original file disinfected or deleted turns out to be a false positive, it can be restored from quarantine. Not only can it be restored from quarantine but the options are there to restore/restore and exclude from further scans/ and to delete it from quarantine. If the file is not a false positive the user can simply delete it from quarantine and move on.
  5. The above underlined, is exactly what "interactive mode" in hips is for, to allow the user to pick/define the rules. As for the average users, most of them could care less about how their product works, and will not spend the time to learn it. This goes for all products. Most of them will not even attempt a manual scan, or update, they just want to use their computers with no inconvenience. None of the top name AV's hit 100% with zero days, as they simply can not. New samples/modifications come out daily in large amounts, they need to be seen in the wild before the AV industry can get their hands on them, analyze them, and make the necessary signatures to push, this means they have hit systems/ or been discovered online before they are even known to exist. Today, an AV is not enough, you need AV's/full suites with other modules and or anti exes, SRP "software Restriction Policy" applications, ect in order to combat this. It is totally up to the user of their systems to learn to use the products they have, and none of these products come preconfigured for max protection out of the box, they are all set basically at minimum protection levels for that above convenience of consumers. The saying, you can not protect a user from themselves is quite relevant here.
  6. @ Neil Tsakatsa First i would like to state you should edit this post of yours and remove your email address from it, it is never a good idea to publicly post your personal credentials... Secondly, a "PM" is a "Personal Message". Click on Marcos name, and it will take you to his profile, then click "message".
  7. To rely on signatures is a very serious mistake. None of the AV's on the market can keep up with zero days and signatures, submitting a few here and there on a daily basis helps, but it is barely scratching the surface when it comes to amount of new/modified files showing up daily. To be concerned if whether they are added the first day or 5th day they are in the wild and so forth, is a waste of energy. This is why most suites/AV's have extra modules. As pointed out earlier in this thread, if the HIPS is configured correctly, it will stop this file. Also most of us have removed and or stopped using Java some time ago and many of us supplement our suites with another security product "just in case", not to mention those of us with enough time in this field, realize that counting on security products period, thinking we are 100% safe, is the biggest mistake of it all, and rely more so on regular back ups and images to secure our content and be better prepared.
  8. Your on the right track, there is more to Eset then just signatures.
  9. The only way to narrow this down, as obviously Eset is not causing everyone's systems to be slow or this thread would be full, is to as stated above, send the requested logs so the Developers and support of Eset can look and establish the issue. This could be anything from a corrupt OS/ 3rd party software/left over files from a previous installation. One thing that stands out when users mention running Eset, is how light n fast it is, so to have this issue no matter version you are running, tells everyone, there is an underlying issue.
  10. Thank you for the reply. I was wondering actually if there was a more transparent changelog available, such as what "various internal bugs" were fixed ect.
  11. Version 11.0.149.0 updated via internal updater this morning, required a restart. Update was smooth as could be, no issues to report, but was wondering if a more transparent change log is available.
  12. 1. I have put EIS through the ringer for months on end in a Virtual machine, do I trust it, Yes, Yes I do. 2. As of right now, still on the fence with this question, but time will tell.
  13. As of now, I run Appguard combined with EIS just for this very reason. The vulnerable services are disabled by AG on my system via wildcards. It would be nice to not have to use multiple products to do this.
  14. By my mentioning verifying samples as I suggested above a few times, providing hashes is one method. For these amateur "tests" the tester can use free tools such as PeStudio which will provide "File Indicators" among other information per sample as well which can be done in the video with a simple screen shot of each file, of course like the hashes, will take a little time if they are trying to push through 200 to 300 samples or better of clustered sample packs. Vendors not only need access to samples to verify, but samples missed need submitted to be analyzed and processed as well. I guess if the company is ok with their user base being "Worried" about these "test" results, to the point of removing the product thinking it is defective due to these misguiding methods/tests, then there is no point in users like myself trying to point out that they are flawed beyond belief the way they are represented. I have nothing more to say in this thread then.
  15. This is why I mentioned having an actual real email account to test emails from, and or leaving realtime enabled while downloading samples from various sites, as these methods are how malware are realistically introduced to the system and of course test products how they are actually designed to function. While I'm not a professional tester by any means myself, methods can be used to simulate realistic scenarios. Samples executed from the desktop, still have their place, at least as far as removal media is concerned. Testing statically is pointless with old samples. Using older, wider variety of samples to test Dynamically how ever is not, as then all modules have their chance to shine. Tests can be useful to gather a glimpse of the products abilities, but they certainly need samples vetted and scenarios adjusted to be more realistic.
×
×
  • Create New...