Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Bordonbert

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location
    Great Britain
  1. Yes! The answer is simply that I have had each of the machines logging in to Anti-Theft under the wrong credentials so they have effectively been linking with some other account, perhaps their own which means there could be a number of rogue redundant accounts knocking about in the Eset database. The answer is just to go to Setup/Security Tools and turn off Anti-Theft. You will need the credentials of the account you originally entered here when you first turned it on to allow that. When it is disabled it simply vanishes from the Anti-Theft side of the account though it stays visible in licence manager. Turning Anti-Theft back on and entering the correct credentials for your main Eset account allows it to then be seen in Anti-Theft. Once I logged in correctly all of the machines showed up in the Anti-Theft Manager page. The two rogue machines were still listed as "Suspicious" but there was now a process to relabel them as "Recovered" and remove the yellow stigma. All sorted. This has occurred purely due to my own confusion regarding the relevance of that "dummy login" which I seem to recall I read that this functionality needed. I wonder if this is meant to be a dummy Windows login which I can see I actually have? My apologies to Eset for the silly mistake. I will message their support updating them and try to remove the rogue accounts which are now not needed.
  2. I'm getting there. It seems I misunderstood something about the setup of this function. Somewhere I know there is advice that you need a dummy email account for something. I have it inserted as the login for Anti-Theft on my machines so it seems the devices are talking to another account which I never access. I have just tried changing the Anti-Theft login on my main PC to the usual Eset account credentials and voila, the machine has appeared. I'm goping to try this with the other devices and see what comes up.
  3. Here is a couple of screenshots of what I am seeing. The first is what I currently see when navigating to the Anti-Theft section of my account. The machines have anti-theft enabled and are reporting being active and covered in their settings but they do not appear in the anti-theft listing. The second is the listed machines under my account showing the two marked as Suspicious.. I have just found out now that there seems to be some conflict in logins which I must have caused. My licence and account is registered under one email address and, as I understood it, the anti-theft had to be based on a different email address to work as it should. If I login to anti-theft under my original account address I see the screen in the top half of the picture with no devices listed. When I login to anti-theft under the alternative email address supplied especially for that purpose I get a partial list with a couple of the non-problematic devices showing and two old devices showing expired Trial licences which have now been added legally to the current multiple licence but still seem to be hanging around here. I have removed those two now. However, the two problem devices listed as Suspicious are nowhere to be seen. I wonder if I have these registered with the incorrect email address for anti-theft meaning that function is not activated on this account? Is that a possibility?
  4. I have a current licence which is being used legally for a number of machines. I actually have one licence spare at the moment so there should be no problems with that. These show up on Licence Manager as "green ticked", activated and current just as they should. Two of them are flagged as "yellow pling" and "Suspicious" though this does not affect their protection in any way. They are all showing last connection as within a few days. They are both laptops. I believe this may have been due to a number of incorrect logins in the past which Eset sees as possible evidence of theft, understandably. This does not seem to be a time related thing which will reset itself, they have been like that for a long time now. Is there a way I can remove that Suspicious tag and get these machines listed as fully accepted again?
  5. Hi guys. We have Internet Security in on two separate machines, one Win10 and the other Win7, both using Chrome and both have this same problem. Very occasionally we may get a potentially vulnerable site opening in a secure browser via Eset. Most of the time we do not get that and the site opens in the current instance of Chrome. This is for obvious monetary sites like Paypal and Halifax Banking etc. Sites are accessed from Lastpass password manager. (Yes, it's going in favour of Eset's manager as soon as the current licences run out and I upgrade). I searched in the forum and found a reference to unticking "Setup -> Security Tools -> Advanced Setup -> Web & Email ->SSL TLS '+' -> Exclude Communication With Trusted Domains". I assume this will allow Eset to tell me when it was setting up the Secure Browser system? Others say this cured the issue for them but this has made no difference to me. When we access say Halifax's login site we simply get it opening in the current instance of Chrome with no signs of a secure browser setup. I have checked and the correct matching URL is listed in the Eset whitelist under "Setup -> Security Tools -> Banking & Payment Protection (Cogwheel)", and that item has its "Secured Browser" option selected in the list. I would be grateful if someone can point me at what I could be missing?
  6. Well!!! I pushed the app download by repeatedly waiting for it to fail and then resuming it so it gradually picked its way across the entire download. It finished by locking up and reporting that it only had 2.8MB then after a couple of minutes it suddenly decided it had the whole 4.8MB file. What do I know? The app has collected its logfiles but I'm not sure they will contain anything useful yet as I am not sure what order to do all of this in. It will not upload to the site as the .zip is 250MB. I obviously left logging on too long even though it was only for the duration of the painfully long download process. In the meantime the update has actually completed successfully, don't ask me how. I therefore cannot run it again to collect a new set of logfiles until the problem shows up again. On downloading the LogCollector app it takes literally no perceptible time at all to download the whole 4.8MB again. I'll have to rest this here for the moment but if it is ok I will leave the thread open until I have updated again and can be sure things are clear. Apologies for the fragmented nature of this issue but it has been like knitting fog here at my desk.
  7. Pinging the eset server by name I mentioned above, updf5.wip.eset.com gets a mixture of 31/32ms responses and response timed out so the connection to it looks shaky at best. Settinbg up a display filter for "ip.addr == wupdf5.wip.eset.com" crashes Wireshark consistently and that is something I have never known.
  8. I'm still trying to get my hands on the Log Collector app at the moment. Of course it is a download and it took over 5mins to show as 0.1MB of 4.8MB. It trickled along for a long while so I persevered. Then it also failed! Judging by the activity on my router which was going crazy, there is something somewhere which is choking the life out of my connection. I now have every other device on the network switched off but my own PC and the traffic has calmed down a bit but is still pretty active. My current situation is that the download of Log Collector app has failed at just over 1MB. Eset IS started the update once again of its own volition. I have also cleared the update cache and tried again manually but with no difference. I am running Wireshark on the network and can see a stream of packets from and to updf5.wip.eset.com. Many of these are reporting [TCP Retransmission] followed by [TCP previous segment not captured]. There is a long stream of those blocks where you can see the multiple attempts listed one after the other. Once the upgrade fails you can also see this with communications with other sites too. I'm totally flummoxed.
  9. I'm sorry Marcos, I've misled you by typing faster than I can think. The update was originally only somewhere around 340kB not MB! My apologies for misleading you like that. That's why it was such a surprise to take so long in picking up a few kB at a time every couple of minutes. I've just done another restart and tried it again with the same result. I get a yellow "Attention required" warning with "Modules update failed" under it then when I click on "Update modules" it tries but comes back with "File not found on server". I've just booted up an older Win7 machine I have with Eset IS on that too and it has done exactly the same thing but with totally different filesize reporting. Help And Support reports my current version is licenced until 08/2022.
  10. Hi. I have found references to this problem but they don't seem to have any solution to my own version. I have had no problems at all with internet connectivity until today. Eset IS identified an update and I started it. It reported the total update would be about 340MB. The machine ground to a halt in terms of all internet activity. The update crawled along, and I mean crawled, at a few kB at a time with no HDD activity to speak of until after about 30mins at about 40% completed it failed. I tried again and the same thing happened, then again. However I did notice that each time I restarted it reported a smaller download and apparently started with a sizeable chunk already in place. These figures did not match up between each attempt. I have even tried the update with the Firewall switched off but no difference. It has now given up on the update reporting "File not found on server" if I search for any available updates. Is there something currently going on at Eset central which is causing this problem or is it in my own system?
  11. Thanks Itman, I've asked that now and the guys over there at Mozilla are aware of it too and pondering. I've also checked whether there is a Black Friday folder on the server as you suggested Marcos, I'm afraid there isn't. While I was logged in via the web interface I took the original Banggood email which was still there and forwarded it on to myself again. It came through and opened the dialogue box with the warning about no folder being present and simply posted itself in the root Inbox. This is beginning to look like "user error" in some way though it mystifies me how I could set up that folder, set up the rule, then forget about them. And also not spot it in my day to day email management. I don't have a plethora of folders to confuse me and it was immediately visible within the Inbox folder. Thanks for the help guys, I think I can sleep sound at nights knowing that Banggood hasn't found a way of controlling my communications. Sorry it turned out to be a non-solvable non-issue.
  12. The folder did not exist yesterday though Marcos and has been created by this process which is the worrying thing. I definitely had no Black Friday folder prior to these emails arriving and they were the only two new emails when I checked the PC. It also showed up as "unaccessed" by being there in Bold the same as the emails. My thought was that perhaps the Thunderbird rule was capable of recreating the missing folder when it was triggered. The Spam filter in Thunderbird shows no references either black or white to Banggood. There are no cookies stored which relate to Banggood. It isn't even in my address book which could be relevant as I have the "Do not automatically mark as junk if sender is in Personal Address Book" box ticked.
  13. Hi. I run ESET Internet Security which is kept up to date and permanently running. I use Mozilla Thunderbird mail client managing accounts with Hotmail and Clara. I have just come on to my PC to check emails and found two new ones from Banggood. This is not unusual as I occasionally use them for oddities so don't blacklist them. What was odd and worrying is that these emails showed up in a brand new folder called "Black Friday". I did not create this nor did my wife who is the only other potential user. This folder and both of the emails were listed in bold showing they had not been accessed so no link or attachment had been activated. I also found a Rule in Thunderbird to move all emails with "Black Friday" in their subject into a "Black Friday" folder. I wondered if I had set this up in the past to deal with the plethora of BF emails I receive around this time and had deleted the folder which was being recreated when a new one arrived and the rule tried to fulfil its task. I honestly can't remember doing that but it could be a possibility so I tested that with a new rule and a deleted folder. No dice. When an email arrives to be routed into a folder which does not exist Thunderbird opens a warning dialogue to tell me and puts the email in the root folder for that account. No luck there! Can anyone envisage a way it is possible for an email to create a brand new folder in this way? If it is then it worries me somewhat as I had believed that it would be impossible without some sort of scripting being activated. Is there anything else I can do to find out what has been responsible for this?
  14. Well Duuuuhhhhh for me! You've seen stupid people doing this stupid thing very stupidly before haven't you? You're absolutely right, I had installed the Premium version which isn't what my licence covers. Thanks for clearing that up for me, you're a star. Now to address the 1001 other things that will have gone wrong with an OS upgrade, (including, I suspect, expensive hardware upgrades this time as everything I have which still does its job perfectly now seems to be unsupported in Win10).
  15. Hi. I'm in the tooth pulling throes of upgrading my machine to Win10 from WinXP which requires a complete new install. I now have Win10 up and running and the first thing I've tried to do is to get ESET Smart Security Suite installed but the licence key gets refused. It's the same machine running on exactly the same hardware with the exception of a new SSD for the OS, just an updated OS installation. Surely my licence has not become invalid has it?
  • Create New...