Dennis3745

For the third time in a month, I have received a notification from the "App Permissions Monitor" on my Samsung Note 8 Android phone with ESET Mobile Security Installed that ESET Mobile Security has used the phone's camera. I was not doing anything "active" with Mobile Security at those times nor was I using the ESET theft-prevention page to test or activate tracking. Any ideas?

1. Yes, that was clear to me. What is not clear to me is to what extent the phantom account makes it easier for a thief to obtain access to my information on the laptop. My assumption would be that the phantom account would not give automatic access to files created by other accounts on the laptop but that it might be easier for an experienced hacker to obtain access to those files through the phantom account than it would be to break the bitlocker encryption from initial log-on. 2. Whenever I try to enable phishing protection it won't allow me to do it without disabling Secure Start-up first. How did you manage to do it? Did you disable Secure Start-up, enable Anti-Phishing, and then re-enable Secure Start-up?

Could someone help me understand the practical trade-offs for activating or not the following Eset features? Phantom account - Smart Security for Windows The reason I am asking about this feature is that I have my Windows Pro laptop encrypted with Bitlocker. It seems to me that by creating a phantom account (with no password), I am giving up what is a pretty strong defense (the encrypted disk) to allow a possible thief to log-on so that I can track him. Is that pretty much the trade-off? Am I wrong to assume that once a potential thief logs onto the phantom account, it is probably easier to access the rest of the disk than if I just prohibit them from gaining access at all? Browser anti-phishing - Smart Security for Windows This is somewhat similar to my query above but for my Samsung Note 8. If I understand correctly, I have to disable the Secure Start-up in order to enable the browser anti-phishing feature in Eset Mobile Security. What are the trade-offs here - just the obvious ones (tighter access prevention vs. anti-phishing protection in browsers? = = = As a related suggestion, I think Eset could do a little better job explaining these kinds of things. It is confusing for a user when one security product is recommending disabling a security-related feature of another product. It should be made clear what the trade-offs are so the user can make an informed decision. Thanks.