Mariusry

@ jadinolf How did you install Outpost? Like Marcos said? Did you disabled any of the Firewall's modules or protection?

@Marcos, Yes I know about that compatibility check box, I leave it unchecked, because if I check it, the Web control will not be installed. Nod32 Av does not block cookies, Referrers, Ads, and so on. Anyways, with version 6 I also left it unchecked, and no issues. I don't want to make free publicity to another companies, so I'll only give one letter from other products that I have tried with Outpost and work without issues. I tried a Russian AV that's starts with a K( even if they state on their site that Outpost it's not compatible, even their installation wizard want's to uninstall the firewall), also a Romanian one that starts with a B. Maybe I can make a case to Outpost to, if you're kind enough to tell me what the compatibility issue is all about

Hm, even the fact that you say to replace the AV with the security suite, says it all...Don't get me wrong here, I don't want to do negative publicity, on an internal ESET forum . Keep also in mind that ESET doesn't make only a security suite, there is also only a standalone AV, this was their first security product, then the suite. If ESET is doing an AV product also, they should also provide compatibility with other products, as they did until version 7. Anyways it's ESET choice to offer compatibility or not with other products, but if the compatibilty was offered with Outpost until version 7, ESET should specify on their site something like this: "Starting with version 7 the following firewalls will not be compatible with our software". After that every user knows if they still want to buy their product or not. Regarding Security Suites, everybody knows that multi-layered security is better than only one product alone. No AV, firewall is perfect, they have their bugs, and self protection measures, etc. If a malware gets past your AV, or your firewall you still have a chance that the other layer will still protect you. Regarding ESET's rate of detection you don't need to tell me nothing, check some sites like, av-comparatives, av-test, even virus-bulletin. I use Nod32 AV because the following reasons: 1) It has a low impact on system's performance 2) It has a very low False positive, according to av-comparatives only just 1 false positive, none of the other vendors managed that ( Only Microsoft AV), so +1 ESET 3) I use it also because works well with Outpost firewall, (until version 7 anyways) Maybe if all you guys just recommend to use ESET Suite, maybe that's ESET plan, to make users to use only their suite. Anyways, I tried, a Russian AV that's starts with a K, and a Romanian one that stars with a B, both work well with Outpost, so your claims are normal only if you are both fans. If someone buys only the AV it's not about the money, it's about that,they know that other firewalls, are better than the one included in a Suite. For example Outpost also has a Security suite, but their AV, is trash, so, try to see the big picture here, no security suite is perfect, but multi layer security is better

Guys, I really want an estimation, when you will fix this, because I need to know if I return the product or not. You asked me to test something, I've done that, for free, and it's not my job really, to test a product, that I paid for. At least reply.

@ Arakasi Are you working for Eset my friend? And I will tell you why bellow: 1) The ESET SECURITY firewall is not good at all, check some specialized sites like "matousec", sites, that tests firewalls, not only Antiviruses suites. Neither the AV does not have the best detection score, but instead does not return many false positives in comparison with other candidates out there, and until version 7 it had a light footprint on the system, and allmost no compatibility issues. 2) To upgrade to another suite you must pay something, why I should pay for something that does not protect me as a firewall. I bought the ESET AV, and this software should be bug proof. Why you people think like this? Instead to repair a bug, you just say use only our products? Don't you think that others payed for other products as well? Instead of giving advices to buy something, maybe ESET should fix this issue. It wasn't reported by me alone...think about the people out there, that just don't have time to report any issues. They just trow the AV to the Garbage bin, and that's it. 3) If ESET doesn't want or doesn't know how to repair this, they should tell us, in order to get a refund from where we bought the AV. It's their product, but if you cannot test a compatibility with a well know firewall, before releasing a new version to the public, then ESET should stop doing software. Not on our money. ESET don't make us drop your product. Fire some testers, maybe something will change I want an estimation, when you will fix this, because I need to know if I return the product or not

Yeah maybe you should buy me for another Pro firewall? And why to change the firewall if the issue appeared when updating Nod32 not the firewall. Good logic.

@Jokaz I know you're trying to help, but installing version 8.1.2 does not impact with this issue, did you read the changelog before posting. The changes are related to Win Xp only. I run Win 7 x64. So updating to version 8.1.2 is irrelevant. If you go to Advanced settings in NOD32 and you disable [Protocol Filtering] and [integrate into system] options, and after, you restart your system everything will work. Again this is not a solution because the AV will not scan any traffic, and for Outpost it's not an option to disable Web Control ( which I did ), because privacy issues. Nod32 AV does not block cookies, referrers, and so on. So for an user point of view the security suites should work together, without to lower your security from one of them. Worst case scenario, will be that Eset should state on their support section, that NOD32 v7 is not compatible with outpost. And as a customer, to have the choice to refund my money, it's simple

How do you install this combo, when installing the Outpost firewall, do you select the check-box from the beginning of the installation of the outpost firewall, when it detects the AV (for compatibility), or you leave it unchecked? Try to leave it unchecked to. Try also to install first the AV then the Firewall, with the compatibility check-box ticked and unticked. Or to test a more realworld case, install an earlier version of Outpost, install version 6 of NOD32, update the firewall, then the AV, to the latest versions.

Disabling HIPS followed by a restart has no effect, disabling [Protocol Filtering] and [integrate into system] from the advanced settings does the trick, everything works ok. But I found this a little bit odd, because on version 6 we also had, protocol filtering, is this different in version 7? Anyways what now, because with this option set to disabled, I will not be protected from malicious content over the web. The downloaded files will be scanned upon access or when the download completes, but what about the malware on the sites, that will be accessed in real time?

Hi, The issue was raised in beta section, but is present in the latest final version also. Please read my comment from the link bellow also. https://forum.eset.com/topic/976-nod32-av-701040-with-outpost-firewall-81/#entry6429 Please take this issue into consideration, because the users affected by this issue cannot use the internet with Nod32 version 7 installed. 10x,

I also have this issue with the final version of Nod32. Not only the pictures are corrupted, but also, youtube videos, are not loading, internet browser it;s reduced to a stand still. This issue was present from the beginning, with the first beta version of version 7. I don't know, how the Eset testers cannot reproduce this, because the issue was reported long ago, when the beta version was released to the public. Try to work in close hand with the guys from Agnitum. Many of us who play games prefer this combo. I had to uninstall you AV for now. Please investigate, and if you found some issues in Agnitum's software I will report to them. But give us something to start upon. I didn't report this to Agnitum because with the version 6 all it's ok, so I tend to believe it's related to the traffic module that you integrated, or the advanced memory protection (something ) Thank you,