ultrarunner2018

Why? It's a healthy type of discussion, regardless of the product. Since I can see in the url that ESET itself runs this forum, I suppose this wasn't the best place to post my inquiry. But if ESET is going to be so paranoid about comparisons between their product and a competitor's, then perhaps it is time I tried something else. I have nothing to lose by doing so. In the future, I'll find a neutral forum in which to post my queries.

My current sub to ESET Internet Security (2022) expires in a few days. I'm not sure whether I want to renew, or leave ESET for Norton 360, which has more features for a better price than ESET Advanced. Norton includes a VPN, and I can get 3 PC protection for about the same cost as 1 PC with ESET. I kind of hate to leave ESET after all the years I have used it, and been quite satisfied, but then, I don't know what Norton has done over the years to improve their product. I have read several reviews comparing ESET Advanced to Norton 360, and Norton pretty much comes out the winner every time. Any thoughts? Thanks Ultrarunner

Hello; I have ESET Internet Security 15.0.21.0 installed on my Windows 10 (latest build) machine. I have turned on all features in the Internet Protection tab. This morning I received an e-mail in my Gmail inbox that was obviously a phishing attempt. I am using Firefox 96.0.1 x64 to access my Gmail account. Is there something I need to do in Firefox to enable phishing protection? Thanks for your help Ultrarunner

After I updated Firefox from ver 75.0 to 76.0, I get the error 'Secure connection failed' when I attempt to access at least one of my banking sites. It was working fine before the update, and immediately after the update it was broken. I did another check for updates on ESET, but there weren't any new ones since earlier today. Hopefully, this will be fixed in the next ESET update, or perhaps a Firefox update. Ultrarunner

When I first installed ESET Internet Security back in November 2017, everything was fine. I didn't notice any degradation in performance at all. But over the past couple of months, I have been experiencing serious performance hits with Firefox Quantum 58.0.2 x64. My system is Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 x64. Hardware is MSI P67A with Intel i5 2500, 16GB DDR3 @ 1600Mhz Windows is installed on a partition on a Samsung 850 EVO SSD. There are no issues with the SSD or other storage in the system. In ESET, HTTPS checking was being performed on port 443 only. That was the default. With default settings in ESET, it can take 15 seconds or more to load a page in Firefox; especially when I open that page for the first time after clearing the cache (which I do frequently). Even sites that I have always trusted, and are in my bookmarks (so I know that I am going to the genuine site) take a long time to load. This morning, I said that's enough. I'm not going to tolerate this any longer. So I disabled ESET's HTTPS checking. Now, sites load quickly. I am absolutely willing to give up that level of security if it means that my browsing is going to be a more pleasant experience. I had never experienced this sort of delay opening websites in Firefox when I was running Norton products, which I had been using prior to switching to ESET. I now have a 2-year subscription to ESET Internet security, and I'm beginning to think I made a mistake to buy the 2-year plan. Had I not, I would probably be going back to Norton this year. Oh, and I forgot to mention the hundreds of times I had to deal with ESET throwing "Untrusted Certificate" warnings at me when I visited sites that I trusted. When inspecting the certificate that ESET was warning me about, I found them to be current by date, so I don't know what ESET was complaining about. Next time I get one of those I will be sure to post it here, but I really don't think that is necessary, since so many other users have posted theirs, and they are pretty much what I have been seeing. Being a careful and observant person, I really do not believe I need the HTTPS checking feature in ESET. But regardless, I am not going to tolerate the poor performance of Firefox to have it. FW