Jump to content

AGH1965

Members
  • Posts

    97
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by AGH1965

  1. On 12/9/2020 at 11:27 AM, JozefG said:

    Yesterday new Security Center integration module: 1029 was released to pre-release channel.

    Can you try this module and see if it fixes your issue?

    After switching to pre-release updates as recommended, my problem didn't occur anymore. So Security Center Integration module 1029 seems to be the fix I needed. Today I switched back to regular updates, since Security Center Integration module 1029 is now part of that as well. Thanks ESET.

  2. I had version 1026.1 as well.

    Before I activated the pre-release updates, I discovered that I may have had the problem more often than I thought. Although Windows Security hadn't shown any messages, I looked at Windows Security > Settings > Manage Providers > Antivirus and it showed that ESET Security was switched off and that Windows Defender Antivirus was switched on.

    When will the Security Center integration module 1029 become part of the regular updates?

  3. As I mentioned, the problem occurs (fortunately) only every now and then. I can't predict if it will happen after the next reboot or not.

    The logging may not be useless though, since even when the problem doesn't occur, Windows ALWAYS needs several minutes to detect the presence of ESET Internet Security. (Going to Windows Security > Settings > Manage Providers during these minutes even results in an error/warning message.) That was the reason why I didn't stop the logging immediately after the reboot. I thought it would give you a chance to find out why Windows needs that long for detecting ESET Internet Security.

  4. Every now and then I get messages from Windows Security telling me that there is something wrong. Windows Security > Settings > Manage Providers > Antivirus then shows that Windows Defender Antivirus is switched on and ESET Security is switched off, but Windows Security > Settings > Manage Providers > Firewall shows that ESET Firewall is switched on and Windows Firewall is switched off. The Start screen of ESET Internet Security says that I'm protected though, and I tend to believe that. It seems to me ESET Internet Security isn't telling Windows that it's antivirus part is active. Is this a common issue?

    Temporarily switching off and back on of ESET's protection cures the problem, but only for once.

    I tried to fix things more permanently by running the following commands that I found on the internet:

    • dism /Online /Cleanup-Image /RestoreHealth
    • sfc /scannow

    This seemed to improve things for a while, but after some time the problem popped up again.

     

    P.S. I'm using Windows 10 Home version 2004 and ESET Internet Security version 14.0.22.0.

  5. 2 hours ago, itman said:

    You can create a standard user account and log on under that. You won't get any UAC alerts since anything requiring admin privileges will be automatically blocked. This includes Eset GUI modifications. 

    I always log on using a standard user account and I'm used to fill in the password of the adminstrator account when an UAC dialog appears. Are you saying that this isn't possible anymore?

  6. 19 hours ago, Marcos said:

    We implement desired features if they are reasonable and are not "expensive" in terms of resources and (or) time. Features that cost resources and time need to be planned longer time ahead and have to be approved internally at several levels.

    If you can do this for features, then why not do it for bugs as well?

    Reducing the time thresholds that the as soon as possible option of the scheduler uses when scheduled scans are missed consecutively, is very simple to do and therefore cheap. It would not fix the as soon as possible option, but it would make it much easier to accept.

    So I suggest you treat this proposal as a feature request and then it can be implemented soon.

  7. 4 hours ago, itman said:

    Since Eset's real-time protection scans files upon creation and again at execution time, additional off-line scanning really is not necessary.

    Using the scheduler for scans wasn't my own idea. Please see the note at the bottom of this support page. So ESET advices to scan at least once a month and the link in the note shows how to configure the scheduler for a weekly scan with "as soon as possible" option activated. That is exactly what I did when I discovered the scheduler problems. (Only for testing the scheduler I switched to daily scheduled scans.)

  8. @Marcos It's a pity that you didn't reply. Please explain me why the scheduler of v12.2.23.0 was modified in such manner that the already existing problem became larger instead of smaller.

    I do understand why the scheduler may not be fixed before v14, but if that is the case, then please undo its modification of v12.2.23.0.

    However, an acceptable compromise could be making a similar modification as made in v12.2.23.0 but then in the opposite direction. For example: Reduce the threshold for missed daily scans, which was 23 hours and is 24 hours now, down to 4 hours. That still will not fix the scheduler completely, but it will make it much better than it is now.

  9. 3 hours ago, Marcos said:

    There are plans to overhaul the Scheduler, however, since it's a daunting task I assume that it won't happen before v14 at earliest.

    Thanks for your reply, but it doesn't make sense. If someone is able to increase the threshold for daily scans from 23 to 24 hours, then that person must also be able to reduce it to (almost) 0 hours. So what is the problem?

     

    53 minutes ago, itman said:

    My own recommendation is just use Eset's command line utility noted

    You suggested that already in the other topic. Personally I don't like the command line scanner. I would prefer triggering the normal scanner from the command line, but that is a missing feature.

  10. In December I started a topic about the as soon as possible option of the scheduler. Unfortunately that topic has been closed. So I can't add any new comments. You can find the original topic here: link

    Apparently ESET modified the as soon as option of the scheduler of EIS version 12.2.23.0, but unfortunately the problem hasn't been fixed. Here are my findings:

    If consecutive scheduled daily scans can't run at the scheduled time, then the scan will only be done as soon as possible if the previous scan was at least 24 hours ago. If that is not the case yet, then EIS will wait until it is. (In previous versions the threshold was 23 hours.)

    If consecutive scheduled weekly scans can't run at the scheduled time, then the scan will only be done as soon as possible if the previous scan was at least 7 whole days ago, i.e. 7 times 24 hours. If that is not the case yet, then EIS will wait until it is. (In previous versions the threshold was still 6 days and 23 hours.)

    So ESET clearly made changes to the as soon as possible option of the scheduler, but unfortunately the problem hasn't been fixed. As soon as possible still isn't as soon as possible for the scheduler of EIS version 12.2.23.0. In fact, it became worse. Users now have to wait an additional hour before a missed scan is finaly executed.

    ESET, please try again!

     

  11. 13 hours ago, itman said:

    Appears Eset is following Windows conventions here in that a weekly scan means once every 7 days.

    Indeed, I think that this is exactly what ESET intended with the scheduler. So weekly is considered much more important than the configured day and time. It would be nice if our ESET representative would confirm that. So the main thing that is wrong is naming the option "as soon as possible", because that is certainly not what it does.

  12. Support ticket? Why? What is the use of this forum if you don't use it as input for improving your products? Both itman and I gave enough information for any decent software tester to find out what is wrong. Besides, some of the behavior seems very deliberate. (For example the 23 hours or the 6 days and 23 hours.) Personally I think the scheduler does what was intented by the programmers. So probably it is no bug but a misunderstood feature. This forum could be very helpful explaining customers why the product behaves the way it does and what the intentions of the programmers were. Why don't you do that?

  13. Here some more results:

    If consecutive scheduled daily scans can't run at the scheduled time, then the scan will only be done as soon as possible if the previous scan was at least 23 hours ago. If that is not the case yet, then EIS will wait until it is.

    If consecutive scheduled weekly scans can't run at the scheduled time, then the scan will only be done as soon as possible if the previous scan was at least 6 days and 23 hours ago. If that is not the case yet, then EIS will wait until it is.

    In my opinion this is not how it should be! 

    For example: A scan is scheduled to run every Monday at 00:00:00, but it doesn't get the chance to run at that time. The computer isn't booted any earlier than Wednesday 20:00:00, but almost directly after booting the missed scan is executed. The next week again there is no chance to run the scan at the scheduled time, but now the computer is booted on Monday at 08:00:00. I would expect the scan to run then almost directly after booting, because it is scheduled to run every Monday at 00:00:00 and in this case 08:00:00 is as soon as possible, but instead EIS decides to wait until Wednesday 19:00:00, which is 6 days and 23 hours after the previous scan. In other words, if there is never a chance to run the scan at the scheduled time, then it will take many weeks to get the scan running on Monday again, because the time will only be advanced 1 hour a week.

  14. On 5/26/2019 at 9:30 PM, itman said:

    Eset firewall automatic mode does not imply that user firewall rules cannot be created.

    Just create a rule to block the specific app..

    Isn't all outgoing traffic allowed in automatic mode? Can I simply add a rule or do I have to put it above the predefined rules? The order of the rules is important, isn't it?

     

    4 hours ago, itman said:

    In my opinion, it is easier and safer to just uninstall a Win 10 app you don't want.

    I do want the app; I just don't want it calling home.

×
×
  • Create New...