SeriousHoax

I saw Bitdefender's web protection doesn't work at all in Firefox when Windscribe extension is enabled. No issue on Chromium browsers. I told Bitdefender about it, and they had no intention to do anything about it. I'm wondering if these two things are similar.

Similar experience here for many years. Sometimes the initial update is fast, but most of the time it's very slow. My average download speed is 3.2 MB/s, but ESET's initial update most of the time speeds between 20-80 KB/s for me.

Is it kind of a semi-sanbox? Working set in Process Hacker/Process Explorer for ESET process now includes the amount of memory consumed by ESET+opened browser, since the browser memory is being contained by ESET. Is there any documentation of this new mode, explaining how it works?

So people now also can't run their browser in Sandboxie I guess because ESET itself is making the browser run sandboxed all the time. I don't know if it's really a good idea to run browsers 24x7 is a sandbox by the AV. Improvement in security maybe, but could break things in future browser updates. Browser vendors already don't like security software meddling with their browser. https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/eis-update-do-not-allow-ff-to-run-sandboxed.448495/

I already see many users complaining about the green frame. It needs to go completely when the user disables the "Browser's green frame" option.

Another AV added many of NirSoft's tools to their PUP detection database a few months ago (not this one yet). Probably for similar reasons. Okay, marking this solved.

Hmm, that's not a bad point. I ran an unsupported browser where the green frame wasn't shown. So yeah, it could be useful in that scenario.

I did, but still shows for a few seconds. If that setting is disabled, I think it's better to not show it at all. It's just my opinion, maybe some other users will have their say also.

Wondering why ESET suddenly added a PUA detection for NirSoft's, Wireless Network Watcher? https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/5516ad3025bbb362953932825e18f6e59f14b3c15516b8834757398be80afe90/detection

ESET 16 now has this green frame around the browser, indicating that the secure browser mode is always active on supported browsers. But even after disabling it, it still shows for a few seconds when I open my browser. I find it unnecessary and distracting. It's fine to show a notification instead on first run of a browser after installing version 16 to let users know about this protection feature. It shouldn't be there always. Hope ESET disables it in a future update.

Yeah, mine is an AMD system and that setting is not present for me.

Yeah, looks like it. Hopefully ESET will make their products compatible with SAC.

Smart App Control is not usable at its current state. It's very strict. The app as well as all the DLLs need to be signed in order for them to not get blocked by SAC. Also, you can't enable/disable it once you choose one. Mine was in evaluation mode after installation, but got turned itself off after a day as it deemed my device not suitable for SAC. It's not worth it at the moment.

Description: An easier way to copy only the hash of a detected sample from the log. Details: Currently it's not possible to copy only the hash of a detected file. In order to copy the hash we need to copy the whole detection log of a sample. But sometimes users just want to quickly copy the hash and check on Virustotal to get a second opinion about the detected sample.

Description: Allow an option to import and export user made HIPS rules only. Details: Currently it's possible to export full product settings, which ESET users highly appreciate, but a setting to import and export HIPS rules only will be very helpful too.

I saw this one too that day. But everything has been fine since then.

I had this issue too two days ago.

Yeah, it needs to be analyzed manually. I don't need replies as long as submitted samples get added to the database. Well, I have waited 2 weeks which is long enough. Too long I would say.

I can only say what I experience myself. Talking about malware submission experience, I sent this sample to ESET more than 2 weeks ago on 12 August but neither I have heard back nor a signature has been created yet. LiveGuard gave it a safe verdict, but it's not safe. If possible, please improve the processing of samples submitted by users. VT link of the sample: VirusTotal - File - d468b56da07173c69423973b706924187e134d0baea07e2ef8e7b49afcd5aacd

He submitted samples many times before and got responses too, more or less, so I'm sure he knows how to send. I don't submit a lot, but even in my experience, it has been extremely bad for a while. I've tried different emails too a few times, but it didn't improve the experience much. Besides, I don't remember ESET ever adding phishing sites to their database that I submitted via that dedicated website. I've stopped submitting samples to ESET to not waste my time. Nowadays, the main way to make ESET add detection is to share VT links here on the forum.

You probably need to enable UPnP on your router.

Based on personal experience of @AnthonyQand myself on LiveGuard's not so stellar performance, it seems our home users LiveGuard only performs Level 1 analysis in the cloud that's described here: https://help.eset.com/elga/en-US/how_detection_layers_work.html Is this correct? I also had the chance to try out of ESET Endpoint, where the Level 2 or Level 4 (or both, I forgot which one) option was locked for license with more seats.

This is different, I think. Pico aka streaming update is different. For example, Avast's protection update is entirely based on tiny streaming updates, and they push a full signature update once or twice per day. ESET small signature size is probably related to its finely optimized engine. Someone official from ESET like Marcos or someone else might be able to give an accurate answer. But to answer OP's question, it's not related to the amount of signature. ESET's small signature size doesn't mean it detects less malware.

As itman said, no AV might be able to remove this UEFI threat since it's part of the hardware firmware. But I'm curious to know what other products actually consider this a malware. AVs that I'm sure has UEFI malware scanning capabilities are Microsoft Defender, Avast, Bitdefender and Kaspersky. Can you share the hash of the detected sample? It should be in the detection log.

This is what ESET says about it: https://support.eset.com/en/kb6567-you-receive-an-eset-uefi-detection