Blackbox88
-
Posts
22 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Blackbox88
-
-
16 minutes ago, lamar said:
Right. But when you disable pre-release updates, you immediately fall back to #1372.2. So at this moment the official fix is still unavailable for the average user. And well, average user is getting impatient according to @Vader's post.
Well everybody these days are impatient not only with SW updates, see road rage, socialisation etc.
Same happens with my company, unfortunately not everything always goes as fast as some customers want, sometimes releasing new SW just takes time to smoke test it.
Also why the impatiens there are multiple work arounds which are relatively safe.
Just do any of the 2 good work arounds and be patient till the real roll out.
-
8 hours ago, itman said:
Eset has issued a Chomecast alert here: https://support.eset.com/alert4/ . Why this hasn't been posted on this forum is beyond me.
Also the alert states the updated module was released on Aug. 7. This would imply it was so for production vers . which obviously it was not. The alert should be reworded to specifically state it was released to pre-release vers. and the only way to obtain it is by enabling Eset pre-release GUI option.
BTW - I still haven't received the module update.
I just switched to pre-release and it automatically updated and went to the #1375:
Just checked the chromecast is still visable after the update and returning the TLS/SSL range to the full range.
-
35 minutes ago, Michael Poczynek said:
Running 12.2.23.0/Windows 10 same thing. Tried everything I read about. Had to remove Nod 32 to get access to Chromecast.
On 8/4/2019 at 2:09 PM, Blackbox88 said:On 7/26/2019 at 6:30 PM, lamar said:I truly hope the bugfix will come soon. However you really do not need to wait for that. Do the following step by step:
01. Open Eset console |
02. Click "Setup" |
03. Click "Advanced setup" |
04. Click "Web and email" |
05. Click " Web access protection" |
06. click "Web protocols" |
07. Now you are on the right place |
08. Focus on "Ports used by HTTPS protocol" |
09. You have to see the text "443, 0-65535" in the input field. |
10. Replace the text with "443, 0-8008, 8010-65535" (of course, without quotes) (you can copy-paste) |
11. Press "OK" |
12. If Windows asks for permission, press "Yes" |
13. Close ALL instances of Chrome |
14. Reopen Chrome |
15. Connect to your Chromecast |
16. Success!
After the bugfix will have been rolled out, you can reset the original text you modified.
-
29 minutes ago, lamar said:
It will not. For maximum reliability It is a general software behavior that manual modifications can be reverted only manually.
Oke makes sense so as soon as the update is roll out we need to make sure to revert the white listing of port 8009
-
1 minute ago, lamar said:
Internet Protection Module #1375 is rolled out on the pre-release update channel, and it works fine for me with the default Eset settings. There is no more need of whitelisting port 8009. Hopefully it will be rolled out soon on the regular update channel as well.
That is good news!
After the update do we have to revert the HTTP port selection or will it automatically be done by installing the update?
-
2 hours ago, Rsladeasu said:
The "fix" was working...but today it stopped working again! WTF. I hate this
Can you screenshot the range of ports you exclude?
Here it is still working.
-
1 minute ago, AnnaJuist said:
I have not used the "Work around" yet, as I thought someone mentioned that if I changed the HTTPS protocol, it would leave my computer vulnerable to attack. Did I misunderstand?
I'm thinking I should just wait till ESET fixes the issue with another update. Am I right? Plus I hope they get around it soon.
Offcourse every exeception will leave you computer vulnerable however this wasn't in the previous version of ESET, which didn't gave any issues, also as you only open one port the risk from my point of view is still low.
Have a good back up of your computer stored somewhere and you are good.
I am running with the workaround and all is going good
-
On 7/26/2019 at 6:30 PM, lamar said:
I truly hope the bugfix will come soon. However you really do not need to wait for that. Do the following step by step:
01. Open Eset console |
02. Click "Setup" |
03. Click "Advanced setup" |
04. Click "Web and email" |
05. Click " Web access protection" |
06. click "Web protocols" |
07. Now you are on the right place |
08. Focus on "Ports used by HTTPS protocol" |
09. You have to see the text "443, 0-65535" in the input field. |
10. Replace the text with "443, 0-8008, 8010-65535" (of course, without quotes) (you can copy-paste) |
11. Press "OK" |
12. If Windows asks for permission, press "Yes" |
13. Close ALL instances of Chrome |
14. Reopen Chrome |
15. Connect to your Chromecast |
16. Success!
After the bugfix will have been rolled out, you can reset the original text you modified.
Work around for everybody who doesn't want to read the whole thread!
Please also upvote it! (On page 4)All credits go to Lamar!
- The Scorpion and 0x55
-
2
-
1 hour ago, Marcos said:
If it works with 0-8008, 8010-65535, use these ranges. Here I suggested more exclusions as per Google's KB article:
Please check my previous suggestion at
Probably within this week a newer version of the Internet protection module 1375 will be available on the pre-release update channel which will address the issue without defining any exclusions in your ESET product. If everything goes well, the module will be distributed to all users afterwards.
Thank you Marcos for the update!
-
1 hour ago, lamar said:
Maybe the guy wanted to write: install a better AV app that turns Defender off.
In the secondary school I was always confused by greatly honored poets when I was trying to figure out what they thought of behind their pointless sentences. LOL
hahahaha so true
-
Turn Windows Defender OFF haha
Uhmm sounds like a great advice!
A bit like white listing Chrome.exe
-
7 minutes ago, Taradise said:
Hi, having problems connecting to Chromecast again, how do I go about whitelisting Port 8009?
Sorry I am NOT overly IT savvy!
Many Thanks
All credits got to @lamar
On 7/26/2019 at 6:30 PM, lamar said:I truly hope the bugfix will come soon. However you really do not need to wait for that. Do the following step by step:
01. Open Eset console | 02. Click "Setup" | 03. Click "Advanced setup" | 04. Click "Web and email" | 05. Click " Web access protection" | 06. click "Web protocols" | 07. Now you are on the right place | 08. Focus on "Ports used by HTTPS protocol" | 09. You have to see the text "443, 0-65535" in the input field. | 10. Replace the text with "443, 0-8008, 8010-65535" (of course, without quotes) (you can copy-paste) | 11. Press "OK" | 12. If Windows asks for permission, press "Yes" | 13. Close ALL instances of Chrome | 14. Reopen Chrome | 15. Connect to your Chromecast | 16. Success!
After the bugfix will have been rolled out, you can reset the original text you modified.
So should look like this:
-
6 minutes ago, Taradise said:
Thanks guys, I did specifically ask ESET if my system would still be protected and they said it would. I will however try to make the changes you have suggested.
Let us know if you need help
-
18 minutes ago, lamar said:
Relating to your suggestion: It is my experience in the past few days that whitelisting of ports 8008 and 8443 is not necessary.
Same here!
Only white listed port 8009 and chromecast works like a charm'
Did sent Taradise a PM hope she didn't whitelist Chrome.exe
-
5 hours ago, lamar said:
You are right from the technical point of view. From the valued customer's point of view the phrase "bug" is simply a synonym to ... "problem" ... "issue" ... "unexpected behavior" ... etc.
I would rather highlight the fact that Eset did not belittle the importance of this question, and did promise an urgent solution.
As Merriam Webster defines the word bug:
: an unexpected defect, fault, flaw, or imperfection
-
4 hours ago, lamar said:
@Blackbox88 As I see, you have already whitelisted port 8009 in your Eset settings. May I guess this is why your VLC works seamlessly,
No VLC always worked even when the 8009 was still in the scanning range.
Itman explained that VLC most likely uses a different method of communication:
21 hours ago, itman said:No. It's using a local proxy connection it appears to me.
It listens for connections on local device port 8010. It then proxies the inbound traffic to the Chromecast dongle via port 8009. For outbound connections, the reverse occurs.
The proxy activity bypasses Esets protocol filtering. Hence, why there is no issue with the VLC app.
-
1 hour ago, AnnaJuist said:
There was an ESET update a few days back. One day I was watching YouTube programs on my TV via Chromecast...The next day, I could not "connect". I kept on getting a message "No Devices Found". I contacted Chromecast Help. And the young lady walked me through all kinds of "Experimental"Extentions"Flags" etc things. Even had me download Google Chrome Canary...But nothing worked. She stated that the issue must be within ESET (That I have on my Tablet). I have AVG on my LapTop and I have no problem "Casting" from it nor from my Smartphone. Chromecast works fine with them.
I will give ESET a while to fix this problem...either with an "Update" or a "Patch". If not, then I will remove ESET from my Tablet and go with another Antivirus program. This is the first issue I have run into with ESET. I have no idea what all the talking about "protocol" or "ports" are & am way too far a novice to pretend that I know what I'm doing.
I think you talked after me to the same person, as I went to the same extensions canary etc.
She is true it is because of a change within ESET.
Do you know which ESET program you have on your tablet (Mobile Security or Smart Security, etc)?
Is the tablet and Andriod or an windows tablet?Maybe we can help you fix it so you can still enjoy your youtube via tablet while waiting for the full fix from ESET.
-
5 hours ago, itman said:
No. It's using a local proxy connection it appears to me.
It listens for connections on local device port 8010. It then proxies the inbound traffic to the Chromecast dongle via port 8009. For outbound connections, the reverse occurs.
The proxy activity bypasses Esets protocol filtering. Hence, why there is no issue with the VLC app.
Ahh oke makes sense.
-
14 minutes ago, itman said:
Open the Eset GUI. Select Tools -> More Tools. Select Network Connections. Right mouse click on the display of all shown connections. Remove the check mark associated with the "Show only TCP connections" option.
At this point all TCP and UDP connections should be shown.
It seems to be using 8010:
Current settings I have in ESET:
-
2 hours ago, itman said:
Check which ports VLC media player is using when a Chromecast session is active. My guess is its using port 443.
Also based on this: https://www.advanceddigital.com/blog/using-vlc-multicast-unicast-udp-streams/ , VLC media player can use UDP protocol. If so, it is assumed that Eset is only filtering TCP protocol connections.
@itman how do i check which port it is using when redering with VLC to Chromecast?
-
Damm i am happy i found this thread.
I tried a lot myself spent a lot of time talking to chromecast support, Videostream support unfortunatly nothing helped untill i did a full reinstall of Eset and Chrome.
After that it all worked and I was happy as i could be, untill a few days later after mine vacation I tried to stream my rafting trips using videostream and we were back to the old "cant find the device trouble"
Luckily with this thread there is new hope.
The on thing which is strange for me is that Chrome + Videostream (plugin for chrome) both don't see the device but when I use rendering from VLC media player it does see chromecast and works fine.
Maybe it is good to investigate for some one with more skills then me, how VLC and chromecast commincate.
They are able to commincate with all the SSL/TLS scanning on.
Eset Blocking Chromecast
in ESET Internet Security & ESET Smart Security Premium
Posted
But for that there are two good workarounds.
Also almost every paid service has a app which is already installed on TV or can be installed on tablets/phones.
I do agree it is an inconvenience but there are ways around it.
If there are no workarounds, agree I also had some impatience