SweX

Haha we have a couple of trolls you could come and take care of it you like. Oh not anymore! 3 members got banned from Wilders. And one of them is a member here on this forum. Yeah it's ridiculous to see that even some Wilders members react that way.

This is exactly what I posted at first too. But then I thought twice and deleted my post. The problem is you can exclude the app, but if you do then only the app (let's say C:\example\defrag.exe) isn't scanned. But if you run a backup it accesses the whole disk (so not only the excluded file C:\example\defrag.exe) and as this defragging causes the slowdown (as the TS said) you would need to exclude the whole disk. However I'm unsure about this "defrag slowdown". One thing is sure - this is not normal and other defrag programs work without any slowdown. But I also don't know whether ESET really detects a kind of modification, because AFAIK defrag programs operate more or less on filesystem level and so these files are not moved in a different way and I'm not sure whether ESS detects this and how it behaves. Yeah I guess. In any case, I don't know if this defragger normally is a fast or slow app as I have never used it. I thought to include an alternative suggestion in the posted but at the last second I decided not to do that before I posted. And that was that he could take the computer offline, temporarily disable ESET, and start defragging to see if it makes a difference. And when done enable ESET again. That way he doesn't need to bother with exclusions, and the computer doesn't need to be online while he defrags it. Not an ideal permanent solution, but worth a try to see if it improves. If not, then maybe this particular defragging app isn't the fastest defragger in the world. But then I see no problem in that it takes a bit of time since one doesn't need to sit and wait for it to finish, start defragging and walk away and do something else for a while. Or he could try a few other defraggers to see if they are faster on his computer or not. But then we don't know how long time it takes and how slow it actually runs.

It seems you have 2 more vendors to contact, Fortinet and Kaspersky. https://www.virustotal.com/sv/url/05b66e15e951e1a3d1161d3b4543b92f4a5e72d3d12eb341a58d5f63f8571f84/analysis/1429186685/

Yeah, ESET's results are consistent and steady

Yeah I know, sorry if it seemed that the post was directed at you, that wasn't my intention. We could also say that my post was for some of those that..."can't be bothered to click on the links."

FWIW, I want to mention that it's also worth to read through the PDF as it includes details about the false alarms. For example, one can read that the one FP ESET had was on "XPwinexit package." supposed prevalence not that high. And after ESET all the other vendors follows..... To name a few "fun" FPs.... All products that use the Bitdefender engine (including BD obviously) had a FP on "Google package". Vipre had a FP on "ESET package" and "Avira package"....And Avast had a FP on "Symantec package". By just looking at the detection names one can clearly see that some vendors should fine tune their cloud back-end a bit, and some more than others.

Avira for example, they would have got an "Advanced+" award if it wasn't for their FP rate, and because of the FPs, they got downgraded to "Advanced" (same grade as ESET). Avira was not the only vendor that got downgraded due to FPs by the way. I only took them as the example as they got the highest detection rate alongside Kaspersky.

Yes I want it to be excluded in any way!- When defragging ESS scans every file it moves, and Really slows down defrag? Exactly How do I exclude MD, without temp disabling Any protection? I can't answer if ESET slows down defragging with this app or not since I don't use it. It's not recommended, but if you want to see if it makes a difference then you could exclude the app from being scanned by ESET...hxxp://kb.eset.com/esetkb/index?page=content&id=SOLN2769&actp=search&viewlocale=en_US&searchid=1429162351632

I would not install from the CD as it probably has an older version on it. Instead download the latest version from ESET's website so you get the latest version installed from the start. Now, even if your CD has e.g version 7 or even older version on it your license will work for the very latest version too as the license is not tied to a specific version since product/version upgrades are free of charge for license holders. If you don't know if your Windows OS is 32 or 64-bit use the live installer and it'll download the right one for you. hxxp://www.eset.com/int/download/home/detail/family/5/#online If you know whether your OS is 32 or 64-bit you could also choose to download the offline installer from here. hxxp://www.eset.com/int/download//home/detail/family/5?installer=offline#offline

PDF here: hxxp://www.av-comparatives.org/false-alarm-test-march-2015/ And online chart here: hxxp://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php?chart=chart6&year=2015&month=3&sort=0

PDF found here: hxxp://www.av-comparatives.org/real-world-protection-test-march-2015/ And online chart: hxxp://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php?chart=chart2&year=2015&month=3&sort=0&zoom=2

PDF found here: hxxp://www.av-comparatives.org/file-detection-test-march-2015/ And online chart: hxxp://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php?chart=chart1&year=2015&month=3&sort=2&zoom=2

I see, thanks. Haven't heard about your new type of PCU until now, interesting.

Trust = ? Are you saying that you want to exclude it from being scanned in any way ?

Yep I got a notification yesterday asking me (I have PCU updates set to ask) if I wanted to updated. One difference was that this notification didn't popup in the lower corner of the screen but in the middle of the screen. I wonder what effect does the "regularly check for latest product version" have because I have it disabled but I was still asked if I wanted to download the PCU by using the in-built updater ? Or is it that "regularly check for latest product version" only apply to major product releases like v7 -> v8 -> v9 ? And not for PCU updates ?

All links that have been posted in this thread are safe to click on.

Ahhh now I see it, quite well hidden on the dark grey/blueish background. It becomes more visible (along with the report, edit and hide buttons at the bottom) when the cursor is placed within the post.

No there is no pressure on any vendor that I know of, each vendor usually follow their own guidelines when it comes to PUPs and PUAs and what should be detected as such. ESET and other vendors can backup why a certain app is detected, it's more uncertain if a dev/company behind a detected app would be able to show evidence that the detection is wrong and actually is a FP, and I think that's one reason why no vendor has been sued for detecting something as a PUP or PUA. Like with malware, there is no vendor that detects 100% of the PUPs and PUAs, but ESET is more than happy to add detection if you submit something that currently is undetected. All I can say is that ESET has not changed its strong stance against PUAs and PUPs, its as strong as ever. Malwarebytes PUP Criteria https://www.malwarebytes.org/pup/ ESET.... hxxp://virusradar.com/en/glossary/pua One can keep in mind what Malwarebytes write on their criteria page that they evaluate them on a case by case basis. ESET also evaluate them on a case by case basis so the chance that a PUP or PUA detection turns out to be a FP is very small. Also see some of the documents by the Anti-Spyware Coalition. hxxp://www.antispywarecoalition.org/documents/index.htm hxxp://www.antispywarecoalition.org/about/index.htm

I have this "edit" issue too. I didn't post a thread about it because I thought that I was the only one having this issue, but it turns out others have had it for a few month as well lol! Why didn't you guys post about it earlier ? Why didn't I post about it earlier...it could have been solved by now Yes Indeed, edit -> press F5 -> edit -> F5 -> edit -> F5...that's how I do it incase I need to edit a post. It works, but I rather get a working edit button again.

If you mean sites that push malware on people that use ad-blockers ? No sorry, it's actually the first time I read that a website owner hopes that if he threat users with malware people might reconsider the use of ad-blockers, shame he totally fails to understand why so many people choose to use ad-blockers, and what he as a site owner can do about it! hxxp://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Kevin_Martin This guy really is something else.

https://adblockplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=28581#p119403 Source: https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/ublock-a-lean-and-fast-blocker.365273/page-37#post-2480099 I for one, would not have a big problem with ads on websites if they didn't invade on my privacy, was not blinking and flashing like crazy, animated like videos, popups in my face, slowed down my web experience, track me when I leave the site etc etc etc.... They should be like in the good old newspaper (and magazines for that matter), not in my face (except the full page ads), is not animated or flashing to steal my attention, and does not track me when I put the newspaper down and walk away. The AD industry needs to solve what they have created with all this crapp before it's too late. Why ? Because the Internet would become a boring closed-down world if too many websites started "paywalling" users when they browse their site, and hide away too much content for "premium" paying users. Trying to give malware to visitors that use ad-blockers...great idea smarty, not!

This thread was started April 17 last year, and it's soon April 17 again, so I guess that's why this have started happening occasionally now again. Obviously it isn't, but I can't help but to think like that. This error have shown up 3-4 times during the last couple of days, I even lost a post because of it. (yes I didn't follow my good habit and copied the whole post that time hmmm ).

Is there anyway I can just install the firewall portion of SS 8? No, it is not possible to install separate "components" of NOD32/ESS. Everything is tightly integrated, and has been for many years. But why would you want to install a "suite" product and only use one feature ? ESS is not really meant to be used like that. You'd be better off by using some other stand-alone software firewall. Disabled ? First you said: "I just want to use the firewall plus web and e-mail protections of this software." But now you only want the firewall, did you change your mind ? Personally, if I only wanted a software firewall I wouldn't pick ESS only for its firewall. It would be like using the most bloated "firewall" in the world. Not sure what you are trying to achieve here.

hxxp://www.welivesecurity.com/2015/04/09/operation-buhtrap/

https://heimdalsecurity.com/blog/webpage-screenshot-leaks-private-data-million-users/