Jump to content

SweX

Most Valued Members
  • Content Count

    2,266
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    109

Everything posted by SweX

  1. @khairulaizat92 There is a big difference between real-world usage, i.e a user goes to a website that has been compromised and the product detects malware, or the user download 1 infected file and the product detects malware etc etc...it can happen once a week, or 1-3 times a year, or more often it all depends on knowledge and habits. Compared to looking for malware samples and test them against products all day long, that is not near real-world usage, not even for the average joe or jane. "As theres been a news around telling that hacker do the experiment on their created Malware on Virus total" Fun experiment...and totally useless experiment if you ask me. So they can continue doing that as far as I am concerned.
  2. Yes you can upgrade to V8 (2015) for free if you have a valid license. But you can NOT update NOD32 V7 (2014) to Smart Security V8 (2015) as they are different products and ESS is more expensive. But if you have a NOD32 license then you updated from v7 to v8, no problem. So, no, your 2014 license is not wasted, but be sure to updated the same product that you have so you don't try to update NOD32 v7 -> ESS v8 as that won't work. Product upgrades is always free of charge for license holders. The product license is not tied to a specific product version e.g v7, but works on older and newer (yet to be released) versions as well.
  3. I fully agree with Patch
  4. "But all the above files are originally from windows and need configuration in interactive mode." No, they don't "need" to be configured in interactive mode at all. That is totally your choice, you chose to do it that way. But you don't have to. How do you think rules are created for all those users that use Automatic mode? Probably 95%+ of the users. Rules for those examples above would have been taken care of automatically in automatic mode, or else every singel user would popup in the forum and ask what they can allow and what they should block. And why the product is so annoying. We don't need to have pre-defined rules for everything OS related out of the box except for stuff that is absolutely necessary, as Automatic mode will create rules automatically when needed (also for connections to MS) when the user is using their computer.
  5. Also please add default rules or description for the following windows files: So far, I have noticed that the following processes all want to make regular connections: Host Process for Windows Services (svchost.exe) Host Process for Setting Synchronization (SettingSyncHost.exe) User Account Control Panel Host (UserAccountBroker.exe) Windows Explorer (explorer.exe) Windows Host Process (rundll32.exe) Store Broker (WSHost.exe) Windows Driver Foundation - User-mode Driver Framework Host Process (WUDFHost.exe) Device Association Framework Provider Host (dasHost.exe) Host Process for Windows Tasks (taskhost.exe) For example, right now I am worried about WSHost.exe because I don't even use the windows store and still it wants to send data to microsoft? You are worrying about that programs you install may call "home", but you don't worry about that the OS (Windows) might call home to MS once in a while? Well WSHost.exe is part of the OS and a lot in the OS wants to connect to MS, but that doesn't mean you have to allow everything that's part of the OS to connect out, you can even block stuff from connection out without breaking the OS. If you Google around you can find more info about what is essential to be allowed and what isn't. IMO you are just making this harder for yourself, the pre-set rules that are in-place today should be enough out of the box, or else I assume ESET would have added rules for the ones in your list already if they are that essential. I think it is better to have a small pre-defined set out of the box like today, and users that want to add more rules can do so afterwards if they like, so no one have to spend time removing rules that they don't want right after install. The pre-defined rules are fine, and the Automatic mode will do the rest once users start using the computer. Again, there is a reason why Automatic mode is the default....
  6. "Add the possibility for two product upgrade channels so you can get a new version directly after it was released." But anyone that wants new releases ASAP can already get them if they want, by just visiting the website. Having a second update channel for those that are, well, let's call them lazy, and don't have time navigating to the website....hmmm sounds like unnecessary work for ESET to me. I mean ESET shouldn't need to serve new versions on a silver plate like that, my answer is -> "if you want it NOW then come and get it!" IMO, users that want to get their hands on a new version ASAP (before a PCU release) they already know where to find it. And the users that choose to wait, I don't think they are interested in using a PR update channel for new versions even if it existed. One reason why new versions is released as PCUs a bit later is because they go through some serious internal testing before they are pushed out to every customer. Because once they are pushed out to the customers there is no simple way of going back.
  7. Hello, See Aryeh's reply in this thread: https://forum.eset.com/topic/2248-request-reseller-in-iran/
  8. Hmmm not ideal, but you can always copy out the text you want and paste it, then hightlight the text and click the quote button.
  9. That's what he wanted to hear, problem solved. Good god can we end this discussion now. If not, then please just read the last 3 pages over and over...its all there nothing more to add.
  10. I am a member on the Comodo forum and the ESET Mods are not behaving the way like some of their mods, especially not like some of the "helper mods" on their forum. Calling the ESET Mods brain washed is a bit too strong for my liking. I understand you have a hard time taking NO for an answer, but that doesn't mean they are brain washed. They have worked for ESET a long long time and they know what the ESET users expect from the products. And what features and functions that fit in nicely in the products. I think Aryeh has been most helpful towards you, and have explained very well in detail why these services/features can end up being more work for the vendor (FP ratings) than they are worth. Thanks.
  11. Yes I understand you very well, I suggest you check whether the add-on in these products is essential for some of their features like their web protection to work or not. I remember a while ago when a user of qihoo wrote that the web protection didn't work in his browser and someone asked what browser he used, answer was...oh sorry the add-on doesn't work in that browser. In what way is that not a feature that does NOT work based on what browser you use? I am fully aware how these products work, and that's also why I am not interested in them. Instead I suggest that you look into how ESET interact with the browser Without any type of plugin, add-ons etc...and works with ALL browsers, always. This man does even consider to change browser because 4 features stopped working, I can't blame him as he probably payed for the product. But I would change product instead. I would not tolerate that some parts of my product stops working only because I updated my browser. Or incase I started using a new browser.
  12. 1. No one is saying that they are wrong, but why should all vendors do the same thing! 2. 2-3 % higher detection rate in a test I assume. But that has nothing to do with the site "advisor" in their products though. 3. So now you want to remove features too, other "suite" products have parental controls but ESET should not, you rather see them add a plugin. Built into Windows...right i'll start recommending Windows Defender to people as well. 4.Suites a thing of the past, yes if they turn into more than suites (360/total), I actually like the firewall and its features in ESS. And people that don't want/need parental controls etc.. can pick NOD32 instead. FYI, Browser Plugins are a thing of the past if you didn't know, more and more vendors try to stop using them in their products. 5. Why should ESET care if Norton is "streamlining" their products into one? They are competitors and should not look at each other and simply do the same thing. 6. "Newbies" don't care if a link is red or purple they will go there no matter what. 7. I think Aryeh gave very good reasons why they chose not to go down the advisor/reputation route. 8. ESET is not only good, it is in fact the only product I would run, if ESET scew up for some reason, or destroys the product with stupid features or plugins, extensions, toolbars or other c rap I will go AV less in a heartbeat, and go down an alternative route. Which is why I don't like or appreciate unnecessary product changes. But maybe that's just me.
  13. I agree with your post especially about the baby sitting of plugins to stay compatible, but I want to say something about WOT. WOT can indeed be useful, but some users are misusing their "power to rate" as they may rate a site as bad, only because they don't like the actual site, what the site is all about, or what's written on it. And those ratings are resulting in FP ratings, and it literally destroys the whole purpose of WOT wich is a very good idea from the start, but one simply can't trust the ratings to 100%. About Aryeh's story... I have seen several stories from small software developers that have had their sites marked as "red/bad/negative" etc..by such services, two of the cases was connected to the McAfee site advisor where they contacted them for re-classification, waited a few weeks, nothing happened, contacted again, nothing happend...that is ridiculous. The site owner has no say in the matter but to wait a long time before they finally got around and fixed it. Sites get their rating automatically, but I assume the re-classification is manual but if it takes that long before they actually take a look at it...the sites reputation can be pushed to the bottom before its all over and the site owner can relax, that is not good. So I agree with Aryeh, ESET's approach is much better!
  14. That is exactly what I wonder as well. Use what's already available, if 8 or more vendors have one then just try them out and pick wich ever you like the best. Or wich ever is compatible with your browser. And yes, there are more browsers available than IE, Chrome and Firefox! And like SCR said, you can't just release a plugin and let it be, it needs constant "baby sitting" in order to be compatible and work with each new browser release. And as I said before, even if a link is marked red, nothing will prevent the as someone said "newbie" from clicking and entering the site anyway as most newbies think they know best and simply have to access the site no matter what. "I have visited this site for years...and it was "green" 2 days ago...ehhhh I don't care I'll visit it anyway and report it as a FP there's no way its something bad on here..."
  15. Description: Live Grid execution blocker unless file is known safe. It is quite rare that I of all people post feature requests or in this case request added functionality to a feature we already have. But it's something I have thought about before, several times actually, that I believe could be useful for basically all above average users, and users that know how to respond to a prompt once in a while, would be a function that is found in some other products and that works with file info from the cloud in this case Live Grid. I guess you could say it works like a cloud based whitelist. In ESET that could be a function like, unless the file we execute is "green/known safe" in Live Grid we would be prompted with a "allow, block, quarantine" popup notification. That means nothing that is not known safe "green tagged" in Live Grid will not be allowed to execute without that we allow it first. Of course this should be a function having a checkbox like everything else that users can enable and disable. And it should not be enabled by default for obvious reasons. P.S Not to mix this up with file reputation / how many users have this file similar to -> "only 5 users have this file are you sure you want to allow the file to execute?" That is NOT my idea, so even if only 1 user have this file and it is "green tagged" known safe in Live Grid it will be allowed to execute just fine. Thank You.
  16. I don't understand why some users feel is it so important to have a "traffic light" system for search results. Even if the AV shows the link as "red" nothing will prevent the user from accessing the site anyway. And I guess some people don't mind that some plugins in other AVs are only compatible with IE, Firefox, and Chrome. What about all other browsers that people may use, the "plugin feature" is useless to them. That is why more vendors should stop using plugins etc.. so the whole product works independent of what browser you happen to use. When people ask me for such feature, I usually recommend WOT(despite all FP link ratings) or something similar that already is available for free. If they want a feature like this then they will have to live with that safe links get red tagged once in a while. One of the reasons I use and like ESET is because there is no extensions and plugins involved. And I really really hope it stays that way!
  17. No they may not do that Now. But check their past history please it might give you a clue: https://forums.malwarebytes.org/index.php?/topic/29681-iobit-steals-malwarebytes-intellectual-property/ Do you want to support a company like that by using and recommending their software then you are free to do so. We leave that to ESET to decide. Many members here think they should focus on other more important things than create a monster product that does all sorts of stuff. And yes most of it is indeed redundant and unneeded. Also, if you think about it then i'm sure you'll agree that some products are simply best used as stand-alone and not baked in with loads of other stuff. I'm not sure but that name rang me a bell and there's a good chance we detect it as PUA Iobit should not be detected as PUA, they have in some installation packs toolbars, toolbars are user dependent, and user usually do not install them on computer. It doesn't matter if it is a toolbar or something else having an "opt-out" button, it is still bundled with it and thus it will be detected. And FYI that goes for all softwares not only IObit software. And don't forget that ESET users can also enable/disable PUA detections if they like as they are user optional. Read this to better understand what a PUA is: hxxp://virusradar.com/en/glossary/pua "and user usually do not install them on computer." Usually not you say? I beg to disagree very strongly when it comes to the average user. If you only know how much c rap I have seen in peoples browsers. They can be flooded with this stuff. 5 toolbars who needs that?! But that can just be the top of the PUA iceberg when you start to see what other stuff that have sneaked in.
  18. "dont be so confident because i was cheking the other anti virus have more features that eset" I take a deep breath and pretend I didn't read this for the 5'th time.
  19. Also if we had ESS and ESET 360°, this would be like Nor**n Internet Security and Nor**n 360°. - No! No! No! Never! This cra p can stay away! This would require stuff and this stuff can make better things at ESET! I suggest you re-read the post again. I do Not say that I want ESET take this path and waste resources on it! You should know by now that I am against it, not for it!
  20. No, please no Nor**n 360° (or even ESET 360°)! Please! That was just an idea (not a suggestion) that I see as a better way than ESET end up adding c rap to ESS. As I like ESS I want to continue to use it without extras being added. But I rather see ESET stay out of the "fluff fluff" product segment altogether of course.
  21. Hello, "I was just talking a feature prevent "listen" keystroke, not containing the bank details ..." Ah I see, if ESET consider to add something for "banking" then yes that it much better in every possible way. But it will take time to develop to be sure it works to 100%, I mean even products having such features doesn't always work all the time despite that's the intention of these features. It feels like some of them have just put a feature name like that in the feature list even if the feature is half-baked and not ready. "You know very well that all companies use marketing, Eset like others elsewhere" I don't call that marketing, that's simply what they say that their product is capable of nothing more nothing less. I have searched but haven't found anything, but i'm curious and would appreciate if you could point me in the direction where ESET claim something similar? "A destructive files, available in the context menu....An password manager, but with local back-up not in the cloud...An the ability to backup data" 1. I assume you mean like a Secure File Deletion function? Can be useful. 2. Password manager, plenty of stand-alone passwords managers available. 3. Backup. same here, plenty of good reliable backup programs available. IMO 2 and 3 would only make ESS bloated as they have nothing to do with protection and they don't fit the "internet security" product category. Then it would be much better if they released another product having all ESS features + password manager and backup. ESET Total Security or whatever. Personally I don't see the point with these Total products, I imagine that maybe 60% of the product is developed in-house (taken from the AV or IS version) and the rest has been licensed of other companies that are experts at what they do, like backup programs or similar made by a company that are experts on developing backup softwares. I would rather buy the backup software directly from the backup company and that way also get better support, incase the backup "feature" in the AV is working incorrectly you are supposed to contact the AV support to get support for the AV product that you bought, not the backup company. What would happen incase the AV vendor push out a bad update/product update of some kind that could end up affecting the backup function, could be a disaster...some products are best used on their own. No, these products just add extra footprint on the system, not to mention that the download size get's ridiculous. I dislike when vendors license a program from another company and adds it like a feature in their own product. Like if a vendor would license Lastpass and add it in their own product as a password manager feature. Instead I am for that the whole product is developed in-house just like ESS. And ESET has a long tradition of in-house development, so if they would add a licensed feature they would break that tradition. Vendors are lazy when they just "pick" programs and "paste" them in their own programs to launch products that have the most additional features in the hope to gain more customers from the group that want all-in-one products. You mentioned marketing, there you have it right there. They want to sell sell sell so some of them felt the need to create huge products(by licensing) that includes protection, backup, speedup, defrag, banking, secure shopping, software updater, password manager, maintenance tools... and what else you can find in some of them. And its not good since people are now starting to get used to these products as more vendors jump on the "total" and "360" train. So vendors that does not include some features like the ones mentioned above in their products are unfortunately starting to ge more and moret requests to add such features. Many vendors should go back to the BluePrint to see what company it was that they started...was it a security software company.....or what was it! Thank You.
×
×
  • Create New...