local
-
Posts
41 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by local
-
-
19 hours ago, Marcos said:
The license was registered to a user with an Arabic name
So, ESET cancels a license because was registered to a user with an Arabic name ???
I hope you realize that this statement may have legal implications?
-
On 7/12/2020 at 9:30 AM, Marcos said:
As for a bug-free software, there's nothing like that. We don't live in a perfect world and every software maker releases new versions and updates to address reported issues. Even Microsoft releases monthly updates with fixes.
We do not live in a perfect world , but the expectation from a new version it is not to fix 5 bugs from previous version and create 10 new on its own.
ESET is growing in complexity beyond the capability of a regular user to handle it, with over 120 possible settings altogether.
At the same time some other vendors (Avira for example) can manage with just several setting to get 100% on AV Comparatives.
-
On 7/8/2020 at 10:53 AM, howardagoldberg said:
and willing to acknowledge when there is an issue
can you give me one-two examples when ESET acknowledged an issue and did not blame the customer???
-
On 6/22/2020 at 11:22 AM, quartermaster said:
My daughter was taking the PA-CAT last month
Since this is a very important exam, to avoid any possibility, why don't you uninstall ESET for the duration of the exam????
Doesn't matter what settings are you going to change, still you will be in doubt.
-
1 hour ago, Marcos said:
Do you mean that you don't get any alert when you open (...)
Do you have SSL filtering enabled?
No, he doesn't mean that!
dpa said :
"if I use the amtso.org site, the phishing test will produce a Detection, however that detection does not send out the desired alert."
So ESET will produce a detection but doesn't send out by email .
-
1 hour ago, peteyt said:
The thing is people tend to only see the bad stuff or at least the stuff that looks bad
That is true, however what I can see is Bitdefender , Kaspersky even Microsoft which offer free antivirus , did it quite well 99.9%.
-
On 5/12/2020 at 11:46 PM, Marcos said:
(e.g. if you are downloading a relatively small archive which is unpacked in memory for scanning
I downloaded eicar in a double ZIP and ESET did not react while I downloaded it. Only when I scanned I got the detection.
So, is ESET still "unpacking" double zipped files during the download????
-
If every S.M.A.R.T software returned a healthy SSD , I will not replace it.
Do this: create an image with ACRONIS, install another SSD , restore the image and see what you get.
12 minutes ago, Akarin said:ESET already decided it isn't them
ESET has this tendency of blaming something or somebody else , every time you point the finger to them.
What would you expect, a statement like " Yes, indeed, our software destroyed your SSD"????
-
1 hour ago, Akarin said:
I reinstalled ESET again this morning. The warnings returned again.
1 hour ago, Akarin said:I guess I'll just plan on replacing my SSD
Why replacing SSD when you clearly can see that is ESET related???
-
19 hours ago, itman said:
Create a firewall rule to monitor this service - AdobeARMservice.
Regardless of the rule to block AdobeARMservice, ADOBE X still will connect to update servers using svchost.exe, which typically is allowed for Windows updates TCP 80/443
-
On 2/22/2020 at 6:56 PM, itman said:
Actually if this is the case, the malware installed a malicious service
I just gave you an example of a non-malicious item (Adobe) using svchost.exe to check for updates. The firewall should be able to alert you about this.
-
1 hour ago, itman said:
why you're monitoring oubound svchost.exe
some applications are using svchost.exe to connect to the internet. A benign example is Adobe X pro, which will check for updates, even though you block the updater of Adobe.
Similarly, a malware can use svchost.exe to communicate outside.
The purpose of a firewall is to monitor everything; why use a firewall if you ignore the alerts or blindly select "allow" ????
-
1 hour ago, Marcos said:
if the hostname was used in a rule at a later time it wouldn't work as expected I assume.
But, when I review the firewall rules, 1month from now, how I am suppose to remember that I allowed this svchost.exe because was related to Windows update , if in the rule is just an IP ????
-
11 minutes ago, itman said:
All that Eset is doing for the alert is using one of the many IP address-to-domain URL and vice-a-versus web sites,
So, you are saying that the alert may not be accurate?
-
1 hour ago, itman said:
What is going on here is Eset
OK, if resolving the IP to domain is accurate when an alert is being displayed , why the info is not preserved in the rule????
If it is not accurate , why presenting the info in the first place? (on alert)
We cannot have it both ways....
-
A while ago I complained about ESET firewall not having FQDN in alerts ; I was told it is not possible.
Now it seems like is implemented :
however, once the rule is created, only the IP is displayed , not the www. Is very difficult almost impossible to review your rules later on , if only the IP is displayed.
So why the FQDN is not saved in the rule, once it has been determined????
-
35 minutes ago, itman said:
Such is not the case for Windows Defender for example which lacks web filtering capability
How is this relevant? In spite of not having "web filtering capability" Windows Defender scored 99.3% on AV-Comparatives for July-Oct 2019 with 0% compromised while ESET with "machine learning" , "HIPS", "anti-ransomware shield" "web filtering" scored 98.4% with 1.6% compromised !!!! That means from 1000 malware , 16 will reach your PC if protected by ESET.
When people are complaining about this ransomware not being detected , ESET uninstalled by itself, etc , always is the user fault.
However, the AV-test says a different story.
And this is not ranting is just putting together public info.
-
31 minutes ago, itman said:
If for no reason other than to determine if there is an on going issue with existing Eset protection methods.
When was the last time when it has been determine that "is an on going issue with existing Eset protection methods" ???
Typically the user will take all blame from not doing this or that, most recently for " clicking suspicious links "
The whole internet experience is based on "clicking links" ; to determine that is "suspicious" is ESET's job.
-
12 minutes ago, Marcos said:
E.g. if there's an undetected downloader running on a machine
Just out of curiosity, from a logical point of view.
If ESET blocks the site , that means ESET is aware about the downloader , so why ESET wouldn't detect the malicious downloader?
-
30 minutes ago, itman said:
it could have been blocked
This is the issue with ESET ; always "it could have been blocked it" but rarely does in real life....
-
10 minutes ago, Marcos said:
but I have a hunch that files will get encrypted in this case
It may get encrypted either way, so what's the point of running a paid and over-sophisticated antimalware like ESET ( did not count now, but an user can adjust over 120 parameters ) when a simple built-in antivirus (Defender) offers the same level of protection and zero headache???
-
36 minutes ago, peteyt said:
I've never understood hips recommended rules.
Point is ESET is the last one to protect you against ransomware in spite of having a dedicated anti-ransomware module , HIPS, machine learning and all kind of fluffy stuff.
For Win 10, Defender offers comparable better protection for free.
-
Went to "9anime.to" on my Win10 PC (Defender)
Clicked everything and everywhere.. nothing happened.
-
1 hour ago, peteyt said:
If its blocking it there generally is a reason and I'd be concerned
"a reason" could be a FP
1 hour ago, peteyt said:A mod had said it is trying to load a script from a malicious site
and 70 other antiviruses said the other way;
Update authorization +ESET Live Grid
in ESET NOD32 Antivirus
Posted
So, what was the point of mentioning "an user with an Arabic name "?
Your statement implies that the license was cancelled because was registered to an user with Arabic name.
Careful here....