Mike

Thanks. Will do.

I have a Mac User running the latest Eset Endpoint Security (v6.10.910.0) on Big Sur 11.5.2. When they try to access websites with Safari, they get a error: "bad request invalid verb". They don't get this error on Chrome. But they also don't get it on Safari if they pause Eset protection. Presumably we need to tweak the Eset configuration slightly to resolve this? The user is remote to me, so I don't have direct access to the machine, but I can pull logs via "ESET Protect", or do a remote screen-sharing connection with them.

I agree, it has been frustrating to keep pushing my Mac users back a month at a time, to now see the date for Firewall support in ESET Endpoint Security has been pushed back to March by ESET! Many of them are itching to upgrade to Big Sur. As a non-Mac user myself, I'm now left trying to decide whether to let my Mac users now upgrade to Big Sur without Firewall, or make them wait even longer to install Big Sur until Firewall is released by ESET. Would be interested to hear what others are planning to do now with this latest news... Also interested to hear about the beta too...

Thanks Marcos. WIll keep an eye out for that. What about ESMC client v7.0.447.0 (eg the other half of my question)? Is that OK, or does that need a newer version for compatibility with next MacOS version too? Might be worth an overview help page which has compatibility for all ESET products and lists the minimum versions that will work with next MacOS without problems. That way we can see at a glance the latest status, (eg currently wait for the next product version) and then when that product is released, it will state the exact version that is minimum required. Otherwise each time a new version comes out, we will be left asking the same question over and over again (in the forums and on phone to support etc), asking is this the version the one that works, or are we still waiting (eg like the change from v6.8 to v6.9). Thanks Mike

A Mac user is still getting the same warning on Eset Endpoint AntiVirus v6.9.60.0 I assumed this would be fixed in the v6.9 product line, as you said it would be fixed in the next version after v6.8 (or do you mean the v7 product line?) Equally, whilst I'm assuming that the warning is coming from Eset Endpoint, I guess there is an equal chance it is coming from the ESMC client (which is on v7.0.447.0). Any info on what are the minimum versions of both Endpoint and ESMC client are required for use with the next version of MacOS would be much appreciated.

@HSW Are you talking about ESMC or Endpoint Security here? (I was referring to Endpoint Security & AntiVirus in this thread, but you raise an interesting point) I'm presuming that EES and EEA v7 will work fine with either ERAv6 or with ESMC v7, but I realised I haven't checked that specifically. Ideally at this stage I'd roll out some EESv7 test machines, whilst I remain on ERAv6. I'd then look at a switch to ESMC v7 at a later date, when I have more time. @everyone else. Thanks for the input and replies so far. Makes me more confident to invest the time in trialling EES and EEA v7 for a few machines at this end. Still worth others replying too though, as I'm sure I won't be the only one with this question, and the more who answer, the better a picture everyone gets of product readiness for the primetime! Thanks again Mike

As a small charity, we have very limited resources to test new products internally. Therefore I was wondering how other are finding v7 of EES and EEA? (ideally I'd have asked via a poll, but that isn't allowed for mere mortals!) So how about this for a poll substitute. What is your experience of Endpoint v7 products? Great. (Using it with no problems) OK. (Using it with only minor problems.) Tested. (Tried it, but having major problems, so not ready for widespread use.) Not tested yet. Other... Thinking you can just reply with the number that matches your experience, OR if you prefer: write the number and also a comment to explain more. Hoping this will help others quickly get a sense of the state of the new versions. Mike

Awesome. That info is great. Sounds like the product we've been waiting for. Can't wait to test drive it! Thanks for sharing! Mike

Thanks. That'll save me having to find it by nosing around again! (my situation is the same, in that the current default is the non-routeable sever name instead of externally routeable url, so now I'll be able to fix that forever now!) Thanks. Mike

Perfect! I fully understand those dates are best guess right now, but that is really useful guidelines which will help me plan! Thanks. In terms of functionality, are we basically talking a cloud version of ERA? (eg similar functionally to local ERA install, but installed on ESET's servers as a cloud service)? Are there are known feature gaps that come with this cloud version compared to current local install of ERA?

Thanks for the help! Do you mean I create two policies: One to send the settings I want (but which unfortunately locks those settings from being changed) A second less restrictive policy which I then apply afterwards which leaves the things I set in the first policy in place, but then allows local editing Is that what you mean? If so, do the two policies have to be manually set to the first policy, then after it has applied manually remove it switched to the second policy? (Or, can I apply both at once using the policy order to set and then unlock?) Also, in the old days there were config files (possibly .xml files? but I forget now) that you could apply to configure a client with sensible defaults, but I can't find this any more... presumably these were dropped? Or am I just missing something? Mike

Hi, I've only recently started exploring Policies and I'm finding them confusing and too restrictive. Am I missing the point, or is there another way to set configuration for Endpoint Security & Antivirus products using ERA 6.5 but in such a way that I also allow local changes to be made as well. Currently if I set anything via the Policy (say a rule to allow Skype through the firewall - although why this doesn't just work out of the box is beyond me!), that also locks the firewall so that the user can add their own exceptions. What I want to do is set a sensible set of default values for various features, but also for some of them still allow the user to over-ride this setting if needed. Is there another way to do this, or is it really all or nothing (locked or not-set-at-all)? Thanks Mike

Sweet. I had the same query a while ago, and no answer was forthcoming. I did nose around the SQL at the time, and saw the entry required, but chickened-out from changing it in case it messed things up. Glad to hear that this tweak works fine! Will hunt it out and see if I can change ours too. Thanks for sharing the knowledge back with us all.

Even very vague and non-committed time-frames are useful. I'm in the process of moving all our stuff here out to the Cloud, which makes sense for us as we are a charity and get the cloud stuff for free. However it looks like I'm going to need to maintain an onsite server and hybrid setup just so that ERA will run! Which is a lot of admin work to maintain for that one function.... equally I couldn't contemplate managing all our users remotely without ERA, so am in a tricky situation. No point using Azure for it, as that would just cost us dollars compared to hardware onsite we already paid for... and would still need the OS keeping up-to-date etc. ERA as a service in the cloud would be what we need. A vague timeframe would allow us to make plans. eg Are we talking: weeks, months or years away from being ready? (for another charity I volunteer for, they jumped off ESET ERA last year because they had no server to run it on, and they'd probably jump back in a flash once Cloud is ready, but their renewal is coming up this month so they need to decide soon) Hope you can give us some vague info without committing to anything. (I understand the ultimate answer will be "when it is ready for the production use!") Thanks Mike

That would be awesome Thanks. That is exactly what I wondering... if there were settings that I should tweak to optimise my Mac user's experience of ESET! If you are able to share your policy settings I'd be most grateful.