rugk

OK, thanks for your quick answer. I also saw this thread now: Will Eset / Nod32 Support Windows Mobile 8?

OK that makes sense, but so you can't compare this version numbers. You can't get out what version is newer or older and I agree to @Podrska2NORT it is confusing for users and much more for all who want to support them. Why not make the version number system like this?: ESET Mobile Security v 3.0.VVVV.X VVVV stands for a unified version number where you can get out "how new EMS is", e.g.: 3.0.882.2 X stands for one number where you can get out where you downloaded the EMS version, e.g.: 1 - ESET (respectively pure .apk) 2 - Google Play 3 - Amazon e.g. 3.0.882.2 (this version would be version 3.0.882 from Google Play)

ESET Mobile Security is currently available for Android, for Symbian and for Windows Mobile. The last 2 are quite old, but for Windows Mobile exits a subsequent operation: Windows Phone. So EMS is available for Windows Mobile (old), but not for Windows Phone (new). I think if someone wants to use a mobile "Windows-OS" then he would use Windows Phone and not Windows Mobile. And because of this my question is: Why EMS is available for Windows Mobile, but not for Windows Phone? ESET Mobile Security is currently available for Android, for Symbian and for Windows Mobile. The last 2 are quite old, but for Windows Mobile exits a subsequent operation: Windows Phone. So EMS is available for Windows Mobile (old), but not for Windows Phone (new). I think if someone wants to use a mobile "Windows-OS" then he would use Windows Phone and not Windows Mobile. And because of this my question is: Why EMS is available for Windows Mobile, but not for Windows Phone?

You also have to make sure that you registered your SIM in the settings of ESET AntiTheft in EMS. If you want to use another SIM card you can also register it before you enter it in your phone (you have to write the SIM card number off). If you do so you shouldn't be asked for the password when entering the SIM.

Funny question @amir, but it's also quite interesting - only for information.

Can it be that setting the option to restart the task as soon as possible (see screenshot) is a solution? If the update fails then it should be repeated as long as it is successfully. This would be like "first update failed - wait 30 sec - second update failed - wait 30 sec - third update was successfully". Or do I get this option wrong?

ESET v8 (BETA) also has an Botnet blocker. It can also blocks unknown malware which wants to use the computer in a botnet.

Hello @Arkwoman23, Yes it's worth to buy it. ESET is on of the best security solutions in my opinion. It's especially known for a low false positive and low system stress, but of course it also has a high detection rate. (More information) ESET has many solutions for many devices and OSs. For Windows they have ESS (Video) and ESET Nod32 Antivirus. And they also have a multi-device-license where you can save much money if you want to use it one more than one device. You can download a 30-days trail for free and try it out. Hint: ESET also provides much more than only security protection such as an free Social Media Scanner and a security blog. More things you can also find in the signatures of many users.

ESET has a distribution in Portugal. This is the official website: hxxp://www.eset.com/pt/ And here you can contact them: hxxp://www.eset.com/pt/about/contact/ If you are a owner of a shop or website then you can become a partner on this site: hxxp://www.eset.com/pt/partners/ (international version: hxxp://www.eset.com/int/partners/)

Just some reply: Keyboard: Use Windows osk.exe. RootKit: secret tests... ok. A bit more specific would be good. Safe System: Analyse PC: On Demand scan missing Windows Updates: ESET products are already warning Task Manager, CMD: Sorry this are the worst ideas I every heart. Disabling task manager?? SafeBox: Sandbox was already discussed and your idea with non-signed files is not convertible in a meaningful way. The only thing I can a bit agree is "File Extensions", but there also only for .exe. It can be used from maleware to prevent users from starting any exe. But ESET already has an .exe file association repair tool (point 2) free to download, so you can use this if you experience problems. And I wonder from where you know what "many hackers do"...

For my part we can end this discussion... But do you mean Arakasi meant this serious?

Ehm... I'm quite sure that this was a joke of Arakasi. And excuses... Where? I didn't excused oneself and I also don't gave you any excuse, so I don't know what you mean... And if I look back I feel that it was 1000 times said that ESET don't make something just because an other vendor has it. Edit for your edit: I'm not interested to know what you do or what you recommend. And no I not familiarize with an useless add-on until it has a use that is better than the actually Web protection without add-on. That's why I said you should precise your suggestion, read my question 2 and say what the advantages are, but if you don't want then it's your decision.

Thanks. @LabVIEW707 My post above was not especially related to this specific feedback, but have a look at this question at the third point: Developing the add-on is one thing, but then there are more things: Running the servers for this Updating the add-on for new browser versions if needed Handle request for re-rating ... And please also have a look at question 2. IMO this is what I don't understand. And if you really want to continue the discussion then it also would be helpful to provide more detailed information about your idea. Should there be a user-based rating or a malicious rating? Or what else should be used to display the status?

Good. Nice test. Yeah, I agree. The problem is "solved" if the "real time protection" is completely deactivated, but the "removable media access" is not the problem. So the problem must be elsewhere in real time protection. Yes, but this is of course no real solution for the problem and you will lose a big part of the protection for a short time. As I said the problem must be elsewhere in real time protection and so I would suggested to make a new test again: At first activate all options again if not already done. Then test the copying again with every of this configurations, but activate the previous option again before deactivating the next option, so that you only have one option deactivated at the same time. Try it with every of this options of the real-time-protection deactivated: Deactivate only "Scan on file open" Deactivate only "Scan on file creation" Deactivate only "Scan on file execution" Deactivate only "Media to scan: Device control" BTW I don't really know what the difference between the following options is:

What a discussion about an single idea of a browser add-on. But now it seems that this discussion is finished. But here is a tip how to check and improve your idea or suggestions. If you suggest a new idea you should check your idea before. And for this you should e.g. ask yourself this questions: How is it actually? Is it already implemented in some way? Would something be redundant? If already existing: What are the (dis)advantages of my idea? What's the difference of the actual state compared to the state in my idea? Are there also disadvantages? If so: Are the advantages "more" or "higher" than the disadvantages? How easy or difficult would it be to implement this idea? Is it really worth to do it? Would additional staff be required? Does implementing this idea this idea pays off? How easy is the maintenance of the idea? (one time implemented - finished?) How "much" is it concerned to antivirus/security? I think this are three basically questions you should ask yourself before suggest an idea. If you go trough all with no problem then it's ok. If you have problems then it don't automatically means that your idea is bad. Rethink your idea. Maybe it just needs some "improvements" or you should post your idea with a "..., but" to set limits to your idea. (e.g. "only if many users would like it", "only as a standalone program", "deactivated by default", ...) I hope this is useful. And if you have some other ideas (e.g. for more questions) feel free to post it.

@nyttigbras Thanks for your praise and it's nice that my signature helped you. And I think you are of course allowed to write this blog post about the Social Media Scanner. As far as I can speak for ESET it is also very nice of you, because you made it acquainted.

See this topic for an answer: Thunderbird Ver.31 Disables Eset Addon It has nothing to do with version 8.

OK. Thanks.

Yeah of course. I don't expected that you now have some responses from your product manager or developers. I only asked whether you keep me up date. But maybe you (or somebody else) can answer some of the questions? But I can also wait for a response from your developers or your product manager, if they answer these questions there.

Thanks. Will you post the answers of your product manager/developers here if they thought about my ideas? And there are still some questions... Maybe someone can answer it? PS: I hope the tags helped you...

Just a question: Has ESET fixed the issue that updates were sent unencrypted now? I have nowhere seen any setting to change this. Maybe someone can test it...

OK. Thanks for your answer. And it's great to hear that it will fixed soon.

Ok, a summary: Firewall: You would need root and it's not such important. rejected Web protection: Was forwarded to developers, maybe will be added in future versions. new suggestion Privacy Advisor: There are two meanings of this...as something that provides advice for cybersecurity and privacy: ESET Cybersecurity training, ESET blog (WeLiveSecurity) already included as something that provides advice whether to remove apps or not: already included (Security Audit). already included Backup: It would be quite extensive to include it. rejected Parental control: Maybe this will be included future versions. new suggestion Yeah, we discussed all things. And now: Thanks to Wikipedia! Because of you we have a great output of this topic: 2 new ideas for new features! Edit: Please note that web protection is something different than phishing protection. Phishing protection is already included in EMS!

Another user with a different version number! It's really strange yes. Now I have VSD 4889. If we can anything do to help you with solving this problem, e.g. providing some log files then feel free to say what we should do.

Nice, that you forwarded this "Web protection" request. But: "hidden" is good... How can I make them visible!