Microbe

Thank you Marcos for helping us, i will inform our client Cheers, Gil

What would be the best suggestion to him? Cheers, Gil

Hi ESET Team, See the below response: Client concern: My concerns around Outlook were fairly generic, but, in this instance, the customer is actually using Live Mail. For those using Thunderbird, the same issue applies, the latest version of ESET 17+ are not supported and that's what I mean by, they don't work at all. Even with the POP/IMAP scanning, SPAM is not included in this.

Hi ESET Team, See the below information: Client concern: I've I'm to believe the following article;https://support.eset.com/en/kb2138-email-clients-compatible-with-windows-eset-products ESET Internet Security 17.1.11.0 would not work with Windows Live Mail, Thunderbird nor would it would with the latest variant of 'New' Outlook. Is that correct or is there a fix in the works? Though I respond to him with the below information : From the link that you sent to us, that is correct windows live Mail ,Thunderbird and New outlook is not supported, however your emails will still be protected and scanned by Protocol Fitering (POP3/IMAP) for the presence of malicious code The POP3 protocol is the most widespread protocol used to receive email communication in an email client application. ESET Internet Security provides protection for this protocol regardless of the email client used. Source : POP3, POP3S filter The protection module providing this control is automatically initiated at system startup and is then active in memory. For the module to work correctly, please make sure it is enabled – POP3 protocol checking is performed automatically without requiring re-configuration of the email client. Source: Email protocols His response : Hi Gil, The issue is the SPAM filtering. With these settings in place, it simply doesn't work... What are the options here? Yours sincerely, Can you help us with the above option from this client Thanks Cheers, Gil

Hi ESET Team, We received an email from ESET Australia - and they informed us about the upcoming released of EI version 2.2, hopefully that will fix the issue soon. You can now close this case, Thank you Cheers, Gil

Hi ESET Team, Kindly see attached file for your reference Attachment include (The HAR Logs - that i believe ESET Australia already sent to you before) and short video capturing the login issue Cheers, Gil REQUIRED INFO -ESET.zip

Hi ESET Team, Our client are having an ongoing migration, however on one of the client machine they recieve the below error: Any suggestion? See the below response from our client : This is not ideal from a migration point of view as end users will complain about this and its not effective to close all browser tabs and re-launch. We will see a lot of service tickets related to this error in the future if we proceed with ‘Secure Browser’ feature. Is there any way we can control this by editing the policy setting. I was able to disable the green frame option available in the ESET policy but its only limited to Green frame of ‘Secure Browser’. Is there any possible explanation to this- I understand warning/error message will appear as soon a machine loses internet connectivity, ideally it should resolve by itself as soon as the network connectivity is restored.

Thank you ESET Team, I will inform the client and send your suggestion, i believed we already send the HAR logs to ESET Australia technical. Cheers, Gil

Hi ESET Team, I would like to ask this case or any update on this case, our client contacted us last week that he was trying to access the ESET Inspect console, but he can't access the ESET Inspect, Before it is working but it will take 2-3 minutes, i hope that you can help us with this case. He also emailed us see the below information: Why is the product released to be used when clearly there are serious issues with it? Our clients are paying for a service that is clearly not being delivered. -Our client. We hope that you can help us with this case ESET Team, Thanks Cheers, Gil

You can now closed this case - as i am able to resolved the issue

Thank you Marcos, i will let our client know about the above information. Thank you very much!

Hi ESET Team, I asked the client if they have existing Mail scanner, but he is not sure I am not sure how to answer the question about mail scanner. With respect to Eset, we are using Eset Protect Cloud for the office - the installation is standard and we did not set up anything special re mail scanning. Obviously once emails are downloaded to the relevant workstations, Eset Endpoint Security will scan. I attach a screenshot of how the "disarmed" subject line looks. I also attach a screenshot on how Web and Mail appears in my desktop. Most is greyed out, managed via cloud as standard. The change to have "disarmed" attached to the subject line started only yesterday and does not seem to affect all emails. I also attached the screenshot of the (disarmed subject line for your reference) SCREENSHOTS.zip

Hi ESET Team, See the below concern of our client: Since earlier today I notice emails coming through with the subject line {disarmed} before the subject - this so far affects at least two different accounts. These are very standard emails and I don't know why these emails suddenly have this additional flag. Has anything changed in how Eset Endpoint Security is handling Email processing? I would like to ask, is there steps that we need about this case?

Hi ESET Team, Thank you for your reply. Is there any plans in the future to have the option to disable notification for completed scan ? Cheers, Gil

Hi ESET Team, Is that possible to disable > 'Notification' once the scan has been complete I hope you’re well, I’m hoping you can help me with a notification I can’t track down. Staff are intermittently receiving a scanning complete notification since I enabled informational level notifications for the live guard notifications I wanted, I’ve checked both “Notifications > Application statuses” and “Notifications > Desktop Notifications” but I can’t find where this setting is enabled/disabled in our policies, can you point me in the right direction?

Thanks Gil. I don’t think my experiences exactly match with this reply, but it’s okay to close this ticket now. I’ll monitor over time and see how it all goes now that the main problem thankfully seems to have been fixed by the new program version. Thank you ESET Team

RE: #CASE_00722503 Hi ESET Team, Any updates from this ticket? , see the below response from our client "I can get in now, but the issue of it taking 3-5 minutes to load the page is still present." - our client Note: I believed ESET AU already submitted the logs to your Team (ESET HQ), can you give us an update about this case Thank you very much!

Hi ESET Team, See the below information from our client, it seems that he do not need to send the logs for us , but he has additional question, check his response with blue color. Thanks , however I can save ESET HQ time and effort looking into logs. I’ve re-checked scans since the upgrade to v17.1.9.0 and the main issue seems to have been fixed. On the device I’ve been using for tests, I don’t think I’m seeing an improvement from multi-threading, but significantly it does now seem to be doing the type of scan that’s actually been selected. That means a Smart Scan isn’t doing an In-Depth Scan any more, thankfully! Instead of scanning 4.8 million objects as a “Smart Scan”, taking 15.5 hours, including archives etc when it shouldn’t, now it scans 1.4 million objects and takes around 4 hours. I can live with that. So … I’m happy to move on from that problem for now, and just keep monitoring. I’ll get back if something goes amiss. A few things are still unresolved though … I’m still confused about Smart Optimisation. On a small file set, a Smart Scan done after the software version update took 19 minutes, and then a second scan of the same files straight after that took just 3 seconds! so a clear benefit there, and that’s what I’d expected from Smart Optimisation … but two Smart Scans of the whole system done back-to-back using v17.1.9.0 showed just a 20% improvement between the scans in time taken, and almost no change in numbers of objects scanned. So, that inconsistency is very hard to understand if indeed Smart Scans “prevent files that have not been changed since last scan, from being scanned AGAIN”. Any clarification you can provide about this will be appreciated. On the other issue, the problem of folder shortcuts leading to scanning duplication is still happening with v17.1.9.0, so this is still outstanding: The existence of file or folder shortcuts shouldn’t lead to ESET re-scanning all the same objects, should it Gil? ESET HQ: With Smart optimization it's likely that a file referenced by a shortcut would not be scanned again if it has already been scanned. ESET HQ seems to be answering this by saying what the program should do, but that’s ignoring what it does do. I sent examples from scan results that readily show the same files were scanned as many as four times, simply because there were shortcuts to large folders. (That file is attached again.) I agree with ESET HQ, that certainly shouldn’t happen, but it does. The problem should be easy to duplicate. I get around it now by removing large folder shortcuts from scan file sets, but surely that shouldn’t be necessary as ESET HQ’s reply above would also suggest. And, also regarding file sets, one other recent observation is intriguing as well – I noticed a recent scan was spending quite a bit of time going through many objects in “C:\System Recovery\Repair\Backup\ …”. When I checked that hidden directory, File Explorer said access to it was restricted, but it was empty anyway, so … Why/how can many, many objects still be scanned in that directory if it’s empty? And can I just exclude that directory without any issue? Thanks, Darryl updates _scan examples.pdf

Thank you ESET Team, I will send the require logs, once I get it. Thank you very much! Cheers, Gil

Hi ESET Team, The reason why i posted (copy and paste ) the concern of our client is because he was doing testing related with this concern, We hope that you will be able to help us give them the recommendation and answer that he need. New information Meanwhile, I’ll provide answers to their questions, but in doing some related tests, I have some new significant information as well. Please bear with me as I go into some details, and then please pass on what I’ve found to ESET HQ. It might be related to the known bug that ESET said they’re aware of in their email of 26/3 (see the message thread below). Firstly, to answer ESET HQ’s questions, there’s a lot of inconsistency between scans, but the latest results of a full PC Smart Scan, with Archives supposedly disabled, and Smart Optimisation supposedly enabled, showed it scanned 4.8 million objects and took 15.5 hours. This was also with duplicates removed, which I’ll go into in more detail below in “Scanning Duplication” because scans are much longer when files are scanned multiple times, as you’d expect. It’s these sorts of numbers I haven’t been able to understand (especially when a second scan done soon after will look fairly similar, apparently not reduced by Smart Optimisation), and is making scans non-viable. From what I’ve seen just lately, the problem isn’t caused by any user files, and may not be related to any files at all. This is what I’ve found… As ESET HQ suggested, I tried to look at some folders that I thought might have been contenders for taking an extra long time, and this showed something very interesting. When I scanned three selected file sets with Smart Scan settings, they were surprisingly quick, but what I noticed was that the reported exceptions that always come up in my weekly Smart Scan results for these particular file sets (like “Error reading archive” and “Archive damaged” and so on), didn’t get reported. That’s probably what should be expected from a Smart Scan, but it’s not what I actually see in my weekly Smart Scans. I was suspicious about this, so I experimented with a hunch … I did a re-scan of these same file sets with the In-Depth Scan setting. I’ve never used that in any of my scans, or in the weekly scans, but it behaved just like my weekly scans. It was much slower, and it DID report all the same exceptions that I see in the results for these same file sets in my supposed Smart Scan weekly scans. It'll probably help if I give a specific example. This is a message that comes up in a scan result from an In-Depth Scan: “C:\Users\dw_001\Documents\Business\Insight Resources\Community Websites\templates\Hitech\_vti_cnf\Hitech.zip » ZIP » - archive damaged”. This doesn’t come up in a Smart Scan of a file set that includes that file, as expected because that scan type excludes archives, but it DOES come up in my weekly scans, which are Smart Scans and supposedly exclude archives. How can that be? It makes it seem as though the weekly scheduled scan is behaving very much like an In-Depth Scan, NOT as a Smart Scan. I’d previously reported on 10/4 there was a problem with Archives being scanned even when they’ve been disabled in the scan type (e.g. Smart Scan). Unfortunately ESET HQ didn’t respond to that, but it turns out the problem could be that the Smart Scan selection is strangely being ignored and something like an In-Depth Scan is being performed instead. That would explain why I’m not seeing any benefit from Smart Optimisation as well I guess, because In-Depth Scans don’t include Smart Optimisation. Tests just with the three selected file sets show a massive difference between an In-Depth Scan and a Smart Scan in the speed of the scans, the numbers of objects scanned, and the results reported. The only trouble is, from my real-world experiences, it looks like I haven’t been getting the benefit of a Smart Scan in my weekly scans. It always seems to revert to something that looks very much like an In-Depth Scan instead, and takes forever. Even more oddly though, while the weekly full PC Smart Scans are consistently behaving in this problematic way, unfortunately I haven’t been able to duplicate the problem with a smaller file set, so that’s extremely confusing. The documented results are very clear, but it’s totally illogical, and computer programs are supposed to be logical, right? Can anyone shed any light on all of this? Why/how could a Smart Scan actually act more like an In-Depth Scan, but only in some circumstances and not others? Before you say that can’t happen, please remember I have scan result documentation that shows it has happened. Scanning Duplication Secondly, what I alluded to above regarding “duplicates removed”, is that there seems to be a software bug, or at least a programming oversight. I raised it in my email of 10/4, and attached proof that shows if there are folder shortcuts selected in the scan file set, those files are re-scanned in addition to the original file set, so the same files are scanned multiple times. ESET’s 11/4 reply to that follows, and my new response to that is in blue … The existence of file or folder shortcuts shouldn’t lead to ESET re-scanning all the same objects, should it Gil? ESET HQ: With Smart optimization it's likely that a file referenced by a shortcut would not be scanned again if it has already been scanned. ESET HQ seems to be answering this by saying what the program should do, but that’s ignoring what I’m saying it does do. I sent examples from scan results that readily show that the same files were scanned as many as four times, simply because there were shortcuts to large folders. (That file is attached again.) I agree with ESET HQ, that certainly shouldn’t happen, but it does. The problem should be easy to duplicate, so please do that and then hopefully it can be addressed. I get around the problem now by removing the folder shortcuts from scan file sets, but surely that shouldn’t be necessary as ESET HQ’s reply above would also suggest. In conclusion I expect I may have to abandon weekly scans unless someone is able to make some sense of what I’ve found, even though abandoning scans would be a concern because past scans have actually found malware that wasn’t picked up by Real-time File System Protection. I’ve spent a lot of time trying to understand some apparent idiosyncrasies and unpredictability of ESET scans so I can use them productively, and I know there’s again a lot of information in this email. Hopefully with all this information, your own tests and analyses will now be able to identify causes and resolve the issues I’ve come across … for everyone’s benefit. NOTE : I also attached the file that we received Cheers, Gil scan examples.pdf

Hi ESET Team, 2 of our customer encountered the below error from the image 'synchronization was interrupted' Action taken: We tried to ping "edf.eset.com" n- but there's no signs of blockings Our client said they don't have any 3rd party firewall then when he tried to open the console using his mobile phone using hotspots problem still exist Can you help us on how to resolve this issue. Cheers, Gil

Some of our customer i mean, encountered the error even us Cheers, Gil

Hi ESET Team, I would like to verify the below screenshots, most of our MSP client encountered the pop error - can you advised us if there's any maintenance with ESET or what is the things that we need to be done. We are able to open directly our ESET Protect, ESET Inspect and ECOs by going to the directly link but with MSP this error shown. Cheers, Gil

You can close this case now. Thank you Cheers, Gil

Hi ESET, Sure, thank you i will passed the above information to our client Cheers, Gil