czesetfan
-
Posts
121 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by czesetfan
-
-
Version 15.0.18 is available. It also modifies the LiveGuard settings.
Fixed: Default threshold value for LiveGuardhttps://www.eset.com/int/home/internet-security/download/#download-manually
-
Yes, after all, that's what I'm saying. The problem is that the redirect after every browser update for a few days doesn't work. And so it is regularly every month.
-
Version 15.0.18 is available. It also modifies the LiveGuard settings.
Fixed: Default threshold value for LiveGuardhttps://www.eset.com/int/home/internet-security/download/#download-manually
-
9 hours ago, Marcos said:
To prevent this, enable "Secure all browsers" so that bank sites will open securely all the time regardless of whether the particular browser is support or not. It's not a bug that a particular browser may not be supported right at the time of its release.
In this case, setting up selected addresses (banks and the like, where login credentials are required) becomes meaningless. Either I'm not using protected mode, or I'm running all browsers still in protected mode, but the : option to run only selected addresses in protected mode loses meaning.
For this scenario: one browser, normal browsing in normal mode and selected addresses (bank, webmail) automatically redirected to the protected browser, it doesn't work.
I honestly don't understand why the functionality depends so much on a particular browser version. After all, those 93,94,95 updates are not fundamentally different (new core, engine, etc). What needs to be changed in ESET modules with each update?
Isn't there any consideration of changing the approach to this?I'm sad that I can't use this solution according to the above scenario. (Browser in protected mode has its own profile. This means that it is possible to have no passwords stored in the normal profile, but it is in the protected profile.)
-
Always conditional redirection (by url) does not work after updating a browser such as Edge. It takes a few days for ESET to release an update and then it works again. (This is one of ESET's long-standing bugs. It should change, since "Chromium" browsers are updated every month.) Have you updated your current browsers?
-
8 hours ago, itman said:
What Detection threshold is set in ESSP for "clean", execute enable?
I'm assuming a level of "Clean" and "Suspicious"?
"Highly suspicious" and "Malicious" are already blocked.
I think the ability to set this will come to ESSP in time, similar to setting the "Machine Learning Kernel" level.Then even "Highly suspicious" are allowed? (With the understanding that the sample is further investigated in VirusLab.)
-
16 hours ago, Marcos said:
5, Feel free to let me know when you come across an undetected sample. We do our best to detect every new malware with LiveGrid itself. I'd rather not speculate if it was very fresh malware that it wasn't detected so I'll be glad to check it out instantly the next time you encounter such undetected sample.
8, Thanks for the suggestion re. File shredder. Re. LiveGuard, what improvements do you mean? LiveGuard is configured optimally for use by home users and provides balanced detection / protection with minimum false positives.
What Detection threshold is set in ESSP for "clean", execute enable?
I'm assuming a level of "Clean" and "Suspicious"?
"Highly suspicious" and "Malicious" are already blocked.
I think the ability to set this will come to ESSP in time, similar to setting the "Machine Learning Kernel" level. -
9) Automatic whitelist rules, known programs - Edge, Chrome, office suites, etc. for HIPS and Firewall. There is too big a gap between the user's "Allow everything" and "Define everything exactly" options. It shouldn't be completely impossible to create rule sets for dozens (hundreds?) of known programs.
-
I have very similar feelings to "itman". I see ESET's core mission as "Bringing people the best anti-malware protection we can create". And a feature like LiveGuard in my opinion is one of the "core" features of an antimalware product, just like samples, heuristics, etc. That's why I think it should have been available in the basic (and legendary) NOD32 antivirus. I understand that it's not easy to move in a global market, but you need to be fair to your customers.
Originally, the Premium version offered extra features. That is, extensions beyond the basic antimalware protection. (For example: "Do you want a password manager too? Do you want encryption on top? These things degrade cybersecurity, but are not DIRECTLY related to antimalware protection.) But in this case, the primary protection feature is offered in the "premium" package. This approach creates bad feelings with me.
Unfortunately, it's similar with the cancellation of the custom version of NOD32 for Linux. Again, I understand cost optimization, developer utilization, etc. But would a truncated version of Enterprise v8 for Linux, really cause ESET to move into the red numbers? Especially when it doesn't even offer a basic antivirus for free like most other vendors?
Sorry for the long entry.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
-
PUA detection, firewall and more. There are many configuration options.
-
Is it possible to do this without losing the current settings (NOD32, EIS) ? Then how to do a rollback to the license and return to the current software settings (NOD32, EIS) ?
-
-
Solved for me. After restarting the router works. 🙂👍
-
On 7/21/2021 at 8:58 AM, Marcos said:
This case is being intensively worked on and there's an active communication between the developers and support.
The best would be if we could reproduce the issue in house, ie. if we could get hold of a router or modem that is affected by the issue.
Is anybody else able to reproduce it with ASUS GT-AX11000? Or ideally with a cheaper router that we could purchase for the purpose of issue replication.
Probably even RT AX-55 will be enough. Even with EIS access is not working.
-
Quote
Of course, if there's a big demand for a Linux product from home users in the future, we would consider creating such product.
As Marcos said: "Of course, if there's a big demand for a Linux product from home users in the future, we would consider creating such product." That said, there is currently no plan to prepare a HOME version of NOD32 for Linux. And I'm afraid that the "big interest" of home users is probably not going to happen. For example, also judging by the weak demand here on the forum. So the only question remains, what are the alternatives?
-
Yes, technically it would certainly be possible. The problem is that home users are no longer profitable enough for ESET. Is that good or bad? They are developing the Ver8 Business version for the sake of "keeping up with new threats", but for home users they will drop what was there as well. Are home Linux users less at risk than business users? If so, that's good. If not, it's bad.
-
-
-
It's sad that ESET is abandoning home Linux users. With the discontinuation of Ver.4, the antivirus will no longer be available for home users. The question is whether this is due to the small threat to home PCs, or ESET's small profit from them. I think that if there are threats to home Linux PCs, there should also be a protection option for them. Obviously this would not form ESET's main income, but I don't believe that if they can make the various AV free, that the HOME version, of the Bussines product being developed anyway, could not be handled. Is there really no possibility of keeping the Home version?
Chrome browser does not recognize protected websites for banking and payment protection
in ESET Internet Security & ESET Smart Security Premium
Posted
I'm not sure I can agree. The "big" numbering of browser versions (93,94,95 ..) is just cosmetic, marketing. It should realistically be 93.1, 93.2, maybe just 93.0.12, 93.0.24, etc. The changes inside are not big.
On the other hand, how is support for Microsoft Office, for example, provided? There are several updates per month in the Current Channel as well, and every month the version number is elevated. Also, will they be without support for a few days each month?
All I'm saying is that maybe for the "defined url open in secure browser" feature it would be good to change the approach to the solution. As it is, I don't see this as a workable solution.