yongsua
-
Posts
122 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by yongsua
-
-
I would suggest perform a clean install by uninstalling it with ESET uninstaller tool and installing it with the offline installer.
-
IMHO, if you want to know if there is any preset rule from ESET firewall, I would suggest you to refer to the Zone and Rules editor and check on which services or connections are allowed from the preset rules. Note that the preset rules are grayed out and user-defined rules are bold, if I am not mistaken. You can check whether there is any preset rule for the SMB communication. However, I cannot give more details here as I have not used ESS for at least a month. Of course, there are definitely some preset rules that allow some inbound connections for core networking purpose and the ESET firewall with automatic mode most probably just works like the Windows Firewall. It blocks all non-initiated incoming communication as Marcos mentioned but I think there are definitely some core inbound connections are allowed from the preset rules.
-
But pls don't add it in ESET product as I don't want any add-on feature, an independent one is okay.
-
I find it really surprising that you care about memory usage. With people having at least 4 to 8 GB RAM these days, and AV using 50 MB to 300 MB is no big deal as long as it's light on your system. Memory usage is not what determine if an AV is light or not it is how it handles real time file scanning that is the main factor I really surprises me that at this day and age people still jude an AV's lightness in terms of " oh my!! it is using 200 MB of RAM WOW" Let it use all it needs as long as your system is light and runs fast.
It really depends on the user's system specs. I have an old specs PC with Windows Vista installed in it and it only has 2GB ram. Imagine if ESET utilizes 300 MB of my memory, it can be somehow quite intensive to my ram. However, ESET of course won't bloat my system, no slow down and low impact.
-
Can I just update through the "Program Update"? Has anyone succeeded to update? How is it going so far?
-
Lol.........So Google Chrome (shown in your screen shot) which is actually the most popular browser on the market is classified as "unwanted content" by Eset. Does Eset have a court case going on against Google we don;t know about?
It is not unwanted content, it is potentially unwanted content. Why? Because nowadays most of the users don't really read the installation agreement carefully, they just blindly click Next, Next, Next.... But lately they will then only realize that they have installed some bundled applications which they never really intended to install but carelessly provided the full consent to the installation process. This is why we need PUP detection and this is the main purpose of PUP detection.
-
As I said, there are differences between Potentially UNWANTED Application & Potentially UNSAFE Application. The picture which you have uploaded depicts clearly that ESET detected a Potentially UNSAFE Application in CCleaner . Most AVs have only implemented so-called Potentially UNWANTED Application detection but ESET has a unique detection namely Potentially UNSAFE Application detection. That's why you won't see any other AVs detect such Potentially UNSAFE Application and ESET's detection is not necessarily a false positive.
-
I don't wanna have conformism for this. The virus total is just for simple and plain reference. In other words, it could also mean that ESET detects such unsafe toolbar that other AVs fail to detect. Therefore, I would rather send the sample to ESET and determine whether the app is safe or unsafe. IMHO, ESET is the only AV that I have known that provides Potentially Unsafe Application detection. It is something different from Potentially Unwanted Application detection that is widely and generally implemented by most of the AVs.
Please read all the replies in this post. Especially the link I provided to Virustotal. Eset is the ONLY antivirus telling people that Google Chrome and or Google Toolbar is malicious. Which clearly it is not. Hence the false positive detection. Here is the Virustotal link again.Just go for Slim version and you won't get any PUA or PUP warning, problem solved. ESET detects it and does its job as it should, the toolbar is detected as unsafe might be because there are some vulnerabilities which could be led to exploit attack in the toolbar itself.
-
The website address that was blocked by ESET looks dummy to me. A legitimate website would rarely have this type of website address. You should check on the IP and search for its geolocation and host. Moreover, it also has .cn on its website address, it is suspicious for meIt is definitely a problem on Eset's part. I have Chrome installed since that is the only browser I use. I downloaded CCleaner from Piriform and received a pop up warning.
-
Just go for Slim version and you won't get any PUA or PUP warning, problem solved. ESET detects it and does its job as it should, the toolbar is detected as unsafe might be because there are some vulnerabilities which could be led to exploit attack in the toolbar itself.
-
I would also suggest you to perform a clean install because ESET self-defense module might prevent itself from rolling back properly.
-
Does the problem go away if you temporarily disable startup scan tasks in Scheduler and restart the computer?
Yes it does. I think I'll just leave the start up scan disabled. Thanks!
But I would recommend you to enable start up scan after each successful update to ensure and maintain maximum protection.
-
I do also have hang problem but the hang problem has already occurred before I installed ESET, so definitely not ESET problem. Are you sure it is related to ESET? My system will only hang when everytime I surf FB and few other websites.I had tried latest Firefox, at that time FF was at version 36.0.3. I had tested for an hour & during that time I had no prob like Chrome.
But FF sometimes use to hang for 15-20 secs & this was an irritating prob. Quite a few users have mentioned this prob.
I had also tried 36.0.4 but the same hang prob.
I also tried Cyberfox 32 & 64 Bits & had the same 15-20 secs hang prob.
I am not sure but guess FF has some probs with Adobe Flash i.e No Flash installed, I didn't had the hang prob for 30 mins test browsing with both FF & CF.
But cant be sure Flash is the prob as mentioned the test browsing was just 30 mins.
But yes, with FF & Flash installed, I get the hang prob quickly. And the hang prob appears on random HTTPS sites & mouse cannot be moved.
I had mentioned the prob on Wilders & came to know that some users facing & some not facing this prob.
-
It is indeed lightweight to my system although it has quite a high ram usage like 100+ MB. However, it is not lightweight to my Internet. I don't want to post any off topic here, but just to hope that ESET will come out with a better product and bring back all its lightweightness.
-
LabVIEW707 Unimpressed of what? What you tested exactly? To be honest i like Esets signatures, they are very good but zero day component sucks still.F Secure's Deepguard is way better. That's something Eset still has to improve a lot. F Secure has his weaknesses too.
You can use ESET HIPS interactive mode for preventing zero day attack.
-
F- Secure IS = Extremely heavy
Can't say that.I use it also on an other laptop(not the fastest)and it is not heavy at all,only during scan it is really heavy.But I must admit Eset is lighter and has no problems during scannning compressed archives.
Lol == At first, I misread your name as "Marcos". Hahaha... Sorry for that.
-
As I have mentioned earlier Eset doesn't disable Win 7 FW i.e Win FW section shows in red colour & managed by Eset.
But Win FW advanced settings shows Private/Public "ON" & I manually "OFF" these. Could disabling these be the reason for browsing slowdown?
I mean does Eset FW works with Win FW & need these "ON" & that's why Eset FW doesn't "OFF" these or Eset FW is not dependent on Win FW & it is safe to "OFF" these?
Not sure about this. I don't think ESET will fail to work properly if Windows FW is completely disabled. If this is the case, then there is no point having ESS firewall installed in the system. However, ESET FW is implemented with Windows Filtering Platform but that shouldn't be the case unless disable Windows FW would also disable the Windows Filtering Platform.
-
Hey,
Ok, tried for more than an hour.
Prerelease updates didn't worked for me i.e exactly the same prob.
And product update I understand, how can virus databases update solve the mentioned issue in this thread?
And I dont understand, sometimes browsing is fine & suddenly prob appears & then again fine & then again probs.
And I must mention when it works, works zippy & when doesn't, quite slow or sites keeps loading & never loads for quite a long time & you cancel.
I use only Adblock Plus & had uninstalled it for the tests.
And FW correctly picks router IP but when I use my direct connection it picks my IP wrong as 169.x.x.x I delete the zone rules, restart the system, still it picks wrong most of the time. But I think this is not the reason for the probs as net works the same even if IP is detected correctly. Also I tried selecting both Home & Public but the same issue on both. And yes I restarted the system everytime I changed something to test.
I will try EAV again & see how thing goes otherwise may try other AV as currently little busy.
I may not be able to do further tests & provide feedback as mentioned little busy & this is taking time & affecting work.
Thanxx all for the support & valuable time.
Any time I get will be here to see any updates or report any findings from my side if I did any tests.
Regards
Yesnoo
Let's just wait for ESET 9
-
I had actually only cleared the cache for the first time before I tried the pre-release update. Yes, to revert back, you just have to check regular mode but then your update cache will be cleared and regular update will then be downloaded to replace your pre-release update after you reboot your system.
-
Thanks for the positive feedback. ESET indeed has low system impact. Besides, I wouldn't trust any testing organization or any other sources about the AV detection and performance as the results are always questionable. I would rather prefer to try and test it myself.
-
And I find EAV better compared to ESS.
EAV feels lighter & browsing seems better & faster compared to ESS. May be ESS FW affects network.
I have 4mbps broadband.
With ESS installed, the speedtest for download/upload always show below 2mbps.
With EAV installed, it correctly shows around 4mbps, occasionally around 3mbps.
With ESS installed, during browsing I can see the impact as pages on opening kind of gives the stutter effect.
With EAV I don't see this, occasionally its there.
With ESS installed, could you try temporarily disabling ESET Lightweight filter in your network adapter setup to see if it makes a difference in terms of browsing and upload speed?
To solve Chrome issue with ESS/EAV, Chrome exclusion under Protocol Filtering had worked.
But I didn't test it for long so couldn't say for sure PF is the culprit.
Currently running EAV, if I get time will install ESS & test.
Currently running EAV & since Chrome updated from .89 to .101, no probs yet.
And ESS doesn't disable Win FW.
Win Control Panel shows Win FW disabled & managed by Eset.
But Win FW Advanced Settings shows all, Domain/PVT/PUB as ON.
With ESS installed & all 3 networks manually disabled in Win FW, Why do I still get sometimes network selection window from both Win FW & ESS FW?
It maybe means that ESET doesn't have enough privilege to completely turn off the Win firewall. Anyway, excluding Chrome from ESET PF is never a permanent solution.
Installed ESS now & will report any probs/findings here.
Is it a bug ESS doesn't disable Win FW i.e Win CP shows disabled but Adv Sett shows enabled?
And even if I disable all the 3 networks in Win FW Adv Sett, why do I still get network selection window from Win FW too?
I dont get network selection window from Win FW on Comodo Internet Security installed.
Weird. I do not have this Windows FW issue. I suggest that you just disable the Windows FW service by running "services.msc"(without the quotes), you may also set the Startup Type to Disabled.
-
And I find EAV better compared to ESS.
EAV feels lighter & browsing seems better & faster compared to ESS. May be ESS FW affects network.
I have 4mbps broadband.
With ESS installed, the speedtest for download/upload always show below 2mbps.
With EAV installed, it correctly shows around 4mbps, occasionally around 3mbps.
With ESS installed, during browsing I can see the impact as pages on opening kind of gives the stutter effect.
With EAV I don't see this, occasionally its there.
With ESS installed, could you try temporarily disabling ESET Lightweight filter in your network adapter setup to see if it makes a difference in terms of browsing and upload speed?
To solve Chrome issue with ESS/EAV, Chrome exclusion under Protocol Filtering had worked.
But I didn't test it for long so couldn't say for sure PF is the culprit.
Currently running EAV, if I get time will install ESS & test.
Currently running EAV & since Chrome updated from .89 to .101, no probs yet.
And ESS doesn't disable Win FW.
Win Control Panel shows Win FW disabled & managed by Eset.
But Win FW Advanced Settings shows all, Domain/PVT/PUB as ON.
With ESS installed & all 3 networks manually disabled in Win FW, Why do I still get sometimes network selection window from both Win FW & ESS FW?
It maybe means that ESET doesn't have enough privilege to completely turn off the Win firewall. Anyway, excluding Chrome from ESET PF is never a permanent solution.
-
I would also suggest that you perform a full scan in safe mode and see if ESET is able to find and clean any traces of that malware.
-
You may need to untick the scheduled automatic update task after user logon to prevent from reproducing the issue.
AV-Comparatives: Investigation in progress
in General Discussion
Posted
Can't wait to read how the users respond in Wilders.