Destarah

This also happened on one of my client's computers. I removed the account from Windows, logged into myeset.com and manually changed the randomly assigned account name it had come up with to a specific name of my choosing. My best guess is that ESET updated the web software to automatically assign these randomly generated account names when Anti-theft is activated, but didn't consider the impact to existing users. We'll see if it happens again, and methinks I will reach out to my other clients that are using Anti-theft

I just installed EFS 6.2 on a client's 2008 server to replace Symantec Endpoint 11 (I think, whatever version was kicked to the curb in January of this year). My client has informed me that he is now having stability issues with the server and his NAS is now offline. I do not have a great deal of information about the server, except to say that it looks like the software has not been updated/upgraded since the original build in 2008. Any of the original contributors to this thread have current updates regarding stability?

It's one thing to forget a username or password ... but to not know the email address that you used to create your ESET account is somewhat incredible. How many email addresses do you use? Anyways ... assuming that you at least haven't forgot all of the email addresses that you use, go here and just keep putting in email addresses until you get a message saying the information has been sent to your email. I use 3 email addresses, my wife has 5 or so ... we maintain a file that details what email and password is linked to each online service we use. Those who fail to prepare, prepare to fail ...

At the risk of offending LabVIEW707 (snicker) I would actually like ESET to include the option to enable detection of Potentially Unsafe Applications during installation (the same way it asks about enabling detection of Potentialy Unwanted Applications). I had no idea the option was not enabled given that I had enabled Unwated during install. Keep scrubbing furiously ESET, someone has to try to save people from themselves!

I feel the following information to be relevant to this thread. My sister's laptop came with a 60 day free trial of Norton Internet Security. Only a day after I finished setting it up for her and making sure everything was updated (Windows, Norton etc.) her browser was hijacked by freepctuneup.com or some such stupid thing. I posted a thread on the Norton forum, and their final reply said "It looks like you have picked up a PUP, a Possibly Unwanted Program. While they are annoying, they do not cause damage to your system. Some people actually want the 'Features' offered by these programs. They are usually downloaded alongside a legitimate download when you do not uncheck the option for the additional download. Norton products concentrate on malware that can damage your system, that is why some PUPs are not detected. I would suggest a second opinion scan using the FREE version of Malwarebytes." You can read the entire thread here My opinion ... I much prefer ESETs approach of warning and letting the user decide what they consider safe after seeing the warning. Norton's theory that PUPs don't damage your system even though they are suggesting that a PUP may have been responsible for the browser redirection and subsequent popup to call a fake toll free support number seems ludicrous to me. LabVIEW707, you have been adament that ESET is acting inappropriately regarding the warning for downloading CCleaner, but frankly I find your argument unreasonable given that the user has the options to A) ignore the warning and continue and more importantly B) exclude the download from future notification. If you subscribe to Norton's position that PUPs do not cause damage to your system, and some people want the "features" then why on earth are you even using ESET? Just saying'

I did not have Potentially Unsafe Application checked, and after enabling that I did receive the warning on the download attempt. Nice job with the quick assessment SCR.

Interesting SCR, I have not installed CCleaner on this computer since installing ESET so it definitely is not a case of my having excluded it previously. In fact, I can't be certain but I don't think I have ever installed CCleaner on this machine. In your screenshot there is reference to palemoon.exe ... any idea what that is?

Now that we are back on topic ... in the very first post the OP states that "since I switch to Eset Internet Security new updates from Piriform for CCleaner have been blocked from installation by the firewall" My question for the original poster, what exactly do you mean by "blocked from installation"? It's my understanding that ESET's optional setting to detect Potentially Unwanted Programs simply displays a message warning the user that the installation contains a Potentially Unwanted Program. ESET is in no way dictating what you should, or should not install on your computer ... hence the use of the word Potentially and the fact the entire setting is optional. That being said, just to let everyone know, while I was writing this reply I tabbed over to piriform.com, clicked on the green Free Download button on the home page, and then clicked on the green Download button for the free version. It appears that Piriform is no longer bundling anything with the mainstream download option, the file downloaded and I installed version 5.04 without any indication from ESET that there might be a PUP nor did I have to opt out of anything during the install (which I am used to doing for years now)

Does SS6 have an option on the task bar menu to reset window layout?

Point of order ... the hat would need to be made of copper, aluminum won't help at all Just sayin ...

Couple of things 1) earlier you mentioned testing your speed, how did you test it? 2) are you willing to at least try Firefox to determine if the problem persists outside of Chrome? After reading this thread I installed Chrome (I use Firefox as my main browser) and tested my speed with Ookla's (www.speedtest,net) Same results with Firefox and Chrome, 80Mb down and 10Mb up. Rogers is my ISP and my package is 60Mb down and 10Mb up. Rogers has a feature called speedboost that will temporarily increase your bandwidth if network traffic is light (helps with their speedtest results lol) Now for the trickier part ... if Firefox tests fine on your system, is there a burning reason to keep using Chrome? I have always stayed out of the "such and such browser is faster" discussion because I just don't see it. In my experience, all the browsers run at the same speed just look a little different while doing it. If I want faster internet, I upgrade my service for more bandwidth /shrug. I use Firefox for only 2 reasons ... 1st is that IE 11 gives an error while closing, and I prefer to not have to click OK every time I close my browser. 2nd is that I have found Firefox to be more compatible with the web-based GUI for various network gear. That 2nd reason is actually why I don't use Chrome (instead of IE) ... Chrome's track record with web-based network GUI has been rough in my experience. Anyways, as a troubleshooting tool I feel it makes a lot of sense to see if the problem on your system is slaved to Chrome exclusively. If it is, then I would think ESET support could look into it for you.

The part that confuses me is that in a LAN that has been configured as Home/Work (in other words trusted), incoming connection attempts from other devices in the LAN should already be set up to allow. This is referring to the computer hosting, but in the same line of thought with a system hosting the game on a LAN that host should be broadcasting the available game ... so the outbound connection should actually be what the client systems see. Just seems bizarre that I needed to add the game's .EXE file to a new firewall rule in a trusted LAN environment. Keep the ideas coming, and anyone from ESET available to shed light?

Seeing as this has been bumped, I am curious to know if you opened a support ticket with ESET directly. The forum is excellent, but direct support should be the best option.

I installed ESS 8 the other day and left all the settings at the defaults. Things seem to be working fine regarding the firewall (all of my LAN functions were carrying on without interruption), but today I tried to play a LAN multiplayer game of Age of Mythology (ancient, but still good fun). Apparently a rule wasn't automatically created because the hosted game did not show up on the client computer. After manually creating a rule for the .exe of the game, it works fine ... what triggers the Automatic mode to create an allow rule for a game? Just want to figure out why this didn't work ... Thanks

Yes, I used the Offline Installer as a work around, but just for the record the Live Installer is exhibiting the same behavior on my Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit system, my Windows 7 Pro 64 bit laptop and my Windows 10 technical preview system of course that isn't supported) I have not yet done the install on my Windows 7 Pro 32 bit laptop, but if it goes the same way on that I have a ticket open with tech support and will follow up with them. Anyone else been able to successfully use the Live Installer in that last couple of days? Oh, and by the way ... once I had used the offline installer on my 8.1 Pro system I went ahead an purchased the 5 computer/2 year subscription

I am running Windows 8.1 Pro 64 bit and tried to install the trial version of ESET Smart Security. The website download link was for the live installer, which seems to have downloaded fine, but when I run it the window appears with a big button on it that says Next, but the window is unresponsive. Clicking on Next does nothing ... I'm stumped.

To defrag or not, the age old question. While there are still some scenarios where defragmentation can provide a discernable performance boost, they are relatively few compared to a decade ago. The reasons are quite varied ... 1) my favorite ... SSD. They do not get fragmented, so that ends the discussion cold. If your OS doesn't support TRIM (junk collection), use a SSD that has software that can handle it (if you are running Vista or XP) I am partial to Samsung myself, their Magician software is very nice. 2) back when XP was king, it was rare to find a computer with more than 1GB or RAM. Given how incredibly scarce 64 bit version of XP are/were, there wasn't even any point in having more than 3GB. This matters because the page file was pretty much in constant use. Data was constantly being read and written from the disc because there simply wasn't enough RAM to go around. Smaller disk size, coupled with constant manipulation of the files lent itself to a more rapid fragmentation schedule. 3) massive hard drives ... when a hard drive has more space to work with, fragmentation is less likely to occur because there are free blocks available to right new data to. 4) faster hard drives ... even platter drives now are insanely more powerful than they used to be. WD black drives (7200RPM) can easily read and write at over 120MB/s, used to be that you needed a 10,000RPM raptor to manage that. This means that even if files are fragmented, the system can find them faster and you don't really feel the performance hit like before. Food for thought, but chances are these days if your system seems sluggish the culprit is something other than file fragmentation.