Jump to content


Most Valued Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


peteyt last won the day on February 21 2018

peteyt had the most liked content!


Profile Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

2,880 profile views
  1. I dont use ublock so not sure how it works but can you disable javascript for specfic sites only e.g. for this video site that way it wouldnt be trying to load it as an extra precaution or could this possibly disable the player?
  2. @pcdroid13 not sure if this was also posted by you as the name is similar but windows 10 allows more control over updates with the latest update
  3. Yeah I think the tool would be better if it told you what it was changing
  4. I cannot test this myself at the moment as there is nothing being blocked. I know you have the latest version but do you have pre-release updates on. I haven't seen anyone else mention this bug but sometimes bugs are fixed and go to the pre-release bit first. If you hit F5 to go to the advanced part and go to the update area, select profiles and then updates and change the type from regular to pre-release. Emailing is generally the recommended solution but possibly attaching a screenshot or even better a small video showing the issue could also help. Logs will generally also be requested.
  5. Not sure about brave. But even when a browser isn't supported eset should still work as far as I know, just things like banking protection may not. Don't quote me on that though
  6. Again you have ignored most of my points. As I mentioned most of the ransomware things I have seen are from people who's computer was unpatched and so managed to get access remotely appearing as a genuine remote user, disabled the security and wala. Most people don't realise that the AV is just one of many protections. It's why I never get people who still use XP, especially connected to a network. An AV is no good if it's on a risky OS. False positives are also not a good thing and I explained exactly the issue which you seemed to skip. You have no problem with false positives? So what if a file is marked as safe and actually does more damage than good, or is classed as dangerous and actually is a system file and corrupts the OS. As for 100 percent protection, I don't know why I am bothering like many repeating it for the 100th time. There is no such thing. Obviously an AV may pass 100 percent on one test, but as I've mentioned I've seen tests that show one AV as being great and found another test that actually makes them look bad - because all tests are different, using different methods, samples etc. For example Eset passed 100 percent in the latest Virus Bulletin test. I'm sure it has the most awards or the most 100 percent in a row. My point is these tests are designed for basic advisory. If you based which AV you would be using each year over certain tests, you would probably have to change each year. The best thing is to find what AV works best for you. https://www.virusbulletin.com/virusbulletin/2019/04/vb100-certification-report/ There's a saying that goes something like this if you keep looking under rocks you will eventually find a snake. This is why I said I have never been infected, because I also keep safe. No antivirus will protect you 100 percent if you go looking for trouble constantly. Also I have seen tests on youtube and places where certain parts of Eset are disabled to test it, which makes no sense. In the real world, you would not disable protection layers and often these layers are designed to work together and compliment each other. I should also add I have tried multiple security programs in the past, and I have stuck with Eset as for me it has the right balance and uses low system resources at least in my case. I see BitDefender is often claimed to be great and at the top of scores or was a few years back, but I came from BitDefender to Eset as it was unreliable, crashing and what not. I don't think I have ever had Eset crash on me.
  7. I can confirm Eset says the URL could have unwanted content
  8. Really - Did you not see how many false positives WD had and how many detections also needed the user to decide. Eset has stuff like HIPS to help people with the knowledge but as Itman and others in the past have stated, the average user would not want to be asked to make a decision and in general it is not recommended. If the user doesn't know they could accidentally class a virus as safe or vise versa, classing something like a system file as a virus and causing issues. This is why it is always best that the average user doesn't have to make decisions. And that is the problem with things that look for virus behaviour. They can't always tell the difference. It's also important to note when people using things such as endpoint protection post about having a user infected with ransomware the user usually doesn't have the latest version installed which includes the ransomware shield and has not got RDP locked down. Often eset itself hasn't been password protected so the hacker can simply use techniques to break into the computer remotely but in a way that seems like a genuine user remote accessing it. All that is left is to disable the protection and infect it. So simply put no security will ever be 100 percent. Also I could run a test right now and loads and make one security program appear the worst and then do another test and make the same one appear the best. It is down to the user to decide what they like/prefer. Also a bit of basic security skills help e.g. avoiding bad websites and so on. I have never been infected with eset and when I have downloaded stuff knowing it contained things like adware in the past, Eset has always for me detected it.
  9. I wouldnt say windows 7 is more secure than 10. For example the recent issue they have fixed, BlueKeep, was so serious they released a patch to discontinued versions such as XP. It effected all versions from 7 and bellow but importantly not 10. I agree there have been update issues but it does seem to have better security
  10. peteyt


    I don't know much about VPN but it's good to check for security and reliability - as I mentioned some free ones have been known to even share information so it's crucial to get one with good reviews, that doesn't seem to leak information etc.
  11. Will this be the same with the chromium version?
  12. Not surprised. I've spoken to people in the past that claim you don't need an antivirus just a popup blocker. I always disagreed but this just helps. For example some ad blockers can be set to allow some ads what adblocker calls acceptable ads, with most not even knowing this is enabled. And if you can infect a website itself, an ad blocker is no good
  13. With the latest update Windows 10 has given users more options update wise. https://www.howtogeek.com/410183/microsoft-abandons-windows-10s-forced-updates/ Also as Marcos has stated it is far more secure. The only negative is privacy but there are ways to sort that
  14. Found this in regards to it https://www.tenforums.com/software-apps/27180-windows-10-recovery-tools-bootable-rescue-disk-131.html
  • Create New...