peteyt

ESET Insiders
  • Content count

    389
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Everything posted by peteyt

  1. And there are some good free ones but as someone who has used eset for years and never had any issues but have had issues with other vendors in the past i will stick to what is working for me. The reality is no user should be downloading multiple viruses like these tests do. There's an old saying if you keep looking under rocks you will eventually find a serpent. Eset isnt perfect because as marcos and itman and others have mentioned no AV is. These results are supposed to give just a rough idea but nothing more. If there was a massive difference in results i would have to reconsider using eset but to me there isnt
  2. I don't know if it would make any difference but have noticed people on here not wanting to pay for the newer version like you not realising that it doesn't cost anything. It may not fix this particular issue, I'd be lying if I said I knew about this issue, but as newer versions contain multiple fixes and new features/improvements you never no. Some people prefer to stick to older versions but for me when it comes to eset I always upgrade as the newer versions generally offer better protection than previous versions
  3. The problem is every different testing company will show different results. If you kept moving to different AVs based on test results you would be constantly moving. Surely user results is better than these tests.
  4. It seems like these tests your ignoring details. 0 percent compromised is okay but when the actual product is compromised it makes you wonder. This is my point, these tests never show the true full picture. If you went by this test you would think WD was perfect yet had a massive bug and lots of false positives. If you want to use a compromised program be my guest but i will stick to eset. Never been infected but im also a safe user
  5. Just in case you didn't know your license works for all versions of the product you have purchased e.g. if you buy a license for internet security and 10 is out when you purchased you can use that license for 11 when it comes out - they license per product rather than per a version.
  6. Again do any of the results talk about this https://www.computerworld.com/article/3240936/microsoft-windows/microsoft-quietly-repairs-windows-defender-security-hole-cve-2017-11937.html - it has just been fixed so will have existed at the time of the test. My point is no security suite is perfect - you can say WD is great but i can show you evidence of the contrary
  7. As mentioned by multiple people in multiple posts, these tests are never 100 percent. If you google for test results you will find multiple tests with different results. One may have one doing well, one not so well etc. it all depends on multiple factors. Microsoft for example had a bug discovered recently that if someone created a virus that utilised the bug, just the scanning of it would have caused a memory corruption and given access to the system. This isn't mentioned in the results yet I'd class that as a serious issue and it isn't the only issue Microsoft has had lately. This is why it is best to take these tests with a grain of salt.
  8. ESET NOD32 AV offline activation

    No wireless card? You could get a receiver device to plug in.
  9. It may work but newer versions often introduce newer technologies and improvements and also fix bugs. There is always a risk when using older versions
  10. Yeah I think the user actually ignored it accidently. I actually think the theory behind coin minining used in this was could have some small mertit. People hate adverts but small sites need revenue to survive and this could be the right balance but they tend to use far too much of a computers power and in turn can become dangerous e.g. lead to overheating. Also most sites don't seem to even tell users they are using coin mining
  11. Quantum attacks

    I don't know a lot if anything really about quantum computing but I know it's very expensive so at least right now I can't imagine it being a threat yet. I suppose state backed hackers could lead to issues but I don't think these computers are powerful enough yet
  12. Have you tried the latest version of eset to see if it is any different. I think it will work on xp
  13. Didn't a news site or something get hacked and A coin miner places on it. So there's risks on popular well known sites.
  14. No i think too many are relying on it ans just persume it means the site is safe
  15. One piece of security advice I see a lot is to make sure sites you are using is using HTTPS rather than just HTTP and that the green padlock is visible. Google Chrome now even states if a websites connection is secure. While Google and others have good intentions as usual it seems many people are relying on these things now. In my experience people like to rely on stuff - they don't tend to like putting security in their own hands and rely on others to protect them. People are taking the green padlock for example to mean the website they are on is legitimate. The padlock basically means the traffic between the server and the user's browser is encrypted and protected against interception, rather than the site being generally secure and even then, nothing is ever 100 percent safe, with bugs and backdoors often found in systems. According to research, 24 percent of the time, phishers are now using HTTPS which is a massive increase when compared to the less than 3 percent this time last year and one percent two years ago. Sometimes this is done by simply taking over an already established site, but often phishers are creating their own sites. Research also shows in targeted attacks pretending to be from both Apple and PayPal, 75 percent where using HTTPS. Again, I wish people would stop relying on other people, services etc. I trust Eset, but it is just a program, and so could make mistakes. That is why I have my own practises e.g. stick to known trustworthy sites, avoid emails from unknown senders etc. It's obvious to see that the number of phishers using HTTPS is going to continue to rise. It wouldn't surprise me if something else comes along to combat this that will in turn be abused by the same phishers. https://www.wired.com/story/phishing-schemes-use-encrypted-sites-to-seem-legit/
  16. Might be best to open a support ticket with eset
  17. Would adding it as an exception not work? Sounds like they are puas
  18. Microsoft has recently fixed a bug apparently discovered by a division inside the UK British Intellegence organisation GCHQ. The bug was in the Malware Protection Engine which is used in products such as Windows Defender, Microsoft Security Essentials, Microsoft Endpoint Protection, and Windows Intune Endpoint Protection. It was found on all currently supported Windows versions, which are Windows 7 and later. What is interesting is a that a file designed to abuse the bug apparently just needed to be scanned to be able to possibly take control of the system. The issue being by default programs such as Windows Defender would have to scan the file trying to identify if it was a virus. This normal and important procedure would actually appear to do more harm than good in this case. The bug is apparently a remote control execution vulnerability. The products do not scan a specially crafted file properly leading to memory corruption. This could allow an attacker to execute arbitrary code to gain control of the system https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/microsoft-fixes-malware-protection-engine-bug-discovered-by-british-intelligence/
  19. Just wondering if it would be advantageous to have a button to click when it is down to try and connect. I know if it is during startup or the internet has been off it usually enables itself quickly once the connection is established but it might stop some of the posts on here. How often does it try and connect?
  20. Try this - open eset and hit F5 on your keyboard. This will open the advanced settings. Go to updates - click profiles and open the basic area. In update type is it set to regular or pre-release? If it is set to regular, set it to pre-release, okay it and save it and then run an update. Probably best to then reboot and try and update again and then see if it is working. Eset recommend using pre-release if it is a general computer. Basically they release fixes first on this option. The more people on this, the quicker they know if something has or hasn't worked.
  21. Is this with pre release updates enable?
  22. Does that mean there wont be a 12 and like windows it will be like 11.1, 11.2 etc. Also if your trying to now avoid a version number could this be harder when identifying the users version as i noticed it isnt displayed at the top in the homepage now (obiously its in the update area just isnt as clear now)
  23. It has been asked a lot but I don't think we will see it. The issue eset has is choice e.g. what should happen if something new and unknown turns up, could simply be an update e.g. a windows update, but if eset doesn't have any reputation for the files it will have to ask the user and it seems like they want to avoid this in case the user clicks the wrong thing e.g. allows or blocks