Jump to content

peteyt

Most Valued Members
  • Posts

    2,147
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    41

Everything posted by peteyt

  1. Looks similar to the issue i gave you the logs for a few weeks back
  2. Pup stands for potentional unwa ted program. These are programs that aren't technically viruses but may use risky business practices e.g. try to install extra stuff during installation, nag users a lot etc. Some of these programs may also be known to send information back to the developers This link explains it https://support.eset.com/kb3204/ With potential unwanted applications it is down to the user whether the positives outweigh the negatives. If you decide to use it you can simply tell eset to ignore it. You can also stop eset detecting PUPs if you want, with the above link explaining how
  3. Yeah the weird thing is he says to fix eset not his computer. I can't imagine if eset wasn't working right eset charging to fix it as this would be bad for customer service. I could be wrong but it sounds fishy
  4. Yeah when I saw the post alarm bells started ringing
  5. One idea is maybe using a screen recording program and sharing a video of it occurring on here
  6. Did you try the uninstaller tool? Quite often when people have upgraded from older versions there have been issues with part of the older version remaining accidentally. Uninstalling normally has sometimes still had these bits remaining. The uninstaller tool is different as it's designed to remove everything eset but it has to be done in safe mode. If you haven't tried this yet I recommend it as it does sound like bits of the old version could be left behind. The window bug could actually have been a bug from back then and while you have updated bits of the files remain so the bug also remains
  7. I presume you are on the latest version. Have you tried enabling pre-release updates. Theres always the possibility that it's a fixed bug but the update hasn't been fully rolled out yet. Pre release updates are basically upcoming updates that they test on a few people first. Just to also check, you uninstalled did you use the uninstalled tool in safe mode. I believe itman gave a link earlier. While uninstalling via the standard uninstaller can sometimes work the uninstal tool is designed to remove leftovers as well that could cause issues
  8. Probably unrelated but I remember some people posting about the alert boxes sometimes being approved when they where typing and the box appeared e.g hitting enter on a program and the box was appearing and accepting that enter
  9. I do use teamviewer myself but for personal use - my dad is useless with computers so often use it to fix stuff
  10. Interestingly the word he uses is "hand picked." I dont know how AV test runs their tests but im always wary of test results. As stated somewhere here a lot are paid for by vendors and while there is nothing wrong with this there is always the possibilty of bad practises where one secretley pays more. AV tests in general can be easily made to look favourably on a specifc AV. I am not stating that AV test does any of these just that i reccomend taking any test by anyone with a pinch of salt and they do not show normal use e.g. average users dont normally dowload all these things at once or shoudnt ha
  11. Always suspicious when i see newish people talking about av test results although just realisled he wasnt the op
  12. Is there still a possibility that the firewall rules will be made more user friendly in the future? I used to have it set to manual but use automatic now but was looking at maybe going back - However sometimes I had to play around with rules and it was hard to do this because the design was not user friendly, mainly because the firewall judges rules by an order. Allowing them to be organised by names and having an icon to represent the program certainly would make this easier to use. Also the fact that "Allow communication for" comes before the name of the program makes it much harder with the text not needed as it could just start with "Chrome" rather than "Allow communication for Chrome." Sorry I do know this has been brought up a few times.
  13. Its tasty. At easter a chip shop where i live do a battered one
  14. I had to google myself to find what it was
  15. Would there be any way eset could implent this e.g. flag up if the policy wasnt activated and then the user could click something in eset that would activate the policy? Obviously I know this is above eset as its not their probelm but it could help avoid eset being blamed. Basically what im suggesting is eset offering something that can warn of unsafe settings and automatically fix these if the user clicked yes
  16. Oh yeah there will always be people like that sadly. But if you could warn them about things they might not otherwise know it may avoid issues
  17. I have an idea that might not work but could possibly avoid issues like this. Years ago I used to use a program called TuneUp Utilities that wasnt tol bad until AVG bought it. One interesting thing it did was to warn users of certain settings and offer to fix things e.g. this is enabled and could do this. Could something like this work with eset. E.g detect if certain stuff is enabled, possibly even unpatched. I know a lot of this is down to the users but at least if it worked eset wouldnt be blamed
  18. Not sure about this but remember a while back google where saying about cracking down on AVs injecting into browsers as it they claimed they put the browsers at risk rather than made them safer. I believe if chrome crashes now and it seems to be a non google or microsoft program it warns the user of all things injecting into it but im not sure about all the details of it it relates to your issue
  19. I dont think eset will launch a seperate sandbox and marcos has said there are currently no plans. Eset tends to focus on the main things which is why a lot of people prefer it as some AVs offer too many extras the system becomes slow. So I hope if they ever decided to it became optional. As mentioned before though, eset does use sandbox technologies e.g. running unknown things through one to check for suspicious activity. Also as you mentioned if you are on the latest windows 10 pro or enterprise and have the right hardware you already have access to a sandbox courtesey of windows
  20. I hate to sound personal but I love how when it comes to it you tend to pick selected stuff and ignore the things people have said
  21. And eset has a password option if enabled. As i have pointed 100s of times and probably shouldnt anymore, the AV is only part of a security setup. Its no good using an AV with for example a no longer supported update or without all the latest patches. Until people realisle the importance of this problems like this will happen. But again as also mentioned we dont know what has happened and all we can do is suggest.
×
×
  • Create New...