Jump to content

peteyt

Most Valued Members
  • Posts

    2,147
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    41

Everything posted by peteyt

  1. I never thought to state windows 10 now also has its own sandbox although its not included in the home version of windows and some system requirements are required
  2. One good security measure people often overlook is setting a password for eset settings
  3. The problem is what happens when that program gets hacked then infected. Best example of this is the ccleaner incident a few years back when someone managed to infect ccleaner. The problem is it is a well used and often respected program but if it was marked as trustworthy that could cause issues
  4. Im not sure how but eset does use some sandbox technologies @Marcos might be able to explain them more. Obviously currently eset doesnt allow users to manually run things in a sandbox
  5. The best way to look at pua also is there are many programs that people use that could be risky e.g. there are many people using registry cleaners and similar stuff. They are often risky and its debatable if they should be used, sometimes they may also try to install unwanted extra stuff, nag you to upgrade and other suspicious stuff but people use them and they like them. I often see people asking why their favourite software gets classed as a pup and its usually for something like that. With pups its not a virus so its down to the user to decide if the risks are acceptable
  6. Eset smart security no longer exists just eset internet security and internet security premium with premium having the password manager and data encryption part. Possibly eset has the stuff there but deactivated for the not premium version but a clean install may fix this as mentioned by otbers
  7. Enabling the protection makes you think nothing happened. If the user sees its still enabled they may not realisle what actually happened. Again as posted without logs and knowing the actual setup no one can know, you even agreed with this so theres no point in blaiming eset either. But as stated it usually comes down to a RDP attack. People need to remember an AV is only one part of security and should never replace patches and general safe procedures
  8. 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?
  9. Yeah I think the tool would be better if it told you what it was changing
  10. 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.
  11. 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
  12. 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.
  13. I can confirm Eset says the URL could have unwanted content
  14. 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.
  15. peteyt

    VPN

    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.
  16. 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
  17. Found this in regards to it https://www.tenforums.com/software-apps/27180-windows-10-recovery-tools-bootable-rescue-disk-131.html
  18. Im confused about the hd part. No hard drive? If so how are you doing anything or do you mean external. Like itman said could be a false positive any info on what it found? Can it be uploaded to total virus? Also what made you run hirens boot cd. Did you see something suspicious?
  19. I'm a little confused. What evidence do you have that you have a trojan?
  20. Yeah its like I said I get why people don't like windows 10 but its far more secure and you can customise it and even make it look like previous versions. I've always compared using XP like a prison with a fence but a massive hole in it. You can have all the security and extras but it doesn't change the fact that theres a big hole in the fence and until its fixed theres always a risk.
  21. I notice they state Vista has no patch. Noticed this previously and wondered why considering xp is older than Vista. Is this down to usage e.g. many older businesses still using xp?
  22. It looks like there is a trial https://www.safer-networking.org/products/spybot-anti-beacon/ but as someone who doesn't know about telemetry I wouldn't be the best to test it
  23. I mentioned this as I saw spybot search and destroy now offer protection against it
  24. Off topic slightly what is the best and easiest way to prevent windows telemetry and do you think this should be something security programs should try to prevent/block or is it beyond what they should do?
×
×
  • Create New...