peteyt
-
Posts
2,147 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
41
Posts posted by peteyt
-
-
4 hours ago, HANDJOJO said:
If I not wrong the Password Manager (powered by Deslock) is the feature of Eset Smart Security not of the feature of Eset Internet Security as the premium feature, therefore it's strange my Eset Internet Security download the PasswordManagerinstaller dan DeslockInstaller.
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
-
On 7/20/2019 at 11:08 PM, novice said:
This is the "convenient" story but why the attacker would re-enable protection after encrypting the whole PC????
What about more logical story : EFSW 7.1 even installed and updated couldn't prevent the encryption.
If you browse the forum, wouldn't be the first time.
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
-
On 6/30/2019 at 11:54 PM, itman said:
Ublock won't detect this stuff unless you enable JavaScript blocking. This is turn will break most web sites you access.
Eset's protection alone is adequate to protect you against web site Javascript malware.
On 7/2/2019 at 6:09 PM, Mr.Wong said:Should I enable these two video players on the site or no?
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?
-
On 6/30/2019 at 1:57 PM, itman said:
The problem with the tool is it will show only the area where Win settings have been alerted; not what the specific change was.
Here's an example. On my Win 10 build, I modified system restore settings to do so only for the drive it is installed on; not for all the drives I have installed. When I run the tool, it only informs me that a change has occured to System Restore settings. If I run the tool, system restore will be reset to run all my drives.
Bottom line - if you are one that makes custom mods. to Win settings, this tool will remove all your custom settings.
Yeah I think the tool would be better if it told you what it was changing
-
15 minutes ago, cutting_edgetech said:
I use the Network Wizard many times a day, every day. After I made the above post yesterday I accessed the drop down menu to see the one hour window view, and there was a slight freeze before the Window changed to the 1 hour view. After that 3 attackers on my Network that showed blocked in the Network View Wizard changed to unblocked! I had to turn my router off, and reboot again. There is definitely an issue with the Network Wizard. Unfortunately since I use the wizard many times a day, every day, i'm being affected when most people will not.
I'm going to have to send a bug report. I don't think posting in the forum is going to help. I'm sure they will want logs, and other info. I will obviously be forced to drop Eset if I can't find a fix for this. I could avoid using the Network Wizard if Eset would log all blocked connections. I maintain a really good blocklist that I use with Peerblock. I add all malicious network attacks to my blocklist which I have created from many different sources. Many of my Network attacks don't get logged since they get blocked when there is not an allow rule to allow their attempts to access my network. Is there a way to make Eset Log access attempts that get blocked for when there is no allow rule, and no specific block rule?
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 hours ago, Sammo said:
I'm getting really ticked off with Eset not properly protecting some of my browsers. 😠
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
-
28 minutes ago, novice said:
I prefer a FP compared with a Ransomware not being detected
I have HIPS in "Smart mode"; never had a warning from HIPS in over 2 years
That is true. However , there are competitors able to score 100% or close to it ,each and every test.
Nobody has intention to make ESET look bad; the tests are the same for all players involved
This is a strange logic. Is like saying :" I drink a glass of water every day and I did not get cancer; hence the water is protecting me against cancer"
I have been using MSE for over 6 years on certain computers and I never got infected, so what conclusion should I make????
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.
-
1 hour ago, Rami said:
When you enter AMD Catalyst and then goes to the Games tab where you load your profiles for the game , AMD Catalyst will try to make connection to SysReqLabs , and ESET drops the connection
It can be replicated by going to this website : https://www.systemrequirementslab.com/cyri
Or by going to Games tab in AMD catalyst
No I am not trying to unblock the website or something , but I thought that I will report that to you.
I can confirm Eset says the URL could have unwanted content
-
On 6/21/2019 at 9:00 PM, novice said:
I do not think so. Marco's answer was very clear :" It's been seen on less than 10 machines in total " which suggests that "10 machines with ESET"
Would be impossible for ESET to know that my machine (with Kaspersky let's say) encountered that specific malware.
Regardless how are you trying to sugarcoat it, the fact remains: for a while now ESET is subpar compared with other players on the market. Strange thing, all these players which performed better than ESET , have a free version to offer (Avast!, Bitdefender, Avira, Kaspersky, Microsoft)
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.
-
2 hours ago, Thomas Stats said:
What VPN do you prefer? What options is important for you while choosing a 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.
-
5 hours ago, Marcos said:
Edge has never been supported as a secure browser because of the sandbox WDAG container technology that it run is, separated from the actual kernel.
Will this be the same with the chromium version?
-
On 6/3/2019 at 10:12 PM, itman said:
Some "free press" courtesy of bleepingcomputer.com:
Windows 10 Apps Hit by Malicious Ads that Blockers Won't Stop
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
-
5 hours ago, mike4 said:
took my old cd and it booted...
to screenshot. any ideas on those?
3 hours ago, itman said:Wind.exe is a PUA: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/startups/wind.exe-6367.html
My best guess is it was preloaded in the Hiren's boot cd .iso file in one of the included programs/utilities.
-EDIT- I am assuming that your hard drive was disconnected when this scan was run?
Found this in regards to it https://www.tenforums.com/software-apps/27180-windows-10-recovery-tools-bootable-rescue-disk-131.html
-
3 hours ago, mike4 said:
With Hiren's boot cd antivirus it finds a trjoan downloader in Windows\system32
also on ubuntu live cd those 2 files are used for encrypted downloads.
I have no HD connected nor internet Connection
ps: sorry for not being clear. my laptop with McAfee is ok but only my pc has above Problems since 6 months
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?
-
On 5/25/2019 at 9:37 AM, mike4 said:
ok so i've returned my graphicscard, asus Motherboard and ram. Motherboard is now msi. installed, booted from cd and get on win a trojan downloader, on ubuntu two files in .gnupg. Exactly like before.- So where could the virus hide? in the monitor? Motherboard and ram seem new, graphicscard might have been returned untested for virus?
What do do? I'm asking my shop to take back all including monitor.
I'm a little confused. What evidence do you have that you have a trojan?
-
4 hours ago, Rami said:
It's crazy that people still use Vista and XP
, I could understand people using Windows 7 but those other 2 are obsolete at the moment.
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.
-
16 hours ago, itman said:
Eset now has a security blog article on this vulnerability: https://www.welivesecurity.com/2019/05/22/patch-now-bluekeep-vulnerability/ . Of note is Microsoft issued no patch to Vista for this.
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?
-
2 hours ago, itman said:
Have no desire to spend $$$ for this. Has anyone tested how effective it is against all Win 10 telemetry?
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
-
18 hours ago, itman said:
As far as security software getting involved with this, it is frankly out of the scope of what they were designed for.
I mentioned this as I saw spybot search and destroy now offer protection against it
-
22 hours ago, itman said:
The Win Server versions vulnerable to this are noted below. The question is how many Eset installations have applied it? And it is a Remote Desktop Services vulnerability:
https://www.securityweek.com/wormable-windows-rds-vulnerability-poses-serious-risk-ics
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?
-
32 minutes ago, Rami said:
Switch to Linux if you can , you won't regret it
But even in Windows 10 , you can disable all of the Cortana features and also the location and so on.
I do want to look into Linux one day. I know its gotten better but I've heard you need to know a lot of commands and drivers can be a pain
-
2 hours ago, itman said:
So is using Win 7 as far as I am concerned.
Definitely. I understand some of the privacy aspects put people off. Its not something I'm knowledgeable about but I remember complaints about Cortana and location with people complaining about MS knowing this information but many seemed to use Siri which is just the same. Many people seem to want something that can basically know the user and give recommendations based on the user without giving information
-
Saw this on BBC news about a flaw that apparently was so bad Microsoft has released fixes for XP and some other unsupported versions. Couldn't see Vista but Windows 10 is not affected.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-48295227
Am I the only one thinking this is a wrong move? Like the Wannacry fix, people who are still using XP could be just persumming next time there is an issue like this they will patch it. XP is so out of date now no matter how many fixes they release it will still be insecure. I can imagine the kind that refuse to update are the people who would complain when something did happen. I'd rather myself Microsoft just left it but I suppose some businesses still also use it with software that won't work on modern OS's and too expensive to get it sorted.
People may complain about Windows 10 but security wise it's far better than windows used to be.
-
On 5/18/2019 at 12:05 PM, PERRYGOGAS said:
I have all these symptoms: slow internet, very slow Chrome, Facebook running very slow...
What can I do?
Firstly I'd reccomend a speed test to see what speed your net is. Might be just slow in general. You could try also reinstalling chrome, clearing its cache, history etc
If a dodgy AV has found an infection there's a high chance its could be a false positive. Many dodgy AVs will detect non existent viruses to trick you into buying with some even installing the virus to make you buy
, I could understand people using Windows 7 but those other 2 are obsolete at the moment.
EIS New Scanner Option Feature?
in ESET Internet Security & ESET Smart Security Premium
Posted
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