[ESS 9 update failed in Windows 7.]

Not too sure, but have you thought about going on to version 10 which is the latest?

[Viber]

If it's not NOD32 but one of the ones with a firewall try going into setup - network connections and then choose the troubleshooting wizard. It shows what has been blocked e.g. last 5 minutes, last hour etc. and allows you to unblock stuff in case something is being blocked accidentally.

[Difference Between NOD32 and Internet Secerity]

Also make sure you have eset set to up to detect PUPs

[MS updates]

1 hour ago, jems said:

I have installed Office 2016 on 2 PCs - one is Business, the other Student.

My question - i am not sure whether to download & install recommended updates from MS.  I previously had office 2007 - not sure if this is the updates they are sending.

One PC is on W-7  -  the other on w-10.

Thanks.

I presume the updates are security updates and if so I'd recommend installing them. Microsoft often releases fixes to office that fix vulnerabilities that could cause issues if left unpatched

[Windows 7 and Smart Security]

1 hour ago, jimboy said:

Thanks Marcos but by the third word I am out of my depth. Surely if I completely reload ESET Smart Security it should run smoothly?

Even though you may have uninstalled it sometimes there are leftovers from previous versions that cause issues

[Idea: ESET Anti-Adware]

21 hours ago, Destroyal said:

But it's not very good at detecting legit programs that are adware like ReimageRepair 

The problem is when it comes to PUA's each security program seems to treat them different. So some will detect something and others  won't. I persume they are also discovered  and handled differently than viruses. Best way to stay safe is to also be careful with what you download/instal 

[Interesting Samples]

2 hours ago, itman said:

Marcos previously explained how Eset detects.

If Eset's internal heuristic analysis detects an issue, the file is uploaded via LiveGrid for more detailed analysis. If cloud based LiveGrid heuristic analysis detects an issue, the file will be added to Eset's internal blacklist. That is as long as there isn't a Livegrid "hiccup" as noted previously in this thread. As such, none of the public malware scan sites that use Eset will show any detection other than by signature since they only employ the Eset AV realtime engine and not LiveGrid nor the Eset internal blacklist detection.

The question I have is if malware can disable your Internet connection so that LiveGrid communication is not possible, will Eset's internal heuristics detection auto blacklist the file? I believe this is not the case based on Eset's statements that LiveGrid enabling is required for effective ransomware protection for example.

So from what i gather if a file is detected as possibly suspicious livegrid will upload those files and eventually a signature will be updated?

[What Does Your Machine Actually Learn?]

On 25/08/2017 at 0:19 AM, cyberhash said:

The fact of the matter is both machine learning and artificial intelligence exist just now. It just depends on what peoples expectations are of it, plus what it's marketed as. 

ML at its current form can be seen by anyone online that goes to google........ then types in "how do i" ....
Google then gives you suggested items to complete your sentence, where it can either fail or win.

Example of something that will probably work for a few, was during the elections in the USA. If you went to google at that point in time and typed in "should i vote for", would have most likely suggested Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.

But google was wrong as I was actually looking for "should i vote for the new library to be built" for example

If you then apply the same expectations and outcomes from a security product then it's easy to see how "guesswork" can get it so wrong most of the time, but on occasion get it right.




 

Would Eset's Firewall's learning mode not be classed as machine learning then. I haven't used it but i presume you teach it and it works out what to do by your previous actions.

And i think that's the problem. Companies are trying to sell this as a new technology but it's been around in some form or another for years. It just seems to be a buzz word really

[New ransomware variant missed]

4 hours ago, paulbf1 said:

Hi all,

We were using NOD Version 9.  The email was accessed with the AOL email web page - mail.aol.com via Firefox 54.0.1.  After the incident, I upgraded to V 10.

Yeah it's always best to use the latest version and the good thing with eset is that the licenses work with all versions of the product you purchase

[Password manager/Autofillplugin x64 versions]

On 22/08/2017 at 7:23 AM, Stev0 said:

just tried and it seems you are right.

Seems silly and damn annoying why it would work on x64 chrome but not x64 firefox.

The only thing I can ghess is maybe the plugins are still in early development as well as the program and chrome got the first working x64 version.

Still annoying though as Ive always used firefox

 

 

Maybe try contacting eset. Could be the plugin just isn't compatible with the latest firefox version. If it is any help eset's password mabager is based on sticky password

[Password manager/Autofillplugin x64 versions]

I'm sure when i tried it out on the 64bit version of chrome it worked fine

[Eset Internet Security causing lags in Chrome in Youtube or Videos]

3 hours ago, x7007 said:

I already diabled it. 

 

don't know about ticket. isn't here enough? there are admins that can move it to them 

I don't think they can. Tickets are the preferred option. Also i thought your issue was with YouTube etc. If it's set to not go into gamer mode automatically then it shouldn't. Make sure it is disabled and your using the pre release option which is the prefered option anyways

[Eset Internet Security causing lags in Chrome in Youtube or Videos]

5 hours ago, x7007 said:

eset. any fix soon? I won't have to choice to chabge to different antivirus soon, I'll post it to other gamers which might have weird freezing issues and it's because of this.   how can you not have this? it's happening to a lot of people. some maybe never go full screen, use windows 7 or 8.1 and not 10. or it maybe happens to only windows 10 1703 version. seriuosly fix this. please

Have you opened up a support ticket, sometimes that is the best way to get in contact. Also possibly disabling the enable gaming mode while going into full screen might work as a temporary message

[Malversting and adblocks]

14 hours ago, itman said:

UBlock Origin is probably the most extensive one with a lot of customization features: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock

Works with FireFox, Chrome, and Edge. Not available for IE.

However, your friend "is kidding himself" if he sincerely believes this type of protection alone is sufficient.

Actually just found this https://securityintelligence.com/news/malvertising-scheme-bypasses-ad-blockers/ 

 

Quote

Attackers are performing redirections using dynamically created scripts to subvert ad blockers, according to the report. The script gets its data from a different URL every day, which makes URL blocking difficult. Users of Adblock Plus, uBlock Origin and AdGuard have reported malvertising getting through the blockers, the researchers said.

 

[Malversting and adblocks]

I'm writing a kind of security guide and looking into antivirus/basic security. I know a friend of mine used to avoid using any antivirus and just stuck to safe sites, using adblockers to avoid possible malware hidden in adverts. However I never liked that, always thought it was putting too much trust in something. So I am wondering if it is actually possible for these types of malware to bypass adblockers?

Thanks

[canadian pharma spam]

10 hours ago, malkil said:

its because bitdefender has been started to be best in past 3-4 years, otherwise kaspersky always topped the list.

i know this would not be the best saying as i usually say, av test, av comparitives, top ten reviews, pc world, softpedia have always rated bitdefender as the best, second being kaspersky and norton

When i used BitDefender i liked the fact that it didn't slow my computer down. I regularly took part in the new Beta versions and noticed a bug in a beta that blocked my internet and reported it. This was ignored and the bug was in the final public release and when lots of people complained they just kept asking for logs each time yet never fixing it.

That put me off. It felt like it was still a beta released far too early. The program also liked to crash and at one point the programs design changed each new version. It put me off. I suppose its like Norton. Norton is apparently far better than the resource hog it once wad but it got a bad reputation for itself. 

[canadian pharma spam]

13 hours ago, malkil said:

it's better to use bitdefender, since there is no match between bitdefender and eset, bitdefender has always been one of the best product of all times. 

only kaspersky, trend micro and norton can match its detection level.

talking about detection of phishing links , then you sshould use bitdefender with malwarebytes as they both are the best website to stop phishing websites.

i am not saying eset is worst, it is good but it is not anywhere in competition to bitdefener, kaspersky or norton which always get 100% detection and i have never ever seen eset getting 100% detection from any of the testing companies.

i am waiting for that day when eset will also be in the list of 100% detection group

Sadly i had a bad experience with BitDefender a few years ago and it put me off for good.

[password stealer]

Please note this is a forum for everyone to share and often everyone helps each other. Often staff will not see every post and if you actually want to get a response from staff e-mailing them is usually a better option. I believe samples@eset.com is the email for this kind of thing.

[Eset Internet Security causing lags in Chrome in Youtube or Videos]

21 minutes ago, x7007 said:

Is there an update that fix the issue ?

Did you download the pre release update?

[Can't find Eset smart security]

2 hours ago, Raj said:

I have been using Eset smart security since years and completely satisfied with the product. 

Recently I tried to download latest version of Eset smart security through your site, but it would always take me to Eset internet security instead.

I have never used that product of yours and I am not sure if it works as well as Eset smart security for me.

Looking forward to clarification on this issue. Thank you.

As macros said eset internet security is the same but without anti theft. New users cannot download smart security but previous users can. Googling i found this https://www.eset.com/uk/test-and-review/smart-security/download/

[ESET Flag CCleaner as a potentially unsafe application]

5 hours ago, INI said:

This message i get when i try to download CCleaner from whichever site i tried whether it is from piriform.com or filehippo or download. Is it a false flag by eset or it is real one?

 

this message

It's made harder to find than the standard version but there is a lite version available which doesn't include any extra stuff in the installer. This can be found at https://www.piriform.com/ccleaner/builds - I think I read somewhere the lite version might not always be updated straight away at the same time as the main version - e.g. it might come out a day after the main version.

4 hours ago, spc3rd said:

Just a little note of interest here FWIW, Piriform (and its various products, such as, CCleaner, Speccy, Defraggler, etc) has now been acquired by Avast! (back in July 2017).  

 

Never knew this which is surprising. Wonder if it they are planning to just keep Piriform as it's own company kind of thing or start rolling some of the features into Avast's other products. Maybe they will do what AVG did when they bought the company behind TuneUp Utilities and keep it for a bit but eventually removing it and bringing an AVG TuneUp program later on. I suppose CCleaner is a big name though so it might work out better keeping it separate.

Oh Googling just told me that Avast actually owns AVG something else I didn't know which sounds a bit weird - They own two tune up programs by the sound of it now due to this.

[Remove Update 10.1.219.0?]

1 hour ago, tjg79 said:

I'm considering a clean install of the ESET program. Is there a link to download the latest version? Also, is there a utility to completely remove all traces of the ESET program before the clean re-install?

You can download the eset uninstaller at hxxp://support.eset.com/kb2289/?locale=en_US

As far as I know the link on here with the free trials are the full version and you'll just need to input your license information. Just download the correct version https://www.eset.com/uk/home/internet-security/?gclid=CjwKCAjw2ZXMBRB2EiwA2HVD-L8hcSkafXMz0Jm6j13DTxDb3RODk6FMUH9QCqaV5iHosMCcd30thhoCjBMQAvD_BwE

[office 2007]

17 hours ago, cyberhash said:

Hi Jems,

MS have just stated that support will end for it, the product will still work as it currently does in the future but will just not receive any further updates. If you set up outlook/office so it does not "Auto" open any attachments or "Auto" download images, or "Auto" run macro's across your office suite your ESET product should keep you well protected. But if any vulnerabilities found in office 2007 are not patched in the future it could lead to your system being compromised.

Vulnerability's are completely different to malware or viruses.

Yeah exactly what cyberhash said. A lot of people often prefer older versions for particular software, operating systems etc. However they often forget the fact that once unsupported they can put you at risk with unpatched vulnerabilities. Security programs can help but there's always a risk there.

Best example in my opinion is those who still use XP. Its so outdated and has vulnerabilities. You can still get security products that work officially/unofficially for xp but running them is similar to having a secure prison but with a whole in the fence

[Another ransomware that escapes from ESET's detection]

2 hours ago, itman said:

Yes.

And I couldn't think of a better example than VoodooShield whose self-protection mechanisms are non-existent. I "beefed up" same using appropriate Eset HIPS rules; process termination and modification plus registry file execute options, etc.. Same rules in fact I used to "beef up" Eset's GUI process that runs in unprotected user mode.

I mean you only have to look at notpetya which used a well known legitimate program - compromised it and basically sent everyone an infected update

[Another ransomware that escapes from ESET's detection]

On 28/07/2017 at 9:57 PM, cyberhash said:

The only real way of doing such a thing is by black/white listing, and quite the opposite as to what an antivirus does by default. It's been discussed on other threads on these forums where even windows updates or driver updates are that low a reputation where black/white listing could do potentially as much damage to a machine as malware itself could if it's left to user choice. Likewise if ESET were to block a new Nvidia driver that's only been released 4 minutes ago and is only installed on 12 pc's worldwide (Inspected via Livegrid) could also be problematic, or an update to Ms Office with low rep. Imagine a scenario with no "Outlook" because it's low rep and ESET blocked it, or a borked system because ESET blocked a driver update halfway through because of it's low rep. The effects of such a mistake would be felt by xxxxx thousands of angry users.

I love my security as much as you do, but i equally think that these kind of measures are above and beyond what your average home user even knows about, let alone have to deal with or make choices.

A true whitelist app is the only way to go, and equally one that is 100% reliant on the user making the choices as when it goes wrong then you can only blame yourself. But i feel that this is something that only a small percentage of the users of home antivirus products would ever want to use/apply. Even using a browser plugin like noscript is beyond a large proportion of users and apps for whitelisting system files are further up the ladder than noscript.

Sophos for example used reputation based cloud technology, but never managed to protect The NHS in the UK from Wannacry.

Netiquette/Knowledge is always as important as the software and equally both can fail, and risk reduction always plays a big part. Staying away from the dark areas of the web is always a good idea and if you are using the web for day to day tasks then by the time that things become a widespread threat most if not all vendors will be capable of detecting and blocking them. As the users on the bad sites have became infected and theoretically virus beta testers 

Like yourself i also have no idea of ESET's market share in asia and have no idea as to the reach of Livegrid's capability there, but i did see that vendors like Tencent did detect the hash of the file you gave and they probably have a larger share of the home market and more capable of detecting malware written in their own native language in a shorter period of time.



 

Isn't there a risk that if a whitelisted app gets compromised whitelisting software might not realise and simply allow the app as it is whitelisted and so persumed safe?