peteyt

Not sure if that was an error ha but thought id add that i never made that comment in regards to windows firewall.
As i mentioned and have mentioned previously as shown by the image bellow by default you cannot see the app name because "allow communication for" is shown even though there is an action area.

Also as seen bellow previous versions had icons to help see rules

As you said this seems to have happened when they changed to the metro design. Wonder if there was a way to show the app names with icons with the metro style design

You can just add another column for the priority number of each rule. You can then sort the rules without affecting the priority.

I've checked the VT links but there were only hacktools and cracks scanned. I would say that there's much more malware downloaded from Dropbox or One Drive with download links spammed by email, however, that wouldn't justify blocking the services and no AV will ever do so.

It can prevent RDP bruteforce attacks which can be also accomplished by setting up an account lockout policy that has been supported by Windows for a long time.

Yeah I'd go for this and have it disabled by default.
I get the whole thing about false positives and it is a risky balance but really the users eset wants to protect should hardly ever need to go into the advanced option. These users would probably just install eset with standard defaults.
The thing is a lot of users like choice and I'd worry eset would put some more advanced users off by not having these options. 
Hips for example can be dangerous in the wrong hands but it's an option and generally standard users will not enable because of the risks so things like the thing above should work as only those knowing the risks should enable them

I thought I replied to this so hopefully I didn't - if my reply was deleted e.g. against rules I apologise. 
Basically I agree - the main reason I began using Eset is because it didn't follow what other AVs did - it did its own thing but I'm wondering if this is causing issues now. I came to Eset from BitDefender which a few years back became far too unreliable due to bugs - I wanted something that didn't slow my PC. Too many other AVs did things that in my opinion should be done by separate programs e.g. I have ccleaner so don't need an AV to clean unneeded junk files. That's what sold me on eset - sticking to just security.
However I do feel like it's behind in advanced stuff - by advanced I mean things for advanced users and not advanced technology. I get the whole thing about not wanting to confuse users. An average user should never be given a choice or at least this should be avoided e.g. is this safe or risky - the user will not know and could block something by mistake that could cause issues or even allow a dangerous file. However there should in my opinion be options to allow stuff for those with the knowledge and willing to take the risk. There is always the risk that if advanced features like this are not included in fear of how it will affect average users, those advanced users will end up going to a competitor.

Does encryption run on a standard home user computer without them knowing.
What I mean is I have windows pro but don't use any encryption software so surely if something started encrypting something there would be a cause for alarm. I've thankfully never came across ransomware but I thought for a general home computer the fact something is being encrypted would look suspicious in itself

I'm new to this topic but just wanted to ask something and unsure if its been asked.
Firstly - I have no issue with Eset - I know nothing can ever be 100 percent.  However in regards to ransomware would there not be a way to detect something is encrypting files which in turn could force an alert from Eset.
I'm not talking about new unknown viruses, zero day etc but the act of encrypting itself. Basically could Eset not set it by default to alert users if it detects file encrypting and possibly even be set to pause the encryption until a user tells Eset to either allow or remove.
Surely with that approach it wouldn't matter if it was a new virus unseen that eset didn't know as it would still see the encrypting part. Or are these viruses able to hide that they are encrypting things until it is too late? I don't have a lot of knowledge on these things so sorry if it is a lot more complex than that.

I'm new to this topic but just wanted to ask something and unsure if its been asked.
Firstly - I have no issue with Eset - I know nothing can ever be 100 percent.  However in regards to ransomware would there not be a way to detect something is encrypting files which in turn could force an alert from Eset.
I'm not talking about new unknown viruses, zero day etc but the act of encrypting itself. Basically could Eset not set it by default to alert users if it detects file encrypting and possibly even be set to pause the encryption until a user tells Eset to either allow or remove.
Surely with that approach it wouldn't matter if it was a new virus unseen that eset didn't know as it would still see the encrypting part. Or are these viruses able to hide that they are encrypting things until it is too late? I don't have a lot of knowledge on these things so sorry if it is a lot more complex than that.

Also on Win 10, native SmartScreen goes much farther in that it will block (default setting) or warn of any executable not downloaded from the Win Store. Problem is I don't fully trust it in regards to stealthy malware code execution such as reverse shell and the like. -EDIT- Also another major issue with native SmartScreen is Microsoft in its "infinite dis-wisdom" runs it as a medium integrity process. As such, it can be easily suspended by malware to run its code.

Does encryption run on a standard home user computer without them knowing.
What I mean is I have windows pro but don't use any encryption software so surely if something started encrypting something there would be a cause for alarm. I've thankfully never came across ransomware but I thought for a general home computer the fact something is being encrypted would look suspicious in itself

I'm new to this topic but just wanted to ask something and unsure if its been asked.
Firstly - I have no issue with Eset - I know nothing can ever be 100 percent.  However in regards to ransomware would there not be a way to detect something is encrypting files which in turn could force an alert from Eset.
I'm not talking about new unknown viruses, zero day etc but the act of encrypting itself. Basically could Eset not set it by default to alert users if it detects file encrypting and possibly even be set to pause the encryption until a user tells Eset to either allow or remove.
Surely with that approach it wouldn't matter if it was a new virus unseen that eset didn't know as it would still see the encrypting part. Or are these viruses able to hide that they are encrypting things until it is too late? I don't have a lot of knowledge on these things so sorry if it is a lot more complex than that.

I'm new to this topic but just wanted to ask something and unsure if its been asked.
Firstly - I have no issue with Eset - I know nothing can ever be 100 percent.  However in regards to ransomware would there not be a way to detect something is encrypting files which in turn could force an alert from Eset.
I'm not talking about new unknown viruses, zero day etc but the act of encrypting itself. Basically could Eset not set it by default to alert users if it detects file encrypting and possibly even be set to pause the encryption until a user tells Eset to either allow or remove.
Surely with that approach it wouldn't matter if it was a new virus unseen that eset didn't know as it would still see the encrypting part. Or are these viruses able to hide that they are encrypting things until it is too late? I don't have a lot of knowledge on these things so sorry if it is a lot more complex than that.

The best way is always to create a support ticket

I use the daily "seat of my pants" results. I know what works for me.
No A/V program is 100%...that's why they get updated and evolve.
In my opinion, these A-V test results (no matter who publishes them) only provide the trolls with food (in addition to being (for me) worthless data). We all know (or at least should know) that you never feed a troll.
Regards,
Tom

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. 

Worthless if the attacker has remote control of the system. He will just enter the CAPCHA characters as you would if physically present at the device. As far as the CAPCHA validation server is concerned as long as the response are the valid characters requested, it satisfies the validation.
Solutions such as Emsisoft primarily use CAPCHA to control disabling of real-time protection; not to validate software being uninstalled. Your best protection against hidden misuse of software uninstallers is to always keep UAC at its maximum level. This will ensure you get a UAC alert when such activity is taking place.
Your overall best protection against unwanted system activities is to always use a standard user account for normal system activities. As such, any unwanted system activities requiring elevated privileges such as software install/uninstall will fail since that account lacks those privileges.

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. 

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

Some "free press" courtesy of bleepingcomputer.com:
Windows 10 Apps Hit by Malicious Ads that Blockers Won't Stop
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/windows-10-apps-hit-by-malicious-ads-that-blockers-wont-stop/

Cheers for the clarification. Never use it so wasn't sure. 

You still get to set a scheduled scan or use it as on demand scanner but not as real time , indeed it does get disabled when ESET is installed in order to avoid conflicts.

Hope all is okay

I can get behind the search option but not the different protection bits with the paranoid option causing more issues. People will activate it not knowing what it is just thinking it will give the best protection then will get shocked when they get asked to confirm every action. In the long run it could lead to people being unhappy about the amount of prompts, possibly blaming eset and damaging their image.
As Itman has noted eset is very customisable so you can do what you want, add custom stuff etc. but users do this at their own risk and eset reccomends the default setting for average users 

Could maybe removing the more tools part help e.g. all tools shown in tool area by default?