peteyt

The frame just tells you that your using protect all browsers. I think you'll get a red or orange border even if disabled if any settings get turned off that are required

Patch management should be available this year, at least for business customers.

No. The order of rules defines their priority; the higher in the list, the higher priority the rule has.
No. However, there will be a major overhaul of the rule editor later this year. We will appreciate your feedback then. There is a Future changes... topic in each product forum where you can post your feedback, ideas for improvements, etc. which we monitor and consider good ideas for implementation in the product.

No, the issues persisted, but they have been resolved after disabling "keyboard protection".

Freemium licenses cannot be currently removed from the license manager. On the other hand, it doesn't make sense to add them since you won't share nor renew them. It's possible that we'll prevent adding freemium licenses to the lic. manager in the future.

@peteytSorry  - I took the easy way out and chose "forgot password" to reset it.

I posted about this previously and will post it again.
Cisco after the Petya incident developed a MBR Filter driver, publicly available, that will block write access to track 1, sector 0 where the MBR resides: https://www.talosintelligence.com/mbrfilter .
Further described as:
https://github.com/Cisco-Talos/MBRFilter
Why Eset never incorporated this driver into its software is really beyond me.

We have already improved detection of MBR malware by LiveGuard, currently for business products with lowered detection threshold due to clean files modifying MBR. If everything goes well, we could make further adjustments for home users in a few weeks' time.

For those who missed this posting in the Malware section of the forum: https://forum.eset.com/topic/34454-new-whql-rootkits/ , a China based individual posted that he had submitted to Eset Virus Lab 31 attestation signed kernel mode drivers that were rootkits.
At the time of the posting which was a month ago, only one vendor at VirusTotal detected these drivers which was CloudStrike Falcon as suspicious with a final malicious verdict. It took Eset Virus Lab two days to determine that these drivers were indeed malicious rootkit drivers and issue a signature for them. Assume that if the poster never submitted these drivers to VT, they would still be floating around in the wild infecting Windows installations.
I  again ask is it not time Eset start warning about attempted attestation signed driver installation?

Since my earlier thread on this issue has been closed: https://forum.eset.com/topic/32841-a-clear-and-present-danger-lurking-in-windows-1011/#comment-153631 , here's the latest incident on this very serious issue.
https://www.mandiant.com/resources/blog/hunting-attestation-signed-malware
Additional reference here: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/microsoft/microsoft-signed-malicious-windows-drivers-used-in-ransomware-attacks/
I  again ask is it not time Eset start warning about attempted attestation signed driver installation?

Just to clarify: the I/O reads and writes shown on Task Manager do not correspond to disk reads/writes. It encompasses disk, network, inter-process communication, and devices. To clearly identify disk reads/writes, use a tool like Process Explorer with elevated privileges and enable the Disk Read Bytes and Disk Write Bytes columns.

Behavior of disabled "Browser's green frame" will change in the prepared update, after that there will be no frame at all

ESET doesn't offer a patch management solution yet. However, something is brewing so please stay tuned.

Glad you brought this up.
Eset in ver. 16 by default enabled the Secure all browsers option which is the source for all these green border complaints.
However to allow supported browsers to be usable, Eset by default also allows all browser extensions to be functional. It goes without saying that the primary source of browser malware are extensions/add-ons. Also by doing this, Eset actually weakened prior B&PP capability which didn't allow any extensions/add-ons to load.
I for one want nothing to do with the Secure all browsers feature. If Eset decides in a future release to make the feature mandatory, it's "bye-bye" to Eset usage for me.

BPP module with Security-Mitigations reports fix is fully released. Please check, if it helps also in your environment.
If you will encounter similar (or any) issue in the future, just let us know. We are here for you.

From another recent forum posting:
However in my ESSP installation, that setting doesn't exist. It might only appear in an outdated OS situation.

As this is an Eset form the answers are probably going to be to stay with Eset. 
The only thing you can do is run a trial with Norton and see how it works and what you prefer. Some AVs can be very feature rich but can come with unnecessary extras which in turn slows down the system

We always block the whole page that contains a malicious JavaScript. If an executable infected with a file infector is detected, it is not possible to block just the virus code and let the executable run without cleaning the virus first either.

Suggesting a separate option to completely hide rather than fade the green border on browsers when browser protection is enabled.
 
I actually think it's a good idea to fade to show that it's enabled but there's a lot of posts from people who aren't pleased. Wondering if it would be worth this with a warning. I mean can't you disbale the AV and Firewall and hide the warnings? If so I suppose it's not much different

Get rid of Windows7 it's better choice , it's like wearing a bullets' vest against rockets , it's not helpful.

Thank you for your feedback, we appreciate it a lot. It is our goal to tailor our products to your needs and the way you use them. The good news is that we are planning a complete revamp of the firewall rule editor which should have most of your proposals implemented. It's preliminary scheduled for v16.2 next year.

You keep asking the same questions after we have answered.
The simple thing is any kind of malware, eset should be able to detect. The only thing it may not detect is stuff that is new e.g. zero day vulnerabilities that have not been found yet. 
The only problem is bios, UEFI etc. malware, AVs can only detect but they cannot remove - you will need to flash it. However these are generally targeted at high targets. Like Nightowl said government may want to steal state secrets from another government but there's no real point in trying to infect someone like us because there'd be no point.
Either accept you are not infected or flash it - there's no more answers anyone can give you.

I've often suggest a way to remove dead rules which I'm hoping they'll implent and also to be able to rearrange rules by names as well as an icon representing the apps

I woke up today to an alert on Eset Security for Android.
Dailymotion Android/TrojanDropper.Agent.JOS
This is an app that has been installed for ages so wondering what has triggered it and if it is a false positive?

As I mentioned malware can infect multiple places. You keep asking the same question when it's already been answered.
Just have safe practises and you'll be fine. That's the only advice I can give