peteyt

I will add that a virus has to be found for protection to be added.
It's not impossible that a virus is out there that has been out for years and never detected. But as people have said these viruses are probably used on a select number of computers as the more computers used the more likely someone will detect something.
Some vulnerabilities can exist for years without being detected. I'm sure the Intel spectre one did. The NSA and other government companies actually look for vulnerabilities and keep them to their selves so they have stuff they can use, rather than reporting them and getting them fixed 

As per the information on this page (https://support.eset.com/en/kb8336-intel-threat-detection-technology-tdt-supported-processors), it seems that some of the new models of Intel CPU, e.g., i7-13700KF, and i7-12700H, are not TDT supported. However, as advertised, Intel CPU Gen 10 and newer should support Threat Detection Technology.
Why the above new models cannot utilize TDT and will they be supported in the future?

I don't really know much but all malware has the potential to steal data, cause damage etc. Just avoid dodgy websites, keep windows, software, AVs etc. Up to date

Any malware could potentially steal stuff

I'm confused about your post.
Do you think you are infected or is this theoretical? Any type of malware could be designed to steal stuff.
I'm no expert but if your safe e.g. avoid dangerous websites you should be okay. 

Possibly if you are infected. But if you think you are just flash your bios

I will add that a virus has to be found for protection to be added.
It's not impossible that a virus is out there that has been out for years and never detected. But as people have said these viruses are probably used on a select number of computers as the more computers used the more likely someone will detect something.
Some vulnerabilities can exist for years without being detected. I'm sure the Intel spectre one did. The NSA and other government companies actually look for vulnerabilities and keep them to their selves so they have stuff they can use, rather than reporting them and getting them fixed 

If a new virus uses the same techniques as a previous virus, then there is a good chance that it will be detected. If the people who made the virus discover a new exploit, then it wouldn't be detected. But at the same time, they are not going to waste that on attacking a random person's computer. They'll save that for attacking a high-level person's computer e.g., a politician or CEO. As once the anti-virus companies pick up on this then the exploit becomes worthless. 
For regular people this isn't something you will have to worry about. 

Eset will protect you from viruses it knows e.g. ones it already has seen and so has signatures for them. 
Eset also has technologies designed to protect the users from malware unseen before e.g. identifying possible malware by looking for suspicious activity.
However this type of detection is never going to be 100 percent. For example some new malware could be spread that is clever at hiding what it does and so the malware may not be detected for a while.
As Itman has mentioned all antivirus software has this problem as without a signature it can be hard to detect unknown malware. It could be begin as in hide what it does while it's being checked out by the AV and abuse  legitimate programs, processes etc. with the goal to mask and hide it's activities. Also the processes used to find new malware can also lead to false positives where something is flagged as malicious but it isn't
 
 
 
 

Perform the following to disable CompuTrace in the BIOS:
https://www.technologitouch.com/tech-tips/how-to-disable-computrace-in-lenovo-bios/
https://www.dtonias.com/lenovo-b50-laptop-enter-bios-boot-menu/

The problem is some bugs are hard to find. There are so many hardware/software combinations that it's impossible to know every bug. I've seen people post stuff that was specific to their hardware and without someone using that hardware eset wouldn't know the issue.
At the end of the day Eset identified the issue after investigating and gave a temporary workaround while working on the fix which is actually available now on pre release so I think that's good customer service really. I've seen some fix for programs take far much longer 

My fault! In one of my rules the Application path was empty, so that rule caused the problem. At least I got reminded one needs to be very careful and precise.
😳

yes you are right, est is different software. name similarity

This is to the fact that not all modules are released on release update servers yet (they are available only on pre-release).
When you change from pre-release to release, program does not downgrade, but modules do.
In your case it is translator module 1943 on release, 1946 pre-release (it will be aligned before the official release)
 

Hmm, that's not a bad point. I ran an unsupported browser where the green frame wasn't shown. So yeah, it could be useful in that scenario.

Hello guys,
I may confirm that the distribution of v.16 started via the Auto-updates / uPCU  on Tuesday for users with pre-release updates set
Peter

Description: Show all the tools when clicking on "Tools", not only three of them
Detail: It seems rather unnecessary that you have to click on "Tools" and then on "More Tools" since the "Tools" page only shows 3 tools, completely wasting space. 
Also, take a look at ESET Endpoint Security ver.5. It was way better this way; just a click on "Tools" brings you a complete overview, nice and tidy. Please bring it back this way!

Yes, v16 will support dark mode.

Hello,

Microsoft ended support for Windows XP eight years ago in 2014 and Microsoft Windows 7 two years ago in 2020.  Historically, ESET has historically provided support for operating systems for some time after their developer has ceased to support them, but keep in mind this has been to allow customers time to finalize replacement with a supported operating system. 
ESET cannot support EOL operating systems indefinitely; it gets harder and harder each year to maintain supplies of obsolete hardware and software from multiple parties needed to develop and test under those old operating system versions.  Even virtualized machines are not a forever solution, as they can run into compatibility issues when that vendor ends support for the versions being used.  One can also run into issues when trying to maintain long-since-deprecated APIs, code around limitations in memory structures and processes across so many different versions of Windows.

Back in 2018, I wrote a paper and accompanying blog post, The Last Windows XP Security White Paper, which contained something along the lines of 48 pages of information on how to reduce risk if you had systems still running Windows XP.  Since then, some of the resources I mentioned, both from Microsoft and third-parties, are no longer around.  If there's one key takeaway I had from the experience of crafting that, it was that computers running EOL operating systems should not be connected to a network, let alone the internet.  Despite what security software companies like ESET can do to protect against malware, any underlying vulnerabilities are not going to be patched by Microsoft, and that means there's a finite amount of protection which can be done.

ESET has offered paid post-EOL custom support packages for various versions of its software in the past, but that's more geared towards our business programs where someone needed to protect equipment  like gas pumps, printing presses, CNC machinery, sheet metal presses, scientific equipment like centrifuges, electron microscopes and so forth.  When the cost of replacing equipment like that runs into the hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars, customers with that kind of investment sometimes need extra time to replace it and get employees trained on the new technology.  It's not the kind of service that can be made available outside the enterprise because of the costs involved.  I'm not even sure if we still offer those types of custom support packages—the last time I was involved with one was for a pharmaceutical company that was running NOD32 v2.70 on Windows NT 4.0, and that was over a decade ago.

I know a lot of people don't like upgrading to new versions of Windows because it changes the UI they are comfortable with, but there are all sorts of third-party skinning apps and start menu replacements that make newer versions of Windows look like older versions, so that's one way to get around having to learn a new UI.

Microsoft has announced they will be supporting Windows 10 until at least October 2025, and no EOL has yet been announced for Windows 11, so either of these would be good versions of Windows to look at upgrading to from no longer unsupported versions of Windows.

Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky
 

But after all it's better to stop sticking with XP, it won't receive any kind of updates not even 1bytes so it's just like a house that is getting older by time and getting broken more and more
Linux is a good option if you don't want any kind of newer Windows versions
Linux mint cinnamon is designed to look like a Windows , you can give it a try without installing.

Problem is you'd have to check a few times each day to make sure you had the latest updates as they are released a few times daily usually. 
When it comes to security I'd rather have it on automatic myself so I know it's up to date 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

I just want to say to @Marcos I am sorry I was rude earlier, you were actually correct about everything you said.
v15.2.17.0 is actually fast and has a lot of useful features. 
My system was corrupt earlier, I dont really know what happened. This time I simply removed ESS v8.0 and just installed v15.2. It worked immediately without me needing to do anything else.
When my system got corrupt I had used the ESET uninstaller that is provided here. I also manually deleted some registry entries by ESET. I dont know why those actions corrupted my system, but now everything is really smooth, including browsing
Thank you, and I am sorry.

It appears Eset terminated all support for Win XP yesterday:

Two Cobalt Strike Trojan samples were submitted via email but have not been detected so far.
https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/0e580e784654cfe00a0ad3921fd75a423b34014faed18febdf9d94e9b8eda1f1
https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/8b941812bf5902399bf45c7f1b59d471ed19e8cf1bb7dccec1779ca0e87c4e9a
The analysis of this kind of "time-sensitive" backdoor Trojan should be prioritized, as delayed analysis and detection might be of no use and value (C2 server might be offline).

Just an update, it was recognized and confirmed as a bug in the forum's software.