peteyt

Hello forum users,
We are happy to announce that as of today, you can you can share your requests or ideas for new ESET documentation content (KB articles, videos, help pages...) right from the ESET Security Forum.
There is a new "Request ESET Documentation Content" button in the right column, which opens the full pop-up widget where you can describe what you would like to see at support.eset.com, help.eset.com or on our YouTube channel.
Feel free to use this feature, we are always looking to hear from our customers and meet their expectations!
On behalf of the teams involved,
Tomas

Yeah with a previous AV I used before Eset I noticed each year that things got changed each yeah, and not just with AVs but programs in general. Sometimes one or new extras came but it often seemed the change in the UI was to trick people into thinking there was a lot of changes.
As someone who has just moved into a basic IT job that involves basic assistance changes do tend to confuse new users. I'd never say no to changes but I do also appreciate that Esets UI has been pretty consistent for a while.
As for the dark mode and general UI changes, if Eset can do changes then great but I'd rather it focused on protection over UI tweaks. There's features such as wildcards for HIPS, ransomware folder and roll back protection etc. That other AVs offer that many would like to see and I'd rather this took preference over design choices 

Yeah with a previous AV I used before Eset I noticed each year that things got changed each yeah, and not just with AVs but programs in general. Sometimes one or new extras came but it often seemed the change in the UI was to trick people into thinking there was a lot of changes.
As someone who has just moved into a basic IT job that involves basic assistance changes do tend to confuse new users. I'd never say no to changes but I do also appreciate that Esets UI has been pretty consistent for a while.
As for the dark mode and general UI changes, if Eset can do changes then great but I'd rather it focused on protection over UI tweaks. There's features such as wildcards for HIPS, ransomware folder and roll back protection etc. That other AVs offer that many would like to see and I'd rather this took preference over design choices 

This is exactly my point.
If people class these missing features as basic, to me surely that should be the priority.
If eset does decide to tweak the UI then great but when the next major version is released I'd be more happy to see newer security features and improved security features over the UI.
I use Firewall in automatic mode but used to use it in manual. One of my biggest criticisms UI wise is the Firewall rules editor is not that UI friendly. You can't simply see the names e.g program 1 as it adds text to the start and unlike years ago there's not a logo icon to go with the names. As the Firewall works with an order system I.e higher rules take precedence so you can't actually arrange them by name.
As much as I dislike the above method and hope one day to see it changed, I'd rather see improvements on actual security features.

I wonder if your opinion changed if the 3 detected files turned out to be actually clean or grey, such as benign cracks or whatever. In that case ESET would be better than the said AV. However, without getting the samples and checking them we can't tell what they are.

Yes, this will be implemented as of v15.2.

Internet protection module 1440.2 that restores the counter settings is now on the pre-release update channel with the regular channel to follow in the next days.

This is something that is happening, just no current date as far as I'm aware 

There may be many people that do that but the percentage for that figure is going to be tiny in comparison to regular users that install once and then never look at the GUI again. It's understandable why they haven't allocated any resources to it. But PC techs will be happy that the GUI remains fairly consistent year on year. Unlike other software companies that insist on changing their GUI every year to make it look like there have been improvements. 

The GUI of antivirus program is not as important as the detection and protection capabilities under the hood. Normally one should not notice antivirus running unless a threat is detected or an action must be selected by the user. Nevertheless, it's possible that dark mode will be supported in future versions of ESET desktop products.

Eset doesn't release full betas much. Sometimes there might be benefits but usually the main thing is trying something before it is released, checking for bugs and giving feedback. Anyone can generally join these betas.
Another kind of beta also exists for active forum users. These do include things like 15.1 and so on but often these betas will see new features before anyone even knows what they are.
This is ran by @Peter Randziak but as mentioned I belive to be considered you need to be a regular active forum user. There are sometimes benefits but I'm reluctant to really give much information as everyone using this beta has to sign an NDA

I should also add what an unwanted application is. The link bellow defines it
https://help.eset.com/glossary/en-US/unwanted_application.html
Basically unwanted programs are programs that aren't technically malware but are greyware. They may try and install extra stuff, change windows settings, have tracking stuff and just general bad business practises.
I'm mentioning this as I've seen a few people in the past demand eset should decide what to do with PUA but the whole point of this option is it is down to the user. If a warning comes up with the setting enabled, the user has to decide if the positives outweigh the positives, but usually if it's coming up there's probably a reason.
That being said sometimes genuine stuff can be flagged because of what it does e.g. it could be potentially misused 
 

We are working on a fix which will also restore counter settings automatically. We apologize for the inconvenience and thank you for patience.

Thank you for this, it helped a lot that the issue could be reproduced after fixing the issue using the lodctr command. I was able to narrow it down to the Internet protection module. It doesn't make sense but my tests confirmed it. Tomorrow we should have more information and updates on this from developers.
Thank you for co-operation and patience while troubleshooting the issue.

Yes, I have tested it on two different computers performing the same steps:
Already compromised system; Task Manager missing GPU monitoring, and Performance Monitor missing several counters:
Use lodctr command to restore performance counters Task Manager and Performance Monitor start working again without any issues; Uninstall EIS; Reboot; Install EIS (updates not yet installed); Task Manager and Performance Monitor continue to work; Wait for EIS to fully update; The same errors in Task Manager and Performance Monitor manifest again, until I issue the lodctr command once more;

It does appear that the issue is related to eset @Marcos

It does appear that the issue is related to eset @Marcos

A fix would be nice. An acknowledgement that the issue exists would be even nicer.

Eset doesn't release full betas much. Sometimes there might be benefits but usually the main thing is trying something before it is released, checking for bugs and giving feedback. Anyone can generally join these betas.
Another kind of beta also exists for active forum users. These do include things like 15.1 and so on but often these betas will see new features before anyone even knows what they are.
This is ran by @Peter Randziak but as mentioned I belive to be considered you need to be a regular active forum user. There are sometimes benefits but I'm reluctant to really give much information as everyone using this beta has to sign an NDA

A detection for your sample was added yesterday. You can also submit samples via the built-in form, but I'd recommend not to submit anonymously. For some reason a lot of users submit anonymously without entering the email address, yet they expect us to reply.

The thing is nowadays anyone can put together a website and put whatever they want on it. You need to do some research before putting any trust in anything you see posted on the web. If the review sites income comes primarily from the anti virus vendors themselves then do you think they will post a bad review? No because if they do the anti virus companies will see this as damaging to their brand and stop paying for their products to be tested.
This is the reason some review sites have a disclaimer that this user received the product free of charge. That way you can see if a product is actually good or not if there is a lot of bad reviews mixed in with good.
As for defender it isn't a revenue generator so you can't expect it to be as well maintained as a company who's whole business relies on that one product.   

As mentioned in this topic bellow 
 
I'd like to suggest having a page that shows a list of all modules and their version numbers, dates etc. for both Stable and Pre-Release updates.
The idea is simple - if someone thinks their product might not be updating, they can check the list, and see if their modules match. I've seen some people question that some modules haven't updated in a while, and have worried they have a problem. This would reduce posts about this, and mean people can possibly identify update issues.
 

Oh I agree. Every AV will attempt to market their product as the best, so AV results can and do play a part. However I always take them with a pinch of salt. People say data doesn't lie but it can be shown in certain ways to make things look a certain way.
i.e a test could look good for one particular AV but someone could have made sure they used samples they knew would make that particular AV look good and another bad. I'm also wary on some of the review sites as certain ones you come across look paid for. It makes me think about a lot of these VPN review websites that are actually owned by VPN companies.
But my main point was that personal preference should also play a part. If you use a particular AV and have never had any issues/never been infected, is it worth moving when one AV scores slightly higher on 1 test. It's down to what works for the user really.
That being said, while I've never been infected with Eset, I do think there are some features that are missing, and I've mentioned this before. My main concern with Eset is it doesn't put things in that could be seen as confusing and possibly risky for general users. @itmanhas in the past suggested a kind of professional version to avoid those issues 
Just to check, your not using more than one AV at the same time are you?

Also a good test result can be good marketing. Some people will put too much trust in tests however and move AV depending on results. A bad testing AV is obviously not a good thing but for me it tends to come down to your own preference and being safe also plays a part.
The scary thing is that many non professionals are testing AVs these days i.e via YouTube. A lot of these testers can manipulate the results e.g. by not showing everything they did. I saw one YouTuber who got accused of trying to show a virus that a particular AV had missed but the tester had apparently put the virus into the AVs exceptions, but not shown this

Also a good test result can be good marketing. Some people will put too much trust in tests however and move AV depending on results. A bad testing AV is obviously not a good thing but for me it tends to come down to your own preference and being safe also plays a part.
The scary thing is that many non professionals are testing AVs these days i.e via YouTube. A lot of these testers can manipulate the results e.g. by not showing everything they did. I saw one YouTuber who got accused of trying to show a virus that a particular AV had missed but the tester had apparently put the virus into the AVs exceptions, but not shown this