
Daffie
Members-
Content Count
42 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Daffie last won the day on November 25 2015
Daffie had the most liked content!
Profile Information
-
Gender
Not Telling
-
Location
Belgium
-
https://madiba.encs.concordia.ca/~x_decarn/papers/tls-proxy-ndss2016.pdf Reading these kind or reports is not making me less concerned. I have put SSL protocol filtering OFF for now until someone from ESET can explain why ESET is vulnerable to BEAST and FREAK. This is not acceptable for a product that should make you more secure, not less.
-
This is a problem of Schannel which ignores the information that TLS 1.2 is supported. If the remote server used 1.2 though, it would work but some rely on the inaccurate information provided by Schannel. Not sure if MS has addressed this in a hotfix, will try to get more info from our devs. Hi Marcos, any news about this yet? If I understand your post correctly, you are saying that although my browser is saying TLSv1.0 in fact it is using TLSv1.2 ? I need to be sure, I do not want to be more exposed than needed. If this is not the case, I am better of turning SSL protocol
-
Not a problem with the latest .319 ver. of SS 8. All my https: web pages show TLS 1.2. You can verify this using your browser. You can also exclude privacy sensitive web sites from protocol scanning; I do. SSL protocol scanning is a bit like "you're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't" quandary. I will say I have been using it for a while now and never encountered a HTTPS web site that Eset alerted to as malicious. I also checked this in my browser (Waterfox latest version) and it showed TLS 1.0 ! How can this be? I had to manually install the ESET ssl root c
-
https://device5.co.uk/blog/do-not-use-eset-ssl-protocol-filtering.html After reading this article I am not so convinced I am doing the right thing by enabling SSL protocol filtering in Smart Security v8. They seem to be making valid points in this article. Not only that, the ESET application downloads page (and the download itself) is served over unencrypted HTTP, meaning malicious actors can easily serve up modified and/or malicious versions of the ESET application without raising suspicion. This seems still valid, download of the installer is over unencrypted HTTP. Not on
-
I think it works quite differently. For one, it does not work with signature database files. From their website : Blocks dangerous exploit-based malware and prevents the damage it can do Malwarebytes Anti-Exploit Premium protects you from zero-day exploits targeting browser and application vulnerabilities. Its proprietary technology guards you in that critical period between the release of a new exploit and its security patch. And, unlike antivirus products, Malwarebytes Anti-Exploit Premium proactively prevents the exploit from installing its payload. Before it can do damage. Ho
-
Good question : i would like to know this also. @SCR : it is quite funny that you also want to go back to V8 after defending V9 so heavily in this topic : https://forum.eset.com/topic/6276-unable-to-disable-certain-security-alerts-in-eset-smart-security-9/page-2 I have a feeling there are more and more people going back.