Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Daffie last won the day on November 25 2015

Daffie had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
  1. @itman : I would not expect much response from ESET to this problem. Seems to me they have given up on SSL in v8. My topic is still unsolved after weeks. https://forum.eset.com/topic/7050-dont-use-eset-ssl-protocol-filtering-in-v8/
  2. 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.
  3. 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
  4. Thanks Marcos, looking forward to it. I am using Windows 7 Enterprise x64 by the way.
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. Problems mentioned in this thread are on W7 systems. Nothing to do with W10. Wrong! I use 8.1 and also have these problems. My point was that it has nothing to do with W10. Last time I checked 8.1 is not W10.
  9. Problems mentioned in this thread are on W7 systems. Nothing to do with W10.
  10. 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.
  11. Yep, also W7 x64 here. But since going back to V8 all problems are gone. I noticed same behavior as rept30.
  12. Nothing wrong with sticking with a version of software you are happy with. It is not like V8 is not supported anymore. It works great. V9 is not working so good for me, but that doesn't mean I will not move to it in the future.
  13. I am moving back to ESET 8. I had quite often lagging and unresponsive behavior since I updated to V9. Also the warning system and new GUI puts me off. Maybe I will try it again in a few months but for now I am sticking to version 8 where I had 0 problems with.
  • Create New...