Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About freibooter

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location
  1. @TomFace I'm not saying that you are wrong, but here are some counter arguments: The vast majority of unhappy users does not complain, they simply move on. Like me, they vote with their wallet, unlike me, they shut up about it. Advanced users have a massive influence on the purchase decision of the more inexperienced users. When it comes to software, they are the ones asked for advice by the inexperienced users, they are vocal about their likes and dislike, they make the purchase decisions in their homes and companies etc - that's why off these 5% of advanced users generally means losing a lot more than just 5% of the business. The rest buys the product with the prettiest box, highest Google ranking, lowest price or sleekest website or - maybe - the best review score. As mentioned earlier, I posted screenshots how the competiton elegantly solves the exact same problem - Marcos removed them. For me, none of his actions so far have shown that he is taking the problem seriously nor that he even understands that and how it affects out security negatively. He went from outright denying it to suggesting that maybe it will change at some point in the undetermined future. And he is still using FUD to point out how unreasonable our request is. Oddly enough, not web access but the "Anti Phishing" Filter is the only setting that painted my Smart Security permanently red and made it scream for attention without pause. Everything else was "yellow" and didn't really affect my ability to see actual urgent security warnings. No, disabling the Anti-Phishing filter does not reduce my protection by 50%, in times where every modern browser comes with a built-in blacklists maintained by companies with vastly more resources and access to the necessary information than ESET , disabling the redundant Anti-Phishing filter reduces my security by exactly 0%.
  2. To be fair, he only changed his tune after several pages of backlash and has previously stated multiple times that this was very much intended behavior that would not change under any circumstances. There is also still absolutely no mention of the kind of changes that are planned, when we can expect them (with ESET v10 next year or as a quick interim update) and how these changes would work especially considering the initial feedback about this bug report. I wouldn't hold my breath just yet for a satisfactory solution to this self-created problem.
  3. SweX, I actually know what Web Access/Protocol Filtering does. I'm also fully aware of its performance and compatibility problems (e.g. with network monitoring and traffic shaping tools) that are simply impossible to overcome due to the architecture and nature of this filter. I'm also aware of the headaches this filter has caused me and other users in the past (* * etc.) - you can't deny that web access has a rocky history and isn't bug free today and probably never will be. For me, even if the trade-offs may were minor these days (they aren't), they are still overall larger than the entirely negligible security benefit this filter can possibly provide to my system. It's simply not protecting a realistic entry point into my system. It's also not protecting anything that isn't already protected and filtered via my router, browser and its extensions. I do not use a mail client nor do I have the need for one. My e-mail is scanned server-sided, I do not need or desired additional filtering client-sided. Not only am I not the target audience for phishing scams (it's simply more effective to prey on the gullible, see e.g. Microsoft's research paper on victim self selection) and I have seen zero evidence that ESET's Anti-Phishing site database is in any way superior to the one already provided by Google and widely used in Chrome, Firefox and elsewhere. Do you have any evidence that using both of those database leads to better security and not just more false positives? If so, please provide the data. But even if it were the best database in existence and far superior to all the others (it isn't), I'm simply not in need of this protection so I should be free to disable it without compromising the functionality of the parts of the application I actually desire to use - but that's exactly what is happening here: Due to the nature of the new alert system, it has now become impossible to distinguish desired security alerts from false and undesired ones. That is in itself a security problem. Malware very, very rarely finds the way onto my system and if it does, it's generally via a conscientious download and I'm well aware of the potential threat. Most of the time this malware is obscure and unknown to most AV scanners (including ESET's products) as a VirusTotal scan shows, that's why I was so intrigued by Avast's sandbox. The sandbox isn't without its problems and I'll probably still use my dedicated, isolated and monitored VM in most suspicious cases, but it's a faster and lazier alternative when the calculated risk is minimal. SweX, I know what I am doing and I know what parts of my security suite I desire to use what parts I do not want or need. That's why I chose one that allows me free configuration of its modules and so far ESET has done just that in the past. This has changed with ESET 9. While oddly enough still allows me to configure and disable these modules, it now actively interferes negatively with my security when I choose to do so: It becomes unable to properly alert me of the security issues I want to be alerted of. SweX, not everyone who elects to disable a module is unaware of the mechanisms behind it. On the contrary, I chose to disable it because I am very well aware of how it works and how it attempts to protect me and the trade offs it needs to make in order to do so. Trade offs I am not willing to live with. The attitude that anyone who elects to disable certain parts of their security software does so out of ignorance is not a helpful one and is pretty much what caused this entire problem in the first place. ESET 9 no longer gave me a choice due to the problems discussed in this thread. My choices were to either enable the module or no longer be properly notified when the software really needed my attention. I chose to purchase a competitor's product instead since neither of those two choices was an acceptable one.
  4. Yes, he just finally did, after previously basically insisting that this was intended behavior and we were simply using the product wrong by disabling supposedly optional features. But to this point still entirely and consistently ignored the big security issue that I have raised multiple times: If I cannot disabled loud, obnoxious security warnings for features I do not want to use then it prevents me from seeing and noticing actual, important security warning that look identical. That is in itself a home-made security problem in Smart Security 9. I don't see how this can be intended behavior as stated multiple times. And when I posted screenshots of the product I'm using now and how it elegantly solves the same problem and essentially behaves exactly how one would the options in SS9 expect to behave, it was silently removed.
  5. @SweX, I have used it for a little over two hours now and haven't used it for years before that. ESET has been my security software provider of choice for a long time. Only Smart Security 9's obnoxious and 100% counter productive changes to the alert system changed my satisfaction with the product. That, and the attitude towards my and several other user's reasonable complaints about it. As you can see, Marcos now removes my posts and entirely ignores me and others otherwise. Avast offers one feature I wasn't even aware of that has been suggested on these forums multiple times but never really implemented. It offers a full sandbox to execute and examine suspicious files in, much like Sandboxie did back in the day, that's awesome and yeah - I did fall in love with that feature in less than two hours time. It's truly stand out and does provide better protection for me. Other than that, you are showing the same attitude as Marcos: I did not wish to disable "that much", I only wish to disable what actively interferes with my network connection. I have other tools (and half a brain) that are protection me on that front. And that's my decision. That's why I now chose security software that still respects this decision.
  6. Marcos, would you mind telling me the forum rule that my previous post broke? You just removed it silently but even after studying the rules, even rule 6, I completely fail to see why that happened. I was reasonably polite and entirely on topic. I showed how a competitor solves the exact same problem, with almost identical options, to a much more satisfying degree - disabled modules are still prominently shown on the main status page but once the alert is disabled in the options, no longer cause a permanent security warning to appear on the tray icon and inside the app that drown out desired security warnings. That's the solution I was hoping for in Smart Security 9. Yes, I already used this bug as a reason to switch to a competitor and I'm now very happy with my choice, but I don't know how this kind of censorship will help to improve your product in the future. In fact, your entire attitude so far has been quite disappointing and instead of hoping for ESET to improve and eventually revisit my choice once the newly purchased competitor's subscription expires, this attitude towards your still paying customers will make me avoid ESET entirely in the future. And that's a shame, because I like having the choice between good software.
  7. Well, looks like their decision is final. This is not a bug but intended behavior. So how is Avast these days, any screaming alert messages that can't be disabled and drown out all actually important alerts in that one?
  8. Again, I do want to be warned about certain security risks. I do want to know if any of the components I willingly enabled failed, I do want to know if my signature database is out of date, I do want to know if my AV encountered a virus etc. Smart Security 8 had no problem doing just that. That's why "ignore the red security icon" simply does not work - it prevents me from seeing if there is an actual security warning! This has become a security problem for me! How many users "accidentally" misconfigure their security in its advanced options and disable both security features they did not mean to disable as well as the alerts for them in several vastly different locations? Is that really such a wildly common occurrence that it's worth making Smart Security less security and less usable for those who actually know what they are doing? If you design a product foolproof only fools will want to use it. But if advanced users are no longer your target audience, then I guess I have no choice but to take the hint and my business elsewhere. I'm just unhappy that I did not get to use the full amount of time I paid for this product.
  9. Marcos, I honestly do not want to argue with you why I want to use certain feature or why I do not. I think I gave you valid reasons (here are some more: there has been a litany of bugs directly connected to this feature in the past, it's prone for conflicts with other network related software, it can not operate without impacting network performance and it's simply not something I ever want to deal with) but even if I did not that does not matter! I'll try to summarize this one more time: I intentionally disabled Protocol filtering and therefore Anti-Phishing filtering can no longer function - I don't want or need these features. I unchecked the Alert option labeled "Web access and Anti-Phishing protection is currently disabled". This option does not remove these alerts. Please explain to me once again why this is intended behavior and not a bug. Now a non-removable security warning for a feature I never wanted to use in the first place is permanently displayed with no option to remove it (well, there is an option, but it doesn't work). This actively decreases my security since Smart Security now can no longer successfully draw my attention to security warnings of actual interest to me. Given the option to be forced into using a feature I do not want to use or to purchase an alternative security software I will choose the latter. Absurdly enough, your company offers such software at a lower price since not all of your products even come with this glorious Anti-Phishing protection that is of such vital importance that security alerts for it can't possibly be disabled. But trust me, I wouldn't pick an ESET product if I were forced to switch products. So, please, tell me again why this new, mandatory and permanent alert is only for your and my benefit.
  10. I'm sorry, but what? The option explicitly says that it toggles the "Anti-Phishing protection alert message" but doesn't and you consider that "not a bug" but intended behavior? Really? I do not want or need protocol filtering. It comes with problematic root certificate injection that in itself poses a security risk, is simply impossible to implement without network performance loss and it's entirely unnecessary with a modern browser which already does the same bloody thing and with half a brain. I do not need or want your Anti-Phishing filter, it's of no use to me and does not enhance my protection. That's why I disabled it and the alert for "Web access and Anti-Phishing protection is currently disabled" and I simply do not see how the fact that the "Web access" alert message disappears but the "Anti-Phishing" alert message inexplicably does not could possibly not be considered a bug. Now I'm left with a product that constantly yells for my attention for no good reason at all which makes me miss when it actually requires my attention - how exactly does that help to protect me, please? It's like Homer Simpson's "Everything's O.K. Alarm". Quite honestly, this change will make me stop using your product if not resolved. My license expires in February, I don't think I'll renew it at this point. And it was very much possible to disable the bloody annoying web filter in Smart Security 8 without being constantly alerted of that fact. I know, because that's exactly what I did in that version.
  11. I ugraded to Eset Smart Security 9 without notable issues. However, the "Application statuses" settings are apparently ignored, see attached screenshots. I don't currently want to use the protocol content filter and the features that go along with that. So I disabled those and the status alerts that go with it - however, the latter setting seems to have no visible effect at all. Even a reboot changed nothing. How do I disable undesired security alerts on the Home screen and on the tray icon in v9? They are counterproductive and prevent me from noticing real and desired security alerts.
  • Create New...