First I have to thank you for listening and reading our posts here regarding v6.
Second, my two companies that have together 100 clients have extended licenses for one more year since we are very happy with v5 product we are monitoring v6 development and have postponed decision for antivirus switch on to next year.
The main reason we don't need product like v6 is usability on administration side. For example, yesterday you had problem with your antivirus definition database. With the blazing speed I was able to see that version is 13102 on my ERA v5 server and that clients most probably have this version since they don't have any other way to download definition update other than mirror. This is very important to us, because with your v6 solution you force us to use third party product that only routes clients to your servers and I have no easy way to see which version is current. I say no easy way because you force us to use HTML interface to customize this interface in very strange way. In v5 I only had to click Tools - Server Options... - Updates and BANG! all information is in single location.
Having console information with all clients listed in first plan and with single click of mouse to open Threat log and see what is threat on clients (that self updates, no HTML refresh!) is something your team should have foreseen even for "next gen" product.
Having control of update on single point like mirror is mayor thing for us. You helped with mirror tool for v6 but this is not as easy as v5 was.
With selecting all my clients and with few clicks (in responsive console interface) I was able to push new database to clients in few seconds. I was very confident in my actions knowing that all my clients will get database from ERA server and all almost at same time. With v6 you force everything with so many clicks and page refresh. This is in moment of panic like yesterday frustrating. And I wonder did I click that HTML button did it send HTTP POST to ERA...
What about situations where I am unable to connect to ERA web interface? Don't you think there should be some alternative?
Do you really think sys admins love administration tools in HTML? We do, but when we monitor things that are not critical, like I do with Unifi wifi controller. But when things get complicated we need robust tools like console management.
If there is no plan to change this, and as you say there is none I expect that you at least return mirror feature within interface. Do you think that would be possible?
Thanks again for reading!
Regards.
bbahesWe are an insurance company and thus have to comply with a lot of policies. Which means none of our machines have direct internet access.
It took some effort, but everything accept for the agent deployment, is done "offline" in our company.
We have all of our 150+ servers and 400+ workstations available in one view. Rolling back the definitions yesterday took te exact same amount of time on ERA6 and ERA5: less than 2 minutes for all clients to revert (we use both, migrating now). Just saying: it is possible not to route it through ESET and have the same amount of control you have in v5. We use an update proxy (mirror) and the shared local cache. There is only one machine in our network that is allowed to get updates directly from the internet. That beïng said: it takes much more effort to setup initialy than v5 which just works. (The agent we still download from the internet, simply did not get an offline install to work...).
If you need help setting up a local mirror you may send me a pm, should not be a problem.
The webinterface is better in 6.3, and I can understand why they chose a webinterface. Resellers of ESET are able to manage multiple installations. However: they certainly did not think this through. They should have known a lot of clients want the same kind of install as with 5: single mirror for all the clients. I think they are listening though