Jump to content

matte

Members
  • Posts

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Kudos

  1. Upvote
    matte received kudos from MarcFL in PC Security Channel claims Ransomware Shield Doesn't work - Asks for Eset Comment   
    Want to add my appreciation for the configurability of ESET as well, one of the reasons why I prefer this AV to other AV providers. Don't see how it could become a problem for "normal" users either since it's all tucked into the "Advanced Setup" part of the software as well.
  2. Upvote
    matte gave kudos to MarcFL in PC Security Channel claims Ransomware Shield Doesn't work - Asks for Eset Comment   
    Response from The PC Security Channel:

    "I only disabled the module for one very short part of the test, and I wasn't aware of the previous comment you referenced, nobody from ESET ever reached out to make that known to me. Hopefully the Mal X tests will allow us to test products that do not work well with one or more components disabled before. However, I'd like to state that I have done several tests with ESET's HIPS and rarely seen it pop up, so that does not seem like a completely valid justification, nor is it clear in the UI. If HIPS & Ransomware shield is useless without real-time protection it should be grayed out when realtime protection is turned off. I love how people like to call tests "invalid" when they don't like the results, and not question if the way the product works makes sense? Like why is it a great idea to have an independent ransomware shield that is completely useless without the cloud component (which a user may not want to use for various reasons)? I'm just doing tests to show different scenarios to the users, if you are happy with how the HIPS works, it's your call, nothing invalid about the test."

    See Comment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHtEcqP6q3A&lc=UgwgwiPvn4PwrGxjMlJ4AaABAg.A3up4pl9KsMA3vF_r4asoM
     
  3. Upvote
    matte received kudos from MarcFL in PC Security Channel claims Ransomware Shield Doesn't work - Asks for Eset Comment   
    On a positive note, the results from the malware test was really good. Happy to see that.
  4. Upvote
    matte gave kudos to Marcos in False Positive?   
    Well, the block was based on an actual malicious redirector on http://x2.c.lencr.org (it's not there any more) but we're investigating why this url was blacklisted as it shouldn't have been despite the malware detection.
  5. Upvote
    matte received kudos from SeriousHoax in Win64/NVFlashA suddenly found in nearly decade old GPU BIOS update files?   
    I wouldn't worry about those being modified by malware. The drivers themselves aren't malicious, but ESET must have (recently?) been aware of a way to use these drivers in a malicious way (as in they are possibly vulnerable), and is blocking them to play it safe. Also, it only seems to care about the NVFlash utility's drivers themselves, and nothing with the BIOS files of your old GPU.

    As for why this happened out of nowhere, Windows usually does file indexing for Windows Search randomly in the background.
  6. Upvote
    matte received kudos from itman in Win64/NVFlashA suddenly found in nearly decade old GPU BIOS update files?   
    I wouldn't worry about those being modified by malware. The drivers themselves aren't malicious, but ESET must have (recently?) been aware of a way to use these drivers in a malicious way (as in they are possibly vulnerable), and is blocking them to play it safe. Also, it only seems to care about the NVFlash utility's drivers themselves, and nothing with the BIOS files of your old GPU.

    As for why this happened out of nowhere, Windows usually does file indexing for Windows Search randomly in the background.
×
×
  • Create New...