V9GoingWrongWay

Hi, What i'm waiting most for a lot of time, is a complete sandox included in smart security as Kaspersky does. It is a very important tool for security and you begin shyly this year to introduce it with the new Banking and Payment Protection, which is a sort of small sandbox for some specific usage. In my opinion, this tool is too limited for the moment and not enough convenient for daily use. There is no direct access (have to open smart security panel and go to tools) instead of a quick access by the tray menu or right click menu. Also it doesn't cover all the banking needs where security is particulary important. For example, my bank provide me a tool to connect to it to ask for a virtual card number before shopping, to avoid to give my real card number. This tool can't be protected by your new system because it seems to protect only Internet Explorer, as far as i understand it. So I dream of a real complete sandbox, easy to use (right click menu, "load application in sandbox") that allow to use any program in a secure environment (to protect from keylogger, screen capture and so on). Can be also very useful to test a new software safely, if we are not sure that it can contains some malware. Thanks for reading.

Hi, First of all, I apologize for my non fluent english (not to say bad), hoping what is below will be sufficiently clear anyway. I have also update from v8 to v9 and suffer from the same very annoying problem. I use Eset smart security for years (from V4) and never had any problem to update for the new version each year. But this V9 is really a problem and so it is the first time i have to go to the forum, create an account and post something to tell my full disagreement with this new policies of Eset. I discover this problem because of the Eset LiveGrid. For reasons i don't have to justify, I absolutely don't want to participate to Eset LiveGrid. I know perfectly what it does and its utility, but it is my choice not to allow files sending to Eset (Please don't make me a "blah blah" to explain me how it is important to use and so on...). So i have desactivated it, but then there is persistant warning you can't remove. This warning is also accompanied with a ridiculous declaration at least in my language (translate from french): "This situation is VERY DANGEROUS and the protection must be immediately reactivated". At first I find it funny (not to say silly), but with the time, i find it really stupid and agressive. Does this mean the participation to LiveGrid is now mandatory ? No of course, as you can desactivate it. So why asking permanently to reactivate it with those kind of alarmist message, as if suddenly the protection completely failed without this thing on ? In one of your answer in this post, you say that one of the problem this feature was made to solve, is that a malware could desactivate some component of the protection without the user be warned. First of all, i don't understand how it is possible to have not a single warning in this case, or at least something you have to read and then click to remove it to be sure the legitime user has knowledge of the situation (I thought this antivirus was more clever than what you describe here...). But, if I can understand that argument, there is a simple solution to it. What you should make mandatory in fact, is to ask for a password to allow any parameter's modification. I always do it, but its only an option to add a password. That should be mandatory for everyone to avoid this problem. It is not a big annoyance, as you don't change your parameters every day. This is a much more clever solution thant making a warning all the time. And you can use this argument in reverse, by saying that the people who have this permanent warning because they desactivate this or that, will not know either if a malware has desactivate the protection as there is always a permanent warning for something else. Such alarmist warning should be shown only some times and then removed. Remenber the story of the boy who warns every day about the presence of the wolf for fun and then, the day it really happens, nobody take cares of its warning because he does it all the time... Apparently Eset is trying to simplify things, year after year, to make its software more friendly to less experiments people, but then making it more and more infantilizing for the others. Is there really not a better way to make both "audience" use smart security at their skill level, than this new dictatorial way you found ? If not, you should then logically decide to not any more allow people to choose which components of the protection he wants to use and remove all the checkbox the user can use to do so. It is not logical to allow us to remove LiveGrid and then yelling in red: "NO, NO, don't do that little stupid user, it's very very dangerous !! Take it back !". At contrary, if you continue to allow users to be able to desactivate some component of the protection (with of course some temporary warning for less experienced user), then the warning should be canceled after a certain time. Or, if you really are so concerned by people doing things they don't even know what they are doing, put a second checkbox somewhere with big red capital saying: "if you change this, this is your responsabilty and you should be sure why you do this". I think Eset has to make a clear choice in the future. Eset antivirus solution was known as highly configurable tool, so, for some less inexperiment users, a little bit more complex with a lot of parameters. But people choosing it, appreciate that aspect that allow them to configurate their antivirus as they really need it. So, if you really want to modify completely the philosophy of your product to gain a bigger market (which is understable), go on, but tell it clearly for that we know its time to go to try other solutions. I have another concern in my V9 discovering this last days, about the firewall "interactive mode" that doesn't seem to work as in V8, but I will not speak of it here as this is not the subject, however its one another big concern for me with this V9 at the moment. To conclude, i think you are taking a dangerous turning with this V9. It seems to me very similar to what microsoft is doing little by little, dictating more and more things to its user without letting them any choice and Win10 gets into a never seen level of intrusion. You may gain some users who don't want to think too much about the way of configuring their antivirus, but you will loose your old base of users that appreciate the very discret presence of smart security, as we could so far decide of its impact in our computer. Anyway, for the moment I'll go back to V8, and when the license has ended, if there is no change in between, I will change to a more friendly antivirus solution, that respects the will of its customers and don't dictate them to use things they don't want. So let us decide what is good for our needs as it has always been, your customers are not children.