Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for 'firefox'.


Didn't find what you were looking for? Try searching for:


More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • ESET General Forums
    • ESET Announcements
    • General Discussion
    • Forum FAQ's and Rules
    • Submit a virus, website or potential false positive sample to the ESET lab
  • ESET Home User Products
    • ESET Internet Security & ESET Smart Security Premium
    • ESET NOD32 Antivirus
    • ESET Cyber Security (for Mac)
    • ESET Cyber Security Pro (for Mac)
    • ESET NOD32 Antivirus for Linux Desktop
    • ESET Products for Mobile Devices
    • Web portals
  • Malware Detection and Cleaning
    • Malware Finding and Cleaning
    • ESET Standalone Malware Removal Tools
  • ESET Business User Products
    • ESET Endpoint Products
    • ESET Products for Windows Servers
    • ESET Products for Linux Servers
    • ESET Products for Mobile Devices
    • Remote Management
    • ESET Enterprise Inspector (EDR)
    • ESET Products for Virtualized Environments
    • Encryption
    • ESET Licensing for Business
  • ESET Beta Products
    • ESET Beta Products for Home Users
    • ESET Beta Products for Business Users
  • Slovak and Czech forums
    • ESET NOD32 Antivirus, ESET Internet Security a ESET Smart Security Premium
    • Produkty pre mobilné zariadenia
    • Vírusy a iné hrozby
    • Ostatné

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Interests

Found 79 results

  1. Hello. I have a quite heavily loaded system I used for audio production (lots of drivers, lots of data). Being able to "get to work" on the PC (without ESET) takes about 30 seconds after the desktop initially loads. With ESET it's taking about 10 minutes. Even though it's booting from EVO-850 SSD. I'm using ESET 13.0.24.0 which I beleive is the latest and Windows version 10 Pro, 10.0.17763. I HAVE TWO PROBLEMS 1. Message shortly before the system actually lets me do some work. Message: "Both Windows and ESET Firewall are both turned off". The "Network Protection" section appears in red the entire 10 minutes I'm unable to work on the Desktop. It then appears to go green about 1 minutes after receiving the firewall turned off message, and the ESET firewall functions throughout this period. 2. Even though I have both the "System startup file check" options turned off, ESET still appears to be doing a huge scan of my registry and then my entire file system, in refference to any executable files it finds in the registry. I have A LOT of executable files on my file system, I have A LOT of applications installed on it. It also does this when I resume from sleep. So besides taking an absolute age to boot, it takes an absolute age to resume from sleep. What is wrong with your Antivuris and Firewall solution? This started happening when ESET Smart Security went past version 9 and started with this "modern interface" - which is complete garbage by the way. ESET 9 firewall was much better (and MORE IMPORTANTLY CLEARER) at showing you what was going on with you firewall and EDITING changes. Have we come to a point where ESET has so much bloat, it is taking most of my VALUABLE system resouces? I don't upgrade my PC so that ESET's software can suddenly start using it all up. I expect your software to GET FASTER and USE LESS RESOURCES, not the other way around. I've tried uninstalling and re-installing ESET's software. I've tried using the ESET removal tool (in safe mode). I've tried installing the software and then waiting for it to finish it's entire scan of my PC before doing anything else. I've tried starting from fresh with ESET and not importing my existing settings. Same problems. So - Both Windows and ESET Firewall are both turned off - and - NOT respecting my option NOT to perform a startup scan and doing an entire scan of my registry and all associated executable files. Thereby reporting a false warning that both firewalls are turned off (because it's taking so long to boot to desktop) AND taking an age before I can start working or launch firefox. Sometimes taking 10 to 15 minutes to load to desktop. IS IT TIME I DUMP ESET - WHICH I'VE BEEN USING FOR 10 YEARS AND LOOK FOR AN ALTERNATIVE?
  2. In Manjaro 18.1.5 (kernel 5.4.12-1 and 4.19.96.1, XFCE 4.14.3), not only chromium 79 is affected but also firefox 72. In chromium 79 it closes at approximately 10-15 seconds, unless we deactivate the sandbox. In firefox 72 a process called IPC LAUNCH # 1 appears, which does not close when closing firefox, consuming a lot of RAM, because several of these processes are generated at the same time. En Manjaro 18.1.5(kernel 5.4.12-1 y 4.19.96.1, XFCE 4.14.3),no solamente se ve afectado chromium 79 sino tambien firefox 72. En chromium 79 se cierra aproximadamente a los 10-15 segundos, salvo que, desactivemos la sandbox. En firefox 72 aparece un proceso llamado IPC LAUNCH #1, el cual no se cierra al cerrar firefox, consumiendo mucha RAM, porque se generan varios de estos procesos al mismo tiempo.
  3. Hi, I have a big problem. ESET Endpoint Security since several day change my general.config.filename value to eset_security_config_overlay.js (Mozilla Firefox about: config). When i Edit this file (add personal values) i am not resolving my problem because if i run mozilla firefox once again, the file rollback to default value. I attached screen from Mozilla Firefox about config. Mozilla Firefox version ESR 60.8 x86 Eset Endpoint Security 7.2.20.55.0 Please help me, how can i turn off this settings or how can i change content this file.
  4. Make sure you check for updates again: https://www.ghacks.net/2020/01/08/firefox-72-0-1-fixes-a-security-vulnerability-that-is-actively-exploited/
  5. Invoking the principle that that "two opinions are better than one," here's another test web site set up by one of POC exploit authors where you can also see if your browser is vulnerable: http://testcve.kudelskisecurity.com/ . If you are using FireFox, the exploit attempt should be blocked by FireFox.
  6. The following is a must read for anyone that cannot apply this Microsoft patch immediately: https://www.computerworld.com/article/3514599/worried-about-an-nsa-chainoffools-curveball-attack-there-are-lots-of-moving-parts-test-your-system.html In regards to the browser test referenced in the article: https://curveballtest.com/index.html , there is also an option to download a test malware executable, fake.exe. Eset detects it immediately on download attempt: Time;Scanner;Object type;Object;Detection;Action;User;Information;Hash;First seen here 1/17/2020 2:03:06 PM;HTTP filter;file;https://curveballtest.com/SANSISC_signed_fake.exe;Blocked Object;connection terminated;xxxx\xxxxx;Event occurred during an attempt to access the web by the application: C:\Program Files\Mozilla Firefox\firefox.exe (704D5D7A43739F456D21E1A9B651F44C16D1E73B).;C3ADA8AD836A762AA6063474820B192B26FB780F;1/17/2020 2:03:06 PM Kudos to Eset on this one! The bad cert. detection for an executable is very important because: https://isc.sans.edu/forums/diary/Summing+up+CVE20200601+or+the+Lets+Decrypt+vulnerability/25720/
  7. Also any.run detected malicious activity while using Firefox , but didn't when using Internet Explorer and Firefox that's why I got confused.
  8. As a test I created a firewall rule to block outbound TCP/UDP to remote port 53. I moved this rule to the top of existing rule set. I opened FireFox and it did partial load its home web page but wouldn't perform any subsequent DNS resolution. I believe what was shown on the home page was loaded from FireFox's cache. I could not connect to any web site thereafter. Note that I do use FireFox DoH feature but that only kicks in after a connection to your ISP server is made. Next. I opened IE11. It failed to load its home page entirely. At this time, my Ethernet network connection went down completely. So as far as I am concerned, Eset's firewall is working as expected in regards to blocking any DNS resolution activities. -EDIT- Forgot to mention that not only was DNS activity blocked but also ekrn.exe port 53 outbound traffic blocked as I posted previously about.
  9. Lately Chrome prevented AVs from being able to inject into the browser so few months ago Chrome was requesting the user to remove ESET on Windows , it could be the same thing in Firefox , ESET is trying to do something with Chrome and causing a crash.
  10. I prefer to keep it blocked until you get a reply from ESET Staff , but here what Packed Agent can do Trojan-Downloader:W32/Agent.D is typically found on certain malicious sites. When activated, it downloads an EXE file from a website and saves it into the root directory of the C drive. The downloaded file is then run. I've scanned the url in virustotal and I didn't receive anything , but I will see other websites Can you make the link you have posted from https to hxxps so it will be unclickable , so if it's really infected it won't infect someone who will click by mistake. Any.run and VirusTotal and Hybrid-Analysis has found nothing. But one test with Firefox in Any.run has some suspicious activity , it could be false positive : https://app.any.run/tasks/7f3b3ef4-9384-4276-8ed5-34412ff7875d/
  11. Thanks for that link. I just checked my Firefox browser and I'm on version 72.0.1 (64-bit). It says "Firefox is up to date." It must have updated automatically, because I posted earlier in this thread that my Firefox browser was version 72.0. It appears a minor update was installed. My system has been relatively stable the past few days. I'll update if it starts acting up again. Regards
  12. I just purchased ESET Internet Security to go with a new system. Everything was fine before I actually installed ESET. I was able to use Firefox and reach websites and they displayed correctly. After installing ESET, the majority of websites were unreachable. Most were blocked by Firefox as insecure, and the few that weren't completely blocked were broken; their CSS wasn't loading at all. The issue seems to be that ESET somehow takes over the security certificate function. Every single website that was completely blocked was shown as having a certificate issued by ESET SSL FILTER CA, which Firefox said was not a recognized certificate vendor. If I turn off Application Protocol Content Filtering, then most sites seem to work. But turning off that filter removes much of the reason why you would use ESET as an antimalware/security solution in the first place. I've attached images of the messages that Firefox is giving, both the initial block, and the certificate it's seeing on every single site that gets blocked. I'm using pcworld.com as the example, although it happens many many many places. "Mozilla message.jpg" shows the initial block message. On sites where the "accept the risk and continue" message appears, if you pick that option, the site that appears is invariably broken, and its CSS doesn't load at all. On sites with HSTS implemented, the "accept the risk and continue" message doesn't even appear. "Certificate 1 pcworld BROKEN.jpg" shows the certificate that Firefox is seeing for, quite literally, each and every blocked and broken site. "Certificate 2 pcworld working.jpg" shows the certificate that Firefox sees when I turn off application content protocol filtering. It's very different. Is there any way to fix this other than simply disabling the protocol content filtering?
  13. This site is not directly accessible in a browser. If you try to access it via this URL, you will receive "403 Forbidden." Assume it's a tracker site some other web site you accessed, directed to for the purpose of harvesting your web activities. If this type of activity concerns you, use a browser such as FireFox which emphasizes privacy. Add to FireFox, the uBlock Origin extension as previously recommended in this thread.
  14. What versions of firefox? I suspect the current firefox is corrupting keyboard / mouse input on one of my computers also. Started after upgrading firefox to the current version. But perhaps I will need to run Firefox is safe mode and do hardware testing prior to jumping to conclusions.
  15. yes, i understand. I do this. Now i need to delete eset_security_config_overlay.js from C:\Program File (x86)\Mozilla Firefox and C:\Program File (x86)\Mozilla Firefox\default\pref because these are still are default. It is possible to doing this via ESMC ?
  16. yes, i want to prevent created eset_security_config_overlay.js on mozilla general.config value because i have personal *.js file. If i delete files eset_security_config_overlay.js from C:\Program File (x86)\Mozilla Firefox and C:\Program File (x86)\Mozilla Firefox\default\pref and turn off "add the root certyficate to known browser" i resolving my problem because in about:config (general.config.filename) i have value with my personal *.js file
  17. I've been trying to configure my firewall to my taste for some time already, but it seems I've difficulties setting it up properly. Recently I've reinstalled Eset in English language, so I can see if something is translated wrongly, and you can help easier this way too. I assume, as your documentation states, that the rules are processed from the top to the bottom. I also assume that the first rule's action that fits a packet is applied to it, and evaluation of following rules will not happen. Please correct me if some of the assumptions are incorrect. I use automatic mode, and I did not modify the hidden rules, or if I did I did so with an other setting which is not in the firewall section. You can see my current rules on the first image. Before following, please not the first and last rules: the first one is there for testing purposes only. I'll talk about it below. the last one is to notify me with a popup in the bottom left if there are any unexpected incoming connections, and also if rules are not working as I expect I noticed the following anomalies: see the second rule from the end, named "Silent block Windows Connected Devices sync broadcasts". I placed it there so when a phone on my network communicates with the PC it's sync is set up with (it's an other one) then I won't get a notification about that. this service for some reason communicates with broadcasts through port 5050. Now take a look at the second picture. Here you can see that the above mentioned service's communication is not blocked by that rule, but rule evaluation is reaching the last rule, which blocks everything else and notifies me. My question is why doesn't the mentioned rule (2nd from the bottom) block the communication? If the first rule (named DNS deny) is turned on, DNS requests made with the nslookup command are blocked, but DNS requests made in any other way (Firefox browser (DOH is disabled), Windows service Dnsclient) are not, and I can even see them in a Wireshark capture, both the query and the response? see the third rule allowing any communication for qBittorrent. Sometimes I get log entries that the last rule (named Anything) blocks inbound communication for it. why isn't rule evaluation stop at the third rule, with the conclusion that this communication is allowed? that rule has an application filter, but the filter points to the executable that is trying to receive the connection. Please note that the logs on the second image only include entries for the first point. This happens quite frequently if certain conditions met, and a few minutes earlier I deleted all networking logs to make sure they don't make any confusion. If you need further information feel free to ask. If you provide instructions I can export these rules and upload them here so you can see a few details that are not seen in the list.
  18. Most shown are internal local subnet addresses: https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-unicast-address-assignments/ipv6-unicast-address-assignments.xhtml . Note that Eset does internal proxy activities for DNS and other traffic which they won't elaborate on. I don't know what you mean here. If you are blocking all outbound DNS port 53 traffic, FireFox shouldn't be able to connect to anything. Blocking this hidden Eset DNS processing will weaken Eset's security protection. Ditto for other possible network traffic that Eset internally monitors via UDP proxy means. You need to duplicate Eset's existing firewall rule for ekrn.exe and place that rule prior to your DNS block rule. My advice is leave Eset's existing default firewall rules in place unless you fully understand all the effects of overriding them.
  19. Thank yor for all of your responses. I'll try this, but first I'll go through the other 2 answers. I've blocked DNS (port 53, TCP and UDP) on direction "out" again. nslookup does not work as expected, but after starting a Wireshark capture there are still queries and responses going on port 53 as you can see here. DNS queries triggered by Firefox (e.g. by loading a page) get through too. I'll try what happens when I move rules above the hidden ones. As I said in the original post, I'm blocking DNS for testing purposes, as it is used so much that if it gets blocked properly then it will be easy to see
  20. Issue has spread to Opera, now only usable browser is firefox
  21. This is all new hardware. I know that that doesn't positively rule out a hardware issue, but, in my opinion, it makes it less likely than a software issue. I've experienced hardware issues before, and this appears to be a software issue, because I've observed the erratic behavior without touching the hardware. I think that observation indicates a software issue has a higher probability of being the culprit. The system was working flawlessly for six weeks. At the moment, I suspect the Firefox browser software, but I have some reservations, because the erratic behavior wasn't limited to the open browser or even just the Firefox browser. I haven't experienced any issue today yet. If it starts acting up again, I'll post my observations.
  22. I'm running Windows 10 Pro 64-bit on a new HP Spectre x360 and ESET Smart Security Premium. I was hit yesterday with a virus that can't be detected by ESET Smart Security and Windows Defender. The virus was active when my new HP Laptop was and wasn't connected to the internet. The virus made the mouse cursor act erratic and was moving all by itself. It was changing the magnification of my Firefox browser, minimizing it and causing the browser to shimmy back and forth. The virus was moving icons on the desktop, changed the desktop theme, and opening items in the start menu. I attempted to purge it from the system with out success. I disabled the synaptics touch pad, changed the mouse cursor settings, completed disk cleanups with Windows Disk Cleanup and CCleaner, etc..., without success. I've run Windows Defender in Offline Scan mode and ESET Online scan and nothing was detected. After several actions to remove the virus, I though I was successful, only to be disappointed a while later when my system started acting erratic again. I ran Windows Defender Offline Scan last night and shut the system down. So far today, it hasn't started again, but since nothing was detected, I suspect it will return. I called ESET Support USA and they helped change the ESET settings to perform a more complete scan, but again, nothing was detected. Do you have any suggestions? Regards
  23. To OP. Just saw this. https://www.engadget.com/2020/01/10/mozilla-firefox-critical-vulnerability-update/?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9ndWNlLmVuZ2FkZ2V0LmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAALJYngiK4IxhPo-IkNc72itPKY2b-ZIMHElQMFX6EW2Rzcm4NEfaYWHbkv-LlxAIJTxH1-KjNgfkBw8jEzUyXdG9RibLRDeB4RiktitmC918qteD4Kj5FqnEyRxvH3_IKRbScwiI2F50qc6hcs96M_0lPwRYBJbeMF1o4lCVsGvt
  24. I haven't run Malwarebytes yet. I did run Hitman Pro and nothing was detected. As I indicated above, ESET USA Support remoted my desktop and ran some tests that didn't indicate any malware. From my internet searches, I'm suspecting the Firefox browser install. I had a momentary episode today were something was opening tabs, minimizing the browser, etc... Whatever it is, I don't think it's hardware, because of they types of actions and random frequency of the episodes. I'll run Malwarebytes just to eliminate the possibility. I think I'll also uninstall and reinstall Firefox. Thanks for the tip.
  25. Hi. Thank You very much. It is posible to delete this certificat via esmc ? Certificate still is default value on mozilla firefox.
×
×
  • Create New...