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


  • 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


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL






Found 118 results

  1. I have bought USB keys for Google on Amazon. There are one key USB and one advance Blutooth key. Blutooth has battery? How long it works? I can't register it. Next I see, I must have Chrome Browser, whereas I have Firefox. Firefox will handle it in near future? If I would register keys, I will have problems if Google not recognize keys or lost keys or battery off?
  2. Hi Marcos, thanks for your prompt reply. unfortunately, I still recieve the same message, even on my office computer. I also tried with several browsers like Chrome, Firefox and Edge (Chromium).
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Chrome and FireFox use their own root CA stores to validate SSL/TLS communication. Eset copies its root CA certificate into those stores when it is installed. Edge and IE11 use the Win root CA store to validate SSL/TLS communication. If there was an issue in regards to Eset root CA certificate use, all HTTPS sites would have issues. Additionally when an Eset root CA certificate use issue manifest, the browser usually gives a notification in regards to a certificate issue. Are you receiving such browser alerts on these websites? If so, please post a screen shot of the alert being displayed.
  6. 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 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?
  7. 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
  8. I tried accessing the internet and all https based sites got an invalid certificate warning. (MOZILLA_PKIX_ERROR_NOT_YET_VALID_ISSUER_CERTIFICATE in firefox or DLG_FLAGS_SEC_CERT_DATE_INVALID in edge). Looking at the certificate, I found the following information. Common Name: www.google.com Issuer name: ESET SSL Filter CA. Valid: 12/20/2019, 2:13:44 PM - 3/13/2020, 2:13:44 PM (Central European Standard Time) [this includes the current date/time] Certificate Authority: No [Looks suspicious to me] About system time: My system clock is at 20 jan 2020, which is correct and in the time range. However, looking at the time of download of ESET, I noticed that it showed the date of tomorrow, for some weird reason. Still, this time was in the provided time range, so it shouldn't matter, right? (If it does, the problem should magically fix itself in the morning). About websites: There were a few websites I tried, including google and eset, just in case google mis-configured their certificates. Since that did not work, I disabled my HTTPS web scanning for now. I will re-check tomorrow, if the installation date had some influence on the https webshield. For now, I keep it disabled. Not the ideal situation but it resolves the issue, for now. Is there anything else I can do to fix it or to help provide extra information in order to fix the issue? Given this issue claimed potential other software and because my application is a reasonably fresh windows installation, I'll give an exhaustive list of applications installed on my computer: Windows 10 home with latest updates Keepass 2.44 Firefox (No plugins or addons) ESET NOD32 antivirus Visual studio 2019 (restart pending) IntelliJ IDEA Steam (No games) I literally installed no other software on my machine. There are programs on my D drive (still existing after a re-installation), but as far as windows is concerned, they are not installed. I have created a log archive and attached it. It can be that I accidentally cleared logs when I tried to convert them to text format. eav_logs.zip
  9. Brave browser is not supported. Only IE, Chrome and Firefox is supported. As for Edge Chromium, only the non-beta version is supported and it will depend on further changes in the browser if future versions could be supported or not.
  10. 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.
  11. 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/
  12. Also any.run detected malicious activity while using Firefox , but didn't when using Internet Explorer and Firefox that's why I got confused.
  13. If you are referring to "Titan Security Keys": https://support.google.com/titansecuritykey/answer/9115487?hl=en , it is supposed to work with all browsers listed in the linked article; including Firefox. I would direct your questions to Google since this is their product.
  14. 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.
  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. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. I've tried to disable WinXP firewall and reboot, but Nod32 still can't connect to the server. Then I installed Sygate Personal Firewall because years ago I had no problem with Nod32 version 6 and Sygate, but the error remains. I've also changed different settings in "Internet options" checking and unchecking SSL TLS etc. but it's still not working. Windows XP network troubleshooting give the message " Windows can't connect to the internet using HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP. This is probably caused by firewall settings on this computer. Check the firewall settings for the HTTP port 80,HTTPS port 443 and FTP port 21." Firefox can access the internet while Internet Explorer has some problems... several Eset website pages are not accessible with IE, other give warnings about security certificate... but everything works fine with Firefox (see attached image, same link with different results)
  20. All Chromium-based browsers for Windows 10, as well as Internet Explorer are prevented from accessing 'adorama.com' web site. Chrome, Opera and Edge report ERR_HTTP2_PROTOCOL_ERROR. Meanwhile Firefox is not affected - everything works fine in Firefox. Enabling VPN in Opera also seems to solve the issue for Opera. Pausing protection in ESET NOT32 fixes the problems for all browsers: access to 'adorama.com' is restored. Re-enabling ESET NOT32 blocks access to 'adorama.com' again. I can't test Windows 7 now, so the above applies to Windows 10 Pro x64 (1909), ESET NOD32
  21. Eset CVE detection/protection is handled by Eset IDS protection. Whether this or for that matter, all known CVE's are covered is only something Eset can answer. Since @Marcos did not specifically state this CVE was covered by Eset, I assume it is not. -EDIT- As posted above, Eset will protect against signed binaries exploiting this vulnerability. Also note the MS patch does not protect against this. FireFox is not vulnerable. Neither is latest ver. of Chrome which was recently patched by Google.
  22. It also depends what browser you are using. IE11 and Edge use the Win root CA store. As such, there should be no issues with those. Firefox in most recent versions is supposed to default to using the Win root CA store if Eset's root CA cert. is not present in the Authorities cert. store. If this is not the case, refer to the following. Chrome is the only browser that requires Eset's root CA store to be imported into their corresponding root CA cert. store. That can be accomplished by: 1. Using certmgr.msc, export Eset's root cert. from the Win root CA cert. store. 2. Using Eset GUI to access it's root CA certificate as shown below:
  23. 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.
  24. 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/
  25. 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.
  • Create New...