Future changes to ESET NOD32 Antivirus, ESET Internet Security, ESET Smart Security Premium and ESET Ultimate Security

[LabVIEW707 13]

Oh God not other anti Google thing. Whatever. FYI..................These addons are also available in Firefox. Most addons that are in Firefox and available in Chrome and visa verso. I use everything Google. 

Edited August 22, 2014 by LabVIEW707

[LabVIEW707 13]

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/avast-online-security/?src=search

[Arakasi 549]

Oh God not other anti Google thing. Whatever. FYI..................These addons are also available in Firefox. Most addons that are in Firefox and available in Chrome and visa verso. I use everything Google. 

 

You sure are being stubborn and selfish to your Googleness.

 

FYI its not going to be the same addon in firefox as it is in google, they will have to make two different types to cater 1 to chrome, and 1 for firefox. It isnt going to be cross-platform.

 

However if you dont want to, dont just constantly post links out of here and create additional posts to 1 single addon, thats not what i asked.

I can do all that on my own, however it will take me weeks as i have a life and job. You are the one with the suggestion.

Here is a format to follow now:

 

Avast - Online Security (link)

Avira - Browser Safety

AVG - Secure Search

 

From this list we can really contrast and compare and just search for the addons you are speaking about.

If you want to be generalized as you are, then that is also fine, however I will have no interested in trying to get on your side, level, see your point of few etc, im just going to disagree because you dont want to put time and effort into convincing and professionaly giving your point of view.

 

Your just saying, make a browser addon like the rest LOL!!

 

I dont mind taking the time looking at all these addons and testing them out and then agreeing with you, or totally disagreeing, but im not going to hunt for them and guess that i have the right one(s)?

 

Dont all these addons each do something different ? Or are they seriously all the same and do the same thing ? This would be entering my point of view.

Why not just use one of those coupled with ESET? Why does ESET need to make one if they are all the same or etc etc etc. I hope you get my side now though, respectfully.

 

Yes i know its just a suggestion, but i like to come to conslusions on some of the suggestions that are posted here, sometimes.

 

Best regards,

Edited August 22, 2014 by Arakasi

[SweX 871]

Why not just use one of those coupled with ESET? Why does ESET need to make one if they are all the same or etc etc etc. I hope you get my side now though, respectfully.

That is exactly what I wonder as well. Use what's already available, if 8 or more vendors have one then just try them out and pick wich ever you like the best. Or wich ever is compatible with your browser.

 

And yes, there are more browsers available than IE, Chrome and Firefox!

 

And like SCR said, you can't just release a plugin and let it be, it needs constant "baby sitting" in order to be compatible and work with each new browser release. 

 

And as I said before, even if a link is marked red, nothing will prevent the as someone said "newbie" from clicking and entering the site anyway as most newbies think they know best and simply have to access the site no matter what.

 

"I have visited this site for years...and it was "green" 2 days ago...ehhhh I don't care I'll visit it anyway and report it as a FP there's no way its something bad on here..."

Edited August 22, 2014 by SweX

[SweX 871]

I don't consider WOT as junk but that's just my opinion. WOT includes public ratings made by people who may have used the site to reflect the trustworthiness of the site as it relates to it's business practices. I find that useful.

 

My feelings about most browser plugins is that once the browser is updated the plugin tends to have problems unless the code of the plugin is updated as well. Considering the blistering pace of the browser release cycle I would think that it would take a lot of Eset's assets to keep the plugin up to date for the myriad of browsers that are in use. This in turn would either increase the cost of Eset or sacrifice protection currently had. If memory serves me correctly Eset tried the plugin route with Thunderbird and discontinued it due to the rapid release cycle.

I agree with your post especially about the baby sitting of plugins to stay compatible, but I want to say something about WOT.

 

WOT can indeed be useful, but some users are misusing their "power to rate" as they may rate a site as bad, only because they don't like the actual site, what the site is all about, or what's written on it. And those ratings are resulting in FP ratings, and it literally destroys the whole purpose of WOT wich is a very good idea from the start, but one simply can't trust the ratings to 100%.

 

About Aryeh's story...

 

I have seen several stories from small software developers that have had their sites marked as "red/bad/negative" etc..by such services, two of the cases was connected to the McAfee site advisor where they contacted them for re-classification, waited a few weeks, nothing happened, contacted again, nothing happend...that is ridiculous. The site owner has no say in the matter but to wait a long time before they finally got around and fixed it. Sites get their rating automatically, but I assume the re-classification is manual but if it takes that long before they actually take a look at it...the sites reputation can be pushed to the bottom before its all over and the site owner can relax, that is not good. So I agree with Aryeh, ESET's approach is much better!

Edited August 22, 2014 by SweX

[LabVIEW707 13]

Lol. So only Eset is getting right. All of these other companies are wrong? If they are wrong then why does Bitdefender and Kaspersky have a higher detection rating then Eset? Stop shooting down the idea of a simple browser plugin. Remove parental controls from smart security since most are built into Windows. Along with K-9 web patrol or Open DNS. Parental controls are no longer needed in a security suite. Suites are actually a thing of the past. All you need is a good av now a days. Norton is actually streamlining all their products into one. A site advisor is still very much a security feature. Especially when it comes to newbies. 

 

So basically Eset does not want the extra work load it takes into managing a site advisor. Ok then hire more people. As I have previously said it's not rocket science. Heck teens are designing phone apps right from their laptops. All I keep hearing is why Eset refuses to add such a feature. A more reasonable reply would be to say "We will look into it. Thanks for sharing". 

 

Eset is a great antivirus. I only have 3 top choices and I have tried everything out there. Eset, Avast and Webroot are my top choices cause they are bloat free and keep things simple. Plus they are all extremely light on your system. 

Edited August 22, 2014 by LabVIEW707

[SweX 871]

Lol. So only Eset is getting right. All of these other companies are wrong? If they are wrong then why does Bitdefender and Kaspersky have a higher detection rating then Eset? Stop shooting down the idea of a simple browser plugin. Remove parental controls from smart security since most are built into Windows. Along with K-9 web patrol or Open DNS. Parental controls are no longer needed in a security suite. Suites are actually a thing of the past. All you need is a good av now a days. Norton is actually streamlining all their products into one. A site advisor is still very much a security feature. Especially when it comes to newbies. 

 

So basically Eset does not want the extra work load it takes into managing a site advisor. Ok then hire more people. As I have previously said it's not rocket science. Heck teens are designing phone apps right from their laptops. All I keep hearing is why Eset refuses to add such a feature. A more reasonable reply would be to say "We will look into it. Thanks for sharing". 

 

Eset is a great antivirus. I only have 3 top choices and I have tried everything out there. Eset, Avast and Webroot are my top choices cause they are bloat free and keep things simple. Plus they are all extremely light on your system. 

 

1. No one is saying that they are wrong, but why should all vendors do the same thing!

2. 2-3 % higher detection rate in a test I assume. But that has nothing to do with the site "advisor" in their products though. 

3. So now you want to remove features too, other "suite" products have parental controls but ESET should not, you rather see them add a plugin. Built into Windows...right i'll start recommending Windows Defender to people as well.

4.Suites a thing of the past, yes if they turn into more than suites (360/total), I actually like the firewall and its features in ESS.  And people that don't want/need parental controls etc.. can pick NOD32 instead. FYI, Browser Plugins are a thing of the past if you didn't know, more and more vendors try to stop using them in their products.

5. Why should ESET care if Norton is "streamlining" their products into one? They are competitors and should not look at each other and simply do the same thing.

6. "Newbies" don't care if a link is red or purple they will go there no matter what. 

7. I think Aryeh gave very good reasons why they chose not to go down the advisor/reputation route.

8. ESET is not only good, it is in fact the only product I would run, if ESET scew up for some reason, or destroys the product with stupid features or plugins, extensions, toolbars or other c rap I will go AV less in a heartbeat, and go down an alternative route. Which is why I don't like or appreciate unnecessary product changes. But maybe that's just me.

Edited June 18, 2015 by SweX

[LabVIEW707 13]

So many are steering away from browser plugins? Lol. The 8 that I listed still use them. As well as F-Secure and 360 Security. These are all the new versions to. I highly suggest you try these products and see for yourself. A browser plugin is not bloat cause it is not a direct feature of the product. Adding a start up manager, disk cleaner, defragger, backerupper, banking mode, sandbox, virtual browser. Those are all examples of unnecessary bloat. Take CIS for example. It contains everything but the kitchen sink. A browser plugin in does not add any more resources to the product. It is a simple add on only used during a browser session. 

[nyttigbras 5]

@Labview707

 

Eset is a very reliable and trusted anti-virus product and it's has been like that for years.

 

One reason is it's not loaded with bloatware - it does exactly what it should do-->protect, use few resources, and be stable.

 

Browsers are changing all the time and it would lead to heavy development and remove focus from the product itself.

Keep focus on quality and stability - not bloatware! I have 3 paid licences and I'm really happy with the current development line.

 

Personally i really prefer an ugly GUI, if the code behind is working flawless and provides the functionality it should without breaking anything.

I couldn't care less with fancy bars and spinning wheels etc...However a clean and elegant application as it is now.

Edited August 22, 2014 by nyttigbras

[Octavian 5]

@Labview707 it is not a good idea to remove parental control. This feature is useful.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Octavian

[Octavian 5]

Lol. So only Eset is getting right. All of these other companies are wrong? If they are wrong then why does Bitdefender and Kaspersky have a higher detection rating then Eset? Stop shooting down the idea of a simple browser plugin. Remove parental controls from smart security since most are built into Windows. Along with K-9 web patrol or Open DNS. Parental controls are no longer needed in a security suite. Suites are actually a thing of the past. All you need is a good av now a days. Norton is actually streamlining all their products into one. A site advisor is still very much a security feature. Especially when it comes to newbies. 

 

So basically Eset does not want the extra work load it takes into managing a site advisor. Ok then hire more people. As I have previously said it's not rocket science. Heck teens are designing phone apps right from their laptops. All I keep hearing is why Eset refuses to add such a feature. A more reasonable reply would be to say "We will look into it. Thanks for sharing". 

 

Eset is a great antivirus. I only have 3 top choices and I have tried everything out there. Eset, Avast and Webroot are my top choices cause they are bloat free and keep things simple. Plus they are all extremely light on your system. 

Other companies has 3 versions (Antivirus security solution, Internet Security solution, Premium/Total security solution). Eset has 2 versions (Antivirus (Nod32) and Internet Security (Smart Security)). If Eset will add some additional features like Safe Search and others, Eset Smart Security will be  crowded. 

New features like toolbar, password manager, start-up manager, etc. would be suitable for a version called ''Titan'' or ''Gold'', hope that Eset will create such version. 

Eset Smart Security can have little more new features but  features that does not complicate program.

[LabVIEW707 13]

Again you are incorrect. Avira Free, Avast Free, 360 Total Security Free, Bitdefender Free all have these browser add ons. It is NOT a premium feature nor is it something added to the product. The browser add on is common to all the product lines. None of you are understanding this. So let's try this from the top.

 

I AM TALKING ABOUT A BROWSER ADD ON SIMILAR TO WOT. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT A PROGRAM WHICH MUST BE INCORPORATED INTO ESET. It is a separate add on. Something ONLY available via the Chrome store or Firefox add ons. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT ADDING BLOAT TO ESET. Gezzzz, Don't any of you ever check out the competition? Bitdefender has 4 different versions. 5 if you include their free version. All of them contain this browser add on. Avast has 3 different versions. All include this browser add on. Avira has 3 different versions. All include this browser add on. A browser add on has nothing to do with the product. If I wanted to I can add Bitdefender's Traffic Light onto my Chrome. WITHOUT having to purchase Bitdefender. I can just visit the Chrome store. I could also add Avast's and Avira's.  

 

This add on has NOTHING to do with complicating the GUI (which according to beta 8 you guys refuse to change). A browser add on IS NOT some feature only seen via the main GUI. Before there are any more replies about my request I highly suggest some of you loo into exactly what I am referring to. 

Edited August 22, 2014 by LabVIEW707

[SweX 871]

Again you are incorrect. Avira Free, Avast Free, 360 Total Security Free, Bitdefender Free all have these browser add ons. It is NOT a premium feature nor is it something added to the product. The browser add on is common to all the product lines. None of you are understanding this. So let's try this from the top.

 

I AM TALKING ABOUT A BROWSER ADD ON SIMILAR TO WOT. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT A PROGRAM WHICH MUST BE INCORPORATED INTO ESET. It is a separate add on. Something ONLY available via the Chrome store or Firefox add ons. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT ADDING BLOAT TO ESET. Gezzzz, Don't any of you ever check out the competition? Bitdefender has 4 different versions. 5 if you include their free version. All of them contain this browser add on. Avast has 3 different versions. All include this browser add on. Avira has 3 different versions. All include this browser add on. A browser add on has nothing to do with the product. If I wanted to I can add Bitdefender's Traffic Light onto my Chrome. WITHOUT having to purchase Bitdefender. I can just visit the Chrome store. I could also add Avast's and Avira's.  

 

This add on has NOTHING to do with complicating the GUI (which according to beta 8 you guys refuse to change). A browser add on IS NOT some feature only seen via the main GUI. Before there are any more replies about my request I highly suggest some of you loo into exactly what I am referring to. 

 

Yes I understand you very well, I suggest you check whether the add-on in these products is essential for some of their features like their web protection to work or not.

 

I remember a while ago when a user of qihoo wrote that the web protection didn't work in his browser and someone asked what browser he used, answer was...oh sorry the add-on doesn't work in that browser. In what way is that not a feature that does NOT work based on what browser you use? 

 

I am fully aware how these products work, and that's also why I am not interested in them. 

 

Instead I suggest that you look into how ESET interact with the browser Without any type of plugin, add-ons etc...and works with ALL browsers, always.

 

I've 'upgraded' to FF 30, but now my Kaspersky add-ons don't work, they're marked as incompatible (dangerous websites blocker, Kaspersky url advisor, Safe Money, virtual keyboard) all shaded out.  Is this a Firefox issue i.e. the next version will fix it? Or, is it a Kaspersky issue and an update will fix it? I'm tempted to ditch FF because of this.

 

This man does even consider to change browser because 4 features stopped working, I can't blame him as he probably payed for the product. But I would change product instead. I would not tolerate that some parts of my product stops working only because I updated my browser. Or incase I started using a new browser.

Edited August 23, 2014 by SweX

[Arakasi 549]

In addition, i would exclaim that if ESET started down the path in question, they would essentially remove attention from the program and have to start managing the browser plug-in.

Hiring new employees is not the way to handle this, because the current staff already is exceptional, how do we know these new developers are going to be as good as the current ones ? How much time and money and energy would be spent to get them on the same level ? Its not like hiring 1 individual, have him shadow, and learn the policies, you would need to hire a team of people.

 

I agree with the other responses that ESET already has a form of web protection, and if you can give a clear reason why ESET should follow everyone else, with browser plug-ins, i will listen.

Stating that 8 other vendors do it, so ESET should fall in line, is exactly why ESET is NOT grouped with those other vendors. ESET makes smarter decisions and that is why ESET has had 500% growth and has been moving ahead of the competition. This is why ESET is the world's No 1 in consecutive VB100 awards and holds the most, this is why ESET has more Advanced+ awards in performance and retrospective tests than any other vendor, which no one has been able to match to date. I don't care if every once in a while one of the other vendors, like Bitdefender or whoever else has landed on a better score than ESET. They will never keep it up, because they make flip flop decisions and copy other vendors.

ESET has picked a design, a way of doing things, and they have stuck with it, not letting any outside source effect their goals and plans to stray or switch.

 

Have a super day !!

[kakashi 6]

eset corp 

 

 

 

 

you can try to put vulneravily scan this feature can help to discover any back door windows have. or anyting else that is not update 

 

including 

 

regirstry

update

bugs

dll

remote vulnerabilities 

ports 

or any error this mode will fix it 

 

 

to be more secure this can really help  for alot of reasons 

 

 

thank you 

[Aryeh Goretsky 386]

Hello,

False alarms on a web site are a big deal. They affect:

• Whomever owns the web site.
• Whomever visits the web site.
• The credibility of the company which generated the the false positive alarm to begin with.

It has been my experience that people who visit web sites do not always know when a report of a problem is a false alarm or not. They might assume it is, and it turns out to be a legitimate report and they get infected. Or, they may contact the site operator or their anti-malware solutions provider, creating a support burden.

Just because eight, eighty or eight hundred anti-malware companies do something does not mean that ESET should follow them down the "me, too" path. ESET chooses to implement technologies when they provide a tangible benefit to the computing public.

Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky

False alarms on web sites are no big deal. If you know the site is safe you can just click the continue button. Not the end of the world. Again if 8 antivirus companies that I listed then Eset can also do it. It is a simple browser add on you guys can make available in the Chrome App store. IT IS NOT DIRECTLY part of Eset. Gezzz. I give up.

[SweX 871]

The above post by Aryeh is very good and 100% true. Spot on! 

[Hamer 0]

- Tracking cookies detection. I have never seen eset detecting malicious cookies.

 

- Anti banner protection module. Just to avoid annoying adds while browsing.

 

- Improvement to HIPS module and detection of zero days malware.

[LabVIEW707 13]

You Eset mods remind of Comodo mods. Brain washed into think Eset is the best thing since Mom's apple pie. And closed minded to new ideas. Again I will stress that if 10 other antivirus companies can make a browser add on successfully so can Eset. 

 

@ Hamer. Tracking cookies are harmless. Use CCleaner. 

[SCR 195]

- Tracking cookies detection. I have never seen eset detecting malicious cookies.

 

- Anti banner protection module. Just to avoid annoying adds while browsing.

 

- Improvement to HIPS module and detection of zero days malware.

Tracking Cookies - Use Do Not Track Me or one of the other dozen or so product plugins available for most browsers

 

Anti Banner Protection - Use Ad Block Plus or one of the other half dozen plugin products specifically for this purpose.

 

Hips - I haven't had a zero day malware infect my computer so something is working right.

 

Let Eset protect my computer as it has for the last 5 or 6 years and let the plugin writers block the cookies and ads. They already exist and cost nothing.

 

If Eset duplicates these services it will increase the cost as has been said. Then the complaint will be why does Eset cost so much more. Added services equals added cost, it isn't hard to figure that out.

 

On another belabored point.

I'm still seeing complaints about no changes to the GUI. Let me ask this, I have a 2006 white truck. If I have it painted yellow will it run any better? Of course it won't, but I'll still pay for the labor and material to paint it. The wise thing to do is follow Eset's lead and invest in the maintenance under the hood, which will make it run better and insure that I am protected from failures..

 

Besides I don't like yellow trucks.

[planet 232]

You Eset mods remind of Comodo mods. Brain washed into think Eset is the best thing since Mom's apple pie. And closed minded to new ideas. Again I will stress that if 10 other antivirus companies can make a browser add on successfully so can Eset.

 

Who knows, maybe in the future ESET may provide a Chrome/Firefox/IE browser add on/extension similar to WOT for Smart Security when they feel like it is necessary.

For now at least, the idea has now been mentioned and quite well discussed. 

[Arakasi 549]

 

You Eset mods remind of Comodo mods. Brain washed into think Eset is the best thing since Mom's apple pie. And closed minded to new ideas. Again I will stress that if 10 other antivirus companies can make a browser add on successfully so can Eset.

 

Who knows, maybe in the future ESET may provide a Chrome/Firefox/IE browser add on/extension similar to WOT for Smart Security when they feel like it is necessary.

For now at least, the idea has now been mentioned and quite well discussed. 

 

 

Exactly, end of story. Anyone is quite welcome to go use those other products, especially if they are so hard up for the features they provide.

[SweX 871]

You Eset mods remind of Comodo mods. Brain washed into think Eset is the best thing since Mom's apple pie. And closed minded to new ideas. Again I will stress that if 10 other antivirus companies can make a browser add on successfully so can Eset. 

I am a member on the Comodo forum and the ESET Mods are not behaving the way like some of their mods, especially not like some of the "helper mods" on their forum. Calling the ESET Mods brain washed is a bit too strong for my liking. I understand you have a hard time taking NO for an answer, but that doesn't mean they are brain washed. They have worked for ESET a long long time and they know what the ESET users expect from the products. And what features and functions that fit in nicely in the products.

 

I think Aryeh has been most helpful towards you, and have explained very well in detail why these services/features can end up being more work for the vendor (FP ratings) than they are worth. Thanks.

[Arakasi 549]

Fairness has been used in the utmost completeness on this topic.

We have expressed several reasons, not for us, but for the ESET user base why this is not the direction we would like the company to go in.

Staff has also expressed their hesitation to move in the discussed direction.

The toolbars and extensions for web trusting is already out there in the thousands for people to use.

The basic principles and reasons why ESET should go in this direction have ALSO NOT BEEN GIVEN. The answer " Because 8 others use it " is minimal at best in selling the reason to start.

As Aryeh stated, they look for reasons to why they should take such actions, and only move on them when it really is a feature or direction they would like to see added or given to users.

Saying that ESET doesn't add new features is also not true. ESET has added a plethora of features based on customer requests. I am sure Aryeh could make a list for us that was customer request and not internal decision if he remembers them all of the top of his head.

 

I don't know about Comodo forums, but i had a sales engineer contact me directly at my office begging for us to be resellers of Comodo Endpoint, after telling him i already sell ESET to my customers, he said ESET sucks.

That kind of professionalism will make me stay away for good. I will continue selling ESET to all my clients, HOME and BUSINESS !

 

I like Swex post above, it made me contrast as well.

[omniphonix 2]

I would like to see a function added to the "Advanced Options" Explorer right-click context menu to add a file to the exclusions list. It used to be when a threat was detected we were given check-box options which included adding an exclusion but that seems to be gone in version 7. Context menu exclude would be far more convenient than digging through the directory structure a second time from the NOD32 advanced setup menu.