Eset Blocking Chromecast

[Blackbox88 2]

On 8/10/2019 at 7:57 PM, lamar said:

Not so easy as it sounds. Valid only if you watch only free stuff  via your Chromecast. If you pay US$ 20-50 per month for online movie channels, then three weeks of black screen due to another paid product's malfunction makes you impatient relatively fast. That is the natural behavior of customers.

But for that there are two good workarounds.

Also almost every paid service has a app which is already installed on TV or can be installed on tablets/phones.

I do agree it is an inconvenience but there are ways around it.

If there are no workarounds, agree I also had some impatience

[Leann 1]

Has the issue been fixed?  I still cannot access and it is a month now.  I am getting very inpatient over this.

[Marcos 5,266]

8 minutes ago, Leann said:

Has the issue been fixed?  I still cannot access and it is a month now.  I am getting very inpatient over this.

We provided a solution a long time ago:
- change the list of HTTPS ports to 0-8008,8010-65535
or switch to the pre-release update channel in the advanced update setup.

[am_dew 3]

I think Leann is looking for a permanent solution, not a workaround or pre-release update.  It has been a month and it's very easy to understand why some people are getting impatient.

[Marcos 5,266]

6 minutes ago, am_dew said:

I think Leann is looking for a permanent solution, not a workaround or pre-release update.  It has been a month and it's very easy to understand why some people are getting impatient.

Both solutions will work; either manually create an exception as suggested above or wait until an exception is added via a module update. We release modules when they are ready and when we are sure that they won't cause any new issues and that takes time.

[lamar 10]

2 hours ago, Marcos said:

We provided a solution a long time ago:

These workarounds are easy for most of us here, but please see that there are a lot of customers who simply does not dare to make any modifications in the default settings since they are afraid of causing an untraceable or even irreversible mistake by mistyping or misclicking while they are performing such technical steps they do not understand clearly. Therefore impatience is a natural reaction of them. On the other hand I agree that unproven hurrying would not be a good way as well. Both standpoints are reasonable.

[jdashn 12]

I am guessing there are parts of what is in pre-release that are more complex to test, and could have further reaching impact than the exclusion of a port for scanning. Which would be why they've not released this 'fix' as it's a part of a larger update package, that is still being tested.

I wonder, though, if this piece could be released to the general codebase, before the testing on the rest of the 'update' is completed. I would guess that you're just going to be doing the exclusion of the ports for scanning on the back end, so pretty simple to test and know is working. 

Is this maybe one of those cases where Dev and Testing don't know that this part of the update is turning away home use customers, and causing a lot of consternation among the client base (likely a TON more than what you see here, we all know in support you only ever get 1% of complaints via forums, or email -- easier to buy a new product than complain). Heck maybe if Dev and Testing knew they'd be able to put this available for release, but I can't see that with a fully functional forum like this that the moderators here aren't regularly working with dev/test and letting them know of the daily buzz on the forums (heck a few might even have accounts and read?).

I'd imagine that releasing a portion of an Update is relatively simple, seeing as how everything has been made more modular with eset, but honestly I dont know how development works here, could be that to uncouple this update from others would mean far more work and delays in other areas. Could be that a large enterprise customer is asking for a feature, and that has been fast-tracked, and other projects have to wait.

 

I guess really what i'm saying is that who knows why it's taking so long, yes it could be that they're waiting to click that button for no 'good reason' aside from 'thats how we do it' .. or it's a lot more complex than the minimal information that we get via the forums would lead us to believe.

 

 

[lly1953 0]

I've updated eset today and it's fixed. Internet security module is now v. 1376 and everything is working fine.

[AnnaJuist 2]

Thank You ESET team. Whatever you did finally fixed the issue with Chromecast not working. 

Today is the first time in almost a month that I can view movies from my browser again. I'm so happy, as I felt uncomfortable trying to do those things about changing those HTTPS Ports and all.

So once again, Thank you Very Much. 

[lamar 10]

13 minutes ago, AnnaJuist said:

Today is the first time in almost a month that I can view movies from my browser again.

What nice news. I also received Internet Protection Module #1376 (build Aug/06) on the regular update channel, so the long awaited #1375 seems to remain unreleased forever. It was a great honor for me to participate in this conversation. Best wishes to all.

[Taradise 0]

Does this mean that those of us that changed those port settings should now change them back to original settings?

[itman 1,746]

45 minutes ago, Taradise said:

Does this mean that those of us that changed those port settings should now change them back to original settings?

Yes.

[The Scorpion 1]

Just to be sure - so now in 'Ports used' we should have '443, 0-65535' ?

[Marcos 5,266]

15 minutes ago, The Scorpion said:

Just to be sure - so now in 'Ports used' we should have '443, 0-65535' ?

Yes, however, it's same as 0-65535 since 443 is already covered by the range.