Most Valued Members peteyt 396 Posted February 16, 2020 Most Valued Members Posted February 16, 2020 18 hours ago, Marcos said: The issue is being looked into but so far it looks like the issue cannot be fixed unfortunately. I thought it had already been fixed for enterprise users?
Gabito 0 Posted February 16, 2020 Posted February 16, 2020 (edited) On my PC, as I said above, using Manjaro 18 XFCE 4.14, it only affected (that I have noticed) Chromium (as of version 79) and Firefox (this does not close, but generates processes called "IPC LAUNCH # 1 "that consume a lot of RAM, even when I close Firefox, these processes being active). For now I am considering whether to continue using NOD32 in Linux, because, 1 month ago I stopped using NOD32 and I noticed a lot of difference with the consumption of RAM when it is not installed. PC with 4 GB of RAM and 2 GB SWAP Stand-BY: With NOD32 (600mb) NO NO32 (390 mb) Chromium (more than 5 or more tabs open with videos) With NOD32 (2.5 GB to 3.5 GB and rarely up to 200 mb of swap) No NOD32 (1.0 GB to 1.8 GB) Firefox (same conditions as Chromium) With nod32: (3.0 GB to 4 GB and up to 1 GB of swap) Without NOD32: ( up to 2 GB and does not play the SWAP). In Windows 10 it consumes RAM but not so much, it is seen that they are more dedicated to this OS Edited February 16, 2020 by Gabito
Most Valued Members Nightowl 206 Posted February 17, 2020 Most Valued Members Posted February 17, 2020 (edited) 15 hours ago, Gabito said: On my PC, as I said above, using Manjaro 18 XFCE 4.14, it only affected (that I have noticed) Chromium (as of version 79) and Firefox (this does not close, but generates processes called "IPC LAUNCH # 1 "that consume a lot of RAM, even when I close Firefox, these processes being active). For now I am considering whether to continue using NOD32 in Linux, because, 1 month ago I stopped using NOD32 and I noticed a lot of difference with the consumption of RAM when it is not installed. PC with 4 GB of RAM and 2 GB SWAP Stand-BY: With NOD32 (600mb) NO NO32 (390 mb) Chromium (more than 5 or more tabs open with videos) With NOD32 (2.5 GB to 3.5 GB and rarely up to 200 mb of swap) No NOD32 (1.0 GB to 1.8 GB) Firefox (same conditions as Chromium) With nod32: (3.0 GB to 4 GB and up to 1 GB of swap) Without NOD32: ( up to 2 GB and does not play the SWAP). In Windows 10 it consumes RAM but not so much, it is seen that they are more dedicated to this OS Browsers are getting updated rapidly and adding/removing features they had before , same as Linux Kernel , going up all the time , but still we are stuck with a legacy product , which can work normally and for some other PCs , it doesn't On my setup , I see no difference when RealTime is disabled or enabled I just noticed that you can disable the realtime scanning also without sudo permission , so probably malware can do the same if it's not detected by the realtime , I see in the settings some privileges settings but I wonder if I remove my user and keep the root , will it ask me for a password , or will it deny me at all so I should sign in as root? I wish that ESET would release a new version for linux desktop use Edited February 17, 2020 by Rami
Steelskin 2 Posted February 25, 2020 Posted February 25, 2020 Any news on a fix for us Linux users who use Chrome, Chromium etc 😕 I see there is no mention on the Eset website. Is it too much to ask of Eset that they actually 'officially' acknowledge that there is a problem and they have a plan of action. I really do detest companies that don't keep their customers in the loop about progress (if any). Nightowl 1
Vrana 0 Posted March 5, 2020 Posted March 5, 2020 (edited) With this antivirus bugged, the thread of prophecy is severed. Restore the functioning product to restore the weave of fate, or we will have to persist in the doomed world you have created. Edited March 5, 2020 by Vrana
infidelus 0 Posted March 8, 2020 Posted March 8, 2020 (edited) Add another user who's been having this problem since December. I've tried Brave, Chromium, Chrome and Vivaldi and they all crash. Somebody on the Brave community forums pointed me here and, as others have mentioned, uninstalling Nod32 completely fixes the issue. I also wasn't aware the Linux desktop edition was a legacy product, though I have noticed feature updates are rare. As it stands now I'm just running Clam AV and as my licence expires in August there's very little chance I will be purchasing any future ESET products if they don't fix this problem shortly (it's been nearly THREE MONTHS already!) and if they decide not to continue supporting the Linux desktop for home users. Edited March 8, 2020 by infidelus
Most Valued Members Nightowl 206 Posted March 9, 2020 Most Valued Members Posted March 9, 2020 It can now cause something like this , if your Chrome or Chromium works with ESET like mine , it would stop it from going to socket , it would always tell you that it's waiting for socket in order to be able to go to the website.
Most Valued Members Nightowl 206 Posted March 18, 2020 Most Valued Members Posted March 18, 2020 Product has been updated if you didn't notice : Version 4.0.95.0 Fixed: Compatibility of Real-time scanner with 3rd party applications, like Google Chrome or Firefox https://www.eset.com/int/home/antivirus-linux/download/
OpenSUSEdude 0 Posted March 18, 2020 Posted March 18, 2020 Great. A fix that doesn't fix anything. Lovely. 3/18/20 3:37 PM kwin_x11 qt.qpa.xcb: QXcbConnection: XCB error: 3 (BadWindow), sequence: 7820, resource id: 71303168, major code: 18 (ChangeProperty), minor code: 0 3/18/20 3:37 PM kwin_x11 qt.qpa.xcb: QXcbConnection: XCB error: 3 (BadWindow), sequence: 7824, resource id: 71303169, major code: 18 (ChangeProperty), minor code: 0 3/18/20 3:37 PM kernel VizCompositorTh[5079]: segfault at 3c5 ip 000055c839067006 sp 00007fc421427100 error 6 in vivaldi-bin[55c834f95000+71ff000] 3/18/20 3:37 PM kernel VizCompositorTh[5248]: segfault at 47a ip 0000562d84e6f006 sp 00007f84243a5100 error 6 in vivaldi-bin[562d80d9d000+71ff000] 3/18/20 3:37 PM kernel VizCompositorTh[5329]: segfault at 4cb ip 0000559986455006 sp 00007f013c611100 error 6 in vivaldi-bin[559982383000+71ff000] 3/18/20 3:38 PM kernel VizCompositorTh[5385]: segfault at 503 ip 0000556b73204006 sp 00007f54db306100 error 6 in vivaldi-bin[556b6f132000+71ff000] 3/18/20 3:38 PM kernel VizCompositorTh[5409]: segfault at 51b ip 0000558d4502f006 sp 00007f1bf9a49100 error 6 in vivaldi-bin[558d40f5d000+71ff000] 3/18/20 3:38 PM kernel VizCompositorTh[5487]: segfault at 569 ip 000055828b2fd006 sp 00007f46b807b100 error 6 in vivaldi-bin[55828722b000+71ff000] 3/18/20 3:38 PM kernel traps: Chrome_IOThread[5045] trap int3 ip:5601e645ae1d sp:7f26e5399760 error:0 in vivaldi-bin[5601e3e7b000+71ff000] 3/18/20 3:38 PM kwin_x11 qt.qpa.xcb: QXcbConnection: XCB error: 3 (BadWindow), sequence: 26166, resource id: 71303169, major code: 15 (QueryTree), minor code: 0
Administrators Marcos 5,451 Posted March 19, 2020 Administrators Posted March 19, 2020 If you are having issues even with 4.0.95 or Endpoint Security v7, the cause must be different. Please raise a support ticket with your local ESET distributor to have it analyzed and possibly fixed.
OpenSUSEdude 0 Posted March 19, 2020 Posted March 19, 2020 You are my local ESET distributor. Here the solution: uninstall ESET, problem goes away. Therefore, ESET is the cause. Maybe 4.0.95 fixed something, but not this.
Administrators Marcos 5,451 Posted March 20, 2020 Administrators Posted March 20, 2020 9 hours ago, OpenSUSEdude said: You are my local ESET distributor. Here the solution: uninstall ESET, problem goes away. Therefore, ESET is the cause. Maybe 4.0.95 fixed something, but not this. Please contact ESET LLC customer care if you are from the US. I am from ESET HQ in Europe. The issue needs to be tracked via the support ticketing system.
Vrana 0 Posted April 9, 2020 Posted April 9, 2020 (edited) It looks like the problem has been resolved for me, thank you. Tested on 3 computers, so far so good. Edited April 9, 2020 by Vrana
cniederr 0 Posted April 9, 2020 Author Posted April 9, 2020 Problem has been also resolved for me! New version is working fine. Thanky you!
denixx 7 Posted April 22, 2020 Posted April 22, 2020 On 3/19/2020 at 7:40 AM, Marcos said: 4.0.95 Hi, Marcos! Looks like it is working now, thanks! I would test for couple of days, but even now it looks good with Chrome Unstable 83.0.4103.7 dev (64-bit). No flickering, no crashes. Thank you!
Most Valued Members Nightowl 206 Posted April 27, 2020 Most Valued Members Posted April 27, 2020 (edited) On 4/22/2020 at 6:11 PM, denixx said: Hi, Marcos! Looks like it is working now, thanks! I would test for couple of days, but even now it looks good with Chrome Unstable 83.0.4103.7 dev (64-bit). No flickering, no crashes. Thank you! Works fine also here. Chromium Version 80.0.3987.163 Edited April 27, 2020 by Nightowl
Recommended Posts