Jump to content

ESET NOD32 Antivirus 7.0.317 has been released


Marcos
 Share

Recommended Posts

Yes I agree, it's been like that for a long time. The first link is the US=U.S. edition and there is much less information under the Technology tab there, compared to the second link wich goes to the int=international edition where there is more detailed info available.

Edited by SweX
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

After each update, Eset stays showing in task manager high memory usage ( blocked : 150 Mb )

sorry for my bad english :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ESET process memory usage should always be around 100MB, I don't understand what you mean with "blocked"?

 

You can use Google Translate or similar service to write your message translate it to English then copy&paste it here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I am not complaining, but today I experienced a surprise.

 

I have four Eset NOD32 accounts (for use while I was still using a WinXPsp3 Dell C840 and setting up a Win7sp1 64-bit Dell M4700 laptop, and my wife is still using an IBM-A31 WinXPsp3 laptop while I am still setting up her new Win7sp1 64-bit Lenovo Thinkpad T530).

 

Today I decided it was time to install Eset NOD32 onto her T530.  But when I tried to install NOD32 7.0.302.26 --- my M4700 laptop Eset's  "Check for update" says 7.0.302.26 is up to date --- the Thinkpad's screen said that there was a new version, and it installed 7.0.317.4 without asking my permission.

 

In this thread, seeing some complaints about 7.0.317.4 is a bit unnerving, but I am hoping that all goes well on my wife's Thinkpad.

 

I do think that there ought to be some consistency.  I'm guessing that 7.0.302.26 would have been a safe install on the Thinkpad, and I'm hoping that all goes well, so that I don't have to uninstall 7.0.317.4 and then struggle to install 7.0.302.26.  (I always save the installation file even after the software is installed, but 7.0.317.4 didn't let me do that.  Of course, I could download it separately.)  I do expect to install 7.0.317.4 on my Dell M4700, but not until its "Check for update" agrees that 7.0.317.4 is safe.

 

With some worries, R.N. (Roger) Folsom

 

P.S.  I very much appreciate that the installer for 7.0.317.4 let me type in my account password and actually gave me an option to see what I was typing, instead of putting in a black dot for each letter or number.  (That courtesy goes back to early 1980s operating system software that came out of Columbia University;  I forget the name.)  Maybe Microsoft will take a hint.

And maybe Eset will stop claiming --- at the top of the window that opens by clicking the Eset system tray icon --- that "The virus signature database is up to date" regardless whether or not a database update is available.  With that heading, some novice users of Eset might never update the database!

Edited by RNFolsom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I gather that ESET NOD32 version 7.0.317.5 (which was replacing version 7.0.302.26) is now being replaced by version 8.

But version 8 worries me, because according to each of the two ESET links below, "Important: Before the installation we recommend you uninstall all other security solutions, including older versions of ESET. Click here to learn more."  I am fussy about my ESET NOD32 settings, and uninstalling an older version before installing a newer version will require going through all of the settings from scratch.

The two  links are:
hxxp://www.eset.com/us/download/home/detail/family/2/
and
hxxp://kb.eset.com/esetkb/index?page=content&id=SOLN146

For previous versions, I recall previous debates about whether a newer version could be installed on top of a current version, or the current version had to be uninstalled before the new version was installed.  Different places in Eset's documentation would say contradicting statements about that.
Are we going to have to go through that confusion again for version 8?
 

----------------------------------------------------------------

I also wonder:

 

For a 64-bit Windows7sp1 Dell Precision M4700 laptop (now running version 7.0.302.26), and no smartphones and other gadgets, what are the benefits of ESET NOD32 version 8 compared to version 7.0.302.26?

And for a 64-bit Windows7sp1 Lenovo Thinkpad T530 laptop (now running version 7.0.317.5), and no smartphones and other gadgets, what are the benefits of ESET NOD32 version 8 compared to version 7.0.317.5?

 

I am hoping that someone more knowledgeable than me will clarify these issues, or tell me where in these forums to find the answers.

 

R.N.(Roger) Folsom
 

Edited by RNFolsom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here you can find what's new in NOD32 8 compared to version 7. Because the Version 7.0.317.x only had big fixes compared to the version 7.0.302.x it makes no difference from which version you upgrade. Version 8 contains complete new features and improvements.
Here you can read more: https://forum.eset.com/topic/3328-eset-nod32-antivirus-version-8-has-been-released

And this is what I know about upgrading from the relatively new versions (> version 4) to the newest version 8:
If you want to update from a stable version to the newest version 8 then you can do this without any problem with the live or the offline installer.
But if you want you can also uninstall the previous version and install the new version after this. But keep in mind that you can import end export your configuration in this case.
If you have a beta version installed then it is strongly recommend that you uninstall it before upgrading to the new version.

More information you can find here: How do I upgrade ESET Smart Security or ESET NOD32 Antivirus to the latest version?

Edited by rugk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Earlier today (late afternoon, California time) I decided to download and then install ESET NOD32 7.0.317.4.  But when I tried doing that (I wish I had kept some notes), I somehow ended up at

hxxp://www.eset.com/int/download/home/detail/family/2/fileflag/7.0.325.0/

where instead of version 7.0.317.4 I was invited to download version 7.0.325.0.

 

At the site above, there were "Other Versions":

ESET NOD32 Antivirus 8 (8.0.304.4),  ESET NOD32 Antivirus 6 (6.0.316.6),  ESET NOD32 Antivirus 5 (5.2.15.2),  ESET NOD32 Antivirus 4 (4.2.71.5),  and ESET NOD32 Antivirus 3 (3.0.695.0),

but there was no mention of version 7.0.317.4.

 

So I downloaded version 7.0.325.0, and also its Quick Start Guide (752.5 kB) and User Guide (2.5 MB).

 

On my 64-bit Dell M4700 laptop (now using 7.0.302.26), I will install version 7.0.325.0  as a test run, but I expect that I will like what I see.  If so, on my wife's 64-bit Lenovo Thinkpad T530 (now using 7.0.317.4) I will install 7.0.325.0.

 

I'm now setting up my wife's Thinkpad.  (The 7.0.317.4 got installed onto the Thinkpad without my permission when I simply downloaded NOD32, but so far there have not been any problems.)  Nevertheless, since somewhere among ESET's websites (again, I wish I had kept notes) there was information that 7.0.325.0 is an improvement over 7.0.317.4, replacing that with 7.0.325.0 seems sensible.

 

I am hoping that by next weekend both of my family's laptops will be using ESET NOD32 7.0.325.0.

 

If there are any unusual events, I will report them here.

 

R.N. (Roger) Folsom

 

----------------------------------------------------------------

 

P.S.  I should mention that my downloading of 7.0.325.0 had a weird conclusion:  The small window containing how well the download was going reported speeds of anywhere from close to 140kb/sec to slow down close to 30kb/sec, and then up again.  That probably was a busy internet.  But when the downloading information window got to "only a few seconds remaining," and the action band looked like everything was downloaded, and the top of the window said that the download was finished, the window also said that 69.7 MB of 69.9MB were still being installed.  And it took roughly an extra 15 minutes --- maybe more --- to finish downloading so that the window could disappear.

Dramatic variations in speeds/sec are not unusual, but I never before saw .2MB to require a large amount of extra time to complete a download.

 

I wondered whether the download had any errors in it.  So I downloaded the same installation file again (and again the end was a delayed 69.7 MB of 69.9MB), and used Xplorer² (which measures file size in bytes instead of KB or MB) to compare the two downloads, and they were identical (73,269,248 bytes).  So apparently all was well.

Edited by RNFolsom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ESET Moderators

See NEWS272 for version 7.0.317 changelog.

 

The changelog for ESS/EAV version 7.0.325.1 was originally released for all languages except for ENG because these changes were included in the ENG version 8 release as well. Looks like they then released the ENG version of 7.0.325 which brings us to here. 

 

Changelog for 7.0.325
  • Improved: New engine module
  • Improved: Real-time detection improvements
  • Resolved: Problems with application crashes
  • Fixed: Problem with Anti-theft portal actions and missing screenshots
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@RNFolsom

Long text and many numbers...

Often there are users that give less information, but sometimes some even give too much information. ;)

That's not bad, but it can be a bit... well... difficult.

 

So what are the problems exactly? Could you make a small list?

Edited by rugk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Thanks to everyone in this thread for helping me to decide that on my 64-bit Win7sp1 laptops I install Esets Antivirus,AntiSpyware version7.0.325.

 

One surprise was that I had downloaded 7.0.325.0 on 22 October and saved it.  But today, after I installed it (Eset wanted to have me download and then install, but I unchecked that option), I learned that I had installed 7.0.325.1, even though I thought I was installing version 7.0.325.0.

 

Wonders never cease.  Here's hoping it works.  So far, so good.

 

R.N. (Roger) Folsom

Edited by RNFolsom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, that is normal behaviour, because the last number of the version number of the ESET products determinates (only) the language you're installing. (The built is the same)

 

See the topic "decoding version numbers" for more details.

Edited by rugk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ESET NOD32 7.0.325.1 Installation Mysteries

 

Since I haven't gotten any response to my original post here, I have revised it, and simplified it (by deleting a description of my failed attempts to use Customer Care for answers to the questions below).

 

I have installed ESET NOD32 7.0.325.1 onto my 64-bit Win7sp1 laptop (as a replacement for version 7.0.302.26),

at C:\Program Files\ESET\ESET NOD32 Antivirus.  (I did not select that location;  the installer selected it.)  That installation location included two surprises.

1) It includes a Mozilla Thunderbird folder containing chrome.manifest and install.rdf files, and also a Components folder (containing one file, eplgTb.dll).
But my email (and browser) is Mozilla SeaMonkey, NOT Mozilla Thunderbird.

My SeaMonkey is installed at C:\Program Files (x86)\Mozilla.Org\SeaMonkey.

2) It has an x86 folder (containing 21 files), at C:\Program Files\ESET\ESET NOD32 Antivirus\x86 folder.
That puzzles me because x86 usually means 32-bits, and I am wondering if my newly installed NOD32 v(7.0.325.1) really is supposed to be at Program Files (x86).
 

My questions are:

 

1) Given that my email (and browser) is in Mozilla SeaMonkey and is NOT Mozilla Thunderbird:

1a) In C:\Program Files\ESET\ESET NOD32 Antivirus, why  is there a Mozilla Thunderbird folder containing chrome.manifest and install.rdf files, and also a Components folder (containing 1 file, eplgTb.dll)?

What  are that Mozilla Thunderbird folder's contents supposed to do?
1b) Can I delete the Mozilla Thunderbird folder, or at least some of its contents?

1c) Should I replace the Mozilla Thunderbird folder with some sort of Mozilla SeaMonkey folder?

 

2)  In  C:\Program Files\ESET\ESET NOD32 Antivirus, why is the x86 folder (and its 21 files) there?

What is that x86 folder supposed to do?

 

Also, a new question:
Should I go back to ESET 7.0.302.26?  Or are there real advantages to using ESET NOD32 7.0.325.1?

R.N. (Roger) Folsom

 

P.S.  Thanks to rugk for inviting my attention to the topic "decoding version numbers" for more details about version numbers.
 

Edited by RNFolsom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  1. Yes this is always installed, because you can always change your email client. The dir contains the files for the addon for Mozilla Thunderbird version 5 or lower.

    But Mozilla Thunderbird is only supported in version 5 or lower, so the mails won't be scanned for spam. However the emails will still be scanned for malware. (maybe you have to enable SSL scanning if you use a POPS/SMTPS connection, but to explain this would go to far off topic)

  2. Yes, there are also (or even only) on a 64bit system an additionally x86 folder. And yes x86 means 32bit.

    This is caused because a 64bit installation of ESET has x64 and x86 components. This is by design and to make all components 64bit don't have to make the software faster. (There were already some discussions about this here about it)

    However ESET is still installed in the "C:\Program Files" directory for the simple reason that it wouldn't be very useful to split the executables in different directories. (additionally it can also have technically reasons [how Windows managed the thing with WOW64], but this isn't important now)

Now to your specific questions:

1.

I don't know if SeaMonkey is supported by the anti-spam module, but I assume not. But it because SeaMonkey might be quite similar you maybe can use the files in the Thunderbird dir to add the addon to SeaMonkey.

This is only a try. If it doesn't work, then let it be.

1a) see 1. at the top of my post

1a) and 1c) No, please don't modify some files of ESET. It's a antivirus software and not a small software tool.

Additionally you won't be able to modify the things from ESET, because of the self-protection of ESET. (And yes, you can deactivate this, but don't do this!)

 

2.

see 2. at the top

 

About the "new question":

You can read the changelog for 7.0.325.x you can find in this topic.

You can see that this are mostly bug fixes and other minor changes.

 

But anyway there is no reason to downgrade to 7.0.302.x. It just useless. Already if there are only some advantages of the new version then there are advantages.

So there is really no need to downgrade.

 

But I can suggest you to upgrade to v8. ;)

Edited by rugk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

rugk:

 

Thanks very much for your detailed explanations of the purposes of ESET NOD32 7.0.325.1 Mozilla Thunderbird and the x86 folder.

Marcos's response (at https://forum.eset.com/topic/3587-eset-nod32-703251-installation-mysteries/) while helpful, was a bit brief!

 

FYI, Mozilla-SeaMonkey does have anti-spam filters (which gradually learn what to dump as I select stuff I don't want to read), and my ISP (redshift.com, a Northern California local outfit) also, on its website, has primitive anti-spam features, which have a bad habit of including items that I need, so each day I go to the website and move the falsely defined spam to a separate folder that SeaMonkey then downloads for me.  But the Redshift website lets me list the routine items I want to read, so they go directly into the separate folder that SeaMonkey then downloads.  After a few more weeks of listing all the routine items that I need, those items will go directly to the SeaMonkey good-stuff download folder.

 

I have been using Redshift for many years, but these new features were needed because Redshift got hit by some sort of very sophisticated malware, which took Redshift about a month to clean up the mess.

 

As for using Eset version 8:  After reading its features, I decided to hold off on that until there is a bit more experience with it.  Meanwhile I will use ESET NOD32 7.0.325.1.

 

Thank you again.  When I got no responses to my post I for several days I was beginning to get very worried that I would have to start experimenting.

 

R.N. (Roger) Folsom

 

P.S. As you probably know, SeaMonkey is a descendant of the original Netscape, by Marc Andreessen (and colleagues).  (hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Andreessen)
 

Edited by RNFolsom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...