Firefox browser problem when using eset

[AZ Tech 32]

1 hour ago, itman said:

Based on PC Magazine testing, it also appears you do need to use supplementary URL blocking with Kaspersky Total Security:

I know very well that when talking about URL blocking, eset is one of the strongest, if not the best, options available, and I have already mentioned this a lot here in the forum.

I hope you do not think that I am comparing Kaspersky and ESET, both of them have strengths and weaknesses, this topic is not to compare Kaspersky and ESET,
Both provide a very strong level of protection, if Kaspersky is not as strong as eset in terms of URL blocking it has other layers of protection that compensate for that and the same is true with eset.

And for the record, I am speaking based on my personal experience with both and I am sure that both are strong and sufficient to provide protection for the user, which of them is better?, There is no answer, each user chooses what is suitable for him.

Note: In normal use conditions the user will not try to open all the malicious urls that are used in the tests and will not be exposed to all the malicious samples that are used in the tests, but under normal conditions of use what the user wants is fewer problems, less conflict with other programs,
And also that he finds good technical support and his treatment does not change with time, no matter how many reports you have.

[New_Style_xd 69]

1 hour ago, itman said:

Based on PC Magazine testing, it also appears you do need to use supplementary URL blocking with Kaspersky Total Security:

https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/kaspersky-total-security

Why is Eset not on this list?

[itman 1,659]

11 minutes ago, New_Style_xd said:

Why is Eset not on this list?

Err........

If your referring to why its not listed in the top portion of the screen shot, PC Mag posts results from the last time they reviewed a listed product. Eset was reviewed a few months previous to when Kaspersky was.

[itman 1,659]

As far as AdGuard not working right after its WFP option has been disabled, verify that its mini-port network adapter is listed for your network adapter per the below screen shot:

I

If the AdGuard adapter is not listed, this indicates the device driver for it hasn't been loaded. You will have to reboot the PC to have it loaded.

If it still doesn't show after a reboot, this means something Windows-wise is preventing the driver from loading.

Edited February 8, 2022 by itman

[itman 1,659]

I will also add that the same WFP conflict between installed AdGuard and Kaspersky will manifest: https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdguardForWindows/issues/3810 . Or, for any other security product that uses WFP in conjuction with AdGuard.

Edited February 8, 2022 by itman

[itman 1,659]

It also should be noted that WFP has been abused by ATP level based attacks:

Quote

To remain under the radar, the Moriya rootkit inspects network packets in kernel mode, drops packets of interest before they could be observed, and does not initiate a server connection, but waits for incoming traffic instead. Persistence is achieved through the creation of a service named Network Services Manager.

“This tool is a passive backdoor which allows attackers to inspect all incoming traffic to the infected machine, filter out packets that are marked as designated for the malware and respond to them. This forms a covert channel over which attackers are able to issue shell commands and receive back their outputs,” Kaspersky explains.

Moriya features a user mode component responsible for the deployment of the kernel mode component (the VirtualBox driver (VBoxDrv.sys) is abused to bypass Driver Signature Enforcement and load the unsigned driver) and for finding and reading commands sent from the C&C server through the covert communication channel. The rootkit can also establish a reverse shell session.

The rootkit’s driver component leverages the Windows Filtering Platform (WFP) to create a covert channel to the C&C and uses a filtering engine to grab the distinct Moriya-related traffic.

https://www.securityweek.com/diplomatic-entities-targeted-new-moriya-windows-rootkit

As such, one should fully trust any software using WFP for network traffic monitoring activities.

[AZ Tech 32]

1 hour ago, itman said:

I will also add that the same WFP conflict between installed AdGuard and Kaspersky will manifest: https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdguardForWindows/issues/3810 . Or, for any other security product that uses WFP in conjuction with AdGuard.

 

On 2/6/2022 at 6:00 PM, AZ Tech said:

today I received my Kaspersky license.

As for me, as I mentioned before, I have already received my Kaspersky license two days ago and I have not noticed any conflict between it and AdGuard, not only that, I have used Kaspersky and AdGuard together for years without any conflicting issues, of course there are other users here or there that AdGuard WFP network driver may cause them conflict issues, but this does not happen to all Kaspersky users who use AdGuard, as it is currently the case with all eset users who use AdGuard.

Of course, the current conflict problem that occurs between eset and AdGuard will not have a significant impact on users in the event that this conflict affects only Firefox users and also occurs only when trying to enter one of the sites blacklisted by eset.

Of course, I did not switch from eset to Kaspersky because of this problem, because as I mentioned it is not a big problem,... What really prompted me to switch from eset to Kaspersky was the sudden change that occurred in all my dealings with eset, which negatively affected my work, and by the way, I love eset very much as a product,
And my words are not mean comparison between eset and any other security product.

[AZ Tech 32]

20 hours ago, itman said:

If one wants to use Adguard with Eset, there are non-conflicting ways to do so. They also won't cost you.

1. Use Adguard browser extension.

I agree with this and I also tried it and there were no problems