Jump to content
An upgrade will take place on September 23, 2020 at 16:00 CEST (14:00 GMT). The Forum will not be accessible for a short period of time. ×

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Jim

Anti-theft enhancements

Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

I'm new and just started using myeset & anti-theft, and had a few suggestions, based on my brief experience with it:

 

1) It would be nice if there were a way to selectively delete and/or rename incidents from the Activity view. Some incidents are just test runs and I don't really want to keep them around, and others I may want to keep.

 

2) I'm not sure what the count next to the Activity link means. It just seems to keep going up every time I have an new incident. Initially I thought it was just a count of new activity, but that doesn't seem to be the case. It seems to be a count of all activity, but I'm not clear on what constitutes and activity and what does not, because I have more activity events than the number shown.

 

3) When I run a test on a device, it would be nice if I had the option to disable the message sent to the device. Currently I get a message on the device that says "The user xxx@yyy.com has requested an Anti-Theft test for this device"  and it waits 60 seconds for a response. I wish I could optionally disable this notification. It's annoying.

 

Thanks.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks @Jim for the feedback. We are always sure to pass along product feedback to the product manager and developers. 

 

I'm actually shocked that none of these were noted in the feedback from @rugk but I thought I would mention that I did cross-reference them to make sure there weren't any duplicates. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jim,

 

1) It would be nice if there were a way to selectively delete and/or rename incidents from the Activity view. Some incidents are just test runs and I don't really want to keep them around, and others I may want to keep.

Incidents cannot be deleted, because they are made of device state/device activity (runnig a test, set to stolen, wipe etc...)

 

2) I'm not sure what the count next to the Activity link means. It just seems to keep going up every time I have an new incident. Initially I thought it was just a count of new activity, but that doesn't seem to be the case. It seems to be a count of all activity, but I'm not clear on what constitutes and activity and what does not, because I have more activity events than the number shown.

The number represents new activity items since your last login.

 

3) When I run a test on a device, it would be nice if I had the option to disable the message sent to the device. Currently I get a message on the device that says "The user xxx@yyy.com has requested an Anti-Theft test for this device"  and it waits 60 seconds for a response. I wish I could optionally disable this notification. It's annoying.

User has to confirm test. We cannot do any activity with device that user don't allow... etc sending position, photos...

 

regards

peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Peter,

 

Regarding:

 

1) I'm still not clear why incidents cannot be deleted. Aren't the artifacts uploaded to myeset.com? There isn't a dependency to anything on the device still, is there? If the artifacts are uploaded to myeset, then why couldn't a user delete them if they so chose? What's interesting is that I can remove photo's from an incident, but I cannot delete the incident itself. Like I mentioned in my original post, some incidents I may not want to keep. Why shouldn't I be allowed to delete them if I so choose? I'm not clear on why such an enhancement would not possible.

 

2) That's interesting, I was still seeing the number after having logged out and logged back in again, but I tested it again just now and it is working as described. Thank you for clarifying that.

 

3) Right, what I was suggesting was an option that allows the user to specify whether they want to be prompted or not. That way users can selectively enable or disable the prompt.

 

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jim,

 

I'll try to clarify the incidents point.

Incidents aren't objects itself, but as I wrote in my previous post, they're based upon device activity.

 

From programmer view, it's more complicated, there are many factors we must consider, when an incident is build.

You can imagine it as an virtual object, because it doesn't exists as an, for example, record in DB...

 

I hope it's now more understable for you :)

 

regards

peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Peter. I was viewing it as a DB record. If it's not possible, then that's a different story, but it would be nice to have if it were possible. Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jim, 

 

I can make a suggestion to project management, to add an option to hide tests from incidents...

But I do not promise it will pass...

 

regards

peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm actually shocked that none of these were noted in the feedback from rugk but I thought I would mention that I did cross-reference them to make sure there weren't any duplicates.

:D

It seems I forgot something. ;)

 

1) If it's not possible it's quite sad, because I can agree to @Jim it would be useful - at least for privacy reasons. (It's maybe not so nice if the data will stay there all the time...)

And you can even save storage space at your server! ;)

 

2) I think I knew what it should mean and I haven't experienced any issues with it, so no need to put it in my feedback.

 

3) I have nothing against this message (it's not so often I do this test), but I have nothing against to this suggestion too.

 

@Jim

Nice feedback. And if you have other ideas or suggestion, you can still expand it. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm actually shocked that none of these were noted in the feedback from rugk but I thought I would mention that I did cross-reference them to make sure there weren't any duplicates.

:D

It seems I forgot something. ;)

 

1) If it's not possible it's quite sad, because I can agree to @Jim it would be useful - at least for privacy reasons. (It's maybe not so nice if the data will stay there all the time...)

And you can even save storage space at your server! ;)

 

2) I think I knew what it should mean and I haven't experienced any issues with it, so no need to put it in my feedback.

 

3) I have nothing against this message (it's not so often I do this test), but I have nothing against to this suggestion too.

 

@Jim

Nice feedback. And if you have other ideas or suggestion, you can still expand it. :D

 

One more time... to point 1:

 

incident are not stored objects, incident are made from device activity, they don't exist elsewhere...

They're are re-created on every postback of site... (the only exception is, if they are cached)...

We couldn't save any storage space, because they aren't stored...

 

Hope even more clear now :)

 

regards

peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, then let the user delete the activity from the incident he selected. Isn't this possible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But this device state is old. From last week e.g.

 

So you only have to delete the kind of "logs" it displays there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not so simple, these data are used in other cases, we rather keep them ;)

I was thinking about that, and my idea is to choose number of last incidents displayed, let's say, user can choose from 5,10,15,all... within the option to hide test incidents, this solution may pass thru project management :)

regards

peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other cases? Some people would now think "yes a small submission to the NSA"...

The idea you said now could also be useful, but why don't delete really old entries. E.g. a month or even older things. When the theft or whatever is resolved who needs this anymore?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other cases means for later functionality...

In some cases, we need historical data to use them with present functionallity.

 

Anyway imho, standart user would have about 5 to 10 incidents, unless he's playing within the antitheft just for fun...

 

regards

peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I figured....but paranoid people don't think about that, or that the NSA or other orgz probably can get whatever data they  want, whenever they want anyway. Welcome to the online world called the Internet  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, okay.

A hide function would be enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea to hide the anti-theft requests from the phone. There may be cases where a user may want to locate their device but not alert the person who has the phone that they are locating it. If the missing device shows that it is being monitored, it tips off the thief, which is not wanted in some cases.

 

I would like to see the ability to locate mobile devices without locking it, alerting it, or asking for permission. The same with all anti-theft devices for that matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@cohbraz

This is already possible. The thief won't get any information when you select "Mark as stolen" in ESET Anti-theft.

But the user of the device will get one when you choose to run a test, but as this is only a test this doesn't matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@cohbraz

This is already possible. The thief won't get any information when you select "Mark as stolen" in ESET Anti-theft.

But the user of the device will get one when you choose to run a test, but as this is only a test this doesn't matter.

 

Really? I didn't know that. I will have to check that out.

 

Thanks!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually that did not work. When I marked the device as missing, ESET locked the device and put a "Device is Locked" lock screen on the device.

 

I am saying that there are cases where you don't want to tip off a thief, and the way this works now, it will. There should be a separate option to locate and a option to lock. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh you mean this...

Well, if it wouldn't lock the device then the thief would be able to deactivate GPS or do other things, which wouldn't be good in this case.

 

And if GPS is deactivated you can't locate your device anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh you mean this...

Well, if it wouldn't lock the device then the thief would be able to deactivate GPS or do other things, which wouldn't be good in this case.

 

And if GPS is deactivated you can't locate your device anymore.

 

Nope. There are other instances where you may want to find your phone without letting the person using it that you are locating it.

 

1) Let's say you work in an office and someone is taking your phone and doing something with it. If the person is alerted that the phone is locked, they will put it down and you will never know who did it. If you can locate it and take pictures of the user without locking it, you find out who is doing it and can confront them about it.

 

2) I travel, and there may be cases when my wife wants to see where I am or if I am stuck in traffic. I do not mind if she checks my location, but I do not want my phone locked. 

 

If the phone is truly stolen as you say in your example, that is no problem if there is an option to lock the device. There would be no difference from the time it is stolen to when the user locks the device compared to the way it works now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, for case 1 it may be useful, but case 2 would be a "misuse" of ESET Anti-Theft. Because it's ESET Anti-Theft is - like the name says - an Anti-Theft service and not a "show me where he/she/it-is"-service. I think for locating by a friend or so you can also use other apps.

 

BTW I'm not fully sure but I think that the device isn't blocked if you use the SMS commands (e.g. eset find).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the device and service have a "locate" ability, I do not feel that locating a device is a mis-use of the service. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...