Interactive firewall mode poll

[Marcos 5,273]

As of version 17.0, we plan to redesign the firewall interactive dialog window to better suite your needs. Please fill in this poll which will help us tailor the interactive dialog to your liking and needs. In a comment you can describe your usecase, give us constructive feedback on the new design, etc. so that we better understand the way you use the firewall.

[cyberhash 195]

Always used interactive personally , everything i need is already there. Maybe the poll will draw ideas from others

[itman 1,748]

I question the wisdom of the Trusted Publisher option. Certificates can be spoofed. Unless Eset is actually verifying the process is validly signed; note this could be for every process run with the same Pulisher in the case of Trusted Publisher only evaluation criteria, the option should be eliminated.

Edited September 20, 2023 by itman

[cofer123 14]

Just adding my two cents here.

Although I haven't used the interactive firewall in years, I used to have it enabled in the past. I like that now it's possible to create rules based on the application name instead of the install path, as some applications change paths when updated.

My suggestions for the upcoming version based on feedback on the forums and my own ideas:

• Reintroduce Application Path as a choice: perhaps a toggle between Application Name or Application Path, since sometimes we have the same application in multiple places and we need different firewall rules for each (Python virtual environments come to mind);
• Firewall Notifications: I remember that sometimes the interactive dialogue wouldn't show up, causing the application in question to remain blocked, and subsequent notifications for other applications also wouldn't show up, causing a cascade of issues fixed only by a restart. I've read some people still complaining about it on the forums. My suggestion here would be a timeout for the interactive window and then send this missed dialog to either the OS notifications or add some visible list of missed notifications on ESET's main window, along with a tray icon alert;
• Possibility of creating rules based on Signer: Say some Microsoft application shows up on the interactive dialog, and you want to allow/deny all applications signed by Microsoft through the firewall. One simple rule would solve all future communication for applications in this category (this would also simplify rule creation outside of the interactive firewall scenario);
• Interactive Dialog only for non-trusted Signers: this idea changes the situations when user interaction is required. Instead of a per-application condition, show the firewall dialog only for applications of unknown or less reputable signers. Everything else follows the same rules as in Automatic mode.

I could possibly think of more, but I've been using Automatic firewall for the most time now, and creating rules only when necessary.

[sovchen 2]

I disagree with the wording on the last question. I think application path should remain as default as it's been for the last ten years and add signer as the new alternative feature below it. You are changing a system that has worked fine in favor of new, untested, functionality that is already causing problems. I will not pay to be a beta tester, if this becomes the norm I cannot continue using this product.

[Marcos 5,273]

For almost every home user it is important that the antivirus works as much automatically as possible. Those who have been using interactive mode often complained that after updating Windows Store applications rules stopped to work. The solution are rules created by the app name and signer by default. Using application path would return the issues that users were struggling with. While we listen to you, our customers, we are also aware that we cannot please everyone and there will always be someone disappointed.