Jump to content

Not happy with ERA 6


shawkins
 Share

Recommended Posts

I also have similar feeling for new ESET RA tool, you cannot dig to identify the problem also from console , managign 1300 endpoints is not easy with this new tool older tool was just setup and finish.

 

now 3 tasks to run a healthy endpoint and security center annoyances cannot be suppresed with agent even new agent and new software version is reported as not installed properly.

 

Support is not available on chat for middle eastern times and middle east support is just for basic support.

 

Unable to push mac agent after days of attempts need to do live installer option.

 

what action taken on unwanted or unsafe application is not clear and where the quarantine is available for any false positive is also not clear.

 

I am also a user for eset from 2008 and as mentioend with 1300 endpoint license.

 

Please improve this just don't copy from bitdefender console.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been using ESET since around 2006.  I have always thought the Remote Administrator Console was rather simplistic, to the point, and functional.  It wasn't always what I would call  "pretty", but it worked and was easy to manuver.  Now I am testing Remote Administrator 6 and my opinion of ESET's RA Console has just about hit rock bottom.

 

First of all, the documentation is pretty vague, especially when it comes to pointing to a new repository.  Some sort of syntax or example of what needs to be in that field would be extremely helpful.  I would rather the 600+ computers download from a local server and not the Internet for agents, updates, etc.

 

I have not successfully deployed a single agent from the console regardless of any proxy settings on the console or my proxy server.  I was able to modify the agent installing BAT file and point it to a network location for grabbing the agent MSI file.  I shouldn't have to do this.  I should not have to jump through hoops to install a single agent.  If I wanted to do that I would have gone with Sophos back in 2006 when you had to manually create a self-extracting exe file with WinRAR and create custom scripts to install or upgrade their software.

 

Once I did get an agent installed (manually of course) I moved onto installing the EndPoint Security product.  Once again, documentation is vague (useless), but I was able to finally install the product using a local share path.  It was so much simpler in version 5.

 

Okay so I have an agent installed, a product installed...now I need to activate it.  Once again documentation is useless.  Reports are useless as they don't show any real details about the error messages.  I'm one of those admins that if I can look at a log, I'll figure it out.  I checked all the proxy settings multiple times, turned them off and allowed everything through, but I can't even get a single product activated.  I had to settle for manually activating it from the client, which is not going to work.  I'm not going to manually activate 600+ clients when the RA Console "should" do the job automatically.

 

I didn't care for having to recreate all our special policies.  It would have been nice to be able to migrate them from version 5.  I'd be okay losing some event logs for the sake of not having to recreate my policies from scratch, but I guess knowing what happened 6 months ago out-weighs that.

 

My experience with testing RA version 6 has been just a little above using McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator (back when I used it).  My opinion is ESET fired the programmers that knew what they were doing  in version 5 and hired in a bunch of graphic artists to make version 6.  It's nice, I have to give them that, however it is anything but simplistic and functional.

 

I'm sorry for the rant.  I'm not one to toot my own horn, but I can usually figure stuff out pretty quick without a support call.  If I can't then OK let's call support, but at the same time I'm thinking maybe I need to be looking at a different product from a competitor.

I do agree with above comments , making life easier for enterprise should be the goal behind such admin tools , not to make admins lifer miserable. Previous versions where fine also now the confusion of proxy and mirror and pushing mac clients is all a big mess, installing new endpiont needs 3 tasks and each task progress is visible after minute and need to spend atleast 5-10 minute for any given client installation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

So here is my perspective on this:

 

Years ago, we were a Mcafee house.   Till Mcafee go really bad at stopping any real threats, and kept killing our windows updates and legitimate programs.

During the Mcafee ERA, they had EPO.   EPO was ok for our large enterprise clients who could afford for us to spend most of a day getting it setup and tweaked, but completely sucked for our small business clients who had less than 50 workstations.

At least Mcafee listened for a while, and released Protection Pilot.   That held us for a few years until they decided to ditch that product as well.

And so we ditched them.  (We sent numerous emails warning them, they didn't listen to their clients).

 

When we moved to ESET, it was a refreshing change.

I can complete the installation and deployment of ESET (removal of other antivirus vendor products non-withstanding),  in about an hour or less!

I can complete upgrades of the entire ESET5 solution in under an hour.

For my smaller clients, I could put the ESET console/server on one of our domain controllers or auxiliary servers, and because it didn't require SQL server, it was small, unobtrusive, and out of the way.

 

Then ESET6 happened.   We started playing with it for one of our Enterprise level clients who had about 600+ workstations.

Spent two days dinking with it, and rolled it out to the IT department computers (about 20 or so).

Within two weeks, we gave up.   Uninstalled it, and returned all 20 workstations back to our ESET5 server.

 

We have been watching ESET6 with interest, but up to this point have advised all of our clients to remain on ESET 5 for now.

The requirements that ESET6 now imposes on us are unacceptable for many of our clients.

If ESET doesn't listen to their clients, and work on a solution that is more inline with what ESET5 provided, we will be shopping for a new solution for our entire client base.

 

For us, this is somewhere in the neighborhood of 5000 client workstations, and 200-300 servers.

 

So I implore ESET management, on behalf of ourselves, and everyone else in this thread who has commented,  PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE reconsider your current solution, and work on an alternative for small business clients who cannot justify dedicated servers just to manage their antivirus solution.

 

Regards

-DJW

Chief Systems Engineer for a Midwest IT Support company with about 500 client companies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ESET Staff

Hello DJW,

 

First of all, thank you for your feedback.

 

I agree with you, that when you compare ERA 5 with EPO, those two products are on a completely different ends of the competitive lineup.

Intel Security with its EPO is dominating in Enterprise security (is considered as a leader by industry analysts) and EPO itself is fairly robust product, allowing multiple vendors integration and really large scale deployments. It´s trully not a product for SMBs. Interesting step from McAfee happened recently, where they have discontinued their SaaS Endpoint Protection, and have replaced if with EPO Cloud (they have only one console again for both SMBs and Enterprises).

 

On the other side, ERA 5 was really simplistic and lightweight management console, working well for the smaller customers, due its simplicity and very low system demands.

 

ERA 5 however reached its limits from the perspective of addressing modern security trends of automation and advanced reporting + started to create a bareer for the integration of new / planned ESET products. It was also not suitable for the larger deployments. However, as much as you are happy with how ERA 5 works, many of customers were not, as it was not providing the level of user comfort as other solutions do.

So ESET has decided to develop a completely new generation of ESET Remote Administrator. I agree, that it represents a major change compared to its predecessor, from the perspective of architectural changes (moving from non-SQL database to SQL, and moving from native Windows 32 app to web-console).

 

We are continuously monitoring user feedback about the new ERA, and I am interested to hear your pain-points, and issues that prevents you from considering migration to V6, and moving towards competitive solutions. We value your opinion and trust me, that we are currently working hard, in providing the alternative(s) you mention.  Both by making the ERA 6 more useful for smaller customers by implementing functionality changes tailored for them, or by making it more suitable for managed service providers, and companies, that might want to host security management as a part of their service for their customers. And last, but not least, we are working on the truly alternative solution, tailored primarily for the SMB customers, however as this project has not confirmed release date, we can´t share details publicly (yet).

 

I would like to hear your feedback, and specific issues that you have experienced during your enterprise customer trial (what versions you were using, what issues you have experienced, what info you were missing from the documentation perspective / support perspective). Also, I would like to hear from you, what are the show-stoppers for you, to even start evaluating migration towards V6 (I have understood, that it´s mostly connected to the system resources needed from the perspective of installing the V6 management server on customer premises, but if there are some others, please share them with us).

 

Feel free to respond to this forum thread, or to send me a private message if you prefer that way.

Thank you,

Michal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello DJW,

 

First of all, thank you for your feedback.

 

I agree with you, that when you compare ERA 5 with EPO, those two products are on a completely different ends of the competitive lineup.

Intel Security with its EPO is dominating in Enterprise security (is considered as a leader by industry analysts) and EPO itself is fairly robust product, allowing multiple vendors integration and really large scale deployments. It´s trully not a product for SMBs. Interesting step from McAfee happened recently, where they have discontinued their SaaS Endpoint Protection, and have replaced if with EPO Cloud (they have only one console again for both SMBs and Enterprises).

 

On the other side, ERA 5 was really simplistic and lightweight management console, working well for the smaller customers, due its simplicity and very low system demands.

 

ERA 5 however reached its limits from the perspective of addressing modern security trends of automation and advanced reporting + started to create a bareer for the integration of new / planned ESET products. It was also not suitable for the larger deployments. However, as much as you are happy with how ERA 5 works, many of customers were not, as it was not providing the level of user comfort as other solutions do.

So ESET has decided to develop a completely new generation of ESET Remote Administrator. I agree, that it represents a major change compared to its predecessor, from the perspective of architectural changes (moving from non-SQL database to SQL, and moving from native Windows 32 app to web-console).

 

We are continuously monitoring user feedback about the new ERA, and I am interested to hear your pain-points, and issues that prevents you from considering migration to V6, and moving towards competitive solutions. We value your opinion and trust me, that we are currently working hard, in providing the alternative(s) you mention.  Both by making the ERA 6 more useful for smaller customers by implementing functionality changes tailored for them, or by making it more suitable for managed service providers, and companies, that might want to host security management as a part of their service for their customers. And last, but not least, we are working on the truly alternative solution, tailored primarily for the SMB customers, however as this project has not confirmed release date, we can´t share details publicly (yet).

 

I would like to hear your feedback, and specific issues that you have experienced during your enterprise customer trial (what versions you were using, what issues you have experienced, what info you were missing from the documentation perspective / support perspective). Also, I would like to hear from you, what are the show-stoppers for you, to even start evaluating migration towards V6 (I have understood, that it´s mostly connected to the system resources needed from the perspective of installing the V6 management server on customer premises, but if there are some others, please share them with us).

 

Feel free to respond to this forum thread, or to send me a private message if you prefer that way.

Thank you,

Michal

 

What comfort? No fancy app for iPhone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ESET Staff

@bbahes - no, not an fancy app for iphone.

 

But a platform (you can run it on Linux, and in the form of a virtual appliance, that you can deploy everywhere, even on a W7 box with virtual box) and language independent (despite the language of the endpoint, you always see all of the data in the language of the server / console) user interface, reachable from a browser, providing interactive & fully customizable dashboards (really, we want you to manage the network not from the "client list table" but from the dashboard, where you see aggregated data, about the state of your network) with full drill down options (you also has the client table at your disposal if you want). Also allowing automatic updates of both the ERA components and clients (since you install ERA 6, you can update to the newer version by the means of the components upgrade task, and you can uninstall / install ESET Security products using the agent, not being forced to re-deploy), automation of client behavior based on various conditions (policies set on dynamic groups, also tasks set on dynamic groups).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@bbahes - no, not an fancy app for iphone.

 

But a platform (you can run it on Linux, and in the form of a virtual appliance, that you can deploy everywhere, even on a W7 box with virtual box) and language independent (despite the language of the endpoint, you always see all of the data in the language of the server / console) user interface, reachable from a browser, providing interactive & fully customizable dashboards (really, we want you to manage the network not from the "client list table" but from the dashboard, where you see aggregated data, about the state of your network) with full drill down options (you also has the client table at your disposal if you want). Also allowing automatic updates of both the ERA components and clients (since you install ERA 6, you can update to the newer version by the means of the components upgrade task, and you can uninstall / install ESET Security products using the agent, not being forced to re-deploy), automation of client behavior based on various conditions (policies set on dynamic groups, also tasks set on dynamic groups).

 

This is the most important sentence I have read about v6 and it should be pinned in your topic list.

 

Client list table was, and still is most important aspect of security management in my view. But you could ask any system administrator here. I need to be able to look at client list and quickly filter that list and see problematic client. That's it! Why would I want to look at aggregated data? I would accept your new web interface as addition to console. That would make sense.

 

I now understand that you won't and can't change your approach. Too much time and money is invested in v6. I only hope you will fix your v6 products and document them well, so they work as expected.

Edited by bbahes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ESET Staff

Thanks for your response bbahes. I would argue with you, that you can still achieve what you want = use the "Computers" tab, instead of the "Dashboard" if that does not fit your needs. .

 

Dahsboards and "computers tab (the new "client list table") are inter-connected. You login to the console, you open the dashboard, you see the first graph with the status of your network, you see the share of errors / warnings, you filter out only the errors, you click to display them in "computers tab" and there you have the list of clients, you need to take care of.

You can do it also the "old way" => see the status icon in the "computers tab", that shows you, how many computers are in red state = have some sort of alert state. You can use rapid filters, in computers tab, to filter only computers with issues, and do what you want with them.

 

If I may ask you - is there anything in particular, that you consider as missing, in the "computers tab", compared to the old "clients view" in ERA 5? And if yes please tell us why, and what problem that field helped you to address / is absence of that field causing to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your response bbahes. I would argue with you, that you can still achieve what you want = use the "Computers" tab, instead of the "Dashboard" if that does not fit your needs. .

 

Dahsboards and "computers tab (the new "client list table") are inter-connected. You login to the console, you open the dashboard, you see the first graph with the status of your network, you see the share of errors / warnings, you filter out only the errors, you click to display them in "computers tab" and there you have the list of clients, you need to take care of.

You can do it also the "old way" => see the status icon in the "computers tab", that shows you, how many computers are in red state = have some sort of alert state. You can use rapid filters, in computers tab, to filter only computers with issues, and do what you want with them.

 

If I may ask you - is there anything in particular, that you consider as missing, in the "computers tab", compared to the old "clients view" in ERA 5? And if yes please tell us why, and what problem that field helped you to address / is absence of that field causing to you.

 

Than you for your effort to listen me. I know that I can make my own dashboard that would show most if not all information like Clients tab did in v5. But maybe I didn't voice out real problem. It's web interface.

It's very slow and even with all customization of dashboards (to make it look like in v5) it's very non intuitive. Non intuitive for me means I have to click and wait for HTTP response. Maybe it's something that older system administrators are not used to, but I prefer performance over look. If you could give back to us management console I would welcome v6 in very short time, and may I try to guess that this is your new project? :)

 

I also understand this new agent - product - server relationship and move to Linux. These are all welcome things. Things that make us wait how v6 develops.

However what I don't accept is reason you ditched mirror server. This new thing with Apache as proxy is not very attractive. What I liked in v5 is that I could clear update server and download fresh antivirus definitions and with very few clicks push it to clients and be sure that client got update from my mirror server. They would very shortly report update to console. In v6 I "give" control to clients to proxy to your servers and pray they all download what they need and hope I don't have to look in numerous logs on client or server if something goes wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

This software has to be the most convoluted thing I deal with on my entire network.  I used v4/v5 for the last 7 years with few issues.  I switched to v6 (downloaded on Friday) due to our pending Windows 10 migration, and I'm on day three of messing with this and can't get it to work completely.
I have a Windows domain with AD, and the ERA running on my DC.  All desktop office PCs (about 35 of them) are W7 Pro 64 bit using AMD Hexcore, 4GB of RAM, and SSDs.  Our laptops (6 of them) are i5 with 6GB of RAM and SSDs.  The server running the ERA is an HP Proliant with a Xeon X3430 and 6GB of RAM running Server 2008 R2.

So far I have managed to figure out how to push the agent to the clients.  I "accidentally" got the Endpoint Security software pushed to many, but not all, of the clients.  Several show that the operation is still running (2 days later),and a couple show that the operation timed out.

None of my clients will activate through the ERA console.  I just get a "task failed" indicator on all clients when looking at the execution tab of the details.  On a couple clients (the same ones that seemed to run forever on the endpoint installation) I get a "There is no product supporting the given task" error.  Yet when I go to the client, I can clearly see Endpoint running in the system tray, and I can open the software.

i have also found that installing the Endpoint software on a shared client machine that also acts as the server for our timeclock software prevents the users from being unable to clock in and out from their desks using teh client application on their computers.  If I uninstall Endpoint from that shared computer, everyone can clock in and out again without issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

If you accidentally installed a different product (ESET Endpoint Security) than the one you have purchased (ESET Endpoint Antivirus), you'll need to uninstall EES first. Products cannot be activated using a license issues for a product that is not covered by the license which is probably the reason for the "There is no product supporting the given task" error. Not sure how you deployed Agent but the recommended way of doing it is deploying ERA Agent Live Installer via GPO as a push install may fail for many reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello,

i just wanted to tell that we will kick out ESET out of our whole company after our (just renewed) license expires. Additionally we will switch all customer-installations to another vendor when their licenses expires.

Why? Only because of ERA6! It's a horrible piece of software you cannot really work with. ERA5 was so much easier and much simpler and intuitive. We barely read a manual for ERA5; it just worked. With ERA6 even after reading all manuals nothing works and nobody in our team knows how to use it.

The software is bad and the manuals are bad!

I hope this feedback gets to the responsible person.

Thanks for reading

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ESET Staff

Thanks for the feedback, however, it is pretty difficult to extract the specific problems you have experienced out of it.

I would be very much interested, in understanding your pain-points and problems with ERA6. If you are willing to share the details, you can post it here, or send it to me via private message. Please describe the individual problematic areas in the product, and in the documentation. We are listening to the feedback, and working to resolve the issues. I admit, that there are differences between the products, and changes, that might not be in favor of every customer. ERA V6 represents not incremental, but generation shift, and that came at price of problematic migration / transition period. We care about our existing customers, so we value their feedback in order to make the product better for them.

On the other hand, we have thousands of satisfied customers running ERA 6 world-wide, so generic "product is bad" is not going to make the product anyhow better for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreeing with MichalJ. In the early days of ERA6 (pre-global release) I raised a few "pain point" issues on the forum here. The things I suggested are now standard features in 6.3. If ESET don't know what you don't like, how can they improve?

 

Very happy ERA6 user for 170 seats across 6 licenses.....

 

 

 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the feedback, however, it is pretty difficult to extract the specific problems you have experienced out of it.

I would be very much interested, in understanding your pain-points and problems with ERA6. If you are willing to share the details, you can post it here, or send it to me via private message. Please describe the individual problematic areas in the product, and in the documentation. We are listening to the feedback, and working to resolve the issues. I admit, that there are differences between the products, and changes, that might not be in favor of every customer. ERA V6 represents not incremental, but generation shift, and that came at price of problematic migration / transition period. We care about our existing customers, so we value their feedback in order to make the product better for them.

On the other hand, we have thousands of satisfied customers running ERA 6 world-wide, so generic "product is bad" is not going to make the product anyhow better for you.

 

I could invest time and write bad things in v5 that are still there even after all these years. Profile corruption even in latest v5 version...for example.

I could invest time and write bad things in v6 but there are people here doing awesome job in reporting bad things and requesting features.

However I am single system administrator for 120 workstations and time is luxury.

 

However, since you asked what specific problems are in place, here are some that pop out first:

 

1. Main problem you have is with documentation. After 6.3 release you have updated documentation and it's better, however it still does not answer many questions...

 

2. Full mirror integration in ERA is something we expect to be built in product for us to consider migration. Don't start proxy story.

 

3. Authentication server built in virtual appliance. We use it in v5 for zone authentication.

 

4. And finally, build desktop application for managing ERA. Just like v5 had. We expect this for consider staying with ESET. No, web interface is not cool thing I have tested third party products with "only web interface" and all I can say is that people who develop security products like antivirus management in web should be forced to use that product in real life company. Then they would understand that having cool interface does not mean it's god for real life use. You could sell it to manager...for example.

 

 

At the moment my decision is rather than moving to v6 we are looking for other options. Since it will cost us time anyway.

 

Regards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreeing with MichalJ. In the early days of ERA6 (pre-global release) I raised a few "pain point" issues on the forum here. The things I suggested are now standard features in 6.3. If ESET don't know what you don't like, how can they improve?

 

Very happy ERA6 user for 170 seats across 6 licenses.....

 

 

 

Jim

Same here ! 

 

I'm a VERY happy costumer of ERA 6 for 1200 seats across 3 licenses ! 

 

From what I read , most of the user complaining about ERA 6 simply didn't read the documentation. They just excpect it to work like ERA 5 without even trying to understand that it's a completely new product. 

 

For my part I think ERA 6 is WAY better than ERA 5 .  

But before moving from 5 to 6 I took time to read ALL the available documentation, and the deployment was a breeze.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Agreeing with MichalJ. In the early days of ERA6 (pre-global release) I raised a few "pain point" issues on the forum here. The things I suggested are now standard features in 6.3. If ESET don't know what you don't like, how can they improve?

 

Very happy ERA6 user for 170 seats across 6 licenses.....

 

 

 

Jim

Same here ! 

 

I'm a VERY happy costumer of ERA 6 for 1200 seats across 3 licenses ! 

 

From what I read , most of the user complaining about ERA 6 simply didn't read the documentation. They just excpect it to work like ERA 5 without even trying to understand that it's a completely new product. 

 

For my part I think ERA 6 is WAY better than ERA 5 .  

But before moving from 5 to 6 I took time to read ALL the available documentation, and the deployment was a breeze.

 

 

I have tested more than one third party product and didn't have to read any documentation. All options where there, very intuitive from start.

The thing that others have problem is performance impact on workstation and web only management, just like v6.

For v6 I had to test and test and test and read documentation, watch forum...

Designing software is art. It's not job for anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I confess I have never read any ERA6 documentation :( I found everything I needed was intuitive and easy to find, and if I want to use a new feature I experiment. Sorry, we all do things differently, but for me I've never referred to the documentation. I don't even know where it is, other than google.

 

I'm not trying to score points, I'm just saying we all have different (and valid) views on the ERA6 enviroment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Thanks for the feedback, however, it is pretty difficult to extract the specific problems you have experienced out of it.

I would be very much interested, in understanding your pain-points and problems with ERA6. If you are willing to share the details, you can post it here, or send it to me via private message. Please describe the individual problematic areas in the product, and in the documentation. We are listening to the feedback, and working to resolve the issues. I admit, that there are differences between the products, and changes, that might not be in favor of every customer. ERA V6 represents not incremental, but generation shift, and that came at price of problematic migration / transition period. We care about our existing customers, so we value their feedback in order to make the product better for them.

On the other hand, we have thousands of satisfied customers running ERA 6 world-wide, so generic "product is bad" is not going to make the product anyhow better for you.

 

I could invest time and write bad things in v5 that are still there even after all these years. Profile corruption even in latest v5 version...for example.

I could invest time and write bad things in v6 but there are people here doing awesome job in reporting bad things and requesting features.

However I am single system administrator for 120 workstations and time is luxury.

 

However, since you asked what specific problems are in place, here are some that pop out first:

 

1. Main problem you have is with documentation. After 6.3 release you have updated documentation and it's better, however it still does not answer many questions...

 

2. Full mirror integration in ERA is something we expect to be built in product for us to consider migration. Don't start proxy story.

 

3. Authentication server built in virtual appliance. We use it in v5 for zone authentication.

 

4. And finally, build desktop application for managing ERA. Just like v5 had. We expect this for consider staying with ESET. No, web interface is not cool thing I have tested third party products with "only web interface" and all I can say is that people who develop security products like antivirus management in web should be forced to use that product in real life company. Then they would understand that having cool interface does not mean it's god for real life use. You could sell it to manager...for example.

 

 

At the moment my decision is rather than moving to v6 we are looking for other options. Since it will cost us time anyway.

 

Regards.

 

I fell the same as you. Desktop application and full mirror integration in ERA is a must to continue with ESET.

I'm just watching how versions changes, studying new options until the end of life of version 5.

BTW Until when ERA 5 will be supported? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fell the same as you. Desktop application and full mirror integration in ERA is a must to continue with ESET.

I'm just watching how versions changes, studying new options until the end of life of version 5.

BTW Until when ERA 5 will be supported? 

 

 

hxxp://support.eset.com/kb3592/#supportlevels

 

Says here on Dec 2018. But they already started to drop support for v5, for example you cannot use Windows upgrade client task to upgrade client, you have to use Program Component Update feature hxxp://support.eset.com/kb3308/?locale=en_US

Edited by bbahes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ESET Staff

Hello,

 

First of all, we are not dropping support. Issue with not allowing to use "Windows Upgrade Client task" due to problem with changed certificates will be resolved by module update for all major (current) Endpoint versions + hotfix build of ERA 5, which is in the works now, and we do believe, it will be available shortly.

 

Secondly, If you take a look where the market is going, there are not many vendors left, with the "native win32 console" for managing AV. Basically, as of now, it is only Sophos (which has stopped developing it, and is focusing on the cloud-based Sophos Central), and then Kaspersky (who has MSC console), who is reportedly working on a completely new, web-based application. Symantec offers Java-based application, as well as the web interface, however the Java Based console has no benefits compared to the web interfaces. Movement towards web-based interfaces is clear, and has huge benefits - they can be platform agnostic, easily adopted for cloud usage, you do not need to install anything on the "access point", etc. They also have the option to better scale to size, meaning can handle small and large loads of data. So as of now, there are no plans to get back to a Desktop Application.

 

Documentation is being improved on a daily basis. We have doubled the documentation team resources, and since version 6.3, extended the content  in the huge way (major changes are coming in next months, together with the release of new ERA 6 version. If there are documentation areas, that you consider being not sufficient, or deserving greater care, please let us know, so we can focus on them.

 

Concerning the mirror vs. proxy topic. Proxy has many benefits, from the perspective of improving the overall security. In recent time, where there are huge campaigns of ransom-ware like cryptolocker, with new variants being discovered every day, it is essential that customers are using LiveGrid. In case of mirror, many customers have LiveGrid enabled, however their Endpoints were mis-configured and were not reaching LiveGrid, due to various reasons (Proxies, updates handled via Mirror). Proxy is able to cache installers, updates, forward LiveGrid, Licensing communication, and once configured properly, even offers better network load than the standalone mirror (documentation coming with the 6.3.50 explaining this). Mirror is still needed for the completely offline environments, for this we do have the mirror tool, and we are working on help content, that would guide customers how to use existing infrastructure components to serve updates in their network.

 

Concerning the authentication server, we will examine options, how to provide authentication server alternative, that could be installed in Linux (integrated into appliance) environments.

 

Thank you for your feedback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

First of all, we are not dropping support. Issue with not allowing to use "Windows Upgrade Client task" due to problem with changed certificates will be resolved by module update for all major (current) Endpoint versions + hotfix build of ERA 5, which is in the works now, and we do believe, it will be available shortly.

 

Secondly, If you take a look where the market is going, there are not many vendors left, with the "native win32 console" for managing AV. Basically, as of now, it is only Sophos (which has stopped developing it, and is focusing on the cloud-based Sophos Central), and then Kaspersky (who has MSC console), who is reportedly working on a completely new, web-based application. Symantec offers Java-based application, as well as the web interface, however the Java Based console has no benefits compared to the web interfaces. Movement towards web-based interfaces is clear, and has huge benefits - they can be platform agnostic, easily adopted for cloud usage, you do not need to install anything on the "access point", etc. They also have the option to better scale to size, meaning can handle small and large loads of data. So as of now, there are no plans to get back to a Desktop Application.

 

Documentation is being improved on a daily basis. We have doubled the documentation team resources, and since version 6.3, extended the content  in the huge way (major changes are coming in next months, together with the release of new ERA 6 version. If there are documentation areas, that you consider being not sufficient, or deserving greater care, please let us know, so we can focus on them.

 

Concerning the mirror vs. proxy topic. Proxy has many benefits, from the perspective of improving the overall security. In recent time, where there are huge campaigns of ransom-ware like cryptolocker, with new variants being discovered every day, it is essential that customers are using LiveGrid. In case of mirror, many customers have LiveGrid enabled, however their Endpoints were mis-configured and were not reaching LiveGrid, due to various reasons (Proxies, updates handled via Mirror). Proxy is able to cache installers, updates, forward LiveGrid, Licensing communication, and once configured properly, even offers better network load than the standalone mirror (documentation coming with the 6.3.50 explaining this). Mirror is still needed for the completely offline environments, for this we do have the mirror tool, and we are working on help content, that would guide customers how to use existing infrastructure components to serve updates in their network.

 

Concerning the authentication server, we will examine options, how to provide authentication server alternative, that could be installed in Linux (integrated into appliance) environments.

 

Thank you for your feedback.

 

Thank you for this information. It will help in final push for v6 migration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

"Not happy with ERA 6" is the title of this post, which coincidentally is the most viewed and most replied-to post in the forum. I cannot believe that ESET keeps trying to pretend that all unhappiness is due to a newer, better generation of software that everyone else just needs to catch up with.

 

I too have had my fair share of trying to get Remote Administrator 6 to work for my small business customers, with hours of communications to ESET South Africa to try and resolve insanely stupid problems like computers not registering with RA with their FQDN names, to name but one.

 

Long story short, I cannot believe that ESET is in a constant denial of the dismal failure of the Remote Administrator 6. I know no other piece of software that requires this much feedback and reading of updated documentation from its customers. As an IT specialist, I need software to be intuitive and do what IT specialists in general expect. I don't want to feel like I am doing what user acceptance testing should have done before the product was launched. Surely I will eventually be able to get RA 6 to do what I need it to do, but at enormous cost to my customers. I don't work for free.

 

ESET is forcing its previously loyal partners to seriously consider other vendors. At present, it seems Sophos is the way to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

 

Hello,

 

First of all, we are not dropping support. Issue with not allowing to use "Windows Upgrade Client task" due to problem with changed certificates will be resolved by module update for all major (current) Endpoint versions + hotfix build of ERA 5, which is in the works now, and we do believe, it will be available shortly.

 

Secondly, If you take a look where the market is going, there are not many vendors left, with the "native win32 console" for managing AV. Basically, as of now, it is only Sophos (which has stopped developing it, and is focusing on the cloud-based Sophos Central), and then Kaspersky (who has MSC console), who is reportedly working on a completely new, web-based application. Symantec offers Java-based application, as well as the web interface, however the Java Based console has no benefits compared to the web interfaces. Movement towards web-based interfaces is clear, and has huge benefits - they can be platform agnostic, easily adopted for cloud usage, you do not need to install anything on the "access point", etc. They also have the option to better scale to size, meaning can handle small and large loads of data. So as of now, there are no plans to get back to a Desktop Application.

 

Documentation is being improved on a daily basis. We have doubled the documentation team resources, and since version 6.3, extended the content  in the huge way (major changes are coming in next months, together with the release of new ERA 6 version. If there are documentation areas, that you consider being not sufficient, or deserving greater care, please let us know, so we can focus on them.

 

Concerning the mirror vs. proxy topic. Proxy has many benefits, from the perspective of improving the overall security. In recent time, where there are huge campaigns of ransom-ware like cryptolocker, with new variants being discovered every day, it is essential that customers are using LiveGrid. In case of mirror, many customers have LiveGrid enabled, however their Endpoints were mis-configured and were not reaching LiveGrid, due to various reasons (Proxies, updates handled via Mirror). Proxy is able to cache installers, updates, forward LiveGrid, Licensing communication, and once configured properly, even offers better network load than the standalone mirror (documentation coming with the 6.3.50 explaining this). Mirror is still needed for the completely offline environments, for this we do have the mirror tool, and we are working on help content, that would guide customers how to use existing infrastructure components to serve updates in their network.

 

Concerning the authentication server, we will examine options, how to provide authentication server alternative, that could be installed in Linux (integrated into appliance) environments.

 

Thank you for your feedback.

 

Thank you for this information. It will help in final push for v6 migration.

 

 

Is this documentation part you meant or something else?

 

hxxp://help.eset.com/era_install/64/en-US/efficient_usage_of_apache_http_proxy.htm

 

hxxp://help.eset.com/era_install/64/en-US/apache_http_proxy.htm

Edited by bbahes
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...