Scheduled Scans

[rugk 397]

Thanks @SweX and @kakashi no I'm not hating you. I'm just showing that most of your ideas are not "simple ideas in order to make a better product" in an ironical way.

So if I'm suggestion something I would at first try to write at least in decent English. I'm not an native English speaker too and my English is not nearly perfect, but anyway you can at least try to put the spaces, commas and other things at the correct position. Additionally you can even just use an online translator tool like Google Translator or - if you want to write it yourself - an (Online) dictionary for English to look up words (especially the spelling) and installing an English spell checker in your browser should also not be that difficult.

Secondly I'd like to remember you about my "suggestions" for you I posted some time ago:

Okay, seriously now...

1. This is a feature thread, so please don't report problems here.
2. Check before posting whether these features are already included in ESS.
3. The first post in this topic includes an explanation how you should report ideas (for features etc) here.
4. Also pay attention to the blue message there!

 

Also you can't just add some nice sounding words to a feature to improve the feature. Even if ESET adds a "super-intelligent smart enhanced advanced ultra-power-heuristics-engine AI with super turbo fast implementation protection" this doesn't change anything. Calling things like this may be impressive in pokémon games, but in reality that's just gibberish.

And these are the obvious things which make your post (to say it polite) not that useful, so it also won't help you if add things like "don't ignore this this is important for all the security users" like you did in your last post.

And I don't want to get into detail now, but in my first reply to your post you can already get some ideas of how useful or reasonable some of your ideas are - and most of the post just consists of quotes from you.

 

Anyway just keep in mind that I'm not saying you shouldn't express your suggestions here and of course I'm not hating you. You just have to suggest features which are not taken from a pokémon game and most importantly they have to make sense! And you have to explain your features, just throwing words around doesn't help anybody and as I "explained" your ideas in my first reply you can see what they look like.

Or tell it as Arey wrote, because I doubt you read the first post (although I've linked several times to it now):

 If you have a specific feature or functionality you would like to see added (or improved) please post it here, but general requests to "make things better" are not helpful because they do not give ESET detailed enough information.

Edited May 29, 2015 by rugk

[kakashi 6]

Add a full compavility for eset 9 for other anti virus and engines dont conflict and reduce the pc performance if they are 2 antivirus or other security programs installed

Add enchanted firewall

Add enchanted anti publishing =why most antivirus fail to detect I fraud page,fake page,scammer ect

I recommend add advanced scan anti publishing that scan the full page code and domain in orden to check if is real or fake or modified to prevent fraud and steal money and credit cards ect

Add enchanted anti botnet protection

Add enchanted hips self defense protection

Add enchanted network protection

Add enchanted protocol filtering

Add to block any port or unblock for gaming or any program and for some other security reasons / to prevent attacks from any specific port ect

Add strong ping protection and network performance

Fix the eset icons crash in in blank

.increase the speed scanning

Add better detail from any virus .what he do in order you to know

Fix the network deny the network klbs still running supposed to be zero klbs running from that deny programs running on the pc ect fix that

That all for now just helping

[rugk 397]

No it won't be better if you use a wrong-written version of enhanced instead of AI. And no, you don't need to try it with advanced next time...

But if it amuses you...

[kakashi 6]

Eset corp 
To eset smart 9 add ssl protol filtering anti exploit shild network protection  =to prevent exploits or brute force in the ssl protocol

Fix the ssl protocol some  t time a normal page dont work say network not detect it. And i need to start  refleshing  the page for example google , and everithing is fine  is the protocol filtering some time do the same when i do a  speed test

Maybe the protocol dont the detcect the conect correr or have some issue conecting to some pages fix that please

Not all page are the same, some use advance encription other user nolmal encription ,other use other page format maybe that create a conflic, some page have a lot of errors  this maybe cold afect

Update the protocol filtering and add this engine    smart ssl protocol filtering deep  analise= this will analise any format page or encription if there is something not compatible or have any error  or domains dns will automatic report you.

Edited June 8, 2015 by Marcos
Formatting removed

[kakashi 6]

Fix the sll protocol filtering  is preventing to acess some web page like goole or any other fix that

 

Add smart ssl protocol filtering = this will analise any web page encription page format,dns,domain , in other if there any error this mode will automatic report ,   some web page use new encription cold create conflic  other use old enceription and new webpage  format.

 

Add smart anti exploit shild  in the sll protocol filtering to prevent any exploit ,in any port  and web pages

Edited June 8, 2015 by Marcos
Formatting removed

[kakashi 6]

 i type it 2 time but is ok 

[Marcos 5,074]

@kakashi: With all due respect, please post reasonable suggestions and refrain from using capitals which is not permitted by TOS.

[SweX 871]

@kakashi: With all due respect, please post reasonable suggestions.

I reckon that all of his suggestions and ideas are perfectly realistic and reasonable to him. But I'm not worried, it's not like ESET will take notice and implement any of it, especially when 99% are nothing but made up fancy words taken out of the blue. I guess he has a wild fantasy or something that he get all funny ideas from.

Edited June 9, 2015 by SweX

[itman 1,659]

I would also like to see SSL protocol scanning decoupled from e-mail scanning. I very much need this feature to scan my Thunderbird encrypted e-mail received from my e-mail ISP. I don't want to turn it on for browser use however.

[rugk 397]

@itman

Nice idea. But if I'm remembering correctly in v8 you can include and exclude applications for SSL scanning, so this may solve your problem.

[itman 1,659]

@itman

Nice idea. But if I'm remembering correctly in v8 you can include and exclude applications for SSL scanning, so this may solve your problem.

The "excluded applications" option turns off all protocol scanning for the selected app. I do want my browser HTTP traffic scanned; just not the HTTPS traffic.

[User 13]

I would also like to see SSL protocol scanning decoupled from e-mail scanning. I very much need this feature to scan my Thunderbird encrypted e-mail received from my e-mail ISP. I don't want to turn it on for browser use however.

 

 

It's already implemented:

 

First activate SSL scanning, after that you can deactivate https-scanning under

Web and E-Mail -> Web protection -> HTTP, HTTPS

[itman 1,659]

 

I would also like to see SSL protocol scanning decoupled from e-mail scanning. I very much need this feature to scan my Thunderbird encrypted e-mail received from my e-mail ISP. I don't want to turn it on for browser use however.

 

 

It's already implemented:

 

First activate SSL scanning, after that you can deactivate https-scanning under

Web and E-Mail -> Web protection -> HTTP, HTTPS

 

If you do that, then no port 443 scanning will be done. Note that there can be web traffic that uses port 443 that is not encrypted. That is why by default, Eset scans port 443 with SSL protocol scanning disabled; it just ignores encrypted traffic. Also the Eset cert. remains in the Windows root CA using your suggestion which I consider a security risk. Eset should only use the like cert. installed in Thunderbird's root CA. 

 

The e-mail SSL protocol scanning options should override globally setting off SSL protocol scanning for everything which currently is the case.

Edited June 15, 2015 by itman

[User 13]

 

If you do that, then no port 443 scanning will be done.

 

 

There is no information in the help files or context menu that says so, also it would be illogical.

Edited June 15, 2015 by User

[itman 1,659]

 

 

If you do that, then no port 443 scanning will be done.

 

 

There is no information in the help files or context menu that says so, also it would be illogical.

 

From the Smart Security ver. 8 user manual:

 

Use HTTPS protocol checking for selected ports – The program will only check those applications that are specified in

the Web and email clients section and that use ports defined in Ports used by HTTPS protocol. Port 443 is set by

default.

 

Encrypted communication will be not scanned. To enable the scanning of encrypted communication and view the

scanner setup, navigate to SSL protocol checking in Advanced setup section, click Web and email > Protocol filtering

> SSL and enable the Always scan SSL protocol option.

 

To me this means disable that option and HTTPS traffic will not be scanned. What is unclear is if port 443 was added to the HTTP port list, would it be scanned?

Edited June 15, 2015 by itman

[User 13]

My opinion is the following:

 

You can add port 443 in the http-port list, then http-traffic will be scanned on port 443.

 

In standard configuration only ports 80, 8080, 3128 are scanned for http-traffic. So this has nothing to do with the second https-port list.

 

So if you don't add 443 to the http-port list, http-traffic on port 443 will not be scanned even if https-scanning for port 443 is activated.

 

 

 

Maybe someone from ESET can post here if that's correct.

Edited June 15, 2015 by User

[itman 1,659]

My opinion is the following:

 

You can add port 443 in the http-port list, then http-traffic will be scanned on port 443.

 

In standard configuration only ports 80, 8080, 3128 are scanned for http-traffic. So this has nothing to do with the second https-port list.

 

So if you don't add 443 to the http-port list, http-traffic on port 443 will not be scanned even if https-scanning for port 443 is activated.

 

 

 

Maybe someone from ESET can post here if that's correct.

 

 

My opinion is the following:

 

You can add port 443 in the http-port list, then http-traffic will be scanned on port 443.

 

In standard configuration only ports 80, 8080, 3128 are scanned for http-traffic. So this has nothing to do with the second https-port list.

 

So if you don't add 443 to the http-port list, http-traffic on port 443 will not be scanned even if https-scanning for port 443 is activated.

 

 

 

Maybe someone from ESET can post here if that's correct.

Found a copy of pre-release ver. 9 user manual on the web yesterday. Just describes features w/o specific settings and the like. From what was stated there, ver. 9 will include an option to selectively turn on/off SSL protocol scanning by application. So I will just have to wait until it's released to determine if this issue is a moot point.

[Octopuss 5]

Kakashi please stop spamming and stop posting utterly stupid nonsenses. It would be much better if you invested your time in english lessons instead of all this.

Edited June 18, 2015 by Octopuss

[elc 1]

Hello,

 

I would like to investigate on IP adresses which appear in Smart Security 8 / Tools / Connexions / Distant IPs. It would save time if it was possible to copy IPs from ESET to a search engine. So far the page is just an "image" without select/copy function. This has a common point with post 149 (15062 not found). Is the development of this function planned?

 

Best regards

[TheNightGallery 0]

I'd like to see it work with Windows and not cause issues with sleep mode. I posted about this problem earlier, but Admin never approved the message. Since installing the latest version, my computer will no longer stay in sleep mode. Is there any fix for this? 

 

[rugk 397]

This has a common point with post 149 (15062 not found).

Yes, it is. Here is a direct link: https://forum.eset.com/topic/51-future-changes-to-eset-smart-security/page-8#entry15062

[itman 1,659]

Emsisoft will be terminating Online Armor support in the near future since it no longer fits into their business development model.

 

Would suggest Eset explore purchasing software licensing rites to it. Then incorporate it into NOD32 and Smart Security; at least the HIPS portion of it as replacement to the existing featureless HIPS Eset has in these two products. Or, offer it as an extra cost option. 

[itman 1,659]

Just started using the firewall in interactive mode. I do wish that Eset would either store the URL versus the IP address in the generated outbound firewall rule. Or, at least provide an option to store either one.  

 

This would be most beneficial for rules covering svchost.exe, rundll32.exe, and the like that connect to Microsoft using many different servers and IP addresses. Also these processes are frequently targeted by malware. Creating rules that allow all outbound activity for these processes is not very secure. Creating a separate firewall rule for every IP address svchost.exe uses when connecting to Microsoft will result in dozens of rules being generated.

 

I also believe this would not be a major issue to implement since the Eset firewall alert already displays the URL used for the connection. As such, the URL is available to be stored in the resultant generated outbound firewall rule.

[rugk 397]

Just FYI: As for svchost.exe you can choose the service which a rule should cover in v9 of ESS and NOD32.

[itman 1,659]

Just FYI: As for svchost.exe you can choose the service which a rule should cover in v9 of ESS and NOD32.

That is good to know.

 

Question though is if it will be of any benefit. I have played with third party Win firewall add-ons in the past that tried to do the same. Most didn't work right due to the fact that there are hidden services that are not shown via Admin -> Services that Win uses. Many of these are triggered by BITS.

 

However, restricting svchost.exe access to MS servers or its proxies e.g. Akamai gives very good protection.