Jump to content
Aryeh Goretsky

Future changes to ESET Internet Security and ESET Smart Security Premium

Recommended Posts

They have more features than the population of north america.

Most are uneeded or redundant.

Sometimes weight things down. Slow systems down & cause unexpected results.

Respectively...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that at Eset Smart Security 8 notification icon from status bar can indicate directly security status. At Eset Smart Security 7 if all working good notification is a Green Circle and if is security problem notification is a yellow or red triangle. I recommend at Eset Smart Security 8 notification icon be Green Circle if security working good and change color of circle to yellow or red if maximum protection is not ensured.(without triangles)   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it's me but I just don't understand the concept of adding more features then needed while requesting the program be faster, smaller and use less resources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel where you are coming from SCR.I have found ESET does the job superbly without all those heavily marketed bells and whistles.I'm so glad I switched to ESET.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Arakasi, Iobit does not steal signatures from other vendors, they have a partnership with Bitdefender.

 

Iobit installation packs sometimes contain toolbars, etc. but does not mean that Iobit is PUA, they working at this and in future will remove additional content from installation pack.

Edited by Octavian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That was just an idea (not a suggestion) that I see as a better way than ESET end up adding c rap to ESS. As I like ESS I want to continue to use it without extras being added. But I rather see ESET stay out of the "fluff fluff" product segment altogether of course.

Also if we had ESS and ESET 360°, this would be like Nor**n Internet Security and Nor**n 360°. - No! No! No! Never!

 

This cra p can stay away! This would require staff and this staff can make better things at ESET!

 

 

 

They have more features than the population of north america.

Most are uneeded or redundant.

Sometimes weight things down. Slow systems down & cause unexpected results.

Respectively...

 

I think that Eset need to have a ''Titan'' version that  include some premium features. Eset Smart Security will not be Security 360 degrees but may be ''Titan'' version can be with more features.

 

Features that have been presented above are good but can be little more for Eset Smart Security. I can not say that most of features are redundant or unneeded and it is not correct to say this.

Eset Smart Security is like Internet Security solution, ''Titan'' version can be like Premium Security solution or Total Security solution. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Then it would be much better if they released another product having all ESS features + password manager and backup

 

No, please no Nor**n 360° (or even ESET 360°)! Please! :(

 

I would organize a shitstorm!

 

 

Eset has 2 versions (Smart Security and NOD32), it is not good to make Eset Smart Security an all in one security solution (360) but Eset can launch 3rd version that represent Premium Security.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Advanced System Care..product by IOBit. I hope you like it. Personally I will never install an IOBit product in my PC ever.

 

I'm not sure but that name rang me a bell and there's a good chance we detect it as PUA :)

 

 

Iobit should not be detected as PUA, they have in some installation packs toolbars, toolbars are user dependent, and user usually do not install them on computer.

Edited by Octavian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Arakasi, Iobit does not steal signatures from other vendors, they have a partnership with Bitdefender.

 

Iobit installation packs sometimes contain toolbars, etc. but does not mean that Iobit is PUA, they working at this and in future will remove additional content from installation pack.

 

No they may not do that Now. But check their past history please it might give you a clue: https://forums.malwarebytes.org/index.php?/topic/29681-iobit-steals-malwarebytes-intellectual-property/

 

Do you want to support a company like that by using and recommending their software then you are free to do so.

 

 

I think that Eset need to have a ''Titan'' version that  include some premium features. Eset Smart Security will not be Security 360 degrees but may be ''Titan'' version can be with more features.

 

Features that have been presented above are good but can be little more for Eset Smart Security. I can not say that most of features are redundant or unneeded and it is not correct to say this.

Eset Smart Security is like Internet Security solution, ''Titan'' version can be like Premium Security solution or Total Security solution. 

 

We leave that to ESET to decide. Many members here think they should focus on other more important things than create a monster product that does all sorts of stuff. And yes most of it is indeed redundant and unneeded. Also, if you think about it then i'm sure you'll agree that some products are simply best used as stand-alone and not baked in with loads of other stuff.

 

 

 

Advanced System Care..product by IOBit. I hope you like it. Personally I will never install an IOBit product in my PC ever.

 

I'm not sure but that name rang me a bell and there's a good chance we detect it as PUA :)

 

 

Iobit should not be detected as PUA, they have in some installation packs toolbars, toolbars are user dependent, and user usually do not install them on computer.

It doesn't matter if it is a toolbar or something else having an "opt-out" button, it is still bundled with it and thus it will be detected. And FYI that goes for all softwares not only IObit software.

 

And don't forget that ESET users can also enable/disable PUA detections if they like as they are user optional. 

 

Read this to better understand what a PUA is: hxxp://virusradar.com/en/glossary/pua

 

"and user usually do not install them on computer."

 

Usually not you say? I beg to disagree very strongly when it comes to the average user.

If you only know how much c rap I have seen in peoples browsers. They can be flooded with this stuff. 5 toolbars who needs that?! But that can just be the top of the PUA iceberg when you start to see what other stuff that have sneaked in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to suggest some sort of site advisor. A browser plugin would be great. Not for myself but for newbies. Bitdefefender, Norton, Avast, Avira, Webroot all have them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eset decide about new version. I support idea of an aditional version "Titan" or "Gold" with some premium features(ex: Password Manager) but not a lot that can create confusion or make program hard to use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to suggest some sort of site advisor. A browser plugin would be great. Not for myself but for newbies. Bitdefefender, Norton, Avast, Avira, Webroot all have them. 

 

ESET uses a strong web protection instead of dedicated plugins. Thanks to this, the scanner works independently and can check even the communication of potentially running malware, block the payload and thus prevent further damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I would like to suggest some sort of site advisor. A browser plugin would be great. Not for myself but for newbies. Bitdefefender, Norton, Avast, Avira, Webroot all have them. 

 

ESET uses a strong web protection instead of dedicated plugins. Thanks to this, the scanner works independently and can check even the communication of potentially running malware, block the payload and thus prevent further damage.

 

 

You clearly are not understanding the difference between web protection and a browser plugin. I am talking about a site advisor. Such as WOT. It rates sites in your Google search and gives you a trust rating. Also shows the site rating in your browser bar. All the antiviruses I mentioned have web protection. So does Avast. But they all also include a site advisor. 

Edited by LabVIEW707

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why some users feel is it so important to have a "traffic light" system for search results.

 

Even if the AV shows the link as "red" nothing will prevent the user from accessing the site anyway.

 

And I guess some people don't mind that some plugins in other AVs are only compatible with IE, Firefox, and Chrome. What about all other browsers that people may use, the "plugin feature" is useless to them. That is why more vendors should stop using plugins etc.. so the whole product works independent of what browser you happen to use.

 

When people ask me for such feature, I usually recommend WOT(despite all FP link ratings) or something similar that already is available for free. If they want a feature like this then they will have to live with that safe links get red tagged once in a while.

 

One of the reasons I use and like ESET is because there is no extensions and plugins involved. And I really really hope it stays that way!

Edited by SweX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Description: Live Grid execution blocker unless file is known safe.


 


It is quite rare that I of all people post feature requests or in this case request added functionality to a feature we already have.


 


But it's something I have thought about before, several times actually, that I believe could be useful for basically all above average users, and users that know how to respond to a prompt once in a while, would be a function that is found in some other products and that works with file info from the cloud in this case Live Grid. I guess you could say it works like a cloud based whitelist.


 


In ESET that could be a function like, unless the file we execute is "green/known safe" in Live Grid we would be prompted with a "allow, block, quarantine" popup notification.   


 


That means nothing that is not known safe "green tagged" in Live Grid will not be allowed to execute without that we allow it first.


 


Of course this should be a function having a checkbox like everything else that users can enable and disable. And it should not be enabled by default for obvious reasons. 


 


P.S 


Not to mix this up with file reputation / how many users have this file similar to -> "only 5 users have this file are you sure you want to allow the file to execute?" 


 


That is NOT my idea, so even if only 1 user have this file and it is "green tagged" known safe in Live Grid it will be allowed to execute just fine.


 


Thank You.


Edited by SweX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't this a suggestion thread? Not something based on your opinion? Every single av company out there does it. Its a FREE browser plugin. Instead of arguing with me you could say 'Hey thanks for the idea and we will look into incorporating into future builds". This is a tool that most experts do not need but it is beneficial to newbies. 

 

1. Avast

2. Norton

3. Avira

4. Bitdefender

5. Kaspersky

6. McAfee

7. Webroot

8. AVG

 

All the above have site advisors. So all of them cannot be wrong. I am not talking about something built within Eset. I am talking about a browser plugin. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,
 
Browser plugins are an interesting idea, partially because they can allow for feedback in some interesting ways in the UI, but in terms of content [i.e., what the plugin does] I personally feel it is kind of a "landmine area" (for lack of better term).
 
When you get involved in reputational-scoring of web sites, you pick up several additional areas in your workload.  For example:

  • Building and maintaining the site-crawling system (which includes back-end databases, integration into existing systems for research, development, QA, support, etc.).
  • Dealing with false-positive reports.
  • Dealing with false-negative reports.
  • Dealing with reclassification requests.
  • Dealing with attempts to game or manipulate the results.
    ...and so forth

And that's just what I came up with off the top of my head.

 

If you take a look in the Malware Finding and Cleaning section of the forum, you'll note that there are a lot of requests that focus around these types of issues, except for downloaded software as opposed to web sites (although there some discussions surrounding blocked web sites as well).  I suspect most users probably visit websites more often than the download and install software, so you can imagine how the amount of work required to adequately manage something like that if the number of requests coming in were to increase by, say, two orders of magnitude. 

 

That's not to say that this is a bad idea, or that such scaling issues are not solvable.  There are companies like Web of Trust who do this as their core business, and my initial inclination would be to steer people to a service like that, if that's what they're looking for.

 

However, I'd also point out that web reputation systems don't necessarily tell you if a site is malicious or not; they might might tell you something about the relative volume of activity that the site gets, or is mentioned in, but there's still quite a bit of difference between something like Alexa or Google's Page Rank and, say, ESET's Live Grid.

 

Ultimately, what I think it comes down to, though, is ESET's philosophy of doing things.  It's been my observation since arriving at the company that it focuses on the areas where it can create products that work reasonably well.  That's actually expanded or been tweaked a little over the years to encompass not just creating products, but occasionally partnering with companies or even acquiring them outright (the familiar "build, partner or buy" refrain), but the focus has always remained on the "working reasonably well" part.  I am pretty satisfied with ESET's approach of blocking outright malicious sites, prompting of sites that might contain potentially unwanted content, and the parental controls type functionalities that ESET provides.

 

Personally, having to have gone through several hoops (accompanied with lots of shouting, calling in of favors, veiled threats and the occasional hint of a bribe of an alcoholic and/or chocolate nature) to get a former employer's site advisor service to whitelist my own personal web site, I have some lingering concerns about how well such services work.

 

Regards,

 

Aryeh Goretsky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WOT is a joke by the way. It's based on user opinions and not actual malware related facts. Just read some of the comments. You seem to be avoiding the topic in a round about way. Again if all the previous mentioned companies can do it then so can Eset. Its just another layer. And was we all know a layered approach is the best approach. The average user has no idea what live grid is. Most never even open up the main GUI. 

 

FYI..............Thanks for the reply. 

Edited by LabVIEW707

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Aryeh.

Since this is a public forum to freely express opinions. Mine is that toolbars and web add-ons, extensions, and the on-going topic of a browser add-on for trust on sites is utter junk and should never be incorporated into ESET's software.

Use an alternative program.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to work a lot on your HIPS for zero day malware and unknown malware because you don't have any rules and because there are none preset any malware that is unknown with be able to fully run it should ask the user weather to allow it or block it. I have been an eset fan since version 3 and then the HIPS came along in 5 and is still not changed in  6,7,8 the problem is still here

 

You need to change your default HIPS mode from automatic mode with rules to be more involved with the user this in my view is the biggest problem with eset.

 

Please fix this in the final version of 8 or I will be leaving eset for good.

 

 

 

post-4971-0-03110800-1408638705_thumb.jpg

post-4971-0-77506100-1408638705_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think ESET does have pre-defined rules for HIPS, you just can't see them.

Maybe ESET can bring these out into the open for editting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Aryeh.

Since this is a public forum to freely express opinions. Mine is that toolbars and web add-ons, extensions, and the on-going topic of a browser add-on for trust on sites is utter junk and should never be incorporated into ESET's software.

Use an alternative program.

 

Please understand the difference between toolbars, site advisors and something added into Eset. I am NOT talking about a toolbar. Clearly most of you have never looked at the competition. When the Avast installer is complete your default browser opens up and it will promoted you to install the separate add on. Such as for Chrome. I am not talking about a toolbar. I am merely talking about a site advisor similar to WOT. But instead of being user based opinions its malware based. Again if 8 top leading antivirus companies can do then so can Eset. Google Chrome has banished 99% of any type of toolars. Avira and Avast put a small "a" next toy Chrome's URL bar to give you a site rating. When you perform a Bing, Yahoo or Google search it gives you a rating in your search results. Bitdefender gives you traffic light. Needless junk is something like what 360 Total Security is doing. A start up manager. A temp file cleaner. A Facebook login. A defragger. Those are examples of programs that do not belong incorporated into an antivirus. Norton 360 is another prime example of that. 

Edited by LabVIEW707

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My job is testing antivirus software and I tested eset today the way HIPS is setup it doesn't really do anything it didn't block any of the unknown malware I ran,

 

The HIPS is the biggest problem with eset in my opinion and the Advanced Memory Scanner is pretty much useless at blocking unknown malware.

 

Eset have no rules available to us so users will have to change it to learning mode or interactive mode which will keep asking you questions.

 

If you have got some rules they need to be available to the users.

 

 

Please Please Please fix this problem because the way it's setup it doesn't offer effective zero day protection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't consider WOT as junk but that's just my opinion. WOT includes public ratings made by people who may have used the site to reflect the trustworthiness of the site as it relates to it's business practices. I find that useful.

 

My feelings about most browser plugins is that once the browser is updated the plugin tends to have problems unless the code of the plugin is updated as well. Considering the blistering pace of the browser release cycle I would think that it would take a lot of Eset's assets to keep the plugin up to date for the myriad of browsers that are in use. This in turn would either increase the cost of Eset or sacrifice protection currently had. If memory serves me correctly Eset tried the plugin route with Thunderbird and discontinued it due to the rapid release cycle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×