Jump to content
Aryeh Goretsky

Future changes to ESET Internet Security and ESET Smart Security Premium

Recommended Posts

I may have been misunderstood in my verbage.

I use several plug-ins in my own browser, Last pass, lightbeam, Adblock pro, etc etc

What i meant to say is that when i see browser extensions coming from a security product i find that stuff junk. They do nothing but weigh things down.

ESET is able to provide protection with any browser without even touching any part of the browser.

And if they did ..... it would require a lot of attention and updating and testing etc just like Aryeh said.

If you want a web site reputation addon, use an alternative, they already exist, so why should ESET make one ?

Edited by Arakasi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the main reasons I went to ESET was their superb protection with their efficient software. After trying the majority of competitors, I found that year after year they begun adding more and more 'features' that felt a little unnecessary. So I will more than likely stay with ESET for a long time, as protection and security are the most important things I look for in a security solution, not the extras.

 

Reading recent posts, I can see why a browser plugin or extension would be something that people want, but I already know that Smart Security already protects me with phishing, infected websites, bad downloads, etc. Then there is Parental Control, which also has the ability to block a wide range of categories (eg. I block 'Security & Malware' which includes 'Spam URLs, Parked & For Sale Domains, etc.).

 

So if I do visit any website, I'm protected both on my machine and in the browser, even if I don't see a coloured icon telling me if a site is 'safe' or not, or an ESET logo sitting next to the address bar.

Edited by planet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said planet.

In a short sense, its unnecessary.

 

And respectively i dont mean no bad intentions towards labview at all, but since its in the same category of additional features which we have talked about, time and time again, i tend to lash out a bit.

If ESET began to start making Total protection, or gold, or premium, or advanced version etc. The amount of people and user base that would leave ESET services would be phenomenal.

Stock would drop, user subs would drop, things would be utter nutz. ESET will never make a decision that would harm its reputation and do a complete 360, haha 360 total protection.

 

Any additional features that really start to play a major role in security is sought out through partners and other vendors as Aryeh stated. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may have been misunderstood in my verbage.

I use several plug-ins in my own browser, Last pass, lightbeam, Adblock pro, etc etc

What i meant to say is that when i see browser extensions coming from a security product i find that stuff junk. They do nothing but weigh things down.

ESET is able to provide protection with any browser without even touching any part of the browser.

And if they did ..... it would require a lot of attention and updating and testing etc just like Aryeh said.

If you want a web site reputation addon, use an alternative, they already exist, so why should ESET make one ?

There is not a misunderstanding regarding your post, at least not on my part. It was my error to not quote the post I was referring to as well as using the word "junk" rather then "joke".

 

I believe we are singing the same song with different lead instruments. I will endeavor to do better in making it clear what I am responding to in the future.

Edited by SCR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

I simply used Web of Trust as an example of someone who does a reputational toolbar as their core business. As far as I know, all the other companies you mentioned (Avast ... Webroot) make the majority of their money elsewhere.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I had to jump through numerous hoops to get my own personal website reclassified (whitelisted), when my previous employer saw fit to advise everyone that my site was unsafe due to its lack of reputation. Now, I was able to get that cleared up in several days, but it took me several days and I had to to take advantage of some professional courtesies (e.g., the fact that I was a founder of that company as well as someone who currently worked at a competitor) in order to get them to update their database. And I was lucky, I had industry contacts to worth through. If I did not have those backchannels, who knows how many weeks or months it would have taken.

This difficulty in (1) classifying sites properly to begin with; and (2) responding promptly to reclassification requests makes me believe that there is little additional value offered by site advisory services. Am I biased by my own experiences with a false positive alarm and subsequent difficulties getting that fixed? Yes, I certainly am. But, I also cannot help but wonder how difficult it would be for me get things cleared had I not been able to able to use my contacts.

Lots of other companies offer varieties of different services, as a means of providing a layered approach, offering some form product differentiation, or even just performing feature parity for reviewers (i.e., "checkbox compliance"), but that does not necessarily mean that the option, feature or service passes the "works reasonably well" that I think is one of the reasons people choose ESET's software over others in a very crowded, competitive market.

Maybe, one day, ESET will offer some kind of add-on, plugin or toolbar that provides a deterministic form of site advisory reputational data. But given what I've seen so far, I just don't feel this technology currently passes the "works reasonably well" criteria as a whole, industry-wide.

Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky

 

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 Aryeh Goretsky
because Aryeh fails at bbCode.

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.

 

It is not your job. You are a YouTube malware tester like all the others. You test malware in a VM and think you understand everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

False alarms on web sites are no big deal. If you know the site is safe you can just click the continue button. Not the end of the world. Again if 8 antivirus companies that I listed then Eset can also do it. It is a simple browser add on you guys can make available in the Chrome App store. IT IS NOT DIRECTLY part of Eset. Gezzz. I give up. 

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.

 

It is not your job. You are a YouTube malware tester like all the others. You test malware in a VM and think you understand everything.

 

 

In addition, many things come into play:

1. type of malware

2. language it is written in

3. java installed, flash installed, windows updates applied or none used

4. versions of browsers used if its a web threat

5. are you executing properly

6. are the settings in the products correctly configured

7. are the architecures that the malware is targetting correct

8. are third party platform libraries installed (C++ redist. .net , etc etc)

I could go on and on . . . but its apparent now. . .

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.

 

Chrome no longer allows 3rd party addons installed remotely. Everything needs to go through the Chrome app store. So again this is NOT something incorporated into Eset. It is an addon in the app store. If users want to use it they can simple visit the app store and download it. WOT is user based opinions. Most from uneducated users. Just read the replies. "I don't like this website. After submitting my email the spammed me.". Well that's why you do not user your real email address for stuff like that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

False alarms on web sites are no big deal. If you know the site is safe you can just click the continue button. Not the end of the world. Again if 8 antivirus companies that I listed then Eset can also do it. It is a simple browser add on you guys can make available in the Chrome App store. IT IS NOT DIRECTLY part of Eset. Gezzz. I give up. 

 

Hello,

Which 8 anti virus companies ? Please list them, i would love to clarify and reflect on the chosen as well as their comparison to ESET and whether are not i find them personally decent products.

This of course is a request, not a demand, you dont have to, but to continue the conversation to the next level would be enjoyable, and i dont want you to feel we are cutting you off.

A suggestion is simply that, a suggestion; and we love to talk about them here round and round. Please include vendor and the addon/extension name for research :)

Edited by Arakasi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read my post please. And I have used all of them including others. 

 

https://forum.eset.com/topic/51-future-changes-to-eset-smart-security/?p=17762

 

Just vendor names.

Do you have the corresponding tool / addon to list with them you are referring to ?

Ex: I think AVG's is AVG Secure Search ?? Am i right ? What of the rest...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my post I clearly listed all 8 companies. I copied and pasted them from my post #267

 

1. Avast

2. Norton

3. Avira

4. Bitdefender

5. Kaspersky

6. McAfee

7. Webroot

8. AVG

 

Here is Avast's. It also has a DNT feature.

 

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/avast-online-security/gomekmidlodglbbmalcneegieacbdmki?utm_source=chrome-ntp-icon

 

Here is Avira's

 

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/avira-browser-safety/flliilndjeohchalpbbcdekjklbdgfkk?utm_source=chrome-ntp-icon

Edited by LabVIEW707

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, well so far, i only have this to say, even though i still plan to research the individual addons.

I don't use Google chrome, and i never will. My cousin works there and i know a high amount of the inner workings.

ESET can't target only chrome users. It's unfair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh God not other anti Google thing. Whatever. FYI..................These addons are also available in Firefox. Most addons that are in Firefox and available in Chrome and visa verso. I use everything Google. 

Edited by LabVIEW707

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh God not other anti Google thing. Whatever. FYI..................These addons are also available in Firefox. Most addons that are in Firefox and available in Chrome and visa verso. I use everything Google. 

 

You sure are being stubborn and selfish to your Googleness.

 

FYI its not going to be the same addon in firefox as it is in google, they will have to make two different types to cater 1 to chrome, and 1 for firefox. It isnt going to be cross-platform.

 

However if you dont want to, dont just constantly post links out of here and create additional posts to 1 single addon, thats not what i asked.

I can do all that on my own, however it will take me weeks as i have a life and job. You are the one with the suggestion. :P

Here is a format to follow now:

 

Avast - Online Security (link)

Avira - Browser Safety

AVG - Secure Search

 

From this list we can really contrast and compare and just search for the addons you are speaking about.

If you want to be generalized as you are, then that is also fine, however I will have no interested in trying to get on your side, level, see your point of few etc, im just going to disagree because you dont want to put time and effort into convincing and professionaly giving your point of view. ;)

 

Your just saying, make a browser addon like the rest LOL!!

 

I dont mind taking the time looking at all these addons and testing them out and then agreeing with you, or totally disagreeing, but im not going to hunt for them and guess that i have the right one(s)? :P

 

Dont all these addons each do something different ? Or are they seriously all the same and do the same thing ? This would be entering my point of view.

Why not just use one of those coupled with ESET? Why does ESET need to make one if they are all the same or etc etc etc. I hope you get my side now though, respectfully.

 

Yes i know its just a suggestion, but i like to come to conslusions on some of the suggestions that are posted here, sometimes.

 

Best regards,

Edited by Arakasi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not just use one of those coupled with ESET? Why does ESET need to make one if they are all the same or etc etc etc. I hope you get my side now though, respectfully.

That is exactly what I wonder as well. Use what's already available, if 8 or more vendors have one then just try them out and pick wich ever you like the best. Or wich ever is compatible with your browser.

 

And yes, there are more browsers available than IE, Chrome and Firefox!

 

And like SCR said, you can't just release a plugin and let it be, it needs constant "baby sitting" in order to be compatible and work with each new browser release. 

 

And as I said before, even if a link is marked red, nothing will prevent the as someone said "newbie" from clicking and entering the site anyway as most newbies think they know best and simply have to access the site no matter what.

 

"I have visited this site for years...and it was "green" 2 days ago...ehhhh I don't care I'll visit it anyway and report it as a FP there's no way its something bad on here..."

Edited by SweX

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.

I agree with your post especially about the baby sitting of plugins to stay compatible, but I want to say something about WOT.

 

WOT can indeed be useful, but some users are misusing their "power to rate" as they may rate a site as bad, only because they don't like the actual site, what the site is all about, or what's written on it. And those ratings are resulting in FP ratings, and it literally destroys the whole purpose of WOT wich is a very good idea from the start, but one simply can't trust the ratings to 100%.

 

About Aryeh's story...

 

I have seen several stories from small software developers that have had their sites marked as "red/bad/negative" etc..by such services, two of the cases was connected to the McAfee site advisor where they contacted them for re-classification, waited a few weeks, nothing happened, contacted again, nothing happend...that is ridiculous. The site owner has no say in the matter but to wait a long time before they finally got around and fixed it. Sites get their rating automatically, but I assume the re-classification is manual but if it takes that long before they actually take a look at it...the sites reputation can be pushed to the bottom before its all over and the site owner can relax, that is not good. So I agree with Aryeh, ESET's approach is much better!

Edited by SweX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol. So only Eset is getting right. All of these other companies are wrong? If they are wrong then why does Bitdefender and Kaspersky have a higher detection rating then Eset? Stop shooting down the idea of a simple browser plugin. Remove parental controls from smart security since most are built into Windows. Along with K-9 web patrol or Open DNS. Parental controls are no longer needed in a security suite. Suites are actually a thing of the past. All you need is a good av now a days. Norton is actually streamlining all their products into one. A site advisor is still very much a security feature. Especially when it comes to newbies. 

 

So basically Eset does not want the extra work load it takes into managing a site advisor. Ok then hire more people. As I have previously said it's not rocket science. Heck teens are designing phone apps right from their laptops. All I keep hearing is why Eset refuses to add such a feature. A more reasonable reply would be to say "We will look into it. Thanks for sharing". 

 

Eset is a great antivirus. I only have 3 top choices and I have tried everything out there. Eset, Avast and Webroot are my top choices cause they are bloat free and keep things simple. Plus they are all extremely light on your system. 

Edited by LabVIEW707

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol. So only Eset is getting right. All of these other companies are wrong? If they are wrong then why does Bitdefender and Kaspersky have a higher detection rating then Eset? Stop shooting down the idea of a simple browser plugin. Remove parental controls from smart security since most are built into Windows. Along with K-9 web patrol or Open DNS. Parental controls are no longer needed in a security suite. Suites are actually a thing of the past. All you need is a good av now a days. Norton is actually streamlining all their products into one. A site advisor is still very much a security feature. Especially when it comes to newbies. 

 

So basically Eset does not want the extra work load it takes into managing a site advisor. Ok then hire more people. As I have previously said it's not rocket science. Heck teens are designing phone apps right from their laptops. All I keep hearing is why Eset refuses to add such a feature. A more reasonable reply would be to say "We will look into it. Thanks for sharing". 

 

Eset is a great antivirus. I only have 3 top choices and I have tried everything out there. Eset, Avast and Webroot are my top choices cause they are bloat free and keep things simple. Plus they are all extremely light on your system. 

 

1. No one is saying that they are wrong, but why should all vendors do the same thing!

2. 2-3 % higher detection rate in a test I assume. But that has nothing to do with the site "advisor" in their products though. 

3. So now you want to remove features too, other "suite" products have parental controls but ESET should not, you rather see them add a plugin. Built into Windows...right i'll start recommending Windows Defender to people as well.

4.Suites a thing of the past, yes if they turn into more than suites (360/total), I actually like the firewall and its features in ESS.  And people that don't want/need parental controls etc.. can pick NOD32 instead. FYI, Browser Plugins are a thing of the past if you didn't know, more and more vendors try to stop using them in their products.

5. Why should ESET care if Norton is "streamlining" their products into one? They are competitors and should not look at each other and simply do the same thing.

6. "Newbies" don't care if a link is red or purple they will go there no matter what. 

7. I think Aryeh gave very good reasons why they chose not to go down the advisor/reputation route.

8. ESET is not only good, it is in fact the only product I would run, if ESET scew up for some reason, or destroys the product with stupid features or plugins, extensions, toolbars or other c rap I will go AV less in a heartbeat, and go down an alternative route. Which is why I don't like or appreciate unnecessary product changes. But maybe that's just me.

Edited by SweX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So many are steering away from browser plugins? Lol. The 8 that I listed still use them. As well as F-Secure and 360 Security. These are all the new versions to. I highly suggest you try these products and see for yourself. A browser plugin is not bloat cause it is not a direct feature of the product. Adding a start up manager, disk cleaner, defragger, backerupper, banking mode, sandbox, virtual browser. Those are all examples of unnecessary bloat. Take CIS for example. It contains everything but the kitchen sink. A browser plugin in does not add any more resources to the product. It is a simple add on only used during a browser session. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Labview707

 

Eset is a very reliable and trusted anti-virus product and it's has been like that for years.

 

One reason is it's not loaded with bloatware - it does exactly what it should do-->protect, use few resources, and be stable.

 

Browsers are changing all the time and it would lead to heavy development and remove focus from the product itself.

Keep focus on quality and stability - not bloatware! I have 3 paid licences and I'm really happy with the current development line.

 

Personally i really prefer an ugly GUI, if the code behind is working flawless and provides the functionality it should without breaking anything.

I couldn't care less with fancy bars and spinning wheels etc...However a clean and elegant application as it is now.

Edited by nyttigbras

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Labview707 it is not a good idea to remove parental control. This feature is useful.

Edited by Octavian

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.

×