Scheduled Scans

[Octavian 5]

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. 

Other companies has 3 versions (Antivirus security solution, Internet Security solution, Premium/Total security solution). Eset has 2 versions (Antivirus (Nod32) and Internet Security (Smart Security)). If Eset will add some additional features like Safe Search and others, Eset Smart Security will be  crowded. 

New features like toolbar, password manager, start-up manager, etc. would be suitable for a version called ''Titan'' or ''Gold'', hope that Eset will create such version. 

Eset Smart Security can have little more new features but  features that does not complicate program.

[LabVIEW707 13]

Again you are incorrect. Avira Free, Avast Free, 360 Total Security Free, Bitdefender Free all have these browser add ons. It is NOT a premium feature nor is it something added to the product. The browser add on is common to all the product lines. None of you are understanding this. So let's try this from the top.

 

I AM TALKING ABOUT A BROWSER ADD ON SIMILAR TO WOT. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT A PROGRAM WHICH MUST BE INCORPORATED INTO ESET. It is a separate add on. Something ONLY available via the Chrome store or Firefox add ons. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT ADDING BLOAT TO ESET. Gezzzz, Don't any of you ever check out the competition? Bitdefender has 4 different versions. 5 if you include their free version. All of them contain this browser add on. Avast has 3 different versions. All include this browser add on. Avira has 3 different versions. All include this browser add on. A browser add on has nothing to do with the product. If I wanted to I can add Bitdefender's Traffic Light onto my Chrome. WITHOUT having to purchase Bitdefender. I can just visit the Chrome store. I could also add Avast's and Avira's.  

 

This add on has NOTHING to do with complicating the GUI (which according to beta 8 you guys refuse to change). A browser add on IS NOT some feature only seen via the main GUI. Before there are any more replies about my request I highly suggest some of you loo into exactly what I am referring to. 

Edited August 22, 2014 by LabVIEW707

[SweX 871]

Again you are incorrect. Avira Free, Avast Free, 360 Total Security Free, Bitdefender Free all have these browser add ons. It is NOT a premium feature nor is it something added to the product. The browser add on is common to all the product lines. None of you are understanding this. So let's try this from the top.

 

I AM TALKING ABOUT A BROWSER ADD ON SIMILAR TO WOT. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT A PROGRAM WHICH MUST BE INCORPORATED INTO ESET. It is a separate add on. Something ONLY available via the Chrome store or Firefox add ons. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT ADDING BLOAT TO ESET. Gezzzz, Don't any of you ever check out the competition? Bitdefender has 4 different versions. 5 if you include their free version. All of them contain this browser add on. Avast has 3 different versions. All include this browser add on. Avira has 3 different versions. All include this browser add on. A browser add on has nothing to do with the product. If I wanted to I can add Bitdefender's Traffic Light onto my Chrome. WITHOUT having to purchase Bitdefender. I can just visit the Chrome store. I could also add Avast's and Avira's.  

 

This add on has NOTHING to do with complicating the GUI (which according to beta 8 you guys refuse to change). A browser add on IS NOT some feature only seen via the main GUI. Before there are any more replies about my request I highly suggest some of you loo into exactly what I am referring to. 

 

Yes I understand you very well, I suggest you check whether the add-on in these products is essential for some of their features like their web protection to work or not.

 

I remember a while ago when a user of qihoo wrote that the web protection didn't work in his browser and someone asked what browser he used, answer was...oh sorry the add-on doesn't work in that browser. In what way is that not a feature that does NOT work based on what browser you use? 

 

I am fully aware how these products work, and that's also why I am not interested in them. 

 

Instead I suggest that you look into how ESET interact with the browser Without any type of plugin, add-ons etc...and works with ALL browsers, always.

 

I've 'upgraded' to FF 30, but now my Kaspersky add-ons don't work, they're marked as incompatible (dangerous websites blocker, Kaspersky url advisor, Safe Money, virtual keyboard) all shaded out.  Is this a Firefox issue i.e. the next version will fix it? Or, is it a Kaspersky issue and an update will fix it? I'm tempted to ditch FF because of this.

 

This man does even consider to change browser because 4 features stopped working, I can't blame him as he probably payed for the product. But I would change product instead. I would not tolerate that some parts of my product stops working only because I updated my browser. Or incase I started using a new browser.

Edited August 23, 2014 by SweX

[Arakasi 549]

In addition, i would exclaim that if ESET started down the path in question, they would essentially remove attention from the program and have to start managing the browser plug-in.

Hiring new employees is not the way to handle this, because the current staff already is exceptional, how do we know these new developers are going to be as good as the current ones ? How much time and money and energy would be spent to get them on the same level ? Its not like hiring 1 individual, have him shadow, and learn the policies, you would need to hire a team of people.

 

I agree with the other responses that ESET already has a form of web protection, and if you can give a clear reason why ESET should follow everyone else, with browser plug-ins, i will listen.

Stating that 8 other vendors do it, so ESET should fall in line, is exactly why ESET is NOT grouped with those other vendors. ESET makes smarter decisions and that is why ESET has had 500% growth and has been moving ahead of the competition. This is why ESET is the world's No 1 in consecutive VB100 awards and holds the most, this is why ESET has more Advanced+ awards in performance and retrospective tests than any other vendor, which no one has been able to match to date. I don't care if every once in a while one of the other vendors, like Bitdefender or whoever else has landed on a better score than ESET. They will never keep it up, because they make flip flop decisions and copy other vendors.

ESET has picked a design, a way of doing things, and they have stuck with it, not letting any outside source effect their goals and plans to stray or switch.

 

Have a super day !!

[kakashi 6]

eset corp 

 

 

 

 

you can try to put vulneravily scan this feature can help to discover any back door windows have. or anyting else that is not update 

 

including 

 

regirstry

update

bugs

dll

remote vulnerabilities 

ports 

or any error this mode will fix it 

 

 

to be more secure this can really help  for alot of reasons 

 

 

thank you 

[Aryeh Goretsky 378]

Hello,

False alarms on a web site are a big deal. They affect:

• Whomever owns the web site.
• Whomever visits the web site.
• The credibility of the company which generated the the false positive alarm to begin with.

It has been my experience that people who visit web sites do not always know when a report of a problem is a false alarm or not. They might assume it is, and it turns out to be a legitimate report and they get infected. Or, they may contact the site operator or their anti-malware solutions provider, creating a support burden.

Just because eight, eighty or eight hundred anti-malware companies do something does not mean that ESET should follow them down the "me, too" path. ESET chooses to implement technologies when they provide a tangible benefit to the computing public.

Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky

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.

[SweX 871]

The above post by Aryeh is very good and 100% true. Spot on! 

[Hamer 0]

- Tracking cookies detection. I have never seen eset detecting malicious cookies.

 

- Anti banner protection module. Just to avoid annoying adds while browsing.

 

- Improvement to HIPS module and detection of zero days malware.

[LabVIEW707 13]

You Eset mods remind of Comodo mods. Brain washed into think Eset is the best thing since Mom's apple pie. And closed minded to new ideas. Again I will stress that if 10 other antivirus companies can make a browser add on successfully so can Eset. 

 

@ Hamer. Tracking cookies are harmless. Use CCleaner. 

[SCR 195]

- Tracking cookies detection. I have never seen eset detecting malicious cookies.

 

- Anti banner protection module. Just to avoid annoying adds while browsing.

 

- Improvement to HIPS module and detection of zero days malware.

Tracking Cookies - Use Do Not Track Me or one of the other dozen or so product plugins available for most browsers

 

Anti Banner Protection - Use Ad Block Plus or one of the other half dozen plugin products specifically for this purpose.

 

Hips - I haven't had a zero day malware infect my computer so something is working right.

 

Let Eset protect my computer as it has for the last 5 or 6 years and let the plugin writers block the cookies and ads. They already exist and cost nothing.

 

If Eset duplicates these services it will increase the cost as has been said. Then the complaint will be why does Eset cost so much more. Added services equals added cost, it isn't hard to figure that out.

 

On another belabored point.

I'm still seeing complaints about no changes to the GUI. Let me ask this, I have a 2006 white truck. If I have it painted yellow will it run any better? Of course it won't, but I'll still pay for the labor and material to paint it. The wise thing to do is follow Eset's lead and invest in the maintenance under the hood, which will make it run better and insure that I am protected from failures..

 

Besides I don't like yellow trucks.

[planet 232]

You Eset mods remind of Comodo mods. Brain washed into think Eset is the best thing since Mom's apple pie. And closed minded to new ideas. Again I will stress that if 10 other antivirus companies can make a browser add on successfully so can Eset.

 

Who knows, maybe in the future ESET may provide a Chrome/Firefox/IE browser add on/extension similar to WOT for Smart Security when they feel like it is necessary.

For now at least, the idea has now been mentioned and quite well discussed. 

[Arakasi 549]

 

You Eset mods remind of Comodo mods. Brain washed into think Eset is the best thing since Mom's apple pie. And closed minded to new ideas. Again I will stress that if 10 other antivirus companies can make a browser add on successfully so can Eset.

 

Who knows, maybe in the future ESET may provide a Chrome/Firefox/IE browser add on/extension similar to WOT for Smart Security when they feel like it is necessary.

For now at least, the idea has now been mentioned and quite well discussed. 

 

 

Exactly, end of story. Anyone is quite welcome to go use those other products, especially if they are so hard up for the features they provide.

[SweX 871]

You Eset mods remind of Comodo mods. Brain washed into think Eset is the best thing since Mom's apple pie. And closed minded to new ideas. Again I will stress that if 10 other antivirus companies can make a browser add on successfully so can Eset. 

I am a member on the Comodo forum and the ESET Mods are not behaving the way like some of their mods, especially not like some of the "helper mods" on their forum. Calling the ESET Mods brain washed is a bit too strong for my liking. I understand you have a hard time taking NO for an answer, but that doesn't mean they are brain washed. They have worked for ESET a long long time and they know what the ESET users expect from the products. And what features and functions that fit in nicely in the products.

 

I think Aryeh has been most helpful towards you, and have explained very well in detail why these services/features can end up being more work for the vendor (FP ratings) than they are worth. Thanks.

[Arakasi 549]

Fairness has been used in the utmost completeness on this topic.

We have expressed several reasons, not for us, but for the ESET user base why this is not the direction we would like the company to go in.

Staff has also expressed their hesitation to move in the discussed direction.

The toolbars and extensions for web trusting is already out there in the thousands for people to use.

The basic principles and reasons why ESET should go in this direction have ALSO NOT BEEN GIVEN. The answer " Because 8 others use it " is minimal at best in selling the reason to start.

As Aryeh stated, they look for reasons to why they should take such actions, and only move on them when it really is a feature or direction they would like to see added or given to users.

Saying that ESET doesn't add new features is also not true. ESET has added a plethora of features based on customer requests. I am sure Aryeh could make a list for us that was customer request and not internal decision if he remembers them all of the top of his head.

 

I don't know about Comodo forums, but i had a sales engineer contact me directly at my office begging for us to be resellers of Comodo Endpoint, after telling him i already sell ESET to my customers, he said ESET sucks.

That kind of professionalism will make me stay away for good. I will continue selling ESET to all my clients, HOME and BUSINESS !

 

I like Swex post above, it made me contrast as well.

[Octavian 5]

Hello,

False alarms on a web site are a big deal. They affect:

• Whomever owns the web site.
• Whomever visits the web site.
• The credibility of the company which generated the the false positive alarm to begin with.

It has been my experience that people who visit web sites do not always know when a report of a problem is a false alarm or not. They might assume it is, and it turns out to be a legitimate report and they get infected. Or, they may contact the site operator or their anti-malware solutions provider, creating a support burden.

Just because eight, eighty or eight hundred anti-malware companies do something does not mean that ESET should follow them down the "me, too" path. ESET chooses to implement technologies when they provide a tangible benefit to the computing public.

Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky

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.

 

 False Positive are very important to be low. Eset work smart and almost has no false positive. Congratulations! Good Work!

[rugk 397]

What a discussion about an single idea of a browser add-on. But now it seems that this discussion is finished. But here is a tip how to check and improve your idea or suggestions.

 

If you suggest a new idea you should check your idea before. And for this you should e.g. ask yourself this questions:

1. How is it actually?
   Is it already implemented in some way? Would something be redundant?
2. If already existing: What are the (dis)advantages of my idea?
   What's the difference of the actual state compared to the state in my idea? Are there also disadvantages? If so: Are the advantages "more" or "higher" than the disadvantages?
3. How easy or difficult would it be to implement this idea? Is it really worth to do it?
   Would additional staff be required? Does implementing this idea this idea pays off? How easy is the maintenance of the idea? (one time implemented - finished?) How "much" is it concerned to antivirus/security?

I think this are three basically questions you should ask yourself before suggest an idea. If you go trough all with no problem then it's ok.

If you have problems then it don't automatically means that your idea is bad. Rethink your idea. Maybe it just needs some "improvements" or you should post your idea with a "..., but" to set limits to your idea. (e.g. "only if many users would like it", "only as a standalone program", "deactivated by default", ...)

 

I hope this is useful. And if you have some other ideas (e.g. for more questions) feel free to post it.

Edited August 24, 2014 by rugk

[Arakasi 549]

Well said rugk.

[LabVIEW707 13]

I love that everyone thinks that adding in a simple browser feature is rocket science. EVERYONE ELSE HAS ONE. Obviously it's not that complicated. This has nothing to do with adding bloat to either one of Eset's products. It is a simple browser add on. Avast has been using it for years. Norton also. As I have previously said before any of you reply I suggest you try out these other products. I have. I actually have installed and ran just about everything out there. I am talking about a site advisor. That is it. Not a virtual keyboard. Not a banking mode. Not a password program. I am talking about something like WOT. That is it. But WOT is a joke based on users who do not like certain websites. If a website has been found to have malicious malware on it then it should be rated poorly. But most of WOT's opinions are not malware based. Toolbar installs are not malicious. All of you keep replying that Eset does not need such a feature. But again I am not talking about something added into Eset. I am talking about a simple browser add on available for those who want to use it in the Chrome or Firefox extension store. ABSOLUTELY FREE. Bitdefender offers traffic light FREE for everyone. 

Edited August 24, 2014 by LabVIEW707

[Arakasi 549]

I love that everyone thinks that adding in a simple browser feature is rocket science. EVERYONE ELSE HAS ONE. Obviously it's not that complicated. This has nothing to do with adding bloat to either one of Eset's products. It is a simple browser add on. Avast has been using it for years. Norton also. As I have previously said before any of you reply I suggest you try out these other products. I have. I actually have installed and ran just about everything out there. I am talking about a site advisor. That is it. Not a virtual keyboard. Not a banking mode. Not a password program. I am talking about something like WOT. That is it. But WOT is a joke based on users who do not like certain websites. If a website has been found to have malicious malware on it then it should be rated poorly. But most of WOT's opinions are not malware based. Toolbar installs are not malicious. All of you keep replying that Eset does not need such a feature. But again I am not talking about something added into Eset. I am talking about a simple browser add on available for those who want to use it in the Chrome or Firefox extension store. ABSOLUTELY FREE. Bitdefender offers traffic light FREE for everyone. 

 

I will contact a few people from project management about the request, as well as a supervisor i have in my address book.

We will look into it. Thanks for sharing.

[rugk 397]

Well said rugk.

Thanks.

 

@LabVIEW707

I love that everyone thinks that adding in a simple browser feature is rocket science. (...) Obviously it's not that complicated.

My post above was not especially related to this specific feedback, but have a look at this question at the third point:

 

How easy is the maintenance of the idea? (one time implemented - finished?)

 

Developing the add-on is one thing, but then there are more things:

• Running the servers for this
• Updating the add-on for new browser versions if needed
• Handle request for re-rating
• ...

And please also have a look at question 2. IMO this is what I don't understand.

 

And if you really want to continue the discussion then it also would be helpful to provide more detailed information about your idea. Should there be a  user-based rating or a malicious rating? Or what else should be used to display the status?

[LabVIEW707 13]

Thank you Arakasi for a respectable reply.         I do not need a list of excuses rugk. If you look back I have already mentioned that 10 other top av companies have this feature. I have certain customers who would like this also. I do not like telling people to use WOT. Please members. Please stop arguing my request until you look into these other programs. Try them out and you will see what I mean. I repair computers. I make house calls for malware removal. When you do something like this then you need to familiarize yourself with every product out there. So you know what to recommend to your customers and what not to. Bitdefender and Kaspersky have a great detection rate. But they will slow any pc to a crawl and add on so many un-needed features. If someone wants something free I tell them to use Avast or Panda. If they want to spend some money I tell them Webroot or Eset. Most ISP's offer free security also. Comcast offers customers Norton Security suite. Which is a rebrannded version of Norton 360. But it comes with so many features most customers do not need or even know how to use. 

Edited August 24, 2014 by LabVIEW707

[rugk 397]

Thank you Arakasi for a respectable reply.         I do not need a list of excuses rugk. If you look back I have already mentioned that 10 other top av companies have this feature. I have certain customers who would like this also. I do not like telling people to use WOT. 

Ehm... I'm quite sure that this was a joke of Arakasi.

 

And excuses... Where?

I didn't excused oneself and I also don't gave you any excuse, so I don't know what you mean...

 

 

If you look back I have already mentioned that 10 other top av companies have this feature.

And if I look back I feel that it was 1000 times said that ESET don't make something just because an other vendor has it.

 

Edit for your edit: I'm not interested to know what you do or what you recommend. And no I not familiarize with an useless add-on until it has a use that is better than the actually Web protection without add-on. That's why I said you should precise your suggestion, read my question 2 and say what the advantages are, but if you don't want then it's your decision.

Edited August 24, 2014 by rugk

[SweX 871]

We will look into it. Thanks for sharing.

That's what he wanted to hear, problem solved. 

Good god can we end this discussion now. If not, then please just read the last 3 pages over and over...its all there nothing more to add. 

Edited August 24, 2014 by SweX

[rugk 397]

For my part we can end this discussion...

But do you mean Arakasi meant this serious?

[JNCx8 2]

ESET need to add any more protection

Keyboard - Encrypt functionality we write to to prevent hackers from viewing what we walked to write a good encryptação become more secure our passwords, hence the eset make a tool that encrypts what we typed on the keyboard is all encrypted.

RootKit - ESET need to improve the detection of malware with rootkit .. Very malware uses rootkit to hide in the system, although detected in memory would be great .. something that becomes better detection of rootkits in the system, some inject the System Services and ESET ta not prepared to deal with it .. Even though they say yes, no not this one. I did own tests.

Safe System(It was good to add)- ESET should add a tool called "Safe System" with this tool ESET analyze WHOLE PC demand Vulnerability Programs and Windows Updates .. And still should do more, such as check this.. ESET could check and correct if hackers were intended to disable any of these listed utilities.

MSConfig(It was good to add) -Many hackers, via remote access, attempt to disable options that are not discovered so disable some Windows functions such as priority would be MSCONFIG, since this tool it is possible to know which programs start with Windows .. and those who do not .

Regedit - Many hackers also disable regedit and msconfig because it is where the most advanced users are going to remove it once it installs itself in the Windows Registry the priority of Hackers is to disable anyone know who is infected ..

Task Manager(It was good to add) - It may seem stupid, but many do it .. To give more work to newcomers and people who understand nothing of computer, disable the task manager to check the processes anyone.

CMD - It is widely used by hackers, but some also inactivate ..

File Extensions (BEST OPTION! It was good to add)- I would say that this option is the best option for ESET add, when hackers want to try to avenge all the cost, corrupt the Windows extensions .. How so? Extensions like jpg, png, exe, jpeg, are corrumpidas by hackers ouvio Yes .. well .. Some of them even do it to provoke a corrumpção the system .. Soon these extensions stopped working correctly .. This is where ESET have to get that analyze program modifies or attempts corrumper extensions and send for analysis.

RAT detection - RAT means Remote Acess Tool, ESET need to improve the detection of the same, I'm not talking about the virus but FIREWALL .. Antivirus can even block the virus, but the firewall almost even detects an intruder in the system .. not even the warning .. It is ai that ESET has to improve .. If your antivirus does not detect .. the Connection Firewall analyzes and blocks the IP and the port in question .. This is what needs to improve the eset .. Firewall blocking trojans, keyloggers connections.

SafeBox - Basically it would be a chest, ESET analyzing the program to run and if he had not digital signature details like Name, Copyright .. If a program did not have that, ESET put this same executable, a safebox (sandbox) that everything we do in this program is analyzed by the program modifies ESET ESET continues to analyze something is like a LOG .. And if you notice strange behavior is sent to the cloud for analysis.

Malware Delayed - Many malware to evade proactive protection, using DELAY, yes .. Once the antivirus analyzes for example have one file to parse in 1 Minute .. found nothing, this virus has a delay of 2 minutes for booting the connection .. that is where many try to fool the antivirus, ESET should also be aware of it and get something to protect it.