Unable to disable certain Security Alerts in ESET Smart Security 9

[Daffie 11]

 As you can see, Marcos now removes my posts and entirely ignores me and others otherwise.

 

 

 

To be fair, he did respond to it by saying that they plan to make improvements.

[freibooter 4]

 

To be fair, he did respond to it by saying that they plan to make improvements.

 

 

Yes, he just finally did, after previously basically insisting that this was intended behavior and we were simply using the product wrong by disabling supposedly optional features.

 

But to this point still entirely and consistently ignored the big security issue that I have raised multiple times: If I cannot disabled loud, obnoxious security warnings for features I do not want to use then it prevents me from seeing and noticing actual, important security warning that look identical. That is in itself a home-made security problem in Smart Security 9. I don't see how this can be intended behavior as stated multiple times.

 

And when I posted screenshots of the product I'm using now and how it elegantly solves the same problem and essentially behaves exactly how one would the options in SS9 expect to behave, it was silently removed.

[Marcos 5,074]

Disabling only certain warnings about critical security features being non-functional is like disabling house alarm in some rooms of the house. Even if these rooms were protected by another alarm that works on a different principle, it never hurts to use both as layered protection in case a thief would get through one.

[SweX 871]

@SweX, I have used it for a little over two hours now and haven't used it for years before that. ESET has been my security software provider of choice for a long time. Only Smart Security 9's obnoxious and 100% counter productive changes to the alert system changed my satisfaction with the product. That, and the attitude towards my and several other user's reasonable complaints about it. As you can see, Marcos now removes my posts and entirely ignores me and others otherwise.

 

Avast offers one feature I wasn't even aware of that has been suggested on these forums multiple times but never really implemented. It offers a full sandbox to execute and examine suspicious files in, much like Sandboxie did back in the day, that's awesome and yeah - I did fall in love with that feature in less than two hours time. It's truly stand out and does provide better protection for me.

There is no way I could "love" something like that after such short time.

 

ESET doesn't really need a sanbox when they already have the HIPS that can be used to set up rules, which they also are working on improving even further.

 

Let's put it like this, if ESET add a sandbox then it would be a feature that I and others that are not a fan of sandbox-type programs would like to disable. So I rather see the Sandbox stays out, and I don't need to start disabling stuff in the product like you want to do. I know several ESET users that use Sandboxie alongside ESET, so that can be one option for you.

 

Well, they just released V9 so any changes to this area will probably not happen right away, you need to have loads of patience about this. If you would have participated during the BETA  - you could have said your opinion about this earlier which possibly would have resulted in that the final release might have worked differently, and this would be a non-issue today.

 

I only wish to disable what actively interferes with my network connection. I have other tools (and half a brain) that are protection me on that front.

 

I assume you refer to the Web access protection when you say "interfere with my network" ?

Maybe you could list those other tools for our interest ?

Shame to hear that only your half brain is working, but you seem to be ok anyway (;

Edited October 16, 2015 by SweX

[Marcos 5,074]

There can be many issues with sandbox in general, not only with legitimate applications as our research showed but also with malware bypassing it. ESET uses advanced heuristics to emulate the code in a virtual environment without actually running files. Also we use Exploit Blocker as well as Advanced memory scanner that work as the last layer of defense utilizing HIPS. By disabling HIPS, users would effectively also disable Self-defense as well as the two mentioned protection features which are essential for proactive protection, hence the protection status changes. It's not just that one protection feature could be replaced by an alternative solution, the user would lose much more as all protection features are tightly integrated in ESET's products.

[Daffie 11]

 

 

Well, they just released V9 so any changes to this area will probably not happen right away, you need to have loads of patience about this. If you would have participated during the BETA  - you could have said your opinion about this earlier which possibly would have resulted in that the final release might have worked differently, and this would be a non-issue today.

 

I only wish to disable what actively interferes with my network connection. I have other tools (and half a brain) that are protection me on that front.

 

I assume you refer to the Web access protection when you say "interfere with my network" ?

Maybe you could list those other tools for our interest ?

Shame to hear that only your half brain is working, but you seem to be ok anyway (;

 

 

Saying you had to participate in a BETA program for things that are not working the way you are used to from all previous versions is rubbish.

That is like saying : you need to shut up because you did not participate in the BETA program.

Every person can complain about software he paid for. This has nothing to do with participating in a BETA program.

 

That being said : you can perfectly disable web and email protection in ESET and still be very well protected with HIPS, firewall, Livegrid and real-time protection.

And if you are also using ublock origin, Noscript and OpenDNS (like I do) I honestly rather disable it in ESET (because it is giving me ''lagging'' problems since V9).

Edited October 16, 2015 by Daffie

[SCR 195]

I would not like to see Eset change the way the alerts and warnings appear.

 

I am well above an average user of computers but well below a technician. I have a very good understanding of the dangers of using the Internet and the other ways malware can be introduced to your system. Those that have been writing in this thread saying they know what they are doing and I are the exception to the rule of the masses using computers and other devices.

 

The majority of users of computers and other devices do not want to learn about how they work, they just want them to work. They have no clue, for the most part, what any of the functions of Eset or any other security software actually do. They look at these devices with the same knowledge as they have for their TV or refrigerator. I don't want to know how my truck runs and I have no desire to learn how a diesel motor works, I just want it to work.

 

I have tried to make my family members and friends more aware of what goes on under the hood of these devices and as I tell them I can see their eyes glaze over. They are just not interested. However, if a warning pops up on their computer my phone starts ringing.

 

The masses require the strict warnings while advanced users don't, in most instances. I do not want my family members and friends that use Eset at my recommendation to be messing about in the configuration of ESS nor do I want to password protect that option so I tell them to leave it alone and tell me if they have any problems.

 

I now have ESS v9 on both of my Win 7 x64 systems, one Premium and one Professional without lag or any other issues. While I did a fresh install on both  I am grateful that v9 will install over v8.x or I'd have a lot of work on my hands with family and friends.

 

I suppose one solution for Eset would be to develop a "Technician Release" of ESS for those that want to disable the protection they paid for, but if I were hoping for this I wouldn't hold my breath. To accomplish this I'm sure an expensive rewrite of the code will be required with another round of beta testing and associated development costs. If I were Eset I would have to weigh the cost and return on the investment of the money involved. It's not like the masses are in here complaining about not being able to cripple ESS without warnings.

Edited October 16, 2015 by SCR

[Daffie 11]

I would not like to see Eset change the way the alerts and warnings appear.

 

I am well above an average user of computers but well below a technician. I have a very good understanding of the dangers of using the Internet and the other ways malware can be introduced to your system. Those that have been writing in this thread saying they know what they are doing and I are the exception to the rule of the masses using computers and other devices.

 

The majority of users of computers and other devices do not want to learn about how they work, they just want them to work. They have no clue, for the most part, what any of the functions of Eset or any other security software actually do. They look at these devices with the same knowledge as they have for their TV or refrigerator. I don't want to know how my truck runs and I have no desire to learn how a diesel motor works, I just want it to work.

 

I have tried to make my family members and friends more aware of what goes on under the hood of these devices and as I tell them I can see their eyes glaze over. They are just not interested. However, if a warning pops up on their computer my phone starts ringing.

 

The masses require the strict warnings while advanced users don't, in most instances. I do not want my family members and friends that use Eset at my recommendation to be messing about in the configuration of ESS nor do I want to password protect that option so I tell them to leave it alone and tell me if they have any problems.

 

I now have ESS v9 on both of my Win 7 x64 systems, one Premium and one Professional without lag or any other issues. While I did a fresh install on both  I am grateful that v9 will install over v8.x or I'd have a lot of work on my hands with family and friends.

 

I suppose one solution for Eset would be to develop a "Technician Release" of ESS for those that want to disable the protection they paid for, but if I were hoping for this I wouldn't hold my breath. To accomplish this I'm sure an expensive rewrite of the code will be required with another round of beta testing and associated development costs. If I were Eset I would have to weigh the cost and return on the investment of the money involved. It's not like the masses are in here complaining about not being able to cripple ESS without warnings.

 

You are making a huge mistake in your thinking.

These mass users you are describing that do not have a clue - these users will mostly not respond to a little cross in the tray icon either.

They only respond to flat in your face huge pop-up warnings. Are we really going that way with ESET? My God, I hope not or they will lose me as a customer (and a lot of others I am guessing).

Like someone here said before : give 3 warning windows when deactivating a certain feature (telling the user that they will not be 100% protected) and you did your job as software developer.

 

If you make your product install with default settings to maximum you have covered these kind of users who do not have a clue.

Or do you really think these kind of users will look in the tray at the ESET icon?

Edited October 16, 2015 by Daffie

[SCR 195]

Daffie,

 

You are certainly entitled to critique my way of thinking but I respectfully disagree.

 

If people are not going to look at the system tray then why put the time and date there or anything else for that matter. As long as I have been using Windows MS has had the system tray and I'm sure that they did the due diligence to know if people actually use it. As to your question, Yes, I think they look at the tray icons.

 

The intention of my post was to convey my real world experience with non technical users and express my desire for Eset to keep the warnings as they are now. It was not to debate the pros and cons of your, and others, desires to cripple ESS without notification.

 

I recently purchased a malware product that does things differently then the previous version. They did not describe the changes accurately and yet have no intention of changing the specific operation that I and a few others have an issue with. Their position is to protect everyone including the technically challenged. My choices were to adapt to the way it works or not use it. I elected to adapt.

 

If it is your wish to have Eset change the operation of it's program then by all means pursue it. I on the other hand am happy with the way it works and will continue to express that opinion.

[SweX 871]

 

Well, they just released V9 so any changes to this area will probably not happen right away, you need to have loads of patience about this. If you would have participated during the BETA  - you could have said your opinion about this earlier which possibly would have resulted in that the final release might have worked differently, and this would be a non-issue today.

 

Saying you had to participate in a BETA program for things that are not working the way you are used to from all previous versions is rubbish.

That is like saying : you need to shut up because you did not participate in the BETA program.

Every person can complain about software he paid for. This has nothing to do with participating in a BETA program.

No. That is absolutely not what I meant with what I said, not even near. But since you start to insinuate stuff - there is no point for me to explain what I actually meant with what I said.

 

you can perfectly disable web and email protection in ESET and still be very well protected with HIPS, firewall, Livegrid and real-time protection.

 

Like I said: I think some need to improve their knowledge so they better understand the product and what disabling e.g Webaccess protection does - and how it affects the protection and detection abilities of the product. And how the features collaborate with each other.

[Daffie 11]

 

 

Well, they just released V9 so any changes to this area will probably not happen right away, you need to have loads of patience about this. If you would have participated during the BETA  - you could have said your opinion about this earlier which possibly would have resulted in that the final release might have worked differently, and this would be a non-issue today.

 

Saying you had to participate in a BETA program for things that are not working the way you are used to from all previous versions is rubbish.

That is like saying : you need to shut up because you did not participate in the BETA program.

Every person can complain about software he paid for. This has nothing to do with participating in a BETA program.

No. That is absolutely not what I meant with what I said, not even near. But since you start to insinuate stuff - there is no point for me to explain what I actually meant with what I said.

 

you can perfectly disable web and email protection in ESET and still be very well protected with HIPS, firewall, Livegrid and real-time protection.

 

Like I said: I think some need to improve their knowledge so they better understand the product and what disabling e.g Webaccess protection does - and how it affects the protection and detection abilities of the product. And how the features collaborate with each other.

 

 

I know it was not what you said but it sounded a little like that to me. No offense intended.

 

Please explain how disabling webaccess protection affects the protection and detection abilities of the product. I would like to learn.

To my knowledge it is just a database of websites that gets blocked when accessing it.

[Daffie 11]

Daffie,

 

You are certainly entitled to critique my way of thinking but I respectfully disagree.

 

If people are not going to look at the system tray then why put the time and date there or anything else for that matter. As long as I have been using Windows MS has had the system tray and I'm sure that they did the due diligence to know if people actually use it. As to your question, Yes, I think they look at the tray icons.

 

The intention of my post was to convey my real world experience with non technical users and express my desire for Eset to keep the warnings as they are now. It was not to debate the pros and cons of your, and others, desires to cripple ESS without notification.

 

I recently purchased a malware product that does things differently then the previous version. They did not describe the changes accurately and yet have no intention of changing the specific operation that I and a few others have an issue with. Their position is to protect everyone including the technically challenged. My choices were to adapt to the way it works or not use it. I elected to adapt.

 

If it is your wish to have Eset change the operation of it's program then by all means pursue it. I on the other hand am happy with the way it works and will continue to express that opinion.

 

My post was also my real world experience. Believe me I know a lot of people in my circle of friends and family who are no technical users (noobs if you will). And believe me, most of them do not look at the tray icon.

That is not to say that your real world experience can not be any different.

In short, I respectfully disagree with your way of thinking

Edited October 18, 2015 by Daffie

[freibooter 4]

SweX, I actually know what Web Access/Protocol Filtering does. I'm also fully aware of its performance and compatibility problems (e.g. with network monitoring and traffic shaping tools) that are simply impossible to overcome due to the architecture and nature of this filter. I'm also aware of the headaches this filter has caused me and other users in the past (* * etc.) - you can't deny that web access has a rocky history and isn't bug free today and probably never will be. For me, even if the trade-offs may were minor these days (they aren't), they are still overall larger than the entirely negligible security benefit this filter can possibly provide to my system.

 

It's simply not protecting a realistic entry point into my system. It's also not protecting anything that isn't already protected and filtered via my router, browser and its extensions.

 

I do not use a mail client nor do I have the need for one. My e-mail is scanned server-sided, I do not need or desired additional filtering client-sided.

 

Not only am I not the target audience for phishing scams (it's simply more effective to prey on the gullible, see e.g. Microsoft's research paper on victim self selection) and I have seen zero evidence that ESET's Anti-Phishing site database is in any way superior to the one already provided by Google and widely used in Chrome, Firefox and elsewhere. Do you have any evidence that using both of those database leads to better security and not just more false positives? If so, please provide the data. But even if it were the best database in existence and far superior to all the others (it isn't), I'm simply not in need of this protection so I should be free to disable it without compromising the functionality of the parts of the application I actually desire to use - but that's exactly what is happening here: Due to the nature of the new alert system, it has now become impossible to distinguish desired security alerts from false and undesired ones. That is in itself a security problem.

 

Malware very, very rarely finds the way onto my system and if it does, it's generally via a conscientious download and I'm well aware of the potential threat. Most of the time this malware is obscure and unknown to most AV scanners (including ESET's products) as a VirusTotal scan shows, that's why I was so intrigued by Avast's sandbox. The sandbox isn't without its problems and I'll probably still use my dedicated, isolated and monitored VM in most suspicious cases, but it's a faster and lazier alternative when the calculated risk is minimal.

 

SweX, I know what I am doing and I know what parts of my security suite I desire to use what parts I do not want or need. That's why I chose one that allows me free configuration of its modules and so far ESET has done just that in the past.

 

This has changed with ESET 9. While oddly enough still allows me to configure and disable these modules, it now actively interferes negatively with my security when I choose to do so: It becomes unable to properly alert me of the security issues I want to be alerted of.

 

SweX, not everyone who elects to disable a module is unaware of the mechanisms behind it. On the contrary, I chose to disable it because I am very well aware of how it works and how it attempts to protect me and the trade offs it needs to make in order to do so. Trade offs I am not willing to live with.

 

The attitude that anyone who elects to disable certain parts of their security software does so out of ignorance is not a helpful one and is pretty much what caused this entire problem in the first place. 

 

ESET 9 no longer gave me a choice due to the problems discussed in this thread. My choices were to either enable the module or no longer be properly notified when the software really needed my attention. I chose to purchase a competitor's product instead since neither of those two choices was an acceptable one.

Edited October 18, 2015 by freibooter

[SCR 195]

 

Daffie,

 

You are certainly entitled to critique my way of thinking but I respectfully disagree.

 

If people are not going to look at the system tray then why put the time and date there or anything else for that matter. As long as I have been using Windows MS has had the system tray and I'm sure that they did the due diligence to know if people actually use it. As to your question, Yes, I think they look at the tray icons.

 

The intention of my post was to convey my real world experience with non technical users and express my desire for Eset to keep the warnings as they are now. It was not to debate the pros and cons of your, and others, desires to cripple ESS without notification.

 

I recently purchased a malware product that does things differently then the previous version. They did not describe the changes accurately and yet have no intention of changing the specific operation that I and a few others have an issue with. Their position is to protect everyone including the technically challenged. My choices were to adapt to the way it works or not use it. I elected to adapt.

 

If it is your wish to have Eset change the operation of it's program then by all means pursue it. I on the other hand am happy with the way it works and will continue to express that opinion.

 

My post was also my real world experience. Believe me I know a lot of people in my circle of friends and family who are no technical users (noobs if you will). And believe me, most of them do not look at the tray icon.

That is not to say that your real world experience can not be any different.

In short, I respectfully disagree with your way of thinking

It is apparent that we live in different circles of world experience which would call in to serious question your ability to determine the correctness of my "way of thinking."  It is also apparent that in my circle people look at the tray and in yours they don't.

[Seth 2]

Im also hoping that ESET will let users to disable alerts. As someone mentioned before if a user changes a secuiry setting just give them a warning message and then let the user do whatever they want.

[Xipher 0]

Have to say, massively disappointed in this, the Web Access Protection & Anti-Phishing I find to be terrible in the product and had it, and the warning for it, disabled in 8.0 but after I upgraded to 9 and now I can't make it stop warning me, even after specifically telling it to stop warning me.

 

I don't WANT that part of the program, I don't need it, frankly it interferes with low level network functions I have to use day to day and Its really getting me angry, I just renewed, just installed 9.0, and I'm already looking for ways to claw my way back to 8.0!

 

Seriously, I need to disable this warning, I don't have a use for that functionality, I am an advanced user, it interferes with my ability to work, I need it gone, I don't want it, I never used it before, I didn't have to use it before, and I never had to see a warning about it after telling the program I didn't want to hear about it.

 

Stop this.

[Marcos 5,074]

I don't WANT that part of the program, I don't need it, frankly it interferes with low level network functions I have to use day to day and Its really getting me angry, I just renewed, just installed 9.0, and I'm already looking for ways to claw my way back to 8.0!

 

Seriously, I need to disable this warning, I don't have a use for that functionality, I am an advanced user, it interferes with my ability to work, I need it gone, I don't want it, I never used it before, I didn't have to use it before, and I never had to see a warning about it after telling the program I didn't want to hear about it.

First of all, web access protection is an important protection layer that can protect you from threats that other protection modules may miss. If you have encountered any issues with web / email protection or protocol filtering enabled, we need to know about it so that we can look into it and possibly fix it, make or advise a workaround so that you don't even notice it being enabled and protecting you.

Anyways, as I have written previously the notifications will be improved for advanced users in future versions.

[Daffie 11]

 

I don't WANT that part of the program, I don't need it, frankly it interferes with low level network functions I have to use day to day and Its really getting me angry, I just renewed, just installed 9.0, and I'm already looking for ways to claw my way back to 8.0!

 

Seriously, I need to disable this warning, I don't have a use for that functionality, I am an advanced user, it interferes with my ability to work, I need it gone, I don't want it, I never used it before, I didn't have to use it before, and I never had to see a warning about it after telling the program I didn't want to hear about it.

 

Anyways, as I have written previously the notifications will be improved for advanced users in future versions.

 

 

Thank the Gods for this!

[freibooter 4]

We've confirmed that this behavior is not a bug and the notification can be disabled only for temporary disabled protection modules.

 

 

Disabling any protection features that affect protection capabilities and thus expose users at risk will always be indicated by turning the protection status red.

 

To be fair, he only changed his tune after several pages of backlash and has previously stated multiple times that this was very much intended behavior that would not change under any circumstances.

 

Anyways, as I have written previously the notifications will be improved for advanced users in future version.

There is also still absolutely no mention of the kind of changes that are planned, when we can expect them (with ESET v10 next year or as a quick interim update) and how these changes would work especially considering the initial feedback about this bug report.

I wouldn't hold my breath just yet for a satisfactory solution to this self-created problem.

Edited October 20, 2015 by freibooter

[Xipher 0]

 

I don't WANT that part of the program, I don't need it, frankly it interferes with low level network functions I have to use day to day and Its really getting me angry, I just renewed, just installed 9.0, and I'm already looking for ways to claw my way back to 8.0!

 

Seriously, I need to disable this warning, I don't have a use for that functionality, I am an advanced user, it interferes with my ability to work, I need it gone, I don't want it, I never used it before, I didn't have to use it before, and I never had to see a warning about it after telling the program I didn't want to hear about it.

First of all, web access protection is an important protection layer that can protect you from threats that other protection modules may miss. If you have encountered any issues with web / email protection or protocol filtering enabled, we need to know about it so that we can look into it and possibly fix it, make or advise a workaround so that you don't even notice it being enabled and protecting you.

Anyways, as I have written previously the notifications will be improved for advanced users in future versions.

 

 

If I wanted anything beyond simple antivirus I would have gotten whatever that Smart Security package is, all I want is antivirus, not web filtering and antiphishing, I specifically bought the antivirus product and NOT the other bloated product because I did /not/ want anything but file/exec/memory, nothing network layer, nothing bloated and extra.

 

Web access protection for me is NOT important, more so on systems when they're often connected to private networks without *any* access out to the internet, you cannot be serious...

 

Pretty much if this regression in functionality isn't resolved soon I'm just asking for my money back like the others in this thread and moving on, its not worth the headache.

[TomFace 539]

 

 

I don't WANT that part of the program, I don't need it, frankly it interferes with low level network functions I have to use day to day and Its really getting me angry, I just renewed, just installed 9.0, and I'm already looking for ways to claw my way back to 8.0!

 

Seriously, I need to disable this warning, I don't have a use for that functionality, I am an advanced user, it interferes with my ability to work, I need it gone, I don't want it, I never used it before, I didn't have to use it before, and I never had to see a warning about it after telling the program I didn't want to hear about it.

First of all, web access protection is an important protection layer that can protect you from threats that other protection modules may miss. If you have encountered any issues with web / email protection or protocol filtering enabled, we need to know about it so that we can look into it and possibly fix it, make or advise a workaround so that you don't even notice it being enabled and protecting you.

Anyways, as I have written previously the notifications will be improved for advanced users in future versions.

 

 

If I wanted anything beyond simple antivirus I would have gotten whatever that Smart Security package is, all I want is antivirus, not web filtering and antiphishing, I specifically bought the antivirus product and NOT the other bloated product because I did /not/ want anything but file/exec/memory, nothing network layer, nothing bloated and extra.

 

Web access protection for me is NOT important, more so on systems when they're often connected to private networks without *any* access out to the internet, you cannot be serious...

 

Pretty much if this regression in functionality isn't resolved soon I'm just asking for my money back like the others in this thread and moving on, its not worth the headache.

 

I am a user and not an ESET employee. So far I count about 6 (six) "experienced" users in this topic who aren't happy with v9. I have also seen responses from the ESET staff and other users. Granted, if the product can use some improvement, feedback is warranted. However, (food for thought) 6 users is NOT represenrtative of the vast majority of consumers who purchase this product. I do not care how experienced or advanced you are. The simple fact of the matter is there are tons of folks who live in the "in-between zone". They are not experts and they are not inexperienced. And they/we provide the majority of the income.  

 

If I were in charge of this company, I'd try to please everyone. But since that is not possible, I'd do the best I can do while sticking to my core principles-protect the user, the 95+% of my business.

 

So if you have to take your money and run, go for it.

 

Otherwise deal with you situation and quit your whining.

Edited October 20, 2015 by TomFace

[Marcos 5,074]

As stated before, we will consider improvements in this regard. Of course, it won't be that no notifications will be shown at all when a critical feature gets disabled as there's a chance that malware could do the same that some experienced users want to do so there must be a way how to let common users know that the protection capabilities have been degraded by 50% or more if HIPS, web protection, etc. gets disabled for whatever reason. If some users don't need instant protection and are ok with the fact that protection against current malware will be delivered with the delay of a several hours (ie. with next signature database updates), we'll give them this option.

[TomFace 539]

Thanks Marcos.

[SCR 195]

Removed

 

Marcos response pretty much negated the need for mine. Thanks Marcos.

Edited October 20, 2015 by SCR

[freibooter 4]

@TomFace

I'm not saying that you are wrong, but here are some counter arguments:

The vast majority of unhappy users does not complain, they simply move on. Like me, they vote with their wallet, unlike me, they shut up about it.

Advanced users have a massive influence on the purchase decision of the more inexperienced users. When it comes to software, they are the ones asked for advice by the inexperienced users, they are vocal about their likes and dislike, they make the purchase decisions in their homes and companies etc - that's why off these 5% of advanced users generally means losing a lot more than just 5% of the business. The rest buys the product with the prettiest box, highest Google ranking, lowest price or sleekest website or - maybe - the best review score.

As mentioned earlier, I posted screenshots how the competiton elegantly solves the exact same problem - Marcos removed them. For me, none of his actions so far have shown that he is taking the problem seriously nor that he even understands that and how it affects out security negatively.

He went from outright denying it to suggesting that maybe it will change at some point in the undetermined future. And he is still using FUD to point out how unreasonable our request is.

Oddly enough, not web access but the "Anti Phishing" Filter is the only setting that painted my Smart Security permanently red and made it scream for attention without pause. Everything else was "yellow" and didn't really affect my ability to see actual urgent security warnings. No, disabling the Anti-Phishing filter does not reduce my protection by 50%, in times where every modern browser comes with a built-in blacklists maintained by companies with vastly more resources and access to the necessary information than ESET , disabling the redundant Anti-Phishing filter reduces my security by exactly 0%.