NOD32 V3.0563 Web Access Protection

[Fatalpuls3]

-NOD32 V3.0563 Web Access Protection-

Having issues when enabling Web Access Protection within the new V3 of NOD32.

If you insert the extension *.com*; *.net* ETC.. This is a total internet lock down environment. While doing this i have decided to EXCLUDE specific websites IE *.weather.com*; *.accuweather.com*; ETC. These sites can be visited but the entire formatting of the site is completely distorted. I am unable to view the websites as they are originally displayed without web access protection. Does anyone have any suggestions and(or) having a similar issue please post, thank you.

[TheBozz09]

The problem appears to be within the browser itself, or you may have some programs running in background that causes conflicts.

I haven't experienced such. I'm using Mozilla Firefox v2/Opera v9/IE7 and ESET NOD32™ v3.0.563.0. Try checking your browser and application settings.

[Fatalpuls3]

Problem still exists with the last release of NOD32. The access protection still distorts the web. once turned off the browser operates just right.

[nodHead]

-{ Quote: "Problem still exists with the last release of NOD32. The access protection still distorts the web. once turned off the browser operates just right." }-

I'm still seeing this problem too.

I hope that ESET is hearing it's customers.

[Allen L.]

I had that also with the versions preseding v. 3.0.566 - but it is OK with this version. I also set it to not scan the following file extensions: jpeg, jpg, or gif and thing seem to fine now.

[Vettetech]

I am having no problems at all. Ever since 3.0 came out. Version 3.0.566.0 is the latest and has all bug fixes.

[NodboN]

I found that the 'Web access protection' slowed down my internet speed and chose to disable it. My internet connection was tested on a couple of sites for speed-tests, with 'Web access protection' enabled and disabled during different hours of the day. Unfortunately, there is a consistent drop in speeds - good news for users who have left it enabled is that it seems to be scanning (as it's supposed to.)

[Joliet Jake]

-{ Quote: "I found that the 'Web access protection' slowed down my internet speed and chose to disable it. My internet connection was tested on a couple of sites for speed-tests, with 'Web access protection' enabled and disabled during different hours of the day. Unfortunately, there is a consistent drop in speeds - good news for users who have left it enabled is that it seems to be scanning (as it's supposed to.)" }-

Add JPEG, JPG and GIF to your exclusions and then retry your speeds with web access protection enabled/disabled.

Made a massive difference to my speeds.

Thanks to someone else for this tip.

[NodboN]

-{ Quote: "Add JPEG, JPG and GIF to your exclusions and then retry your speeds with web access protection enabled/disabled.

Made a massive difference to my speeds.

Thanks to someone else for this tip." }-

Got to agree with you on this - come to think of it, definitely makes sense. I'm keeping mine disabled due to some other constraints, too - have many other programs on my system each vying with the other for web filtering (Spy Sweeper & ZoneAlarm to name a couple.)

Thanks for that interesting tip, though - have made a note and stored it just in case 'Web access protection' need to be enabled anytime in future.:thumb:

[Fatalpuls3]

In the same boat with the web protection excpet i am noticing that it does not stop website for example i put in the blocked sites of all the conm; net; edu; gov; and all the other web types into the block address list. I have tested them with *.com and as *com*

then i put in exclusions in the list in the following forms:
*weather*
*weather.com

this did not work well at all. I am noticing that this feature is not functioning as i hoped

I wanted it to block all website access except specific websites.

Any help would greatly appreciated as our customers would like the latest NOD with this feature properly working.

[Marcos]

No problem blocking websites here:

[ASpace]

-{ Quote: "
then i put in exclusions in the list in the following forms:
*weather*
*weather.com" }-

Try what Marcos picture shows or try to add it *.weather.* . This way it works normally here

[Bubba]

-{ Quote: "If you insert the extension *.com*; *.net* ETC.. This is a total internet lock down environment. While doing this i have decided to EXCLUDE specific websites IE *.weather.com*; *.accuweather.com*; ETC. These sites can be visited but the entire formatting of the site is completely distorted" }-If I add *.com as a blocked address entry and then add *.weather.com or *.accuweather.com as an excluded address entry, both weather sites can be visited without being distorted.

Have you tried without the trailing asterix * at the end of com or net ?


Bubba

[Saint Satin Stain]

Try Bubba's last suggestion. I have never seen a trailing asterisk after .com, .net, .org et cetera and don't believe it's in the convention. This might be possible *.doubleclick.*, where, say, a cookie blocker would block ads.doubleclick.com, .net, .org etc. Once you've blocked .com (etc) anything trailing that is also blocked.

I have ESS with no probl+ems.

[Allen L.]

-{ Quote: "I had that also with the versions preseding v. 3.0.566 - but it is OK with this version. I also set it to not scan the following file extensions: jpeg, jpg, or gif and thing seem to fine now." }-
Also toss in .bit - that's all you need to do. Leave everything else at default. On v.2.7.xx you can make these extension exclusions on the IMON setup "Misc" tab then "Settings" - then > "Exclusions".

It definitely works and the exposure is very negligible. :thumb:

[Saint Satin Stain]

You should let it scan jpeg and jpg; they can be infected. I don't believe that gif and png can be - yet.

First Reported JPEG Virus Found (http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/1365871)

[Allen L.]

-{ Quote: "You should let it scan jpeg and jpg; they can be infected. I don't believe that gif and png can be - yet.

First Reported JPEG Virus Found (http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/1365871)" }-

This is how rumors start! If you continue with the article (which by the way was almost 5 years old) you will see that:

June 13, 2002
By Gretchen Hyman:

-{ Quote: "...<<snipped first statement as irrelevant, only describing *a* possible>>"...Typically, the virus arrives via email or a floppy disk as an executable file, and so the standard warning against opening programs sent as attachment should once again be enforced. The contaminated file unleashes an extractor virus onto the hard drive and when a picture file is accessed with the .JPG extension, the second part of the virus strikes without notice to the sender or receiver of the digital image file.

The good news is that security experts think Perrun can easily be thwarted in its current incarnation and at present it cannot travel via mass emailings. Although with an upgrade it could easily become more destructive and pose a serious threat to PC users.

Computers running on Microsoft Windows are particularly vulnerable to Perrun, say experts.

Vincent Gullotto, antivirus researcher for McAfee Security was quoted as saying that Perrun is indicative of a very destructive pattern in the development of viruses and that it could be a sign of things to come for the exchange of JPEG files. " }-
The highlighted in green part about *how* the virus is transported was 'conveniently' left out and it is the *most* important! NOD would stop this...but wonder why we haven't heard of this infecting thousands of units, as it is almost 5 years old and wouldn't it be refined - *if it really was a threat*??.

Please don't post 'partital' rubbage just to 'stir' up a false idea. Read more than the header of articles and this would not occur.

Allen :dry:

[Proactive Services]

weather.com may be affected by that set-up because it calls most of it's images and CSS (files which define the layout) from imwx.com. You'll need to allow access to this domain name as well before weather.com looks "normal" again.

[CyberMew]

Mine is a different problem. Sometimes eset.exe hogs up the cpu and for some reason System as well. CPU usage can be 40-60%, 70-99% or even 100% all the way.When I end task it, somewhere the 'net' will die, i.e msn/specific torrent. Sometimes downloading multiple files via flashget, my connection will totally die off either within seconds of downloading or sometime later. This has been disturbing me for 2-3weeks. I have disabled the startup service today.

Forgot to mention that it will delay part of net access during startup. i.e going to specific site there is no problems (VERY slow), otherwise it will appear to be loading. I thought there is some configuration error but I couldn't even access my router page! But it's weird my torrents/download manager can keep on downloading.

[CyberMew]

Now I have one problem. It keeps trying to load NOD32 during startup, and after a while it will say error communicating to kernel. How can I disable it totally temporarily?