Comments, questions, suggestions

[Marcos]

If you have any comments, questions or suggestions concerning the new EAV 4 beta, please post them to this thread. If you want to report an issue, create a separate thread where we can discuss it further and email issue details to betasupport[at]eset.sk as well.

[Mister Natural]

I'm having the same problem mentioned in the ESS beta4 forum. Unable to update. During install I removed the default info and entered the username/password assigned to my account. Perhaps I should have left the default entry?

I like the block removable media option. I think admins will like this option.

[Marcos]

Yes, leave the default username/password. The beta updates from a different location than the release version so it doesn't recognize your credentials.

[Mister Natural]

Yes that worked, thanks.

[Thankful]

First of all, very nice. I created a SysInspector file easily.

Under real time file protection, what's the difference between advanced heuristics under setup and advanced heuristics on file execution under advanced setup?

Thanks.

[Marcos]

The former is for file access.

[Thankful]

Thank you. I'm running a scan and noticed the animated icon. Cute.

[gisuck]

I'm very impressed with the new interface and the new security enhancements with the beta.

Just wondering if there is some type of debug mode enabled in this build that may explain minor slowdowns in performance? My Outlook 2007 took a significant amount of time to load that normal.

Overall, I cannot wait for general release.

[Hopie]

works this version with outpost firewall?

V2 + outpost works fine, V3 + outpost.. no comment :( (proxy)

[Thankful]

I noticed the log file is very short for the on-demand (in-depth scan). I have the verbosity set to 'Informative records'. The log is shorter than version 3.
No files are listed as '[4] files', objects that cannot be opened. Don't know if this is
correct.

[Marcos]

{QUOTE-> I noticed the log file is very short for the on-demand (in-depth scan). I have the verbosity set to 'Informative records'. The log is shorter than version 3.
No files are listed as '[4] files', objects that cannot be opened. Don't know if this is
correct. <-QUOTE}

I assume that you don't have errors enabled in the log filter.

[Thankful]

{QUOTE-> I assume that you don't have errors enabled in the log filter. <-QUOTE}
Saving the filter under Tools->Log files doesn't seem to work.

[pondlife152]

Everything seems stable. Running along side Comoodo Internet Security (Firewall & Defense+) V3.5.55810.432 and they seem to be getting along okay.

NOD32 V4 could even be a little quicker than V3. Not sure, it may be my imagination! :doubt:

[cocolucho]

It works very well without problems, thanks

[Dave16]

Hi. I'm not sure if there is a new GUI or not, but if there is, would someone be willing to post/ or PM me some screen shots please? Really interested in it, though I have no virtual environment software to beta test in, so I cant see it for myself. Thanks all, -Dave.

[Thankful]

{QUOTE-> Hi. I'm not sure if there is a new GUI or not, but if there is, would someone be willing to post/ or PM me some screen shots please? Really interested in it, though I have no virtual environment software to beta test in, so I cant see it for myself. Thanks all, -Dave. <-QUOTE}
Some screen shots of the suite are available in this thread:
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=225594

[geircito]

Running nicely here on Windows 7 Pre-beta build 6801.
No issues, just running...:-)

[pondlife152]

I'd like to see the ability to stop or pause a scheduled scan, just like I can do with a manual scan.

[gisuck]

I'm loving it...

I just have 1 feature request, if it could be included. Right now, I have a scheduled task to scan my computer weekly.

When the scheduled task runs, you can see it running in the "Computer Scan" section, but there is no pause, stop, or call out feature so you can at least monitor its progression. Just displays a percentage completed. Anyway we can enhance this section a little?

[Thankful]

Any plans on using sound signal?

[Marcos]

{QUOTE-> Any plans on using sound signal? <-QUOTE}

Doesn't it work for you if a threat is detected by the on-demand scanner?

[Thankful]

{QUOTE-> Doesn't it work for you if a threat is detected by the on-demand scanner? <-QUOTE} I haven't come across any. I was referring to the web access protection.

[Thankful]

I can also confirm sound doesn't work for on-demand scanner after copying Eicar virus to desktop.

[Marcos]

{QUOTE-> I can also confirm sound doesn't work for on-demand scanner after copying Eicar virus to desktop. <-QUOTE}

It's supposed to work with on-demand scans only and it worked here like a charm. Didn't you disable certain system sounds by chance?

[Thankful]

{QUOTE-> It's supposed to work with on-demand scans only and it worked here like a charm. Didn't you disable certain system sounds by chance? <-QUOTE}It's possible. Do you know which system sound it uses?
Thanks.

[djohn]

Well there is no sound for a eicar test.I would like to hear a sound for web access detection as well for OD scans.Since it it always has been broken with prior versions,I would hate to see V4 contunue this broken.

[Thankful]

I changed sounds to 'Windows Default' (Windows XP) and the sound IS working for the on-demand scan. The program event is 'Exclamation'.
I still can't get the scanning filter to save correctly.

[ASpace]

Can we have an option during install to enable "Strict cleaning" for all modules at once ?

Can we have an option during install to enable detection of Potentially Unsafe application for all modules (just like we can enable detection for Potentially Dangerous applications during install) ?

< At least available in the Custom install options >

[unknown8]

First I would like to say that this "ESET NOD32 Antivirus v4 Beta" works fine!

But it gives things that should improve:

I read the Test at (AV-Test.org) and I wish better results for:


Malware (On-Demand) and

Ad-/Spyware (On-Demand)



In addition, I want in the new version:

- Sandbox technology

- the possibility to delet runing virus/malware at the main memory (RAM)

- the possibility to delet used files (Access denied/file is in use by another program or user) like ----> Unlocker (by Cedrick Collomb)

- please add a remove bottom for E-Mail Programs and Webbrowser which are no more installed

- add support for more archives like *.tar

- technology against Bots

- don´t scan ever and ever the same clean files

[zfactor]

i also noticed on vista 32 i do not hear sound when finding virus' i thought i had it muted but just realized it was not and when it pops up i am not hearing the sound, other than the previous issues i mentioned i do not see to many things else wrong. one major concern for me is the high cpu usage

[Thankful]

{QUOTE-> i also noticed on vista 32 i do not hear sound when finding virus' i thought i had it muted but just realized it was not and when it pops up i am not hearing the sound, other than the previous issues i mentioned i do not see to many things else wrong. one major concern for me is the high cpu usage <-QUOTE}
The sound alert works only with on-demand scanning.

[XN04113]

1. I'm missing a test version that runs with server operating systems
we only operate over 700 windows server systems.

2. there ist still NO function to put the quarantain path to another location as in version 2.7, this is a MUST feature for us. Because of this we are running 2.7 instead 3.0 on all systems.

3. the new policy function in era looks as a good idea, but whats about a solution to make this with group policies (active directoy). As I know, nod32 wrotes all configruation data to the registry, so it shouldn't be a problem to create a ADM file and add a little support for this to era and nod32.

4. at last, there isn't a function to control the quarantain function if the hard disc ist full. nod32 deletes all files without quarantain them if the disc is full (if it can't clean and deletion is activated). this would be funny if it is a mass false alarm (we had this some year ago with a competitor product). I wish a user configurable default how nod32 will handle this situation (delete files or stop action).

regards
mike

[catprincess]

Does v4 work the same as v3, in that ekrn limits the amount of control you can have when using a separate firewall?

[cruelsister]

Can we expect improved malware detection in version 4, and if so by what mechanism?

[doktornotor]

{QUOTE->
2. there ist still NO function to put the quarantain path to another location as in version 2.7, this is a MUST feature for us. Because of this we are running 2.7 instead 3.0 on all systems.
<-QUOTE}

Well, huh... ever heard about NTFS symlinks/junctions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTFS_junction_point)?

[UHub]

Suggestion:
Could we have an extension of the "Statistics", with the amount of downloads and uploads we've used, and a total for each day, week and month? :)

[funkydude]

{QUOTE-> Suggestion:
Could we have an extension of the "Statistics", with the amount of downloads and uploads we've used, and a total for each day, week and month? :) <-QUOTE}

Other programs do that better, it in no way would help ESS.

[fblais]

Last night's scheduled in-depth scan doesnt appear in the log, although in the scheduler it's correctly shown in the Last run column.

I disabled the integration into Thunderbird, as it seemed to behave strangely.
A new message in the Spam folder appeared twice.
After TB's restart, that spam was shown once that time.

Other than that it works fine.

[wiak]

maximize SysRescue and remove the line on top
204253
so its more like windows installer,
meybe a option to add more software like a browser while you scan for viruses ;)

[unknown8]

Can the new scanner (V4.0) only scan the protocols (header) of HTTPS and POP3S or can he also detect virus in it?


It would be beautiful if he also support the FTPS (FTP over SSL) and SFTP (SSH File Transfer Protocol).

[doktornotor]

{QUOTE-> Can the new scanner (V4.0) only scan the protocols (header) of HTTPS and POP3S or can he also detect virus in it?
<-QUOTE}

It checks the contents as well, as easily can be verified by the standard Eicar tests (http://eicar.org/anti_virus_test_file.htm).

[XN04113]

{QUOTE-> Well, huh... ever heard about NTFS symlinks/junctions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTFS_junction_point)? <-QUOTE}
And how can I handle this centralized and managable?
After making some ideas about your suggestion, I 'm sure it will not work, because of the different directories NOD32 uses.
The Quarantain Path will be changed regardless with user is logged on. Path: C:\Documents and Settings\[UserName]\Local Settings\ApplicationData\...
If no user is logged on the "Default User" directory is uses, not the "All Users" path. Can't understand that.

regards
mike

[doktornotor]

{QUOTE->
The Quarantain Path will be changed regardless with user is logged on. Path: C:\Documents and Settings\[UserName]\Local Settings\ApplicationData\...
<-QUOTE}

Yeah, that's what %APPDATA% variable is for...

[XN04113]

{QUOTE-> Yeah, that's what %APPDATA% variable is for... <-QUOTE}
And how can I use this to put the quarantain folder to another location?
Please remind that we are talking about 700 windows servers - still running.
Everything must work as before and is has to be centralized managable.

Mike

[doktornotor]

{QUOTE-> And how can I use this to put the quarantain folder to another location?
Please remind that we are talking about 700 windows servers - still running.
Everything must work as before and is has to be centralized managable.
Mike <-QUOTE}

Hmmm? Create a logon script that checks whether the %USERPROFILE%\Local Settings\Application Data\ESET\Eset NOD32 Antivirus\Quarantine directory exists or not and either move it and then replace that directory with a junction pointing to the new location, or create the directory in the centralized location and create the junction pointing to it in the default place respectively?

Should take about 5 minutes of batch scripting.

Note that I'm not saying that it shouldn't be configurable but the above is perfectly workable workaround which will be completely transparent to NOD32.

[THE_BAD_BOY]

what about adding Forum link to Help Option Menu ?

[ishan_rulz]

http://www.av-comparatives.org/

ESET Nod32 is my favourite.
Come on we have to get back our ADVANCED+

[Elliven]

Suggestion:
In server; Advanced setup tree:
Context sensitive help. Please!!!

The questions asked here may all be quite logical to whoever programmed it, but to me they are about as logical as a pregnant woman, having her periods, on LSD!

[rolarocka]

Everything working good here :thumb: . Also the new V4 feels snappier compared to V3. Also has data throughput or something like this been increased with this version? Launching my browser with multiple tabs seems to be faster than V3.

[KL3R]

A question ...

Do you have any information to the output (an approximation) of the final release of NOD32 Antivirus 4 and Eset Smart Security 4?

Thank you.

[Waterfox]

Trying out this new v4 beta and so far loving it! :thumb:
Just one question: it says that the license is valid until march 2nd 2009 but what happens after that? Will our regular license (for v3) then be accepted or do we must go back to v3?

Thanks, and keep up the good work :)

[larryb52]

I've tried the new ESS the past few day, a definite improvement, big thumbs up to ESET for improvements, only thing I can pick on & it's iffy is the icon in the sys tray...

[rothko]

{QUOTE-> I've tried the new ESS the past few day, a definite improvement, big thumbs up to ESET for improvements, only thing I can pick on & it's iffy is the icon in the sys tray... <-QUOTE}
i cant make my mind up about the sys tray icon, one minute i like it the next i think it looks like a washing machine (when it's updating/scanning)

[general_zerohour]

I have same question as Waterfox, it says that the license is valid until march 2nd 2009 but what happens after that? Will our regular license (for v3) then be accepted or do we must go back to v3? I have been totally spoiled by this much more superior version. Nod 32 V4 ROCKS

[gisuck]

2 suggestions for additions:

1) There needs to be a way to Stop/Pause/Bring to foreground a scheduled task (scan) when it is running.

I run a full system scan at 2 am weekly (i'm freakin paranoid because my mom uses this computer too, and I'm an IT guy!) yet I don't see an option to bring a scheduled scan to the foreground when the job runs. No option to pause or stop either.


2) The Quarantine should have a new right click context menu for either "Rescan" or "Check for false positive".

This way users can check files against new updates that come in that originally has been classified as either "Possibly a variant of ..." or "User Submitted" can be updated to the actual virus found within that definition at the time.

3) Cosmetic problem: About box is too small in Vista. There is a scroll bar present that does not exist in XP. :) Might want to add a spare line or two for growth.

[cupez80]

maybe EAV 4 should include an IDS ...

[Phenom]

My suggestion is... PWN AVIRA. I look at tests like av comparatives and it shows nod32 detection has decreased, but still good in proactive. Also, it seems nod32 v4 uses more resources.

[funkydude]

Resource usage will increase as new technologies are programed and released, and ESET improves it's product, it's not like it's increased 10x.

[bogidan4o]

Whose kernel uses 4.0? 3.0's or own?

[Cutting_Edgetech]

Could someone tell me if NOD 32 V4 has an option to exclude threats found? I used NOD 32 for about 5 years now, and recently changed to Avira because it was detecting bitfender v10 free as containing a virus in windows 32. Can't remember exactly what is detected. I believe it was an adware threat. I tried to exclude the treat so i could keep bitdefender as an on-demand scanner, but i was unsuccessful. It continued to try to remove the threat freezing up my computer.

[ASpace]

@Cutting_Edgetech

v4 can exclude specific potentially unwanted and unsafe applications found but not what it finds and other threats (viruses,trojans,adware,rootkits,etc...)

However , it has always had exclusions for files. Furthermore , if you believe something is detected incorrectly , send it to ESET for re-analysing.

[Cutting_Edgetech]

Thanks for the reply. I did attempt to exclude the threat using the file exclusion option, but with no success. I may give it another shot. I can't wait for NOD 32 antivirus V 4 to come out. I liked V 2.7 so much that i used it instead of version 3 due to its low memory footprint, and better stability on my machine. I wish i had a beta machine to run V 4 on so i could contribute to its improvement. I've seen several screen shots of it, and it looks like a dream come true.

[Adam Kachwalla]

If I am using Opera M2 via IMAP to access GMAIL, does ESET Smart Security scan the mail?

Also does the Antispam Module work with IMAP yet?

[Marcos]

{QUOTE-> If I am using Opera M2 via IMAP to access GMAIL, does ESET Smart Security scan the mail?

Also does the Antispam Module work with IMAP yet? <-QUOTE}

IMAP can only be scanned by plugins for supported email clients. The same holds true for spam filtering.

[Adam Kachwalla]

Why? Isn't it possible to scan IMAP traffic (like you do with POP3)?

If not possible, I am making a suggestion of adding M2 to the list?

[funkydude]

{QUOTE-> I am making a suggestion of adding M2 to the list? <-QUOTE}

Bingo, would be nice.

[general_zerohour]

Can an option to not install the SysInspector be added to NOD32 V4 PLEASE

[nostic]

I'd like to see registry scanning for spyware. While I know this is a (great) antivirus program...Malware is just as important to protect against.

With ESET growing and building new offices, perhaps you could instead fork over some cash and buy a anti-malware company like SuperAntiSpyware.

That in itself would make myself and my company a lifetime subscriber.


Thanks!

-nos

[Chimera]

Running Windows 7 beta 1 and NOD32 Antivirus 4.0.68.0

Some minor glitch, Windows 7 recognizes NOD32 4.0 as 3.0 or NOD32 reports itself as 3.0...

Either way, it is reported as ESET NOD32 Antivirus 3.0 instead of 4.0.

Keep up the good work (and detect more viruses/malware than Avira ;) ), 4.0 is running great :thumb:

[Zaronn]

I would like to see windows live messenger implementation. Other antivirus software is recognized in the live messenger, but Eset does not. Please fix. Would be nice. Other than that, this seems to be VERY good! Thanks.

[funkydude]

What exactly do you want it to do in WLM? It scans all newly created files anyway from all programs. Not sure what you're wanting.

[Zaronn]

Well, if you enter the WLM settings, you can choose your antivirus software as a scanner. But WLM does not recognize Eset. Like for example Norton do.
And if you try to send a file over WLM for the first time, it ask you to choose a antivirus software, or you must choose the windows live scanner. So the thing is, you cant choose Eset's for some reason.

[funkydude]

It's not needed, because as soon as the downloaded file is completed it will be scanned in the background.

[Zaronn]

I KNOW that for sure. But Im telling its not working like the other brands do!At this point. And I mean thats something that Eset should be aware of, and hopefully fix. No matter what you mean.

[funkydude]

There is nothing to fix. Adding your AV to WLM's list was something brought out about 6 years ago when AV's didn't scan in real-time. It is an unnecessary feature in this day and age.

[wrathchild]

{QUOTE-> It's not needed, because as soon as the downloaded file is completed it will be scanned in the background. <-QUOTE}
I'm not sure for that!
For example, when I download zipped sample of eicar test file , EAV didn't recognize enything (even when browsing that folder) until on demand scan of that file. Even with eicar.exe file.

[funkydude]

{QUOTE-> I'm not sure for that!
For example, when I download zipped sample of eicar test file , EAV didn't recognize enything (even when browsing that folder) until on demand scan of that file. Even with eicar.exe file. <-QUOTE}

It didn't even let me connect nevermind download it:

205890

[wrathchild]

{QUOTE-> It didn't even let me connect nevermind download it: <-QUOTE}
Try over SSL.

[funkydude]

I'm using v3 which doesn't have SSL support, if it's not working for you in v4 with SSL scanned, then it's a beta problem.

None-the-less I downloaded the file anyway, extracted it to be met with another zip, then extracted it again to have it quarantined.

205891

[wrathchild]

{QUOTE-> I'm using v3 which doesn't have SSL support, if it's not working for you in v4 with SSL scanned, then it's a beta problem.

None-the-less I downloaded the file anyway, extracted it to be met with another zip, then extracted it again to have it quarantined.

205891 <-QUOTE}

and without extracting?
btw...default settings for real-time protection and excluded browser in web protection?

[funkydude]

{QUOTE-> and without extracting? <-QUOTE}

It's not harmful without extracting.

[wrathchild]

{QUOTE-> It's not harmful without extracting. <-QUOTE}
I know that...but the fact is that EAV don't scan in background as you told.

[funkydude]

{QUOTE-> and without extracting?
btw...default settings for real-time protection and excluded browser in web protection? <-QUOTE}

Conflicting questions, why should I exclude the browser in web protection, that's a feature enabled by default. No, I've turned advanced heuristics on, but that wouldn't change the outcome of this.

[funkydude]

{QUOTE-> I know that...but the fact is that EAV don't scan in background as you told. <-QUOTE}

It does, how have you proved it doesn't? The file is in archive form. There is NO way you can access it without nod32 scanning it first.

[wrathchild]

{QUOTE-> It does, how have you proved it doesn't? The file is in archive form. There is NO way you can access it without nod32 scanning it first. <-QUOTE}
Yes...I'm tested and only when I try to extract archive EAV recognize it.
Fact is that I don't want garbage on my hard drive, because AV isn't capable to scan files in real-time!
With oher AV (see signature) file is deleted when browser try to save it on HD...even without browsing that folder and without web module active...and without extracting...real-time guard picked it up in the fly. I'm talking about that.

[funkydude]

{QUOTE-> Yes...I'm tested and only when I try to extract archive EAV recognize it.
Fact is that I don't want garbage on my hard drive, because AV isn't capable to scan files in real-time!
With oher AV (see signature) file is deleted when browser try to save it on HD...even without browsing that folder and without web module active...and without extracting...real-time guard picked it up in the fly. I'm talking about that. <-QUOTE}

If archives were scanned in real time, it would cause SERIOUS issues. If I browsed to a folder full of archives the thing would literally die.

Scanning archives in real-time is useless. Unless you're talking about runtime packers, which is a feature.

You wouldn't download an archive unless you were going to open it to use it, so your statement is flawed and totally incorrect.

[funkydude]

{QUOTE->
With oher AV (see signature) file is deleted when browser try to save it on HD... <-QUOTE}

Other AV's (such as your precious Avira here I assume you're talking about) love to compete in the "rush to bloat up their DB" and add the signature of the zip file itself, they do not scan inside the zip files in real time.

ESET keeps it's DB small and simple and relies more on heuristics since it is the future.

[wrathchild]

{QUOTE-> If archives were scanned in real time, it would cause SERIOUS issues. If I browsed to a folder full of archives the thing would literally die.

Scanning archives in real-time is useless. Unless you're talking about runtime packers, which is a feature.

You wouldn't download an archive unless you were going to open it to use it, so your statement is flawed and totally incorrect. <-QUOTE}
I think you miss the point. I don't want to download virus EVEN IN ARCHIVE, ok? Btw how's performance with runtime packers checked in realtime?:shifty:
Point is that with EAV "limited" real-time protection you should have integration in WLM.

[wrathchild]

{QUOTE-> ESET keeps it's DB small and simple and relies more on heuristics since it is the future. <-QUOTE}
blah...heuristic for which they recommend to bi disabled8)
I dont have any precious AV's...i just point some things which is bad in EAV.

[funkydude]

{QUOTE-> I think you miss the point. I don't want to download virus EVEN IN ARCHIVE, ok? <-QUOTE}

Read my previous post, it shows the connection of the archive download being terminated, archives are scanned in real time for the HTTP module.


{QUOTE-> Btw how's performance with runtime packers checked in realtime?:shifty: <-QUOTE}

Bad, that's why it's off by default and why I don't use it, but you're proving my point here why archives shouldn't be scanned in real time

{QUOTE->
Point is that with EAV "limited" real-time protection you should have integration in WLM. <-QUOTE}

I think I've said more than enough to prove that this isn't needed.

Last I checked, you can't send exe files over msn. If you received a zip file, it would be to open it, and which point, bang = virus detected and blocked.



As far as I see, am I right in saying: You want a feature to automatically perform an On-Demand scan on archives because they are not scanned in real time out of the HTTP module(on the system)? Or you think msn should be in the HTTP module? BTW I think you can tick it in web browsers to achieve this effect, not sure..

[wrathchild]

{QUOTE-> Other AV's (such as your precious Avira here I assume you're talking about) love to compete in the "rush to bloat up their DB" and add the signature of the zip file itself, they do not scan inside the zip files in real time. <-QUOTE}
I'll try later to disable AV, rename files and repack archive (and rename it) and then see if your talking have any sense.

[wrathchild]

{QUOTE-> As far as I see, am I right in saying: You want a feature to automatically perform an On-Demand scan on archives because they are not scanned in real time out of the HTTP module(on the system)? Or you think msn should be in the HTTP module? BTW I think you can tick it in web browsers to achieve this effect, not sure.. <-QUOTE}
I want better optimized real-time scanner which is capable to scan files in background even with AH enabled...with my quad core machine, without performance decrease. I simply want EAV to be better.

[wrathchild]

{QUOTE-> You wouldn't download an archive unless you were going to open it to use it, so your statement is flawed and totally incorrect. <-QUOTE}
Maybe I just want to download it and send it to someone who don't have AV and relly on my AV?...or have free AV which isn't good as EAV? Think about it...scenarios can be various. EAV don't even scan outgoing emails...so sending downloaded archive with virus isn't problem (maybe AV from ISP will recognize it ;)).

[funkydude]

{QUOTE-> Maybe I just want to download and send it to someone who don't have AV and relly on my AV? Think about it...scenarios can be various. <-QUOTE}

Uh... if you wanted to do that you would just disable your AV. If you didn't, this would happen:

{QUOTE-> It didn't even let me connect nevermind download it:

205890 <-QUOTE}


Am I typing this wrong or what because it's the third time I'm trying to prove to you it wouldn't get downloaded in the first place.

[wrathchild]

{QUOTE-> Am I typing this wrong or what because it's the third time I'm trying to prove to you it wouldn't get downloaded in the first place. <-QUOTE}
again...over SSL?...or with browser excluded because of proxy stuff with XP?

[funkydude]

{QUOTE-> again...over SSL? <-QUOTE}

...again...v4?

[funkydude]

{QUOTE-> or with browser excluded because of proxy stuff with XP? <-QUOTE}

You're basically complaining because you've disabled a feature that would scan inside zip files and now want a feature that scans inside zip files. Here is an idea, don't disable it? If it doesn't work for you, that's a BETA problem you should make a NEW thread about.

I've presented the evidence, tried to prove my case the best I can, it's up to you what you want to make of it. I've had enough.

[wrathchild]

{QUOTE-> {QUOTE-> Originally Posted by funkydude
Other AV's (such as your precious Avira here I assume you're talking about) love to compete in the "rush to bloat up their DB" and add the signature of the zip file itself, they do not scan inside the zip files in real time. <-QUOTE}
I'll try later to disable AV, rename files and repack archive (and rename it) and then see if your talking have any sense. <-QUOTE}
As I suspected, your predication is absurd. I've repacked (and renamed both file and archive) and uploaded to my site. Then I've tried to download and archive was deleted.
And to be clear enough...I'm talking now about real-time module...not about web module for which mods suggest to be disabled for some applications (...put the cross in the box...etc) as a workaround in some cases.

[CARON67]

{QUOTE-> module for which mods suggest to be disabled for some applications <-QUOTE} I am of the same your solution . Best regards

[wrathchild]

For me, web module should be implemented in a modular way. So users who wants proxy (or have better feeling of security with it) can install it and users who wants granularity in their firewall rules (on Win XP) can install EAV without it.
But real-time module must be capable to catch viruses prior to downloading on hard disk, in both cases (even in archives).

[funkydude]

{QUOTE->
But real-time module must be capable to catch viruses prior to downloading on hard disk, in both cases (even in archives). <-QUOTE}

Then go buy NAI or Symantec products since they seem to dislike anything that is modular. The ENTIRE reason they are separate is because they are modular. Making the "real-time" module scan HTTP is exactly the same as meshing the two modules together. You don't seem to understand that.

If you disabled the proxy then tough luck. You're not supposed to, you KNOW it will reduce your protection. You're just looking for something to complain about.

[wrathchild]

{QUOTE-> Then go buy NAI or Symantec products since they seem to dislike anything that is modular. The ENTIRE reason they are separate is because they are modular. Making the "real-time" module scan HTTP is exactly the same as meshing the two modules together. You don't seem to understand that.

If you disabled the proxy then tough luck. You're not supposed to, you KNOW it will reduce your protection. You're just looking for something to complain about. <-QUOTE}
Read again my previous post...in whole.

[funkydude]

{QUOTE-> Read again my previous post...in whole. <-QUOTE}

I did thanks. EAV has nothing to do with a firewall. Neither does the HTTP proxy. It IS implemented modular. You're complaining because the filtering is done via proxy, well that's changed in Vista, maybe not in XP, but you can't really complain about using an old OS, go complain on the MS forums.

I'm currently using v3, which uses a proxy, and it works perfectly fine for me. I look forward to the non-proxy change.

[Phenom]

Suggestions to be included in NOD32 v4.

- Improve antispyware, rogue threats and adware doesn't get detected well.

- In NOD32 v2 I remember it use to find threats on the web page before I even got there and when I was about to download it found threats, in the new versions now it doesn't do that quite effectively as nod32 v2.

Is this true? NOD32 uses heuritics to detect and do not use any signatures to detect threats, that is what I heard, if so I think signatures can be very helpful.

Other than that, I'm still confident that NOD32 will come back on top and soon to be better than Avira. :)

[nb1001]

hey everyone! just got on board with this. I like nod and thought i'd try this out.

couple questions. How long do you think this beta will last? and i installed smart security...that means i don't have to install the antivirus right. the smart security includes antivirus?

[nb1001]

nevermind just saw it, it says my license is only valid until march 17th...hmm.

[Quitch]

1. Annoyingly NOD32 v4 still doesn't understand Windows variables such as %windir% when adding exclusions.

2. Also, for years now Microsoft has published a list of areas/files that should not be scanned by AV as they are permanently in use or where a file lock can cause serious issues.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/822158

This entire article should be a checkbox on the Exclusions screen "Add Microsoft recommended Windows exclusions".

3. There should be a way to turn on Unsafe Application Detection for every scanner with a single button. It's off by default yet for most users having it on is the desirable option, but doing so is a real hassle. My personal recommendation would be switching it on with Undesirable Application Detection during setup.

4. Documentation for "Real time system protection - Setup - Other" is out of date, the screen shot does not have the Enable Smart Optimization button and no text explanation for it.

5. Application uses a Notification Area icon. With Windows 7 around the corner this would have seemed like a good time to review that policy with MSN Messenger being an example of how it should be done on this new OS.

[Marcos]

{QUOTE-> 1. Annoyingly NOD32 v4 still doesn't understand Windows variables such as %windir% when adding exclusions.
<-QUOTE}
Why %windir%? Such a variable doesn't resolve on recent Windows systems unless it's defined by the user. %systemroot% works perfectly for me.

[Quitch]

I'm running Windows 7 and this variable works now (I've not added it) and has in every OS install I've run since at least Windows 2000.

The program should be able to handle any of these variables.