Nod32 Beta 4 tells me my system OS Is

[djohn]

Not up to date Have a looky very Cool8)

[djohn]

And you can check it from eset gui,Wow how cool is that.

[Veniors]

I think it's not a very useful function. I already have a program like that and it's called windows update. I'd rather see improvements in detection rate.

[xxJackxx]

{QUOTE-> I think it's not a very useful function. I already have a program like that and it's called windows update. I'd rather see improvements in detection rate. <-QUOTE}

Something to keep in mind is that you don't have to detect an exploit for a patched vulnerability. Another means of having folks install theses updates is more effective than trying to detect everything that would exploit them, which yes, they should still be trying to do. In any case I would imagine that the development for this part is done anyway. Removing it would not make any other part of NOD32 better.

[djohn]

The point is its notifiying of critical updates that are only schedulede for installation at specfic times through windows update settings on my machine,Hence I am notified 7 hours early then scheduled time.The sooner a critcal patch the better in my opinion. If I forget to check I was just reminded.Detection seem excellent it past my test and matts test here.http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=227183

[Veniors]

{QUOTE-> In any case I would imagine that the development for this part is done anyway. Removing it would not make any other part of NOD32 better. <-QUOTE}

I agree

{QUOTE-> If I forget to check I was just reminded.Detection seem excellent it past my test and matts test here.http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=227183 <-QUOTE}

That's not a real and accurate test. The only tests I look at ar from www.av-test.org and www.av-comparatives.org. And according to these two nod32 is certainly not the best.

[Motherroad]

{QUOTE-> I agree



That's not a real and accurate test. The only tests I look at ar from www.av-test.org and www.av-comparatives.org. And according to these two nod32 is certainly not the best. <-QUOTE}
AV comparitives rates Norton really well. Go to the forum and you will see how much they are missing. It is the real world detection that matters.

[djohn]

Well matts test was real world testing with day old samples,who also is a member here.I take his testing more sincere since I see it live and for his credibilty,rather the some lab testing that none of us here can see anything going on behind the seens,but to each there own I guess.Either way it wouldn't not matter what nods detection rate is,I do not need one to stay clean but like having it anyways.cheers

[DasFox]

No YUCK BOOO, HISSS, LOL....

Get rid of this Update crap, this is an AV, I don't need an AV telling me about OS updates, this is just more bloat for noobs, good god... :thumbd:

Crap I certainly hope ESET isn't going to start getting bloated like everyone else...

[ASpace]

{QUOTE-> Well I was about to play with the Beta, but I don't need it bothering me about this stuff. <-QUOTE}

If you don't like it , disable the feauture but don't act like a pinched screaming kid.
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=227932

[funkydude]

{QUOTE-> If you don't like it , disable the feauture but don't act like a pinched screaming kid.
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=227932 <-QUOTE}

I really love quoting this:

{QUOTE-> I've noticed for a long time that there are always some users who love to scream until their vocal cords bleed about "bloat". Typically, they define "bloat" as "Features I don't use". These same users are always in forums requesting tweaks and new features to their pet software. Their sense of entitlement is greatly stroked when such tweaks and features are added.

But when features are added that they DIDN'T ask for, well that's "bloat". The reasons for the changes don't matter. The other users don't matter. The overall health of the project doesn't matter. And it doesn't matter if the screamers can simply ignore the new features and use the software the way they always have, unimpeded. There is no appeasement other than a total acquiescence to the demands of the screamers. "REMOVE IT!" "MAKE A SPECIAL BUILD FOR ME!" "STOP SELLING OUT TO THE MAN!" "LISTEN TO YOUR USERS! (i.e. 'me').

The point that we can't make enough... if you don't like the new interface or the new features - you don't have to use it. Just because you may not choose to use something, it doesn't mean that other users won't. And if new features don't get in your way, then how does it really cause a problem? <-QUOTE}

[xxJackxx]

I find myself really liking this feature. It told me today that the KB960714 update was out before the OS did. No complaints here.

[agoretsky]

Hello,

As operating system security has improved, malware authors and those who deploy their creations now invest their efforts in exploiting recently-patched vulnerabilities, on the grounds that they are more likely to get their code running on a number of computers before the computer operator can download the patch from the operating system or application vendor.

The purpose of this feature is to help reduce the attack surface of the computer running ESET's software. As far as resources go--not just in terms of disk space cost and processor utilization but also in development and testing efforts--it is actually fairly inexpensive.

Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky


{QUOTE-> No YUCK BOOO, HISSS, LOL....

Get rid of this Update crap, this is an AV, I don't need an AV telling me about OS updates, this is just more bloat for noobs, good god... :thumbd:

Crap I certainly hope ESET isn't going to start getting bloated like everyone else... <-QUOTE}

[Cosmo 203]

It appears to me, that this feature does not work correctly:

In a Virtual Machine NOD V4 told me after installing and updating the definitions, that my patch-level is outdated. This was correct and intended (for testing). I changed the setting to "no updates" and the warning has gone - also as expected.

But than I changed it back to "critical update", but I got no warning any more. This has been done on Dec 14, several reboots have taken place, the definitions have been updated (always the same database level as in V3 on my production machine) and in the meantime there has been at least released the KB 960714 Patch for IE yesterday. So it appears, as if V4 beta does not recognize the change of setting correctly.

[DasFox]

{QUOTE-> I really love quoting this: <-QUOTE}

Well let me run it by you like this...

1. I've been in computing 20 years, I know what 'Real Bloatware' is...
2. I'm not some noob that yells for the sake of it...
3. Granted yelling like this does seem childish, so on that behalf I apologize...
4. I've seen what bloatware has done to systems... (crashes, BSOD, lockups, etc.)
5. If you've been around you've seen what problems bloatware causes...
6. It's sad seeing companies adding in things that aren't needed, and this is one of those things...
7. Windows has it's own update system, users don't need another one, this is most definitely not needed...
8. This isn't just about added luggage, it's about all the extra weight that degrades software and system performance...

Oh gee Eset wants to step in and ensure user security, sure keeping a system updated helps to ensure this, so that is why the thinking here, but again as I stated Windows has it's own update TOOL, and it's CALLED, 'Windows Security Center', and it does just a dandy job that users don't need more garbage like ESET is throwing at them.

I've been working as a Tech on XP since the day it came out, and I've never seen a problem with Windows Security Center not notifiying the user that their system wasn't up to date, and then allowing them to update, it works and it does it's job and it's all the user needs besides keeping Updates on, or doing them manually.

~Off topic comments removed. - Ron~

[CivilTaz]

{QUOTE-> 6. It's sad seeing companies adding in things that aren't needed, and this is one of those things...
7. Windows has it's own update system, users don't need another one, this is most definitely not needed...
<-QUOTE}

I totally agree :thumb:

[agoretsky]

Hello,

Thank you for your report.

Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky


{QUOTE-> It appears to me, that this feature does not work correctly:

In a Virtual Machine NOD V4 told me after installing and updating the definitions, that my patch-level is outdated. This was correct and intended (for testing). I changed the setting to "no updates" and the warning has gone - also as expected.

But than I changed it back to "critical update", but I got no warning any more. This has been done on Dec 14, several reboots have taken place, the definitions have been updated (always the same database level as in V3 on my production machine) and in the meantime there has been at least released the KB 960714 Patch for IE yesterday. So it appears, as if V4 beta does not recognize the change of setting correctly. <-QUOTE}

[Banger696]

Got to be careful of not adding in duplicate OS functionality. Trend did this and a lot of people switched away, me included. It's my understanding Windows Automatic Updates can provide this function by selecting Download and Notify in the options starting Win2k thru XP to Vista.

There is also a rumour that MS is planning to release a low on resources FREE Anti-Virus solution. It is very important for NOD32 to remain less power hungry for low power XP solutions such as Net Books which could be quite a lucrative market, and not "bloat" NOD32 as Trend did.

Tim :thumb:

[agoretsky]

Hello,

It is not uncommon for malware to block the Windows Security Center, disable services needed by Automatic Update/Microsoft Update/Windows Update or prevent access to their various web sites. There are also times when Windows Security Center just does not work. This feature provides another way for users who may not be aware that updates are available before of this.

One thing that I think you need to keep in mind is that you are an atypical user, nowadays: With two decades worth of computing experience, you have a better idea of how to maintain your computers, practice patch management and not get infected with malware in the first place. That's great, but you have to understand that not all users have your level of sophistication and, as a result, are precisely the sort of people who do need tools like this because they do not have your working knowledge of computer operation. As a matter of fact, I suspect there are more people these days who need this sort of thing than those who do not, and when you combine that with the fact that anti-malware companies like ESET want to create products for computer users at all skill levels, not just those who are the most experienced, I think it is understandable why a feature like this exists and is needed.

While I only have nineteen years of experience in the computing field to your twenty, I feel comfortable in identifying software that I consider bloated, as well as identifying and removing them and troubleshooting other types of computer-related issues and I just do not feel is is "bloat. (https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Goretsky)"

I think if you were to take a look the increases in size between ESET Smart Security v3.0.684.0 (the current production build of the software) and v4.0.068.0 (the current public beta build), you would find that the delta is small, especially when you consider all of the changes (http://beta.eset.com/ess/changelog) all of the changes made between the two versions, and the fact that beta typically have unoptimized debug code in them. What you are basically looking at is a few tens of kilobytes of code which transmit a few kilobytes of XML and then interrogate the OS to check the service pack level and for hot fixes against the list to see what's missing. It runs speedily even on a dial-up connection.

Lastly, on a somewhat whimsical note, I'd like to leave you with this though for consideration: When Microsoft introduced Service Pack 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP#Service_Pack_2) for Microsoft (http://www.microsoft.com/) Windows (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/) XP (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/) in 2004, they provided Windows Security Center (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Security_Center), which would tell you if your anti-virus software was out of date (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Windows_Security_Center_XP_SP2.png). Don't you think it is fair now some four years later that your anti-virus software can provide the same type of warning about the operating system? :)

Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky


{QUOTE-> Well let me run it by you like this...

1. I've been in computing 20 years, I know what 'Real Bloatware' is...
2. I'm not some noob that yells for the sake of it...
3. Granted yelling like this does seem childish, so on that behalf I apologize...
4. I've seen what bloatware has done to systems... (crashes, BSOD, lockups, etc.)
5. If you've been around you've seen what problems bloatware causes...
6. It's sad seeing companies adding in things that aren't needed, and this is one of those things...
7. Windows has it's own update system, users don't need another one, this is most definitely not needed...
8. This isn't just about added luggage, it's about all the extra weight that degrades software and system performance...

Oh gee Eset wants to step in and ensure user security, sure keeping a system updated helps to ensure this, so that is why the thinking here, but again as I stated Windows has it's own update TOOL, and it's CALLED, 'Windows Security Center', and it does just a dandy job that users don't need more garbage like ESET is throwing at them.

I've been working as a Tech on XP since the day it came out, and I've never seen a problem with Windows Security Center not notifiying the user that their system wasn't up to date, and then allowing them to update, it works and it does it's job and it's all the user needs besides keeping Updates on, or doing them manually.

~Off topic comments removed. - Ron~ <-QUOTE}

[agoretsky]

Hello,


One thing that I think ESET has demonstrated is that they are very "anti-bloat:" ESET's developers are very conscientious of the fact that not everyone has a new computer with the highest-frequency processor, largest amount of RAM and disk drives and fastest Internet connection and architect their products accordingly. Features are added only when they are needed and they seem to make sense. I have explained in my earlier messages to DasFox in this message thread the reasoning behind checking the patch level of the operating system, so won't repeat them here.

ESET is many builds away from releasing the production version of ESET Smart Security v4.0 and you will have ample opportunity to look at future beta builds, release candidates and then, of course, trial versions of the production version of the software. You will then be able to make your own educated decision about whether or not ESET's products are right for your computing environment.

Microsoft has provided some information about Morro, the code-name for the free successor to Windows Live OneCare. You can read about it here (http://windowsonecare.spaces.live.com/) on Windows Live OneCare's blog.

Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky


{QUOTE-> Got to be careful of not adding in duplicate OS functionality. Trend did this and a lot of people switched away, me included. It's my understanding Windows Automatic Updates can provide this function by selecting Download and Notify in the options starting Win2k thru XP to Vista.

There is also a rumour that MS is planning to release a low on resources FREE Anti-Virus solution. It is very important for NOD32 to remain less power hungry for low power XP solutions such as Net Books which could be quite a lucrative market, and not "bloat" NOD32 as Trend did.

Tim :thumb: <-QUOTE}

[Cosmo 203]

{QUOTE-> Lastly, on a somewhat whimsical note, I'd like to leave you with this though for consideration: When Microsoft introduced Service Pack 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP#Service_Pack_2) for Microsoft (http://www.microsoft.com/) Windows (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/) XP (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/) in 2004, they provided Windows Security Center (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Security_Center), which would tell you if your anti-virus software was out of date (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Windows_Security_Center_XP_SP2.png). Don't you think it is fair now some four years later that your anti-virus software can provide the same type of warning about the operating system? :) <-QUOTE}
In contradiction to others I go with ESET in this point. Stupidly there are enough people who disable auto-update and also deactivate the warning in the Security Center. Those unpatched systems (Even in these days there can be systems with xp sp0 found!) are not only a dramatic data danger for their owners, but also some kind of virus catapult for all the others. So this is a social problem, not only a personal one.


But Aryeh, taking your own kind of arguing, ESET is not consequent:

Working with LUA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least_user_access) is a security principle, that is far far far more older than XP SP2 and far far far far far more efficient. But it also means, that the authors of security software have to recognize, that a security software has to be administered from inside a LUA. About the why and how I wrote a separate topic some days ago.

I appreciate the fact, that after 4 days(!) and a special note(!) you reacted at all. But from content, your reaction did not say anything, not even something like "We will discuss it and come back to the topic after having done so".

When ESET thinks, that 5 years after XP Sp2 there has to be done more for this aspect, what about LUA, which has been introduced in the Windows world with Windows NT about 15 years ago and in the Unix-World even long before that? It is urgent time to take action.

[auriell]

Nice feature :)

[SmackyTheFrog]

{QUOTE-> In contradiction to others I go with ESET in this point. Stupidly there are enough people who disable auto-update and also deactivate the warning in the Security Center. Those unpatched systems (Even in these days there can be systems with xp sp0 found!) are not only a dramatic data danger for their owners, but also some kind of virus catapult for all the others. So this is a social problem, not only a personal one.
[/b] <-QUOTE}

The people who trust Microsoft to provide them an OS but refuse to trust subsequent patches to that release never cease to crack me up.

[DasFox]

Sorry, I'm not just talking about making things for experienced users only. I think it's perfectly proper to make software to work for various user experience levels.

You say the Security Center has failed? Well I have personally never seen this since XP has come out, also by default Windows is set up to automatically update, I have also never seen this fail from viruses or malware.

Let's turn the table here for a second. If the AV is doing the job it should be, then why is the Security Center getting disabled in the first place, to where ESET thinks they need to add in something else into the program to inform users in case this happens by adding in an extra tool?

Sounds more like you can't keep the problem from occuring, therefore rather then provide a better AV application that can handle the malware you add in an application to help, is this what you're trying to tell end-users, because it certainly seems like it to me?

Why don't you get a better Engine, Signatures, Heuristics, and Zero-Day protection going, so end-users aren't going to get a failed update, or Security Center in the first place rather then side stepping the real issue here of providing better protection?

Also these days, you won't find to often users without other spyware-malware applications on their computers. Many users nowadays typically have other programs too, like Spybot, Spyware Terminator, SpySweeper, Spyware Doctor, let's not forget Windows Defender, STOPzilla, SpywareBlaster, a-squared Free, etc...

There are plenty of anti malware applications out there! What makes ESET think the end-user needs you to come to the resuce with this Windows Update included in the first place?

What makes you think most end-users don't have other lines of defense to protect them, and that ESET is their only source of help when there's a problem? Sure you still run into the newbies who only run an AV and that is all.

But let's back up here one more time. Do you even know who your user-base is in the first place, as far your companie's presence in the software world for Windows is concerned?

I can't say I'm familar with every computer out there what trial software is being installed, but as far as some of the biggest names are concerned out there, that do truly effect the computer world of Windows, like Dell and HP, Gateway, and a few others, these always come with software by typically by Symantec or McAfee.

ESET is not a common household name to computer users, Symantec and McAfee are. Once users start learning about ESET, they have always typically learned about other AV and malware applications to protect themselves, and let's not forget aobut HIPS(Host Intrusion Prevention Systems), these so called newbies are even getting a hold of this too, and using programs now like Sandboxie.

ESET is not a typical new user newbie program being used, so I think that ESET doesn't even realize it's own user-base is more experienced, but of course to a point with some, but never the less, still more then average.

If you think ESET users are your typical Norton McAfee crowd, guess again.

No matter how little the ESET user is, they are still a step ahead, even if it is small.

Anyhow as somone mentioned, if ESET is going to stick by their guns and insist this option be included, then at least allow it to be disabled if users don't want it.

[CivilTaz]

{QUOTE-> Anyhow as somone mentioned, if ESET is going to stick by their guns and insist this option be included, then at least allow it to be disabled if users don't want it. <-QUOTE}

It can be disabled, there's an option in the setup to do that, but i think it should be disabled by default.

[Cosmo 203]

{QUOTE-> Also these days, you won't find to often users without other spyware-malware applications on their computers. Many users nowadays typically have other programs too, like Spybot, Spyware Terminator, SpySweeper, Spyware Doctor, let's not forget Windows Defender, STOPzilla, SpywareBlaster, a-squared Free, etc... <-QUOTE}
Where from do you take those statistics? Inside the Wilders' Community you are most likely correct, but taken the number of all Windows PCs? You will not be able to proof that by numbers. If I take only those machines with Windows versions without the latest respective Service Pack I see something different. And one is for sure: An AV (or any "security" software) is no replacement for a properly patched OS as the actual patches are no replacement for an AV program.

Further more, naming a bunch of programs with different levels of quality shows, that even in the case you would be right this listing does not mean anything.

A serious number of those "security" products do only work inside an account with admin privileges and they are senseless, if the user uses a limited account. So those programs do tell the opposite, what you say: There are many unsolved problems because of unsafe configured and used machines out there.

But let us assume for a moment, that you are right with most people have other security software (probably more than one): So, where should be the problem, if they are really able to handle those applications to deactivate the update warning in NOD32? People who are not able to make this setting are most likely the prisoners of their "security" apps. Those who can deal with those apps make the single setting in NOD32 (if they really thinks, that this is right) and that's it.

{QUOTE-> What makes you think most end-users don't have other lines of defense to protect them, and that ESET is their only source of help when there's a problem? Sure you still run into the newbies who only run an AV and that is all. <-QUOTE}

Again: What makes you think the opposite taking in account, that the Wilders' community is only a tiny minority in the total number of Windows installations? And it are not only "Newbies", who do not have those "security promises" installed.

To remind you: For people, who are able to use those programs there is no way to believe, that they are not able to make this single setting in NOD32. So what is your real problem? I did not find a single word in your post about that.

[DasFox]

{QUOTE-> Where from do you take those statistics?

I've been involved in computing as I mentioned for 20 years, I know for a fact as most people involved in the computer world know that NOD32 is not the household name that Symantec and McAfee are, it's just a simple fact.


Inside the Wilders' Community you are most likely correct, but taken the number of all Windows PCs? You will not be able to proof that by numbers.

If you're talking about the security/av software on computers all you'd have to do is contact them. Acer, eMachines, Gateway, Dell, HP use either Symantec or McAfeee, and some now are putting in AVG. I don't think any major american computer company puts in NOD32 or KAV, or Avira...


If I take only those machines with Windows versions without the latest respective Service Pack I see something different. And one is for sure: An AV (or any "security" software) is no replacement for a properly patched OS as the actual patches are no replacement for an AV program.

I said before, based on what the computer is being used for, and the level of experience, can then determine what the user really needs. Of course typically most users will need to keep their system fully updated. I was only pointing out that someone with a high level of experience can get away with this as I have done, that is all.

Further more, naming a bunch of programs with different levels of quality shows, that even in the case you would be right this listing does not mean anything.

No said it means anything other then showing other products out there that many users are aware of is all.

A serious number of those "security" products do only work inside an account with admin privileges and they are senseless, if the user uses a limited account. So those programs do tell the opposite, what you say: There are many unsolved problems because of unsafe configured and used machines out there.

You are aware that the average computer user doesn't even know anything about user accounts, so we can forget those, they need it all done by the book, fully patched, updated and protected with more. But as I'm saying here, when users start learning about NOD32, KAV, or Avira, from what ever source they have learned it, tech, friends, family, or by themself, they have stepped over into a level of more experience, of course that level varies. Because where ever they have gotten this information, they are most likely going to end up learning about other security software programs too, that was a point I was trying to make.

But let us assume for a moment, that you are right with most people have other security software (probably more than one): So, where should be the problem, if they are really able to handle those applications to deactivate the update warning in NOD32? People who are not able to make this setting are most likely the prisoners of their "security" apps. Those who can deal with those apps make the single setting in NOD32 (if they really thinks, that this is right) and that's it.

Not sure what you are saying about the Update setting in NOD32 and dealing with it? Well from what I see already ESET has dealt with the issue and allows you to either enable it or disable it, so that pretty much handles that.

Again: What makes you think the opposite taking in account, that the Wilders' community is only a tiny minority in the total number of Windows installations? And it are not only "Newbies", who do not have those "security promises" installed.

Not sure what you're saying about Wilders and Windows installs?

To remind you: For people, who are able to use those programs there is no way to believe, that they are not able to make this single setting in NOD32. So what is your real problem? I did not find a single word in your post about that.

Yes my bad, there is an option for users to enable and disable this option. So my real problem is that companies like ESET are going to use this to their advantage to tell users of a great new product with this great new feature to help them, and it's just propaganda. When the real help should be in quality engine detection, signatures and heursitics. Afterall didn't you notice what the ESET mod said? It seems as though NOD32 can't even help with the real problem here, providing better protection so the Security Center isn't getting disabled in the first place. Also I said to this person, since XP has come out I have never known of anyone that had the Security Center disabled by malware. All ESET is doing is providing something because they can't provide better AV security, so think about that for a second...


<-QUOTE}


Please see my replies in the quotes above.

Summed up companies like ESET want to give users more bells and whistles and make everything look all great, but underneath it all is a program that lacks real security and protection. I'm now not saying either that NOD32 doesn't provide good protection, I'm just saying that now, they are saying the Security Center gets disabled by malware, and my reponse to them was, well fix the problem and provide better detection and removal of the problem so users don't need more tools is all. This is really ridiculous if you think about it. Now ESET comes along claiming this tool is needed because they can't provide an application to deal with it. Well now of course everyone's reply, what's the big deal, shut if off if you don't like it. Ok sure, no problem, but like I said, it's just a propaganda pitch to the masses to make them think ESET has created this great feature to help them, when in reality it's simply because they can't give end-users a better AV application to keep the Security Center from getting disabled in the first place. I don't know about you, but I call this pathetic. :(

Since the introduction of XP I have never experienced this problem on a professional level as a Computer Tech, and whatever malware is causing this issue is not a massive scale, more like just a small limited amount of malware is known to cause this issue.

So I hope you now see the real point, give users a program that does what it should, providing better protection, not providing us tools because the program can't handle the protection it's suppose to be giving, therefore more tools are needed for it's lack of protection.

[funkydude]

I like how you've imagined this whole idea that ESET is somehow really bad at detecting and removing malware and that this feature proves it. Are you kidding?

As far as I see ESET are doing the best job they can looking after and cleaning up after the mess that is security holes in an operating system not designed by them, yet they are getting the blame for it.

Asking you to make sure you're up-to-date isn't much to ask. It will promote good updating schedules which all-in-all is better for everyone.

[DasFox]

{QUOTE-> I like how you've imagined this whole idea that ESET is somehow really bad at detecting and removing malware and that this feature proves it. Are you kidding?

As far as I see ESET are doing the best job they can looking after and cleaning up after the mess that is security holes in an operating system not designed by them, yet they are getting the blame for it.

Asking you to make sure you're up-to-date isn't much to ask. It will promote good updating schedules which all-in-all is better for everyone. <-QUOTE}

Sorry I guess you aren't seeing the point here. No one has imagined anything. ESET themselves has said that the Security Center can get disabled. Any amount of malware out there that has been written to do this is on a small scale, meaning the amount of malware out there that does this is small, and we're not even talking in the hundreds either, we are talking in the numerics of TENS is all, and there probably isn't even 10 pieces of malware in the wild that can disable the Security Center either.

No one is blaming anyone, but if we are talking about a very small amount of malware causing a problem, certainly ESET should be able to get some updated signatures in place, or heuristics in place to detect this. This is certainly not unreasonable, or beyond their means, yet they seem to be failing to do so, and just opting out an easier path by placing more non-essential tools in the application.

As an end-user you fail to realize that Windows does a fine job already of keeping the system updated, and the Security Center running fine, in fact it has been doing this for users world wide for the past 8-10 years, now all of sudden ESET wants you to think there is a problem? If you want to start talking about who's kidding who, then really consider what I've just said here!

Afterall if this was a major problem Microsoft would be dealing with it, and they're not, because this isn't a problem. ESET is making something out of nothing, and trying to make users feel like they're getting some extra added benefits, and they're not, because the average Windows user is never going to see the Windows Updates, or Security Center fail or get compromised.

This isn't going to promote anything other then a false sense of security, because Windows Updates and Security Center do their job just fine, and will rarely if ever fail or get compromised.

Also let's paint another picture here. Let's say the Security Center and Updates failed because of an exploited system, how long do you think it's going to take someone to realize their system isn't getting updated? One week, one month, one year? But now what was this exploit, what was it designed to do? Just because malware was deisgned to take one thing down in a system, doesn't mean it was written to do other things, or cause other problems. Or the simple fact that just because you have this problem, doesn't even mean you're going to get further infections at all, maybe some, or maybe nothing at all. So really the point I'm trying to make is, no matter how long the system has gone before an update has occured, has nothing to do with getting infected with malware, because you could have a completly up to date system and have problems, or a system that has not been updated in months and have no problems, this is all going to depend on the malware out there, what your doing, and the AntiVirus, Security and Malware applications you use.

The words of wisdom spoken in this scenario are, it's better to have your system up to date at all times for maximum protection, of course this is the best thing you can do, but just remember there are no guarantees, and just remember many of those updates and fixes are only for known problems, and that there are still many problems out there yet to be discovered, so it's always a cat and mouse game.

And one last thing that everyone seems to be missing here is that Windows is an Operating System, it's not a AntiVirus, Spyware, or Malware program, so no matter how many updates and fixes you do, they will never ever fix this problem called Malware in Windows if it continues to work the way it does.

OS security in an operating system only goes so far, and in the case of Windows that is very limited, that is why users need AV and Malware applications to do the job the OS can't do, and that is to DETECT these problems. So that is one of the biggest reasons to not let this Update tool fool you, because even with an updated or not updated system, most of the updates you do to the system will have nothing to do with these problems, that is why this tool is useless.

Do you realize that most of the updates you do for Windows are for security exploits-holes against hacker attacks, not malware getting into your system? Sure there are cases of where these exploits can be used with malware too, but the majority of Windows updates are for fixing holes in software against security attacks, not virus and malware issues.

If you think that people really need to keep a system updated to avoid viruses, spyware and malware, guess again. You could use your computer with not one update ever and never have a problem, simply because you use good AV, security and Malware protection applications, and you know how to avoid problems. Then you can be someone that keeps their system always up to date, hasn't got a clue about Internet safety, just uses only one AV application, and always has problems.

The truth being said here is that really updates aren't the end all to the problem fixing, it's more then just that, and this Update tool in Nod32 is not needed at all. People are just being fooled here is all, with all of this.

Even if the average computer user fails to update their system for several months, the probability of the lack of updates will not endanger, or make their system necessarily more vulnerable then it was several months prior. This is something people are also failing to realize, that a lack of updates for a few months isn't going to bring people's systems to their knees, or even cause one bit of problems at all. This is just another reason why this tool is also not needed.

I've said a lot here I hope users will really understand that basically the point of my reply here summed up was that Updates aren't the end all fix to the problems here, If you think they are, then ask yourself, why did Microsoft create their own Malware application called Windows Defender? Users need to start understanding what Updates are and what they're fixing and patching, and how little this relates to all the viruses and malware out there.

Here's Microsoft's Offical Updates site, telling users what Updates are:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/downloads/windowsupdate/learn/windowsxp.mspx

Did anyone CATCH the WORDS there Security & Reliability? End-Users over the years seem to think that this security always means security against viruses and malware and it doesn't, or they seem to think that if they have this security they won't get infected, or even worst they are better protected, and that's not always true either.

Of course these updates are better then nothing, but most users don't realize that these updates are for security holes and fixes, bugs, etc, that are for protection against hacker attacks and exploits against software as I've mentioned before. Yet for some reason everyone seems to think that if you keep your system updated you're not going to get viruses and malware, SORRY WRONG!

Start READING your Updates and see what these things fix and how little many of them have anything to do with Viruses and Malware!

Now after all I've said, do you really think that if someone has an updated system, and then runs no firewall or antivirus and malware programs they are now safe? Ok so you now see the extreme side to this foolishness, which I hope you can finally see, and that Updates aren't going to keep you completly safe, or are the end all, or that you need an AV telling your updates are not up to date. What you need is just an AV keeping the nasties off your PC!

Of course keep your system updated, but don't let companies like ESET fool you into thinking you need this tool. Tell them to give you an application to protect against Virusues and Malware like it's suppose to and to the best of their ability!

Oh one last thing, when you have your system up to date and you get infected, then send ESET an email complaining how pointless this tool has been in helping you!

LOL... Can you see the stupidity now? I hope your eyes are finally open, it's not that complicated! ;)

P.S. The biggest problem with Windows is that users run the system as the Admin. This is the real problem in the Windows world, and all the Updates in the world isn't going to fix this until Windows starts changing their tactics with OS user intervention. Windows needs the ability like Unix/Linux to run the system as a user then change to admin to do the things you want, then when done, back to the user account.

[Cosmo 203]

@DasFox:

If there is anything, which cannot impress me, than it is your kind of "arguing" with 20 years of experience. What do you want as reply: 25 years, or even some more?

This kind of "arguing" is even more stupid, as you placed it at the question about statistics. And for statistics somebody must not even have a single day of pc experience, but he must know how to collect and how to interpret them. Your stoically "simple fact" tells me, that you missed something in those 20 years.

I do not have the motivation to go into every detail of your post. Mainly because I got the idea, that you do not have the truth in the quality of NOD32 as AV-product. That is so far your decision. But you should have been able to find, that this topic is about something different. That means, that "your bad" is not only missing the option in NOD to disable the warning, but obviously you have not learned in your 20 years of experience how to post ON topic. So far regarding 20 years of experience and the value of 20 lost years.

One point is interesting: In your answer to me you argue, that the average user does not even know about user accounts (this was your reply to my point, that most "security apps" you mentioned do not even work in LUA), in the answer to funkydude you told on the same day, that using accounts with admin privileges is the biggest problem. So what is your point regarding this? IMO the great advantage of V4 over V3 and before is the fact, that ESET has overcome this old mistake, that it cannot be changed from inside a LUA.

[SmackyTheFrog]

How is monitoring of the patching service status a bad thing? There are plenty of malware apps that will go through and set up restrictive group policy on the machine to kill automatic updates, the security center, windows firewall, along with other built-in security mechanisms. Home users have a hard time correcting these kinds of restrictions. Once you get that level of control, it is easy to mask the symptoms and users could be going for months or years with their computer attached to a botnet, not realizing that something is going on in the background. Computer security is about layers of protection because no single thing is going to cover all of your bases. You cannot have a secure system without patching functioning correctly, it only makes sense that another security product that you run would watch for that.

[Sully]

Interesting thread. I have never really cared for Nod at all, but I know many who love it. I think what DasFox is trying to relay here is that for a respected AV like Nod to give a tool that is doing something along the lines of an OS update (if I understand it correctly) is really only a topical fix. DasFox is pointing out that if the OS itself cannot or has not or will not create a fix for the exploit, then perhaps ESET should create it. I don't think that is an out of line opinion at all.

True, perhaps it is easier or cheaper or whatever to include another tool in the app. But still, it does make more sense to handle the problem themselves if they can.

Personally, I use RyanVm's update packs. I don't care for sp3 at all, so I am still on sp2. As a matter of fact, I hate updating my OS. But, as much has already been stated here, my level of experience is such that I could run the original xp without any service packs and probably still be ok. Just because I know how to live without services that create holes, or know what not to do or where not to go. I don't think for a personal computer needing updates is that important. But only because of the level of knowledge. Throw up a server, or be in a business environment, or your typical button clicking novice, and the story is completely different.

Still, why does ESET not spend the time to fix the exploit in thier security app instead of this other tool? Don't know, don't care. But it is a very intersting read.

Sul.

[funkydude]

ESET aren't making this feature as some kind of compromise so they "don't have to improve against threats". This feature is a bonus to help against attacks. Calling it stupid just shows how ignorant to common users you are DasFox, because even after all your experience, you're completely blind to 90% of computer users.

[SmackyTheFrog]

{QUOTE-> Interesting thread. I have never really cared for Nod at all, but I know many who love it. I think what DasFox is trying to relay here is that for a respected AV like Nod to give a tool that is doing something along the lines of an OS update (if I understand it correctly) is really only a topical fix. DasFox is pointing out that if the OS itself cannot or has not or will not create a fix for the exploit, then perhaps ESET should create it. I don't think that is an out of line opinion at all.

True, perhaps it is easier or cheaper or whatever to include another tool in the app. But still, it does make more sense to handle the problem themselves if they can.

Personally, I use RyanVm's update packs. I don't care for sp3 at all, so I am still on sp2. As a matter of fact, I hate updating my OS. But, as much has already been stated here, my level of experience is such that I could run the original xp without any service packs and probably still be ok. Just because I know how to live without services that create holes, or know what not to do or where not to go. I don't think for a personal computer needing updates is that important. But only because of the level of knowledge. Throw up a server, or be in a business environment, or your typical button clicking novice, and the story is completely different.

Still, why does ESET not spend the time to fix the exploit in thier security app instead of this other tool? Don't know, don't care. But it is a very intersting read.

Sul. <-QUOTE}
Windows isn't an open-source operating system, Eset has absolute no control over the patching of exploits in the OS or from any other vendor that may be running software on a system. How exactly would you suggest that Eset patches a dll for, lets say IE7, that allows for arbitrary code execution without access to source code? Antivirus software will always be a reactive measure catching the stuff that tries to get in after an exploit has been run. It is up the vendor of the software to patch exploits in their code, antivirus vendors have absolutely no access on that level and demanding that they somehow magically get it is about as fruitful as wishing for your own unicorn for Christmas. So yes, it is an out of line opinion because it is entirely unrealistic.

And the stuff about hating to update your OS is just precious. You trust developers to build an OS for you but don't trust or like the subsequent updates? Disable services all you want but nothing short of pulling the network cable out of your system is going to keep exploits in the kernel, networking stack, or required processes/services from being an open target.

[Sully]

{QUOTE-> Windows isn't an open-source operating system, Eset has absolute no control over the patching of exploits in the OS or from any other vendor that may be running software on a system. How exactly would you suggest that Eset patches a dll for, lets say IE7, that allows for arbitrary code execution without access to source code? Antivirus software will always be a reactive measure catching the stuff that tries to get in after an exploit has been run. It is up the vendor of the software to patch exploits in their code, antivirus vendors have absolutely no access on that level and demanding that they somehow magically get it is about as fruitful as wishing for your own unicorn for Christmas. So yes, it is an out of line opinion because it is entirely unrealistic.

And the stuff about hating to update your OS is just precious. You trust developers to build an OS for you but don't trust or like the subsequent updates? Disable services all you want but nothing short of pulling the network cable out of your system is going to keep exploits in the kernel, networking stack, or required processes/services from being an open target. <-QUOTE}

Umm, lets see. If there is a bug, that Nod can identify in it's heuristics or virii signature, or whatever, and they were to, umm, maybe, umm, handle it, like alert the user, quarantine it, kill the process, umm, maybe that would constitute them making thier app handle the threat? Maybe?

Of course this is just conjecture, as I already stated I am not completely sure on the specific details. It would seem though that if there is a bug floating around waiting to exploit, is that not the job of Nod? Patch the OS, fix the exploit, still there will be another. So, to me, the very job of an AV is to stop known exploits, if possible. That of course means that this topic in question is triggered from a type of bug that Nod would watch. If it is some other exploit, some other method that an AV cannot deal with, then I concede the agrument completely :)

Yes, lol, it is so precious that I don't want to update my OS. So what? There are many users, nay, advanced users, who don't really like sp3. You like tea, I like coffee? So, no need to be rude about it. Not like this is life and death stuff here anyway, just opinions.

Sul.

EDIT: Upon further examination, I still agree with DasFox. Not that having Nod be able to check for critical updates is bad, but why do it at all? If Nod knows of an exploit, that is fixed by service pack A or patch B, why not just include that in your AV engine? If Nod is unable to detect the presence of an exploit that has been fixed by a patch, why don't they just say so? Now, to be true, a system would be wise to have critical patches for known exploits. Nod should just state 'we cannot cover you on issues related to these service packs. ensure you have patched these critical areas with these patches'. Would be more straight forward.

But this is all fruitless without a concrete example. Nod, is there a known bug that should be detected by your AV (or anyones AV) that exploits areas that would not be exploitable with a hotfix or something? If there is such a bug, does Nod catch the bug even without the hotfix? If it does not catch the bug, why not declare it so the user must say 'maybe I should put that hotfix on'. Without a known example of a bug in such an instance, all this debating means nothing. Comes right down to 'do you like tea, or coffee'.

[funkydude]

Well thankfully you can turn it off from warning you.

[Cosmo 203]

{QUOTE-> If there is a bug, that Nod can identify in it's heuristics or virii signature <-QUOTE}
Did you ever understand the difference of an AV-program and the task to find security exploits? At least your writing tells the opposite. AVs are no bug-finder.

So, this matches:
{QUOTE-> I still agree with DasFox <-QUOTE}
2 "experienced" people together.

And also this matches with it:
{QUOTE-> I don't want to update my OS. <-QUOTE}
Another known malware catapult. (Quite obvious you are connected to the Net.)

{QUOTE-> There are many users, nay, advanced users, who don't really like sp3. You like tea, I like coffee? <-QUOTE}
Many users: maybe. Advanced users: No, only stupid ones. Inclusive those using a not licensed Windows. Comparing Service Packs with tea and coffee: The best way to tell, that you don't know anything about it. (I mean Service Packs, I do not care about drinks on this place.)

[Sully]

{QUOTE-> Many users: maybe. Advanced users: No, only stupid ones. Inclusive those using a not licensed Windows. Comparing Service Packs with tea and coffee: The best way to tell, that you don't know anything about it. (I mean Service Packs, I do not care about drinks on this place.) <-QUOTE}

Ah, one of those. Pity that. Maybe we could all download your DNA so we could also share the only correct viewpoint on the planet. Really, you are gifted, to be able to glean such insight from forum posts. ROFL dude.


{QUOTE-> Did you ever understand the difference of an AV-program and the task to find security exploits? At least your writing tells the opposite. AVs are no bug-finder. <-QUOTE}
lol, I never said that an AV should find an exploit. I said if they can handle the bug that uses the exploit, why worry about the patch. I said if they cannot handle the bug that uses the exploit, they should clearly state that fact, and inform the user they should patch up because the AV cannot defend it. I don't know what you are referring to.


Oh, and I do like coffee better than tea.

Attention all users of Wilders !! According to this post, if you are not fully updated with all MS service packs and patches/hotfixes, you might just be
{QUOTE-> Another known malware catapult. <-QUOTE}



late.

[Cosmo 203]

{QUOTE-> I never said that an AV should find an exploit. I said if they can handle the bug that uses the exploit, why worry about the patch. I said if they cannot handle the bug that uses the exploit, they should clearly state that fact, and inform the user they should patch up because the AV cannot defend it. I don't know what you are referring to. <-QUOTE}
Further more you don't know, what a bug in an OS is and what an AV program does. 2 different things! Bugs in a closed software can only be patched / handled by the owners of the source. The duty of an AV program is to prevent the intrusion of software (maybe executables, maybe data) into a system, reagradless of it's state.

{QUOTE-> Attention all users of Wilders !! According to this post, if you are not fully updated with all MS service packs and patches/hotfixes, you might just be {QUOTE-> Another known malware catapult <-QUOTE} <-QUOTE}
This time you have understood. (Didn't hurt, did it?) But I fear, you will never understand the real meaning. Keep rolling on the floor and get dirty.

In the consequence: If you prefer to keep your malware catapult, it sounds logic that you do not want to get "annoyed" by the information about that state. IMO NOD32 is about preventing such mistakes, but of course it can only prevent mistakes, if the user does not have the intention, to connect with his unsafe machine to the Net and distribute his dirt. The number of zombie pcs is horrible, they "belong" to people as you, who prefer to make silly jokes about that.

[Sully]

{QUOTE-> Further more you don't know, what a bug in an OS is and what an AV program does. 2 different things! Bugs in a closed software can only be patched / handled by the owners of the source. The duty of an AV program is to prevent the intrusion of software (maybe executables, maybe data) into a system, reagradless of it's state. <-QUOTE}

DUDE ! LOL, not a bug, a bug. Too funny. Now I see why you keep coming back with that. I don't mean that an AV should find and handle a software bug. I mean bug, as in virus,trojan,malware, what-have-you. I write code in a few different languages/scripts, and I know what a bug is. YES. You are 100% correct, it should find virii bugs, not software bugs.

{QUOTE->
This time you have understood. (Didn't hurt, did it?) But I fear, you will never understand the real meaning. Keep rolling on the floor and get dirty.

In the consequence: If you prefer to keep your malware catapult, it sounds logic that you do not want to get "annoyed" by the information about that state. IMO NOD32 is about preventing such mistakes, but of course it can only prevent mistakes, if the user does not have the intention, to connect with his unsafe machine to the Net and distribute his dirt. The number of zombie pcs is horrible, they "belong" to people as you, who prefer to make silly jokes about that. <-QUOTE}
Umm, if I knew nothing about winders, then you would be correct. But, I have spent years now heavily modifying my RETAIL PAID FOR (would not want you thinking I run pirate :) ) XP Pro. My unattended dvd installs my stuff, without many of the things I cannot stand about the OS gone. Are you really implying that without patches being up to date, it is just a matter of time before my rig becomes a 'Malware catapult' ? Please. It is just not so. I KNOW what is going out on my machine. I KNOW what is coming in on my machine. I am ANAL about that stuff, although I have been less so since I NEVER have problems. Emphasis, lol, not yelling btw.

Come on, I have router logs accumulate, I have fw logs accumulate. I go over these logs. I send repeating scans incoming to my ISP if they ip is in thier subnet. You are not talking to a noob here. And I daresay there are many here who would feel the same. I don't care what patches I have on or not, I choose to take care of the matters myself when possible. Sometimes it is not, but many patches that fix exploits are only needed if you run a standard install. And I most certainly do not.

I will concede and agree that peeps who go to Best Buy and get a new computer, and then start using it without any real knowledge are the ones you refer to as having 'Malware catapults'. Lord knows I have fixed hundreds of thier computers.

Well, happy new year, and here is hoping Nod or any AV can catch all the virii 'Bugs' they can.

Sul.

[Marcos]

Please refrain from personal attacks and start behaving normally. The new version 4 has introduced a new feature for notifying the user about missing OS updates. Those who are not interested in using it, simply disable it and that's all. It's much easier than posting here long posts full of personal attacks and inappropriate wordings.

[ch64]

I have stopped using software when they start to implement functions they have no business to mess with before and this definitely going to stop me from renew my license.

[techie007]

{QUOTE-> they start to implement functions they have no business to mess with before <-QUOTE}

Umm, yeah! What he said. :)

ANYWAYS...

It's a dumb feature for the most part (and redundant bloat) from a business domain perspective (WSUS + scheduled MBSA scans anyone?), but as long as I can disable it on my clients from the RAS, I'm happy.

On the other hand, it's a pretty good idea for the average home/wokgroup user. Since I've seen plenty of infections that shut down, mimic and generally interfere with XP's Security Centre.

"I don't install Windows updates because my friend told me that they can screw your system up"

"Is your friend a computer technician?"

"Well he likes to surf Tom's Hardware and SlashDot all day, does that count?"

"No." <click>

Since there's plenty of genital-waving going on here, I'll swing mine. I've literally built thousands of Windows PC's, workstations and servers personally in the last 10+ years (professionally -- like with a paycheck and stuff), and serviced any number of them that developed problems over the years, both hardware and software.

I have yet to have a Windows Update ever _cause_ Windows to have a significant problem.

98% of the time they simply reveal problems in other peoples' software (or infection), 1% of the time they reveal bad hardware -- which are what's REALLY _causing_ the problem.

The last 1% is reserved for when Microsoft 'accidentally' pushed out Windows Desktop Search as an auto-install update (yes I'm STILL bugged by that). :)

[Cosmo 203]

There seems to be something wrong with the configuration of that feature, or it works totally different than expected:

I have set, that NOD shall warn me about critical updates. If I now click on "here" on the warning page and open the box, where NOD lists the missing updates, than things as Windows Search, WMP 11, .NET Languagepacks and more things, which are definitly not "critrical" are shown.

With "critical" I would understand those updates that are in the important section of Windows update.

[Hirtzy]

Weighing in to the debate here from a business IT admin perspective, I believe that this feature is not necessary for a business environment. Low resource usage is one of the reasons we choose to go with ESET and I believe that this feature is just added bloat!

In a business environment you don't want your antivirus software warning about windows updates for the simple fact that updates are sometimes rolled out in a progressive nature (ie. not automatically) to allow for testing and evaluation. This delay would cause users to freak out cause their getting warning's that update xxxx isn't installed and their whole world is now falling apart and they demand that it be fixed yesterday..... an IT admins nightmare ;)

In saying that this feature may have its merits for "some" home users so as long as it can be disabled I don't see a major problem but ideally I would rather ESET focus their development efforts on improving detection instead of adding "mostly" unnecessary features or bloat :)

[funkydude]

My guess is it will be disabled by default in the Business Edition. Stop throwing the word "bloat" around. It's not bloat. YOU think it's bloat because you won't use it. A perfect example of bloat would be if ESET added something like "banner protection".

[wrathchild]

What's the next step, missing browser updates?:shifty: It's better that you look at your court and optimize engine, so we can enable AH by default without drastic performance decrease.:thumbd:

[SmackyTheFrog]

{QUOTE-> What's the next step, missing browser updates?:shifty: It's better that you look at your court and optimize engine, so we can enable AH by default without drastic performance decrease.:thumbd: <-QUOTE}
And what magical coding wizardry do you propose so sandboxing an executable isn't a resource intensive? An insecure OS makes AV products pointless because you have an open door to trojans and rootkits to hide themselves and disable scanning engines. A patch verification system is jack squat in implementation time compared to working on new signatures and heuristic routines and the payoff can potentially be huge for home users. If the feature so offends you turn it off, but it is pointless to complain at this point considering the work is done.

[Hirtzy]

{QUOTE-> My guess is it will be disabled by default in the Business Edition. Stop throwing the word "bloat" around. It's not bloat. YOU think it's bloat because you won't use it. A perfect example of bloat would be if ESET added something like "banner protection". <-QUOTE}

That would make sense to disable it by default for the business edition and yes I do think that it is bloat because I can't see the merit of it in a business environment. Not disagreeing with you on that one :)

A smart way to implement these sort of "added" (but not critical) features IMHO would be to implement them as add on modules instead of integrating them into the core product. I am not a software developer so don't know the feasibility of such an approach but it could involve giving the user the option of installing the module as part of the installation process. The advantage of this is that you can have these added non essential features if you want to without adding to the overall bloat (here goes that word again ;D) of the product.

[SmackyTheFrog]

{QUOTE-> That would make sense to disable it by default for the business edition and yes I do think that it is bloat because I can't see the merit of it in a business environment. Not disagreeing with you on that one :)

A smart way to implement these sort of "added" (but not critical) features IMHO would be to implement them as add on modules instead of integrating them into the core product. I am not a software developer so don't know the feasibility of such an approach but it could involve giving the user the option of installing the module as part of the installation process. The advantage of this is that you can have these added non essential features if you want to without adding to the overall bloat (here goes that word again ;D) of the product. <-QUOTE}
The only "bloat" here is a small amount of disk space and GUI real-estate to keep the inactive feature. If the module is disabled, it will not be consuming memory, CPU cycles, or I/O time. This isn't bloat, period. It is an extra feature that is easily disabled if you do not want it.

[Hirtzy]

{QUOTE-> The only "bloat" here is a small amount of disk space and GUI real-estate to keep the inactive feature. If the module is disabled, it will not be consuming memory, CPU cycles, or I/O time. This isn't bloat, period. It is an extra feature that is easily disabled if you do not want it. <-QUOTE}

Absolutely correct :) but I am still going to call it bloat in that it isn't a core aspect of the product IMO. I still think though, moving forward (and looking past this specific feature to the future) that ESET should implement these additional, non essential features in a modular way by offering to install these certain components at the point of installation thus minimizing impact on resource efficiency.

[wrathchild]

{QUOTE-> ...that ESET should implement these additional, non essential features in a modular way by offering to install these certain components at the point of installation thus minimizing impact on resource efficiency. <-QUOTE}
Absolutely agree!

[Cosmo 203]

{QUOTE-> but I am still going to call it bloat in that it isn't a core aspect of the product IMO. <-QUOTE}
What is a core aspect? If you go back into the years of MS-DOS, where the OS not even integrated the drivers of the most common hardware (except standard-vga display and IIRC a mouse driver) and compare it with today's Windows' versions: Is all(!) what Windows provides core: The graphical GUI, the PnP-driver integration for most common hardware, basic interfaces for applications, or - to stay near the topic - the possibility to upgrade the OS via Internet? If you call all of that bloat, than you are right. But if you think, that those (in comparison with DOS) additional features are a consequence of the changes in the time, than you are wrong. I think so; the world moves on.

Look at the enhanced possibilities the computer gave to mankind in a few ten years, this will continue, I am sure. Perhaps on some time it will be possible to take part on democratic elections via PC, what a great advantage for sick people or those who live to far from a polling station or are somewhere else in the world (not at home). But it (only as an example) requires secured PCs. An OS without the latest updates is the opposite of secure - and probably tells something about the user. (OK, there exist people who hate mirrors which tell them the truth about themselves.)

{QUOTE-> modular way <-QUOTE}
I don't know the code of NOD, and you do not know it. So, how do you know, that the frame for such a modular construction is worth the effort? OR, that this modular construction does not arise new problems? BTW, I can already see the next person who tells, that the core functionality of an AV-program has to be the on-demand scanning and the on-access scan shall only be a modular extension. And than there comes the next one who says, that on-access is core and on-demand is option and has to be an optional module. No, this does not convince me. The update state info is abolishable and so the user can exactly set it the way (s)he wants. (Whereat I do not see a good and convincing(!) reason to turn it off.)

EDIT: For those you are still not convinced:

If you upgrade your Windows properly, why do you want NOD not checking this state? I cannot find any sensefull reason.

On the other site: If you do not upgrade your OD = you know that your OS is insecure (as often enough documented) and want to leave it insecure: Why do you spend money for a security app at all? Just to get the imagination having done something for security? One thing I like is the fact, that NOD is not for wrong promises, but for that, what I call core functionality.

Do you bring your car to the service station and tell to the service man: "I want you to check the motor, but I prohibit, that you take a look, if the wheels are secure connected to the axes. Also I do not care, if my brakes do not work." Those people have to give away their driver license, not the service man his service license!

[wrathchild]

{QUOTE->
On the other site: If you do not upgrade your OD = you know that your OS is insecure (as often enough documented) and want to leave it insecure: Why do you spend money for a security app at all? Just to get the imagination having done something for security? One thing I like is the fact, that NOD is not for wrong promises, but for that, what I call core functionality.
<-QUOTE}
Are you trying to say that all these years (from the very first version of NOD32 or any other AV) we just had a imagination of security, until now with this "revolutionary" core functionality?!...lol;D

[Cosmo 203]

{QUOTE-> Are you trying to say that all these years (from the very first version of NOD32 or any other AV) we just had a imagination of security, until now with this "revolutionary" core functionality?!...lol;D <-QUOTE}
No, I did not try to say this or any other stupidity; the one who did say this, was you! And I understand, that you tried to catch me by my own words. But this did not work. At least I expect, that you read correctly: There is absolutely no misunderstanding possible, that I spoke about the wrong imagination of security using a non-patched OS, but using a security program, which shall not be allowed to optionally inform about the missing updates. It appears to me, that you intentionally made this "revolutionary" joke, although you knew exactly, what I wrote. But in case you really did not see your fault: An AV-app, that does not inform about the update state cannot give an imagination about anything, this by design. You tried a really stupid wordplay, and it came out as a shot onto the back, hitting the shooter.

I did - and you should read yourself correctly, before trying to dupe me - say the following:{QUOTE-> additional features are a consequence of the changes in the time .... the world moves on. <-QUOTE}There is always something left, that can get be made better, otherwise we would still use MS-DOS, or the first version of any program. If this would not be true, I do not understand, why you use on 2 systems the alpha version of opera; is the actual final version or any other browser crap and therefor unusable? Even V4 of NOD32 will not be perfect for all time, it is an enhancement of the previous version. (Perhaps some have difficulties to follow the moving world; perhaps, because they do not care about the brakes and the wheels, but only the alpha (by definition = not stable) versions of the engines.) Realy a "revolutionary" joke: Alpha version of a browser, but refusal of information about OS's security updates.

[Hirtzy]

{QUOTE->
I don't know the code of NOD, and you do not know it. So, how do you know, that the frame for such a modular construction is worth the effort?
<-QUOTE}

Well the simple fact of the matter is the only people who know whether this modular approach would be feasible is ESET themselves. What I am doing is simply putting forward an idea of modular software development that I believe offers the best compromise between adding extra features and minimizing resource usage. Whether ESET decides to look into this approach is totally within their control and obviously it is not something that they could most likely implement in the short term so it could be considered for future versions.

This modular approach really has its benefits in helping the product to distinguish between the needs of the home vs business user whilst still giving the user the choice to implement their desired features.

{QUOTE->
The update state info is abolishable and so the user can exactly set it the way (s)he wants. (Whereat I do not see a good and convincing(!) reason to turn it off.)
<-QUOTE}

In looking at a business scenario for turning this feature off I will quote one of my previous posts "you don't want your antivirus software warning about windows updates for the simple fact that updates are sometimes rolled out in a progressive nature (ie. not automatically) to allow for testing and evaluation. This delay would cause users to freak out cause their getting warning's that update xxxx isn't installed and their whole world is now falling apart and they demand that it be fixed yesterday..... an IT admins nightmare"

[Cosmo 203]

{QUOTE-> This modular approach ... giving the user the choice to implement their desired features. <-QUOTE}This choice might be the wrong choice. Again: People, who update correctly, will not have to worry about that feature (by design), people, who do not update, seem to make wrong decisions, so it is not a good idea, to give the decision also during installation. The option to make the settings as needed is there and that is good. Furthermore: All new users (except the minority, who have read this thread) will come during installation to this question: (Do you want to install ...?") and new and unexperienced users don't know how to respond - that is a quite common observation. So your modular approach can get responsible for absolutely unneeded headaches; it can be exactly the wrong design decision.
{QUOTE-> In looking at a business scenario for turning this feature off I will quote one of my previous posts "you don't want your antivirus software warning about windows updates for the simple fact that updates are sometimes rolled out in a progressive nature (ie. not automatically) to allow for testing and evaluation. This delay would cause users to freak out cause their getting warning's that update xxxx isn't installed and their whole world is now falling apart and they demand that it be fixed yesterday..... an IT admins nightmare" <-QUOTE}And that will tell us what? How did NOD come to the machines you are talking about? Obviously by installation. And the admin, who (following your scenario) is able to uncheck a module shall not be able to make the needed setting for this feature? More than unbelievable: Absolutely impossible.

[wrathchild]

{QUOTE-> Again: People, who update correctly, will not have to worry about that feature (by design) <-QUOTE}
For instance, I update correctly and I don't want that feature (by design).

{QUOTE-> Furthermore: All new users (except the minority, who have read this thread) will come during installation to this question: (Do you want to install ...?") and new and unexperienced users don't know how to respond - that is a quite common observation. So your modular approach can get responsible for absolutely unneeded headaches; it can be exactly the wrong design decision. <-QUOTE}
I'm quite sure that you're seen installations with dialog where you can choose between easy (for non experienced users) and custom (for advanced users) installation.

[Cosmo 203]

{QUOTE-> For instance, I update correctly and I don't want that feature (by design). <-QUOTE}You can drub with your feet if you want, but this does never get a plausible argument. (Except you would tell, why you do not want the feature and update correctly at the same time. But I have no idea, where this should make sense.)
{QUOTE-> I'm quite sure that you're seen installations with dialog where you can choose between easy (for non experienced users) and custom (for advanced users) installation. <-QUOTE} And now the benefit for the non experienced users is what? (Technically it is possible to implement any nonsense into the installer.) You suggest a modular solution (again: without having the smallest idea about the code) and say, that the majority (it is fact, that the readers here are only a very small part of the NOD users) shall only have the disadvantage: a modular system will be most likely greater, i. e. will need more resources (thank you to all, who argue for more resources needed) and more difficult to maintain. Even from the tiny minority, who know what the module selection means, one part will not have the smallest benefit of the resource-hungry modularity, because they choose to install the useful feature. So only those, who stupidly drub with the feet for not getting informed about a unacceptable user bug shall have the advantage? What a shame to suggest such a thing.

[agoretsky]

Hello,

Verizon Business Services, the arm of the telecommunications carrier responsible for corporate data services, recently published their 2008 Data Breach Report, which can be found here (http://www.verizonbusiness.com/resources/security/databreachreport.pdf) on their web site.

The report is not specific to malware. As a matter of fact, only 31% of breaches were from malicious code; hacking was the initial vector, at 59% (and the results are greater than 100%, since multiple methods were used in some cases), but what was interesting was that when looking at the availability of patches at the times the breach occurred, 71% of the exploitations used vulnerabilities for which patches had been available for more than twelve months.

There is also a supplemental report available here (http://www.verizonbusiness.com/resources/security/databreachsuppwp.pdf), but I have not had time to look as it in detail.

Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky

[Cosmo 203]

{QUOTE-> 31% of breaches were from malicious code
hacking was the initial vector, at 59%
71% of the exploitations used vulnerabilities for which patches had been available for more than twelve months. <-QUOTE}
That is, what I said several times.

The basic methods for securing the pc are easy and cheap: Regularly updates and use of a limited account. People who miss those methods are until a certain amount guilty themselves for infections, if they spent money for having the illusion of a security, that they brake themselves, is their own ideology. But telling, that a configurable warning about this matter is bloat, that is dangerous, as it is the untruth.