![]() |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
are there any configuration keys for nob32 that will make it work at its optimal performance.
|
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Hello,
The default settings are the optimal ones. Regards, Aryeh Goretsky
__________________
Resources: ESET · blog · documentation · FAQs · knowledge base · news · RSS · signature updates · support · Threat Center · @ESETNA (Twitter) · YouTube: ESETKnowledgebase · VirusRadar Fun Stuff: Facebook (global) · Facebook (US) · @ESET (Twitter) · YouTube: esetusa |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
What about smart (intelligent) optimization etc.? Is it enabled by default?
__________________
Windows 8 Pro x64 - Appguard - HitmanPro - Shadow Defender |
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Pentium M| 512 RAM ESET NOD32 Antivirus 5 ESET Smart Security 6 RC |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
You guys could by the way consider to include the option to enable detection of Potentially Unsafe Programs in the installer, so you have two PUP options on one installer page. |
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
PUsA is disabled by default. PUwA setting is user-dependant at installation process. This categories are usually for detecting grayware. Definitely: add a check box to enable PUsA during EAV / ESS setup. (It was added to the wishlist by many users including me)
__________________
Pentium M| 512 RAM ESET NOD32 Antivirus 5 ESET Smart Security 6 RC Last edited by toxinon12345 : January 11th, 2011 at 03:20 PM. |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I am wondering what is the reason why to include an option for PUwA (which I think most people enable detection for) in the installer, and not for PUsA? Does ESET consider PUwA as more effective? Or does ESET consider PUsA to be causing too many false positives? I am wondering because they are indeed for detecting greyware. But the most important threat category nowadays is in my opinion fake security/rogue software. Which is greyware, really hard to differentiate from legimate software. |
| « Previous Thread | Next Thread » |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|