How to get Cloud working

[Thankful]

My cloud feature is not showing reputation information for processes. It is NOT speeding up my scan times. What else do I have to do besides enabling the cloud? Thanks.

[xxJackxx]

Mine showed nothing for processes for about 30 seconds but then it loaded. Maybe you are not giving it enough time to download the information? Mine loaded when I clicked "Open in new window". I don't know if that loaded the info or if it was just a coincidence of timing.

[Thankful]

Thanks for responding. Mine just loaded after about 10 minutes, all 14 processes. However, I don't see the scans accessing information from the cloud such as with Hitman Pro. Such functionality will require a large collection of files which will take some time to create.

[Galaxykiss]

i don't think it is so useful as it can only show the info of the proccesses but the user can't do anything such as terminate or delete them.

anyway, my cloud is work but I have to wait for 5 sec.

[xxJackxx]

It doesn't appear to be realtime. I launched some extra processes with the window open and I had to close it and open it again to get them to show up.

[Thankful]

Originally Posted by xxJackxx

It doesn't appear to be realtime. I launched some extra processes with the window open and I had to close it and open it again to get them to show up.

So how can you say it is "fully functional"?

[yongsua]

Originally Posted by Thankful

So how can you say it is "fully functional"?

IMO,the "cloud" probably works like an "on demand checker" just like an on demand scanner.It is not "realtime" just as xxJackxx mentioned in his post. Hope you understand.

[Thankful]

Originally Posted by yongsua

IMO,the "cloud" probably works like an "on demand checker" just like an on demand scanner.It is not "realtime" just as xxJackxx mentioned in his post. Hope you understand.

Nobody seems to understand. If I look at my on-demand logs, I see no reference to the cloud.

Originally Posted by Thankful

Nobody seems to understand. If I look at my on-demand logs, I see no reference to the cloud.

No ofcourse not, why would it? It also doesn't refer to local stored signatures and generic signatures. Why should it refer to any cloud connection? It is just working the background.

[Thankful]

Originally Posted by Matthijs5nl

No ofcourse not, why would it? It also doesn't refer to local stored signatures and generic signatures. Why should it refer to any cloud connection? It is just working the background.

And the supposed faster scanning times? I guess I'm not supposed to see them either ? Right?

[xxJackxx]

Originally Posted by Thankful

So how can you say it is "fully functional"?

I was talking about the display. Refreshing it updates the list. Sitting there watching it does not.

Originally Posted by Thankful

And the supposed faster scanning times? I guess I'm not supposed to see them either ? Right?

My scan times also haven't speed up in comparison to version 4. But I guess there are maybe some small changes to what is being scanned, since it scans more objects in roughly the same time, so in fact the scan did speed up.

[Thankful]

Why is the risk level of java.exe "red" in the cloud? Is this such an unusual file for the cloud to identify?

[trjam]

I think Marcos answers that question here . Basically somewhere down the line, or over the rainbow, it will work.

The part about evolution scare me though when you think about how long it took man to do this.

[Thankful]

Originally Posted by trjam

I think Marcos answers that question here . Basically somewhere down the line, or over the rainbow, it will work.

The part about evolution scare me though when you think about how long it took man to do this.

Thanks for responding. This brings me back to my original point. The cloud is not "fully functional" and therefore I question the review of this Beta by AV-Test.

[yongsua]

Originally Posted by Thankful

Thanks for responding. This brings me back to my original point. The cloud is not "fully functional" and therefore I question the review of this Beta by AV-Test.

I still don't understand why you still think it is not fully functional.It is already started and functioning to collect data.I think what you mean by "fully functional" is you would like to see this feature works perfectly,really can see and feel the reduction of scanning time.Then only you can call it as "fully functional"?

[Thankful]

Originally Posted by yongsua

I still don't understand why you still think it is not fully functional.It is already started and functioning to collect data.I think what you mean by "fully functional" is you would like to see this feature works perfectly,really can see and feel the reduction of scanning time.Then only you can call it as "fully functional"?

See: http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showp...7&postcount=14

[yongsua]

Originally Posted by Thankful

See: http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showp...7&postcount=14

Ya,Thanks.Main point here:

Originally Posted by Marcos

At this point it is not safe to flag files with low reputation as bad and we're yet to see if that will ever be possible as such detections would cause FPs on less common files.

So it is not fully functional,right?

[xxJackxx]

Originally Posted by yongsua

So it is not fully functional,right?

I wouldn't call it that. They shouldn't be automatically calling unknown files bad. IE9 does this and it gets annoying. I'm sure the database for this thing needs to be build upon but that does not mean it does not function correctly.

[trjam]

Also this is a beta, duh. If everything worked perfectly, it would be a release.

Cut Eset some slack, they do know what they are doing and, where they are headed.

[Marcos]

Originally Posted by yongsua

So it is not fully functional,right?

It is. It's not our aim to alert the user about every single file that doesn't have good reputation or we'd end up producing tons of FPs and alerting the user dozens of times, not long until it becomes annoying (similar to firewall or HIPS prompting every while and then for an action).
Quite the contrary, ESET has been effectively using cloud data to MINIMIZE the occurrences of FPs and MAXIMIZE the chance of recognizing new born, not yet known malware so cloud is already bearing fruit and benefits to both ESET and its customers.

[yongsua]

Originally Posted by Marcos

It is. It's not our aim to alert the user about every single file that doesn't have good reputation or we'd end up producing tons of FPs and alerting the user dozens of times, not long until it becomes annoying (similar to firewall or HIPS prompting every while and then for an action).
Quite the contrary, ESET has been effectively using cloud data to MINIMIZE the occurrences of FPs and MAXIMIZE the chance of recognizing new born, not yet known malware so cloud is already bearing fruit and benefits to both ESET and its customers.

Thanks Marcos.You had change back my mind.I keep telling Thankful that the "cloud" is fully functional but I can't

[Marcos]

Originally Posted by Thankful

Thanks for responding. Mine just loaded after about 10 minutes, all 14 processes.

That's weird, it should normally take only a few seconds to get a response from the cloud servers. I'm gonna look into it further as soon as I return from a conference tomorrow.

[xxJackxx]

Originally Posted by Marcos

...It's not our aim to alert the user about every single file that doesn't have good reputation or we'd end up producing tons of FPs and alerting the user dozens of times...

Thanks for the clarification. I much prefer this than the way some other vendors are doing it.

[Thankful]

How about having "java.exe" show up as 'green' rather than "red"? Also, do something with the "number of people" column so we have an indication things are working as they should.