Nod32 Beta 4 tells me my system OS Is

Discussion in 'ESET NOD32 Antivirus v4 Beta Forum' started by Dark Shadow, Dec 9, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Hirtzy

    Hirtzy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2008
    Posts:
    17
    Location:
    Australia
    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.
     
  2. wrathchild

    wrathchild Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2008
    Posts:
    170
    Location:
    Neoplantesis
    Absolutely agree!
     
  3. Cosmo 203

    Cosmo 203 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2008
    Posts:
    165
    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.)

    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!
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2009
  4. wrathchild

    wrathchild Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2008
    Posts:
    170
    Location:
    Neoplantesis
    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
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2009
  5. Cosmo 203

    Cosmo 203 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2008
    Posts:
    165
    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:
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2009
  6. Hirtzy

    Hirtzy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2008
    Posts:
    17
    Location:
    Australia
    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.

    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"
     
  7. Cosmo 203

    Cosmo 203 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2008
    Posts:
    165
    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.
    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.
     
  8. wrathchild

    wrathchild Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2008
    Posts:
    170
    Location:
    Neoplantesis
    For instance, I update correctly and I don't want that feature (by design).

    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.
     
  9. Cosmo 203

    Cosmo 203 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2008
    Posts:
    165
    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.)
    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.
     
  10. agoretsky

    agoretsky Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Posts:
    4,033
    Location:
    California
    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 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, but I have not had time to look as it in detail.

    Regards,

    Aryeh Goretsky
     
  11. Cosmo 203

    Cosmo 203 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2008
    Posts:
    165
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.