"View workgroup computers" Error

Discussion in 'ESET Smart Security' started by stueycaster, Nov 10, 2007.

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

    kC_ Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    Posts:
    580
    update: bug persists in 3.0.566.0
     
  2. kC_

    kC_ Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    Posts:
    580
    those who are suffering and have 100mbit cards, as a test you could possibly try to force the nic card to connect at 10mbps.
     
  3. Jeff Bellune

    Jeff Bellune Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2006
    Posts:
    21
    Brilliant!

    Reducing the Link speed from 100 Mbps to 10 Mbps and rebooting allowed me to see my workgroup computers again.

    I was away from my workstation for a couple of hours, no activity and no changed settings in ESS. Upon my return, trying to view the workgroup computers resulted in the network-is-not-available message.

    I switched back to 100 Mbps (after the 10 Mbps fix) and I could still see the workgroup computers. If the problem occurs again, I may just leave the NIC set to 10 Mbps, since my NIC only connects to my wireless router, and all other computers on the network connect via wireless.
     
  4. kC_

    kC_ Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    Posts:
    580
    nope switching back to your original speed will only work for a few hours at most .
    if you want your workgroup working 24/7 you would have to leave it at 10mbps
    (at least thats my expierience) except im going down too 100mb from 1000mb

    i also dont require a reboot when switching link speeds for the fix to work.

    -instal ess... "view workgroup computers" works fine for maybe 2 hours... then the error comes up "you dont have permissions"
    - switch my nic link mode from 1000mb to 100mb = "view workgroup computers" immediately works again, and has worked perfectly for 4-5days uptime+
    - switch nic back to 1000mb and "view workgroup computers" still works but for only 2 hours, then its problem returns..

    so only way i have it working here now all day everyday is if i leave it forced at the lower rate.. hoping eset can fix this, has been reported since beta1 !!!!!
     
  5. stueycaster

    stueycaster Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Posts:
    293
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    Cool! I was beginning to think there were only three of us with this problem.

    I'm using XP x64 edition. I have an onboard Gigabit lan that has allways been set to 100 Mbps.

    1. Yes. Each time the betas would cause this problem I switched back to Version 2.7 and the problem went away.

    2. I'm not really sure. I tried Automatic for a short time but there was no way of unblocking my lan messenger so I went back to Interactive. Besides this is the reason why I bought this. I really want control of what goes out and I want to be alerted if anything tries to get out.

    3. No difference.

    4. Here is a small part of what is in my firewall log. I tried to give an example of the different entries. There seems to be over a thousand of them.

    11/15/2007 1:45:13 PM Communication denied by rule 192.168.0.1:1482 192.168.0.100:2869 TCP Block incoming ICSLAP (UPNP) requests system NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM
    11/15/2007 1:41:47 PM No usable rule found 192.168.0.100 224.0.0.22 IGMP
    11/15/2007 1:32:27 PM Communication denied by rule 192.168.0.1:1479 192.168.0.100:2869 TCP Block incoming ICSLAP (UPNP) requests system NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM
    11/15/2007 1:29:00 PM Communication denied by rule 192.168.0.1:1900 239.255.255.250:1900 UDP Block incoming SSDP (UPNP) requests
    11/14/2007 9:21:42 PM Communication denied by rule 192.168.0.1:1464 192.168.0.100:2869 TCP Block incoming ICSLAP (UPNP) requests system NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM
    11/14/2007 9:18:18 PM No usable rule found 192.168.0.100 224.0.0.22 IGMP
    11/14/2007 9:18:17 PM Communication denied by rule 192.168.0.1:1900 239.255.255.250:1900 UDP Block incoming SSDP (UPNP) requests
    11/14/2007 8:50:29 PM Communication denied by rule 192.168.0.1:1461 192.168.0.100:2869 TCP Block incoming ICSLAP (UPNP) requests system NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM
    11/14/2007 8:47:01 PM Communication denied by rule 192.168.0.1:1900 239.255.255.250:1900 UDP Block incoming SSDP (UPNP) requests
    11/14/2007 6:13:22 PM Communication denied by rule 192.168.0.1:1458 192.168.0.100:2869 TCP Block incoming ICSLAP (UPNP) requests system NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM
    11/14/2007 9:15:19 AM Communication denied by rule 192.168.0.100:137 207.46.232.182:137 UDP Block outgoing NETBIOS requests system NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM
    11/14/2007 4:48:33 AM Communication denied by rule 192.168.0.1:1449 192.168.0.100:2869 TCP Block incoming ICSLAP (UPNP) requests system NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM
    11/14/2007 4:37:43 AM No usable rule found 192.168.0.100 224.0.0.22 IGMP
    11/14/2007 4:37:43 AM Communication denied by rule 192.168.0.1:1900 239.255.255.250:1900 UDP Block incoming SSDP (UPNP) requests
    11/11/2007 7:22:45 PM No usable rule found 192.168.0.106:1033 255.255.255.255:19771 UDP
    11/10/2007 11:51:02 PM Communication denied by rule 192.168.0.1:1412 192.168.0.100:2869 TCP Block incoming ICSLAP (UPNP) requests system NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM
    11/10/2007 11:50:12 PM Communication denied by rule 192.168.0.1:1411 192.168.0.100:2869 TCP Block incoming ICSLAP (UPNP) requests system NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM
    11/10/2007 11:48:58 PM Communication denied by rule 192.168.0.1:1410 192.168.0.100:2869 TCP Block incoming ICSLAP (UPNP) requests system NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM
    11/10/2007 11:47:31 PM No usable rule found 192.168.0.1:67 255.255.255.255:68 UDP
    11/10/2007 9:36:25 PM No usable rule found 192.168.0.100 224.0.0.22 IGMP
    11/10/2007 4:03:41 PM Communication denied by rule 192.168.0.100:137 12.129.31.7:137 UDP Block outgoing NETBIOS requests system NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM
    11/10/2007 9:37:33 AM Communication denied by rule 192.168.0.1:1389 192.168.0.100:2869 TCP Block incoming ICSLAP (UPNP) requests system NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM
    11/10/2007 9:33:58 AM Communication denied by rule 192.168.0.1:1900 239.255.255.250:1900 UDP Block incoming SSDP (UPNP) requests d:\windows\system32\svchost.exe NT AUTHORITY\LOCAL SERVICE

    5. No other firewall.

    Something I failed to mention is that the other computer on the network doesn't list this one when I try to view the workgroup computers.
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2007
  6. Jeff Bellune

    Jeff Bellune Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2006
    Posts:
    21
    Update:

    The error occurred again with my NIC set to 10 Mbps. I changed the speed back to 100 Mbps and then I could view my workgroup computers again. After the usual few hours, I had to switch back to 10 Mbps to view them again.

    So maybe it is a change of speed that temporarily fixes the issue, rather than simply a lowering of the speed of the NIC.
     
  7. kC_

    kC_ Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    Posts:
    580
    i have found with 3.0.566.0 its actually worse. now i get same symptoms as yourself, no matter which mode i switch to it gets blocked after 2 hours.

    ive uninstalled ESS and reverted to nod32 2.7 and my routers firewall for now.

    eset uk support im in touch with just keep telling me "try the new version it might fix it"
    not very happy at all
     
  8. Jeff Bellune

    Jeff Bellune Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2006
    Posts:
    21
    I really want to like ESS, but I need it to work. Right now, it doesn't, as noted in my ESS+Vista32=Network OK, Internet not OK thread. I want a security suite that I can manage across all of my XP computers and my one Vista computer.

    I have several months left on my ZoneAlarm Security Suite subscription. But it can't update its signatures on Vista, and on XP I am sick of its (unmodifiable) hourly updates that steal focus from whatever app I am working on.

    AVG's suite installs and works on Vista, but its scanners have too many false positives on my XP boxes, and I have almost no confidence in its virus and spyware abilities.

    ESS has problems on all my boxes, and I have contributed to forum topics discussing those. Its best-of-breed AV, small footprint and great UI are really attractive, but in its current state it is unusable for me.

    I was going to try Kaspersky's new suite, but the reviews I've read seem to indicate that it has lousy protection out-of-the-box. It apparently takes quite a bit of tweaking to get it to "bullet-proof" levels of security.

    I apologize for the off-topic stuff. You can probably tell that getting my Vista laptop properly protected and integrated into my (mostly) XP network has been a complete exercise in frustration.

    I'll keep working on this with ESET as long as I can.
     
  9. stueycaster

    stueycaster Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Posts:
    293
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    Eset was able to produce an antivirus that in my opinion is the best on the market. I love the way it always allowed my system to run free and easy while it kept it safe from viruses. I've used some other products and found they weren't as good as Nod32.

    However it's also been my experience that there is no such thing as a perfect computer application. Microsucks is the largest software manufacturer in the world and there are so many problems with Windows that just learning to use it takes years. The average computer user surfs the net, uses email, plays with photographs and plays video games on it. Then when it develops problems due to malware they take it to the shop and pay someone to fix it. I can't believe how many applications I've tried and discarded because there was no way of getting them to work right. I'm really surprised I like still like computers as much as I do. I guess it's the challenge.

    What I am trying to say is don't get disheartened. Eset will turn this thing into something that is at least as good as if not better than the other products on the market. Go spend some time in the forums of the other anti-malware companies. People have a ton of problems with their mature products. Probably every computer in the world has a different software configuration and there has to be conflicts. Just keep working on it and have faith. Be nice to the folks at ESET. They're doing their best and I'd say they've done a good job.

    Sorry but I needed to rant a little. It just bothers me the way some people have treated the ESET crew.
     
  10. Jeff Bellune

    Jeff Bellune Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2006
    Posts:
    21
    Well said, stueycaster.

    I hope my "rant" didn't come across as bashing ESET. I'm only using the trial version of ESS and already I've gotten great support from ESET both here and privately. I do not question ESET's commitment to excellence at all.

    It is the overall experience that has frustrated me. Think about it - Vista has been RTM for a year, and yet ZoneAlarm still doesn't have a functionally reliable Vista version released. How silly is that? I know the developers at CheckPoint must be equally frustrated, so I don't want to bash them, either.

    TBH, if I could have purchased a laptop for my son that *didn't* have Vista on it, I would have. But requesting that an upgrade :) to XP be preinstalled would have cost me even more money (if it was even possible).

    I seem to be wandering off-topic again, so I'll just take my seat and be quiet now.
     
  11. stueycaster

    stueycaster Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Posts:
    293
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    No you didn't come across that way Jeff. I've read some of the most horrible things directed at ESET over this.

    I can empathise with you totally on your problems. I've had to reinstall Windows more than once because of problems I had with third party applications. Besides, Vista wasn't designed with the users in mind. It was designed for Digital Rights Management and controlling what people are allowed to do with it. I'll never use Vista and that's a promise. Within the last four weeks I have started learning to use Ubuntu Linux. By the time M$ stops supporting XP I won't be using Windows at all any more.
     
  12. kC_

    kC_ Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    Posts:
    580
    i was told by beta support that the problem was fixed , so i bought a license, then 3 builds later its actually worse.
    ive requested a refund.. may come back when/if it gets fixed, its an ideal suite for me, but unusable
     
  13. stueycaster

    stueycaster Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Posts:
    293
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    I bought ESS because of what they told you too kC. I think they were probably talking about the blocked network part. My network hasn't failed since I installed it. I'm sure they'll fix this thing.
     
  14. Palombaro

    Palombaro Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2005
    Posts:
    77
    Location:
    UK
    They are on the case KC
     
  15. stueycaster

    stueycaster Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Posts:
    293
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    Yes they are. Marcos has been in here collecting information on it. It won't be long now. :D :thumb:
     
  16. kC_

    kC_ Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    Posts:
    580
    asked for a refund.. will give the trial a go and see if it gets fixed

    cheers
     
  17. Palombaro

    Palombaro Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2005
    Posts:
    77
    Location:
    UK
    I have tried ESS v 566 plus the alternate em008_32.dat file developed to solve this problem. Initially when it was installed on one PC it appeared to have solved the problem. However when I put ESS v 566 plus alternate em008_32.dat file the old problems returned.
    Has anybody else tried this patch? If so what were the results when installed on more than one computer on your LAN?
     
  18. kC_

    kC_ Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    Posts:
    580
    exactly the same problems, didnt fix a thing

    (ess only on one pc)
     
  19. Jeff Bellune

    Jeff Bellune Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2006
    Posts:
    21
    The same results here, only with build 563 instead of 566.

    There was hope for a few hours, wasn't there? :)
     
  20. Palombaro

    Palombaro Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2005
    Posts:
    77
    Location:
    UK
    Yes there was hope. Still think there is;they are clearly working on it.
    To coin a phrase,' Where there's Marcos, there's hope':)
     
  21. stueycaster

    stueycaster Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Posts:
    293
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    The instructions I got from Marcos said:

    1, rename the original file "C:\Program Files\ESET\ESET Smart
    Security\em008_32.dat"
    2, copy the new module instead
    3, restart the computer

    I'm using 64 bit XP so I used the 64 bit link and got em008_64.dat. I was a little confused but i decided to rename the original file /em008_64.dat instead. I don't know if I did the right thing or not. There is an em008_32.dat file in mine too. Anyway, it didn't work.
     
  22. Palombaro

    Palombaro Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2005
    Posts:
    77
    Location:
    UK
    Might be worth giving it another try after uninstalling ESS and clearing all ESS folders. Then renaming the original em008_64.dat file em008_64.datold and then copying in the new em008_64.dat from Marcos and then rebooting.
     
  23. stueycaster

    stueycaster Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Posts:
    293
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    Thanks Palombaro. Your suggestion worked. :D:thumb: I didn't know about the datold thing. I had originally renamed it "em008_64-1.dat". That's why I come to forums, so I can learn stuff. Now we'll see if it stays fixed. Thanks again.
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2007
  24. Palombaro

    Palombaro Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2005
    Posts:
    77
    Location:
    UK
    Let us know if it stays fixed, mine didn't - hope yours does. Have you put it on more than one of the computers on your network?
     
  25. Marcin_K

    Marcin_K Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2007
    Posts:
    25
    Where can I obtain the .dat file you're talking about? I would really like to test it myself.

    /EDIT: I replaced the file. Everything was OK for a while, but eventually the modification didn't help. What's interesting is that my sister's XP-Home-based laptop doesn't need any file replacements -- ESS doesn't block listing network neighbourhood there. Weird./
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2007
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.