Hello, ESET does offer the ESET Online Scanner, which is a free service to scan a PC for malicious software. Regards, Aryeh Goretsky
ye cuz the person who suggested it was expecting ESET to turn into a non profit organization by creating a free product last i checked avast, avira, and the rest are still for profit so thats not very good reasoning.
Marketing will absolutely not agree onthis, but please: change the name! NOD32 refers to light-use of resources, while detecting 95% new malware. Unfortunately, this is not the case anymore. Therefor, I prefer EAV 5.0 as the new name. Technically that means that i want old days to return, but that's said very easily. With the current complex and sophisticated malware, you cannot deal with those when using v2 similar software. Lots of extra wishes make software programs bigger and bigger. Time for complete redesign List of priorities for new versions in my opninion: - make EAV5 a very stable platform (especially on Win 2008 family servers!!) - raise detection levels (is it possible to reach "old" detection rates again without FP of coarse) - please get rid of startup scans, they are very annoying - check more applications fon newer versions (almost every PC has adobe reader, adobe flash, and Java); users ignore software updates too often. Perhaps one shoud even think of skype Greetings from Holland
Are you joking? They are far from annoying. So you mean that you don't have time to wait 20 Sec until the scan is done? And a tip (but not recommended). If you don't like them just un-check the start-up scans in the scheduler!!!
Startup scans are the single most effective way of catching an infection that is already resident when a new signature set is loaded. It really isn't a good idea to turn them off.
let me say it in a different way: Yes i know the purpose of these scans, and yes: it is better for security. No, most office users do not want to wait for their PC to be available again. No, sometimes it is certainly not 20 secs, but a few minutes But perhaps these scans can be executed in the background with even less usage of resources (why hurry these scans?). On older Win XP machines the scans take (even configured as "only when idle") too much time. Sometimes during the scan one hardly can work. I see this on a lot of older PC's. In most cases intel 865 and 955 chipsets withe the right compatible Pentium 4 ht processors with 256 or 512 Mb RAM. I hope this clears misunderstandings. Greetings from Holland
The scan priority is already set to "lowest" for the default scan tasks. This means that any normal user process requests for CPU or disk resources will get prioritized above it. It will still consume more memory during this process and (probably more importantly) increase disk latency which is typically the most dramatic effect users would feel on performance. If you're dealing with hardware that old and slow then you might want to consider changing the priority so it only runs when idle. But unfortunately, 256/512mb of memory simply is not enough memory for even an XP install running recent software. Frameworks like .NET have increased the memory footprint of applications because lets face it, it is cheap these days and you typically don't see less than 2gb on anything but netbooks. No AV product these days is going to provide good protection without incurring a noticeable performance hit on systems that underspeced. Heck, my 2 year old phone has more processing power than that.
- Option to set Heuristic sensitivity to High for advanced users to trade a few FP's for better detection. - Option in the firewall to allow processes based on services. For example not svchost.exe on that and that port. But that you can say, allow svchost.exe only for windows time and windows update and block all other svchost.exe requests - When creating a SysRescue disk, include the current virus database in the image so that it is possible to use SysRescue on a PC without a wired or compatible wireless internet connection. - Add option in exclusion to exlude files accessed by a specific process, for example mbam.exe so Eset doesn't scan all files mbam accesses when doing a full scan.
To clarify, I really mean sensitivity, so no deeper scanning or Advanced Heuristics, but lowering the threshold that is needed before a file is flagged by Heuristics.
I hope that ESET will include a new feature "Auto Update Cache Cleaning" in its products so that users don't need to deal with some of their update issues anymore.
1. Would like the ability to set the exact day & time for a monthly scan. Right now, all you can do is set how many minutes in between intervals.
you can do this already using the scheduler for weekly - is there a reason you only want to scan the computer once a month?
It already has one, but it only shows when the update is done (really quick) But I agree with you it should follow the update from start to finish
sorry,I meant an internet connection parameter so that I can set its parameter to dial-up connection and it is convenient for those users with dial-up connection because those users don't need to manually update.I found that ESET always trying to connect to its server before the system start up completely and always get the error message "could not be updated",Besides,I really need it now.See my post here:https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=296851 My situation is same as dial-up connection now.Did you misunderstand it?
Because lots of users come here with an infection that Eset couldn't automatically remove, but a removal tool from Eset can, I think it's a good idea to integrate them, like Norton 2012 for example: This would lighten the number of users in need of support and like the quote says also improve security for unaware users.
Yeah you're right!!! NOD32 should put everything useful in the program. Integrate it and let users decides what to enable/disable, use/not to use, whatever ...etc...
I like the idea, but I think the best solution is to integrate all those standalone malware removal tools in a emergency rescue kit. And then link to that in the Tools menu of ESET generation 5, just like they did with SysInspector and SysRescue (see https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=294574 the last screenshot in the first post). They could name it SysClean or SysEmergency or whatever.
Or like that, not sure wich way out of these two that is the best though. But both ways are much better than stand-alone tools for sure.
