Problems w/ scanning from context menu??

solutions...

Thanks Stan and ronjor.
Stan, indeed I need a very good protection for e-mail. One year ago I've a bad surprise when a manager of one of our suppliers send me a piece, with many ascii chars-looking as a virused one, of an e-mail that I've sent to his competitor and ask me: Emil, do you now something about this?
Of course, this happens because I've worked on a guest station, forced by circumstances, with updated NAV
Now I have to be sure that this think will not happens ever. This game could cost me many expenses.

Both of you,
what configuration recommend me for an 98 and another XP, using also IE outlook, and browsing with opera? Currently I'm using NOD and sygate (I'm not sure if I have more security with kerio personal. sygate I've tested). I also heard on forum about a registry protection. Let me know a good base for efective protection...

 

Paul,

You are right.

Just I'm asking. I'm not used yet with your rules.

Could I put my e-mail for a further correspondence? (It's clear that I've not read yet your policy )

 

As an alternative - register as a member and point to your profile as for your email address.

regards.

paul
Paul,

Thanks for invitation!

Everything should be ok. I don't intend to offense you, just I don't like atribbute "Karma". I would like to see my experience rising on your forum, with this except.

 

>Everything should be ok. I don't intend to offense you, just I don't like atribbute "Karma". I would like to see my experience rising on your forum, with this except.

I agree about the "karma" thing. Quite poor judgement IMO to use this term. I don't like coming here because of that either. But I have NOD32 so I haven't much choice. Plus the forums here are excellent, but I feel extremely uncomfortable because of the religious term and having people rate me in this manner. It is wrong. Just about any phrase to indicate that the poster has been helpful would do. The term "karma" is a relgious term and should not used on board such as this one.

I have been wanting to say something about this for a long time but have felt I would be pounced on if I did. Your post has given me the courage to speak out.

 

Said by Stan999:
>From just my personal experience, all I can say is that I have been using NOD for over two years, started Aug. 2001, and it has provided excellent protection.

I am fairly active on the internet with my actual e-mail address on several web sites and some of my e-mail addresses date back to 1996. Due to that I get a fare amount of stuff send my way.

I am a retired CPA but still work out of my home, part time, on the Internet providing contracted support for ATT in the past and now Charter Pipeline because I enjoy doing that.

Over the past two and a half year period using NOD I have never lost data or been infected with a virus.

In addition I run some of the Online scanners from time to time just to double check. They have never picked up on anything that NOD missed.

So for me NOD has been an excellent choice and has provided excellent protection.

A sample of my log of infections sent my way over the last few days.

That doesn't impress me at all. You are showing me what IMON does. I don't use IMON. I don't want an email scanner. Show me how impressed you are with AMON. AMON is what is getting short shrift now by Eset. This means that I have to go looking elsewhere. Damn shame too. But AMON should do it all. I should not need anything but the resident scanner.

 

Hi Mele20,

I wasn't trying to impress you with IMON?

My post was just a response of my personal experience using NOD32 over the last two and a half years. This was just in reply to a post of why choose NOD over another AV.

The virus log I posted for the last several days just didn't have any AMON examples for that time period.

However, over the time I have used NOD32, AMON has caught a number of infected files. So its function to scan on Open, Execute and Create files works as intended for me.

I just don't see where AMON should do it all especially e-mail scanning prior to the Inbox? You may not need an e-mail scanner but some folks really like that feature and find it an additional layer of protection.

Your posted method of saving your e-mail attachments and then going through the effort of navigating to where you saved it and doing a scan on it, and then, if infected, deleting the file and e-mail seems to be a waste of time for me.

We all don't have the same needs and perferences using an AV. So what works for me may not be what you are looking for.

On one of your prior posts you noted, "If you want to know what is worthless junk on any AV it is the email scanner", is just not true for everybody.

In summary, over the time I have used NOD32, I find both AMON and IMON have provided good protection for my use.

 

new thread

Mele,

Pls make another thread and post the link, about the AMON issues. These problems give me an unsafely and anxious feeling. I have urgently need a good quality resident AV, when scaning and disinfect archives could be staying alive matters (agreements, pdx database and others things from health domain)

 

It's been a couple of months since my last post on this thread. This has been an ongoing thread since June of 03. This question is for ANY ESET MODERATOR " Can I get an idea on when this feature might be included? " Also I keep hearing about a realease candiate for NOD32? Will this fix my problem. If it is possible I would like an update on this issue either from an ESET MODERATOR or administrator.

 

I think the release candidate is mostly about IMON and adv. heuristics which will be for http as well as email and supposedly you can disable one and use the other. I doubt the issue of this thread will be addressed. I don't use IMON although I am interested in this latest version, however, I would far prefer to see AMON beefed up instead of IMON. IMON causes innumerable problems, as all email scanners do, and it is best to avoid their use. Why not, instead, beef up AMON? AMON is really what NOD32 is and I don't like the short shrift that it has been getting.

Of course, beefing up AMON will slow it some but I don't really think it needs to detect the "kitchen sink" as KAV does so it shouldn't slow it that much. Another thing that should be addressed is that adv. heursitics on command line scanning should be made a part of NOD32. It is ridiculous that one still has to download Paolo's extension to get the most important aspect of NOD32! I also agree with Rodzilla that Eset should make default settings maximum not silly weak like they are now. But I don't think any of these important issues are addressed in the upcoming beta.

I just ran that av test that everyone is talking about here and at dslr and that KAV and NOD32 fail completely.
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10132323~mode=flat
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=30055

Then I downloaded Gladiator's zip file which is designed to keep the av test files on the hard drive long enough for KAV and NOD32 to detect them (one is the Eicar and both these avs can't even detect that! in this test). After downloading, Gladiator said to copy over the original zip file. Well, I automatically scanned first via command line adv. heuristics and NOD32 found a virus! It wouldn't alert on any of the official tests but adv. heursitics did on this! So, I'd say all you need is Paolo's adv. heuristics and practice safe computing and you will never need all this fancy, smancy IMON stuff which is so buggy. I just want AMON and command line scanning to be lean, mean and hungry. So, ESET please don't ignore AMON and continue to strip AMON. Make AMON stronger and forget the IMON stuff.

 

You know that you are not the only one that would like this feature. They have a ton of other products to deal with and the end result is you are not getting infected. If you extract the file, it will be caught where upon you can delete it. The location is indicated and you can delete it manually. I perform the same test you do about once every three months waiting for a change. Just give them a break. They are a small company on the rise and when they do the job, you can guarantee it will be done right, not some patch job.

 

To ESET MODERATORS & ADMINISTRATOR,
I'm getting tired of this run around and this issue going unresolved for so many months. You keep promising this feature through out this thread but something always comes up. You keep making excuses and it is getting very old. There's always going to be software conflicts, virus outbreaks, security conferences and other such issues that crop up from time to time but enough is enough. I believe its time to put up or shut up as they say. You are right to say I'm upset in a major way and I believe this issue needs to go higher up in ESET as it has almost been a year since this thread was started and the issue has yet to be resolved.

 

Hi radical,

I wrote you - it's not a fix - it's a feature.

Rgds.,

jan

 

I understand that it not a problem but a feature. But I think waiting paitently for almost a year is rather ridiculous. You have said numerous times you are working on it and something always comes up. I'm getting tired of the excuses.

 

Hi radical,

OK - the reality is - pls. be prepared it can take longer time until this feature will be implemented.

Rgds.,

jan

 

I have read this entire thread and I am astonished by just how badly ESET have handled this issue.

It simply **** belief.

 

It was not insulting at all.

It is a perfectly legitimate phrase that means "almost impossible to believe" (and it should not be confused with a different, but similarly spelled, word).

I shall therefore re-phrase:


"It is simply beyond belief"

 

Hey,
It's radicalb21. I was wondering with all the talk about this new beta that is up and coming if it would address any of my issues I have had for the last year with NOD32v2. I would appreciate a response from any ESET MODERATOR or forum member that has a beta of the product. As of next Tuesday June 15, 2004 it will be exactly a year since I started this thread and I for one like to see this issue resolved as would other forum members as well. I think I have waited patiently for far to long to see this issue resolved. I know it isn't a problem but an additional feature but come on now you've been saying that for almost a year now and it is getting very old. In my opinion this issue should have already been resolved. Have you ever heard of quality assurance and listening to customer feedback because I have seen and heard people say that feature isn't needed and then later hear those people change there minds. Also Paul if you are around this evening I would appreciate your comments on this as I feel you are very knowledge about alot of things that deal with security. Also if you could IM me or email me a link so I could forward this issue to someone other then JAN or Marcos because I feel I am getting the classic run around. If you could start from the begining of this thread and reread it top to bottom I would appreciate your opinion. Thanks to any and all people who help to bring this issue to a close.

 

Hi radical,

>I was wondering with all the talk about this new beta that is up and coming if it would address any of my issues.

That feature is not included in the new beta. As I wrote:

>OK - the reality is - pls. be prepared it can take longer time until this feature will be implemented.

Rgds.,

jan

 

Well radicalb1, it may be small consolation but you will be getting your wish that AMON can unpack and will also be given Adv. heuristics powers. I recall Jan saying that Eset thought that was unimportant and that we would not get this. However, this a feature of the new beta.

The NOD32 scanner is worse off in the beta than before in one sense. Even though the scanner in clean mode hangs waiting for me to take action, I am offered no action other than leave. However, the text in the box tells me that the recommended action is to delete but I'm not offered that. Telling me I should delete is new. I never saw that with eicar in the current version. Why tell me to delete and then not offer that action

I'm disappointed too that we aren't getting delete, rename, etc. Those buttons should be removed as it is very confusing to newcomers. We should just be told that NOD32 can't do anything when it finds a virus. It can't even quarantine properly so I think the quarantine button should also be removed because it doesn't quarantine and currently it is a very misleading and potentially dangerous situation. At least in this beta I have, quarantine isn't fixed and I think it far better to just do away with quarantine if it is not going to be fixed soon.

The scanner has found other "viruses" that are not archived and with these also the ONLY choice I am given is leave. So, perhaps the options buttons should be removed and in setup we should not be advised that we can choose other actions if the virus cannot be cleaned, because we can't. All NOD32 scanner appears to be able to do is detect and leave (as quarantine doesn't quarantine).

 

It's radicalb21. Here I am again. It has now been over 1 year since I reported this problem. I believe that ESET doesn't care about it's customers one damn bit. I believe I have been very patient in waiting as long as I have and my problem has yet to be addressed as far fixing this issue. I know this isn't a problem but an additional feature. But when I have been told numerous times they are working on it and things constantly come up it really pisses me off in a major way. I know both JAN and MARCOS have both replied to this numerous times in the past and they always say it isn't a problem but an additional feature. They also say it is coming. My question is when? I'd also like to say all the emails I have sent recently to ESET have gone unanswered now for over a couple of months. This is getting very ridiculious. I would appreciate a response from either PAUL WILDERS or ANTON from ESET. I believe this issue has been swept under the rug one to many times and I believe nothing has been done to add this feature to the program. Other antivirus software programs already have this feature. Those antivirus companies are Kapersky, Avast!4 Antivirus just to name a few. If they can have this feature why has NOD32 not added this feature. They had this feature in early BETA Version of NOD32v2 (BETA4, BETA5). Why was this feature removed? This would be a very useful feature. I would really appreciate a response ASAP on this issue. Thanks again in advance.

 

I would really appreciate a reply ASAP on what I typed earlier about a problem with ESET support and problem persisting for over one year now. As far as support goes this should have been handled in the begining. I think if a problem of a customer is not resolved in a timely manner something needs to be done. I can't believe it has been a year and one month now and this issue still persists. JAN & MARCOS keep saying its not a problem but an additional feature. I now believe thats bullshit. They keep saying the same thing and it seems ESET doesn't care about the small guy. They keep saying it is coming. It gets old when they keep saying the same thing. You would think they would do something about it by now so I would just get off there backs and quit complaining but that will never happen. How would ESET feel if I voiced this program through some tech medium about how their support sucks.

 

Radicalb21

You have a simple solution. If you are not happy with NOD or their support, as with all software programs, look ELSEWHERE for your AV protection.

I have recently decided not to renew a license for one of my AV's because their support was somewhat lacking. No disrespect and I hope you find your 'best' AV .

Avast is very good