3.0.621 alone OK / with ZA 7.1.078 NOT OK

Discussion in 'ESET NOD32 Antivirus' started by choco140, Jan 13, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. choco140

    choco140 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Posts:
    2
    Hi,

    Would really like to go for the new 3.0.621 version. But like any other v3 version I tried, everything works fine when the AV is on its own, but as soon as I install ZA 7.1.078, Internet browsing is almost impossible, every page takes ages to load.

    Does anybody know anything about that problem? Possible solutions?

    I run under Vista Ultimate 32.

    Thks.
     
  2. Dieselman

    Dieselman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Posts:
    795
    I was using ZAAS along with NOD32 and it ran great. Very fast browsing but I am on XP. ZA free doesn't give good projection like the other versions of ZA. If I were you I would try Comodo.
     
  3. The Nodder

    The Nodder Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2006
    Posts:
    296
    Location:
    UK
    Yes, I agree with you.
     
  4. NodboN

    NodboN Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2007
    Posts:
    139
    Latest ZoneAlarm Pro 7.0.462.000 here with NOD32 3.0.621 running on Windows XP Pro SP-2 - doing great, no problems so far.
     
  5. choco140

    choco140 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Posts:
    2
    Thanks guys.

    Seems to work on XP, any other good/bad experience with Vista?
     
  6. Dieselman

    Dieselman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Posts:
    795
    Vista is junk all the way around if you ask me. Even dell offers down grades for anyone who bought a pc with Vista and doesnt like it. I am a gamer and Vista is not a gaming OS.
     
  7. poutine

    poutine Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2007
    Posts:
    371
    Location:
    England or Quebec
    I agree Vista suxx, thank the lord for XP Pro. ;)
     
  8. The_Duality

    The_Duality Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Posts:
    276
    Location:
    Liverpool, UK
    Lets all jump on the Vista hate-wagon shall we? :cautious:

    Vista works fine; you all seem to forget the issues people had with XP before it was "service packed". Many people chose to stick with 2000 or 98 until bugs were fixed. The same is happening with vista. Im a gamer, and I run vista on my gaming laptop - not a single issue, driver wise or to do with anything else. It takes time, thats all. Replying with things like "Vista suxx" is only a "lol" short of making the post a complete waste of time.

    However, Vista is not very transparent in terms of coding security apps for it - which is most likely causing the issues here - security apps on Vista can conflict and have undesired effects, such as slow browsing - due to the lack of a decent API for security applications in Vista. Things are set to improve with SP1.

    I agree with the other posters recommending Comodo. ZA free does not provide "top notch" protection in any sense of the word, whilst Comodo pretty much does. However ZA is quite intuitive, and may prove easier to use. If you choose to use ZA, perhaps you should downgrade to 2.7 and see if there is any improvement.

    It certainly looks like a ZA+Vista issue to me. Remember also that ZA has had a bit of a history with "slow-downs", not a personal opinion mind, im not a ZA user, just an observation based on what I have read here and there.
     
  9. SoCalReviews

    SoCalReviews Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Posts:
    282
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    On Windows XP SP2 machines when combining ZASS (w/AV disabled) or ZAP v7.x with any of the NOD 3.x versions I ran into a number of compatibility problems. The combination seems to work until you start trying to enable common privacy settings such as mobile code control, cookie blocking and pop-up restrictions in ZAP or ZASS 7.x.

    The most annoying problem I had related to using FF or IE or other browsers to log onto secure web sites. The secure web sites would continuously request you to turn off pop up and cookie blocking controls and re-log onto the web site even when all the privacy settings in ZAP or ZASS for that particular web site are allowed. This conflict seems to be related to the proxy design of NOD v3.x. The best and easiest solution for me was to return to using NOD v2.7 which works perfectly.

    This seems to have been a big problem for those of us requiring NOD AV to have compatibility with alternative FWs. I hope that v2.7 is supported for as many years into the future as possible so that I can continue to use NOD for AV on my systems and the systems that I support.
     
  10. Dieselman

    Dieselman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Posts:
    795
    So what you are saying is that you bought NOD32 and bought Zone Alarm Security Suite? Why? No need for an anti virus if you have a security suite. No need for a security suite if you have an anti virus. I have no problems at all using NOD32 3.0 along side Zone Alarm Anti Spyware. I got ZAAS for free on patch Tuesday but now I am using Comodo.
     
  11. SoCalReviews

    SoCalReviews Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Posts:
    282
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    Without moving this thread too far off topic here are my answers to your questions. I have been using ZAP for years on many systems that I use and many that I support. I switched to NOD32 more than a year and a half ago to replace other AVs that had become bloated and less compatible with ZA or other alternative FWs. I have preferred NOD32 v2.x over other AVs due to its effectiveness, efficiency and compatibility. I prefer the active protection and the unique features of NOD32 which is why I use it instead of any other AV.

    Why do I use ZASS? For my personal systems the 3-user ZASS subscription is actually a much better deal than what is available for similar multi-user ZAP subscriptions. ZASS for XP also has a decent spam mail filtering component that I like. When support for NOD v2.7x ends then ZASS for XP (with AV enabled) would be one of many options I would consider for my own systems. If I start using Vista I might decide to use NOD v3 in combination with the built in Vista firewall, use ZASS for Vista, or consider using other security software.
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2008
  12. Dieselman

    Dieselman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Posts:
    795
    Sounds to me like a conflict issue. Your better off using a stand alone firewall and a stand alone virus scan. BTW Eset will be supporting 2.7 for awhile. Till atleast next year.
     
  13. SoCalReviews

    SoCalReviews Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Posts:
    282
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    I found the exact same conflict I described above when using NOD v3 along with either ZAP (stand alone FW) or ZASS (w/AV disabled). NOD v2.7 works absolutely perfectly with either one. This problem is specifically related to NOD v3. Users of other FWs have reported similar conflicts when using v3. There have been some posts discussing work arounds with the settings in other FWs to deal with the proxy design of NOD v3 but I have not been able to eliminate the specific compatibility issues with ZASS or ZAP 7.x. I read in one thread that ESET would support v2.7 for two more years but IMO they "should support v2.7" for at least three years or more.
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2008
  14. Dieselman

    Dieselman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Posts:
    795
    Ok well I get your point. I use NOD32 3.0 with ZAAS on my desktop with no issues or slow downs of any kind. On my laptop I am using NOD32 3.0 along with Comodo with no issues. Try adding ZA to the web browser list.
     
  15. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,873
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma

    Junk to you maybe, but not to those of use that have Vista and it is working better than Xp did for us. Running Vista for almost two years including Betas, no problems at all.

    Sorry for the off topic comment.
     
  16. SoCalReviews

    SoCalReviews Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Posts:
    282
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    You had "no conflicts at all"? I had v3 installed on several machines the first week of its release and I also thought things were running fine until I ran into this issue with secure web sites and this conflict still exists with the current release of NOD v3.0.621 .

    I normally don't give advice on how to generate a problem but if you are interested you could try this one. On your desktop try enabling some of the ZASS (or ZAP) protection under the Privacy tab...specifically mobile code control but also try customizing various Ad Blocking and Cookie Blocking controls. Next go to a secure web site like Yahoo or a subscription based site and browse in various areas of that site (mail, online games, etc.). You may see continuous nagging requests from those sites requesting that you change your settings to allow cookies from that site and a request that you "re-log on" to the site. Some secure sites will not allow you to view any content at all no matter how many times you try to re-log on. I will note that in the ZASS or ZAP privacy settings "site list" you can choose to disable ALL those privacy controls (all green check marks) for any specific web site requiring a log on but the conflict still exists.
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2008
  17. Dieselman

    Dieselman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Posts:
    795
    I guess your not reading what I wrote. I use ZAAS not ZASS.
     
  18. ASpace

    ASpace Guest

    Hi !

    I have met the same issue . I narrowed it down to some cases - here it happens only when there is a problem with the certificate (if the certificate is 100% ok , then no issues) .

    The solution is to either uncheck the browser from being scanned (which is not a good idea) or better -> change the default Protocol filtering option to "HTTP and POP3 ports only" . This solves the problem , at least for me .

    You could also add your site/server in the web-access protection's exclusions in a variant *.namehere.*
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 15, 2008
  19. SoCalReviews

    SoCalReviews Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Posts:
    282
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    We were talking about "ZASS and NOD v3 compatibility in our posts in this thread weren't we? Therefore I must have missed the "A" when glanced at your post. I have never ever used ZAAS but I would guess that it also has the exact same PRIVACY settings as ZAP and ZASS. If it does then you should be able to apply the exact same procedure to generate the problem I am experiencing. If ZAAS doesn't have the same exact PRIVACY settings then that information obviously doesn't apply to the ZASS and ZAP compatibility problems we have been discussing in this thread.
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2008
  20. SoCalReviews

    SoCalReviews Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Posts:
    282
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    Thanks for the information. Although v2.7 works great in combination with ZASS and ZAP any extra information about v3 work arounds are appreciated even if they don't solve the compatibility problems completely.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.