3.0.667 ? Automatic Version Updates?

Discussion in 'ESET NOD32 Antivirus' started by SalC, Jun 30, 2008.

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

    SalC Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Posts:
    31
    The 2 biggies (for me) are in bold below: I've got about 800 clients running 3.0.650 -- will these improvements be rolled out in a program components update? Or, will a version update feature be implemented, so when version updates are released, clients will get them automatically? I'd hate to have to update every client manually or with a GPO everytime a version update occurs..?

    I see a new program component listed with .667, also:
    Anti-Stealth support module: 1001 (20080616)

    I manually updated all my servers from .650 to .657, but updating 800 clients.. well..


    June 17, 2008 - 3.0.667
    Fixed issues in reinstallation / upgrade process
    Improved Antistealth to detect new kinds of rootkits
    Optimization of opening files through Novell shares using Windows Client for Novell Netware
    Improved mechanism in case of exception during scanning
    Fixed issue with processing HTTP reply code 302
    Fixed incorrect date in Windows Vista
    Fix of the console output, resp. redirection to pipe
    Export of the list of applications excluded from checking
    AMON
    Enhanced handle in Novell – fixed issue - long time opening files
    Improved mechanism in case of exception during scanning

    Updater
    Fixed issue with processing HTTP reply code 302
    Fixed incorrect date in Windows Vista

    ESET Command Line Scanner
    Fix of the console output, resp. redirection to pipe

    Personal Firewall
    Export of the list of applications excluded from checking
     
  2. Fajo

    Fajo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Posts:
    1,812
    They roll out like windows service packs do about every 6 months or so they send out a update. they don't send updates out for every release. so basically if they arnt rolling out a update anytime soon you will have to Manuel upgrade them.
     
  3. ASpace

    ASpace Guest

    Even though they may sound something glorious and major , these are minor improvements , in my opinion . I still can't see any practical benefit of the features you have in bold . Unless you have any specific problem , I would not update the clients from build 3.0.650 , which is OK and I would wait the PCU for them. You can update them with push installation by creating packagas with the new version or do it manually but 800 is a lot and you can create more problems than practical benefit.
     
  4. jonkoer

    jonkoer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2007
    Posts:
    30
    I agree with SalC -- failing to build in a means of engine autoupdate is a major design flaw.

    Not only is it egregious to expect large customers like SalC to manually update hundreds of machines, but there are also very large numbers of customers who are too unsophisticated to know that they may need to update, much less how to do it.

    These customers don't want to have to learn anything about the operation or protection or maintenance of their computers - they just want to use their email or word processors or whatever. They expect, and rightfully so, that if they buy and install an antivirus program, then it will take care of things automatically and they will be protected for a year.
     
  5. Marcos

    Marcos Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    14,374
    If an automatic update to the latest version would have already been issued, ALL clients would be affetced by an issue with Scheduler that was first introduced in v. 3.0.667. It will be fixed in v. 3.0.669 that is going to be available shortly. An automatic program component update will occur if there are no issues with installers, we really want our clients to receive flawless update. It would be a big mistake to distribute a flaw update to all clients, please understand that we want to do our best for you, our clients.

    If you have not run into any issue, there's no reason to upgrade to the latest module and it's enough to wait for an automatic program update.
     
  6. rpremuz

    rpremuz Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Posts:
    100
    Location:
    Croatia
    Marcos,

    from your explanation I conclude that ESET does rather poor testing of a new program version. If you introduce some program changes/improvements in a new version and release it into public, and then you realize that it has a harmful issue, it means that you did not test the new version well enough to be released into public.

    -- rpr. /Robert Premuž/
     
  7. Killhippie

    Killhippie Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    26
    I think that statement is rather unfair, all software can contain bugs, FF3 was released and patched within a month or so, it happens. No software is perfect, and to be honest Esets software is more stable than some other security vendors I could mention :rolleyes: also the term "harmful" is not really appropriate here, the situation was remedied in a timely fashion, and for me ESS runs very well with no major issues on my box :thumb:
     
  8. Marcos

    Marcos Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    14,374
    This would mean that every software vendor does poor testing. Why then we would have so many hotfixes and service packs for Windows, for instance? Because Microsoft does poor testing? I think it's because of various system configurations people have and some problems occur in combination with different software. A program can never be tested in all combinations, plus installation of MS hotfixes/service packs can affect the program in various aspects as well.
     
  9. Killhippie

    Killhippie Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    26
    I was trying to say Marcos, that no software is ever perfect, as you say Microsoft patches and hotfixes show issues that can occur within millions of lines of code, you can never eliminate bugs in code completely, I was not trying to say anything bad about Eset, in fact the opposite, maybe I should have been more clear, I was responding to the poster who said Eset do poor testing, and I was saying Eset is more stable than many, as you say the great complexity of software and hardware configurations make it almost impossible to get it right first time, or even second time, but when the general public get to use it thats when any bugs/or incompatabilities show up that cannot be always seen before release, sorry if you mistook what I said.
     
  10. rpremuz

    rpremuz Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Posts:
    100
    Location:
    Croatia
    True, Microsoft does poor testing :( We experience that constantly. Moreover, for some older MS software you get only security fixes while functional bugs are not fixed any more -- MS tech support instructs you to buy new version (I experience that in MS Office 2003 which has SP3 but some annoying functional bugs are still there.) If you buy the new version you may get some previous functions fixed but you also get new functional bugs with it which may never get fixed in that version of the software.

    -- rpr.
     
  11. ablatt

    ablatt Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Posts:
    128
    Location:
    Canada
    While it's not the case that every update fixes things, and, in fact, they can break things, most knowledgeable PC users and administrators now expect that updates will be released often and automatically.

    I agree that enhanced rootkit detection is something I want as soon as it is released and don't want to wait 6 months for it to be pushed out. And I don't want to have to look for it and install it manually.

    If the competition can do it, and you can't, it makes your product look bad and theirs better. It provides psychological ammunition to want to switch to another product.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.