Blackspears Setting and NOD V3.0

Discussion in 'NOD32 version 2 Forum' started by Albinoni, Jan 2, 2006.

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

    Albinoni Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2005
    Posts:
    709
    Location:
    Perth, Western Australia
    Will it be possible to use Blackspears settings on NOD32 Ver 3.0 when it's released ?
     
  2. mrtwolman

    mrtwolman Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2002
    Posts:
    613
    As there is no info on NOD 3.0 right now, the correct answer is - nobody knows :)
     
  3. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    Honestly Blackspears settings aren't anything special. They were back in NOD32 2.0 days but 2.5 is pretty much optimally set out of the box.
    Not that i don't respect his work but why bother if it's already set correctly?
     
  4. Marcos

    Marcos Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    14,374
    NOD32 3.0 will come with a brand new interface and two modes - one mode for newbies, offering only the very basic settings, and the other with detailed configuration options for advanced users.
     
  5. kalpik

    kalpik Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Posts:
    369
    Location:
    Delhi, India
    So!! Finally we are getting *some* info about version 3.0! Its really great to know that we will have version 3.0 after all!!! Just kidding! Keep up the good work!
     
  6. Albinoni

    Albinoni Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2005
    Posts:
    709
    Location:
    Perth, Western Australia
    So does this mean two diff progs or just the one. Well when I upgrade I'm going for the advanced version :D
     
  7. kalpik

    kalpik Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Posts:
    369
    Location:
    Delhi, India
    I think he meant same program, different modes of operation.
     
  8. looz

    looz Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Posts:
    3
    Can't wait for it
     
  9. zapjb

    zapjb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Posts:
    3,518
    Location:
    USA - Back in a real State in time for a real Pres
    I think BS settings are excellent. I think they added 10-30% better protection on my setup.
     
  10. Onslaught7037

    Onslaught7037 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Posts:
    8
    nod32 is not set to maximum out of the box.check each mod.Amon,Dmon etc via setup and you will see.Also check setup on the on demand scan and you will see also,but it also depends on how in depth you scan also.
     
  11. Marcos

    Marcos Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    14,374
    o_O If you mean that potentially dangerous applications are disabled by default, this is perfectly ok. Otherwise it would be a nightmare for network administrators to have them enabled !!!
     
  12. The Hammer

    The Hammer Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5,619
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    I think you may be a little out of touch here. See post #32 by tazdevl in this thread. He sums it up beautifully. https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?p=646348#post646348
     
  13. Marcos

    Marcos Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    14,374
    Well, you should remember that:
    1. potentially dangerous appplications mostly cover commercial software for remote administration
    2. this software is always installed with prior CONSENT of the user
    3. this software does not contain any malicious code
     
  14. Technodrome

    Technodrome Security Expert

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Posts:
    2,140
    Location:
    New York
    I don't know what all this fuzz is about.? Default or out of the box settings are good enough for about 99 % of NOD32 users.


    tD
     
  15. WSFuser

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,632
    maybe but some of us here dont fit into the 99%
     
  16. The Hammer

    The Hammer Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5,619
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    No fuss. Marcos is just hearing from some home users who aren't network admins. ;)
     
  17. Technodrome

    Technodrome Security Expert

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Posts:
    2,140
    Location:
    New York
    Good. That’s why you have all those little options to play with. :)


    tD
     
  18. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    marcos, all i hope is that you won't get rid of that trademarkish warning message when malware is detected. Those red scrolling lines of code and flashing eye is the only warning message that i like the most along the one used in avast!.
    Other AVs have weird warning messages and i don't like that...
    Though i hope you'll first release public beta version so users can give comments and recommendations about this and that.
     
  19. The Hammer

    The Hammer Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5,619
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    I think if you asked the 99% they would want the defaults improved or increased in number and the options reduced. Many Av's have a corporate version which is set up differently from the home version. It is possible to satisfy both network admins and home users with different versions with different presets.
     
  20. Technodrome

    Technodrome Security Expert

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Posts:
    2,140
    Location:
    New York
    NOD32 default settings are pretty tight. I am an advanced user and I use default options. If I’ve ever felt any risk by using defaults I’d probably agree with you. I agree that early v2 had some holes but the latest one is very tight.

    I don’t know what you mean by saying corporate version should be different. As an admin you should limit employee’s computer privileges in the first place. By doing this, I don’t know how out of the box NOD32 wouldn’t be good enough.
     
  21. Marcos

    Marcos Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    14,374
    Needless to mention that with Potentially dangerous applications enabled, a lot of commercial programs for parental protection would be detected and removed as well.
     
  22. WSFuser

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,632
    i dont think corporate AV have different presets, what different is their interface and the options available.
     
  23. The Hammer

    The Hammer Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5,619
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    As a home user I'm not concerned with network admins at all as their concerns are different from mine. So just have a home version with more presets along the lines of what Blackspear has done and a separate Admin version with lots of options for network admins to tweak to their hearts content. I'm sure other Av's have done something along these lines.
     
  24. The Hammer

    The Hammer Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5,619
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    Now that makes sense. I'm just arguing that some of Blackspear;s settings be adopted as out of the box defaults for the home user. I'm not necessarily suggesting that they all be adopted. If not then hopefully Blackspear will do a version 3. Also a lot of home users see red when the subject of admin problems comes up as a reason for not addressing a home user concern.
     
  25. betauser2

    betauser2 Guest

    amen! when i used nod32 i intentionally went to sites that i wouldn't just to see that screen.

    betauser2
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.