Configuring ESET Smart Security--know good thread/article on it?

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by conceptualclarity, Apr 6, 2016.

  1. conceptualclarity

    conceptualclarity Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Posts:
    52
    Location:
    USA
    I just installed ESET Smart Security 9 Sunday night. It has a lot more configuring to be done than Avast, Webroot, or any other antivirus I've used. I have had some difficulty with it early on. So a good thread or article with recommendations and rationales for choices on configuring Smart Security or NOD32 is something I'd appreciate being linked to.



    Computer: DELL Dimension 2400
    CPU: Intel Pentium 4-2667 (Northwood, D1)
    2666 MHz (20.00x133.3) @ 2658 MHz (20.00x132.9)
    Motherboard: DELL 0G1548
    Chipset: Intel 845GEV (Brookdale-GEV) + ICH4
    Memory: 2048 MBytes @ 166 MHz, 2.5-3-3-7
    - 1024 MB PC3200 DDR-SDRAM - Kingston K
    - 1024 MB PC3200 DDR-SDRAM - Kingston K
    Graphics: Intel 82845G/GL/GV Graphics Controller [DELL]
    Intel i845G(L) Integrated, 64 MB
    Drive: WL120GPA872, 117.2 GB, E-IDE (ATA-7)
    Drive: HGST HTS545050A7E380, 488.4 GB, Serial ATA 3Gb/s <-> USB
    Drive: SAMSUNG CD-R/RW SW-252S, CD-R Writer
    Sound: Creative Technology SB Live! Series Audio Processor
    Network: RealTek Semiconductor RTL8139 PCI Fast Ethernet NIC [A/B/C]
    Network: Broadcom 4401 10/100 Integrated Controller
    OS: Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition Build 2600
    Antivirus: ESET Smart Security 9.0.375.0
    Firewall: ESET Smart Security
    Default Browser: Maxthon
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2016
  2. cupez80

    cupez80 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2005
    Posts:
    605
    Location:
    Surabaya Indonesia
    Default config are good /secure enough for most user :D
     
  3. Marcos

    Marcos Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    14,375
    Exactly. You don't need to configure anything after installing v9. You might want to consider enabling detection of potentially unsafe applications after installation. This detection covers legitimate tools that can be misused in the wrong hands, e.g. remote admin tools, coin miners, etc.
     
  4. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
    Also see the following thread incase you want to login to your malwaretips account and reply there https://malwaretips.com/threads/how-do-you-stop-eset-from-unilaterally-deleting-good-programs.57898/

    From the thread...

    "It's also my practice that with every new setup file, before running it I scan it on Virus Total, Jotti, and Metascan. In the course of doing that I have found ESET to be the most false-positive-prone prestigious program, at least in its manifestation in that multi-scanner environment."

    I would say that 99% of those are probably not FP detections at all - but PUA/PUP detections, and should not be considered as FPs.

    Not sure if there's something wrong or what's going on, but I see two completely different "reputation" in the detection notification in the screen shot, and the rep-data is not the same. :confused:
    https://malwaretips.com/threads/how...leting-good-programs.57898/page-2#post-499414

    And it is not svchost.exe that was detected but another file.
     
  5. toxinon12345

    toxinon12345 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Posts:
    1,200
    Location:
    Managua, Nicaragua
    [​IMG]
    If you are using Windows Explorer, it would say something as:
    Application: C:\windows\explorer.exe
    Company: Microsoft
    Reputation: Whitelisted
    ===========≠========
    File: U:\autorun.exe
    Reputation: Medium
    Detection: a variant of Win32/Sality virus

    Maybe it need to rearrange the layout because is not clear enough
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2016
  6. conceptualclarity

    conceptualclarity Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Posts:
    52
    Location:
    USA
    Thank you for correcting me on that, SweX. Now I see it's a System Restore file. I checked, and specifically it's ALL Browsers Memory Zip, which is a quite legitimate program which I acquired intentionally and not as a piggybacked program.


    The first reputation is svchost.exe, and the second one is ALL Browsers Memory Zip.

    I have great respect for ESET as one of the top five programs in competitive testing. I give you an example of what I'm talking about: ESET always flags the setup file for CCleaner. And it's always all alone in this. (See screenshot). I always download the CCleaner update from the Piriform website itself, not from a bundling download site. I have never encountered any bundled toolbar with CCleaner.

    http://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/2066/40wCbr.png
     
  7. Marcos

    Marcos Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    14,375
    The detection is correct. CCleaner is bundled with the said toolbar. However, in this case the toolbar is detected as a potentially unsafe application which is a kind of "soft" detection. Detection of Potentially unsafe applications is disabled by default and only users who want to have this kind of applications detected should enable it.
     
  8. conceptualclarity

    conceptualclarity Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Posts:
    52
    Location:
    USA
    Thanks.

    I have not been able to get the ESET GUI to autostart in the system tray, although I used StartupStar to put an autostart for it in the registry. I have to bring it up manually, and when I do it has a backlog of firewall notifications that haven't gotten to me yet. What can I do to get the ESET GUI to autostart in my system tray? I have had numerous antiviruses, but I've never had one not autostart in the system tray.
     
  9. Marcos

    Marcos Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    14,375
    GUI is started by the ekrn.exe process, not from the registry. If it doesn't start (ie. there's no egui.exe among running processes), contact customer care as a process dump of ekrn as well as Process monitor log will probably be needed for further analysis.
     
  10. webyourbusiness

    webyourbusiness Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Posts:
    2,640
    Location:
    Throughout the USA and Canada
    as Marcos stated, the detection of the regular installer is correct - which is why I wait for the 'slim installer' - I always google 'ccleaner slim' - you'll find it on a page called 'builds' - but they generally release the slim installer a day or two after they update the 'fat' installer - ie, the one with the PUA comes first, and they release the 'clean' installer a day or 2 later.

    here is the 'builds' page:
    http://www.piriform.com/ccleaner/builds

    The slim installer should be the bottom one - if you do not see it, then it's because they just released an update... it will be along shortly.
     
  11. FanJ

    FanJ Updates Team

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    2,564
    PS: As for CCleaner builds:
    Usually when a new version has been released, it will also be posted at this thread (for version 5.xxx), and also when the related slim version is available (wording could be like "slim is up", "slim is in", or something similar).
     
  12. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,057
    Location:
    North Carolina
    I always tic the option to use Advanced Hueristics
     
  13. xxJackxx

    xxJackxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    4,052
    Location:
    USA
    I'm sure my own testing would answer this, but do you find that doing so slows things down? I'd like to know the results others are having.
     
Loading...