Despite all attempts, NOD will not update.

Discussion in 'ESET NOD32 Antivirus' started by Carbonyl, Dec 1, 2009.

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

    Carbonyl Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2009
    Posts:
    256
    This morning I found NOD stuck on definitions 4650, even though 4652 are the latests ones available. I've tried just about everything. Hitting manual update says that I have the "latest" definitions (not so). Clearing the update Cache did nothing. Clearing the update cache and rebooting did nothing. I can ping u20.eset.com and get through just fine. The update program is not timing out - it simply insists that it has the latest version available.

    I'd like to be able to stay up to date, considering the rapidly changing security landscape out there. Can someone please advise?

    I'm using Windows 7 Professional, and NOD32 4.0.437.0 - I've needed none of the changes in the updated versions of NOD and was advised that they were optional. Are update behaviors worth uninstalling and reinstalling NOD? That seems like a big risk and a hassle.
     
  2. Thankful

    Thankful Savings Monitor

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2005
    Posts:
    3,731
    Location:
    New York City
    I am also unable to update to 4652. I've been trying for about an hour. I'm running 4.0.474.0. XP Pro/SP3.
     
  3. PaulB2005

    PaulB2005 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Posts:
    525
    One PC on 4.0.474 stuck on 4651.

    Other PC on 4.0.467* is stuck on database 4646 (29/11/2009) - this PC is not used so much. This one also reports it is up to date!



    * Will update to 4.0.474
     
  4. Carbonyl

    Carbonyl Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2009
    Posts:
    256
    Careful, Paul! If there's a problem with the servers, instead of a problem with your software, you may be dooming yourself to even older definitions when you update. You'll be stuck with whatever installs, and still unable to update.

    I'm just trying to gauge if this is a server or client issue right now before I make any other moves.
     
  5. PaulB2005

    PaulB2005 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Posts:
    525
    Yup. Installed update and now stuck on older db 4628 i think.

    Not to worry. PC rarely used anyway.
     
  6. metalalbert

    metalalbert Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2008
    Posts:
    46
    Same here. Guess they will fix it soon.
     
  7. RyanW

    RyanW Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2009
    Posts:
    77
    Yep, They must have froze 4652. My ERAS can't update to it.

    What's with the obsession with having the latest DB at all times. Are you doing such unscrupulous activity that you might be infected with the latest zero-day threat at any given moment?
     
  8. Carbonyl

    Carbonyl Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2009
    Posts:
    256
    Gracious, I should say not!

    But with the latest developments in malvertisement, XSS exploits, and iFrame injections, the bad guys are able to deliver their payloads these days through legitimate websites. Heck, someone could probably start doing the very same through Wilders someday. And given that they alter their malware so quickly, I'd say a vast majority of threats that strike users are in fact zero-day threats. Malware authors are tinkering with their nasty garbageware constantly.

    Saying up to date is the only way to be secure. Most malware only has a lifetime of 24-48 hours these days. One of the primary reasons I use NOD is because definitions are updated daily, and usually more often, as opposed to weekly.
     
  9. Thankful

    Thankful Savings Monitor

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2005
    Posts:
    3,731
    Location:
    New York City
    One of the basic tenants of security is to make sure your AVs are up to date. Malware is not limited to unscrupulous activity but can occur at any time. In addition, part of the reason of posting is to determine if the problem is on the user's end or lies with Eset.
     
  10. RyanW

    RyanW Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2009
    Posts:
    77

    Sure, it's good to have your DB up to date, but we're not talking about weeks of outdated definitions. We're talking about the difference of a couple hours to a half day.

    I'll dare to say unless it's a worm that infects/explooits windows system processes and propagates through the network with no user intervention, being absolutely up to date (to the minute) isn't necessary. I've never gotten virus'/malware/spyware off a legitimate site such as cnn, google, etc.

    I have opened archives with virus' in the past but I've never found one so new that my 6 hour old virus definitions missed it.
     
  11. Carbonyl

    Carbonyl Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2009
    Posts:
    256
    The first person to encounter a new piece of malware will always be infected (unless heuristics come to the rescue). Unless the first person is quick and the AV company is quicker, the second person will, too. And so forth down the line. Once the signatures are updated, that means that there are new threats which can infect you, that you are not protected against until you update. These threats are in the wild - They're being propagated and you are at risk.

    The New York Times spread malware to thousands of viewers who merely visited their page this summer. They didn't download shady software from keygen sites or go looking for porn.

    Google results are being gamed constantly. This summer if you tried to google for a suicide victim's name from my community mere days after the tragedy occurred, the top hit was a page that downloaded a trojan to your computer.

    The era of 'Safe surfing' has changed. Just because you trust the URL you visit, doesn't mean you should.

    Is this the end of the world? No, of course not. A majority of us will be fine, but we'd also like to stay current. That's one of NODs big advantages. Plus, as was mentioned, this is more an issue of asking others if they have the same problem. And in your opinion, if you notice that your software isn't updating correctly, when is the time to worry about fixing it? A day later? A week? Why not as soon as possible?
     
  12. RyanW

    RyanW Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2009
    Posts:
    77
    Why not relax, have a beer and check in a few hours if the virus definitions have moved? Seriously, 4651 is from TODAY. Lets get a grip people.
     
  13. Carbonyl

    Carbonyl Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2009
    Posts:
    256
    We're not acting as if the world is on fire, we're just trying to see if there's any information about this. If it's fixed in a few hours, great. For now we're just trying to see if anyone else knows what's up.

    And for the record, I'm not having a beer because it's 9:00 AM where I am. ;)
     
  14. RyanW

    RyanW Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2009
    Posts:
    77
    So? it's only 11 here. :D

    Beer is a perfectly good breakfast substitute. (Just don't tell my boss)
     
  15. siljaline

    siljaline Former Poster

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Posts:
    6,619
  16. PatrickM

    PatrickM Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    Posts:
    15
    I can't update either. I'm still waiting for word from Eset. I installed the latest version of NOD32 ver 4 & cleared the update cache & removed the folders Eset mentions before installing the newer version. So who knows what kind of protection I have now.:mad:

    Eset...get your act together. This is unaceptable, you could have a rep make a statement in this forum at the very least.

    My signature database says "4628 (20091122). I'm hoping Prevx & Threatfire along with SAS Pro keep me safe.

    And why can't NOD32 inform of new versions when they become available to paid subscribers without having to go to their website?

    I'm going to look at another A/V when my subscription expires.

    After I posted this, the update is working again. Now says "4652 (20091201)"

    Still not happy they sometimes seem to have trouble with updates of one kind or another, even though they're not too frequent.
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2009
  17. MOM2009

    MOM2009 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2009
    Posts:
    25
    same here. is it so hard to prepare simple downloadlink with the latest signature to install them manually?
     
  18. OTP Frodo

    OTP Frodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2009
    Posts:
    9
    Looks like mine are coming down now, both for a client and for the mirror. Update on this situation soon.
    -Joe
     
  19. MOM2009

    MOM2009 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2009
    Posts:
    25
    after hitting the update button serveral times it has updated now. very strange
     
  20. Thankful

    Thankful Savings Monitor

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2005
    Posts:
    3,731
    Location:
    New York City
    Just got it.
     
  21. PatrickM

    PatrickM Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    Posts:
    15
    Agreed MOM2009...there should be an easy way to manually download the lastest updates as some people prefer this way & also for situations like this.

    ESET, I know situations sometimes happen, but not informing customers at the very least on Wilders forums is not acceptable. You still can access the internet right?:thumbd:
     
  22. xkon2007

    xkon2007 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2008
    Posts:
    11
    I had the same problem.Stuck in 4651.
    I cleared update cache.http://kb.eset.com/esetkb/index?page=content&id=SOLN2134
    Now I am ok.

    I agree my friend!!!
     
  23. OTP Frodo

    OTP Frodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2009
    Posts:
    9
    I have 4652 in the client. I have 4652 in my mirror.
    -Joe
     
  24. OTP Frodo

    OTP Frodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2009
    Posts:
    9
    I have to say a simple post on these forums would have been helpful, don't even need an estimated time of return, just a "hey we are sorry but the updates are broken, we will post when we get the problem fixed." message would have saved us all a lot of grief.
     
  25. Thankful

    Thankful Savings Monitor

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2005
    Posts:
    3,731
    Location:
    New York City
    Agree 100%.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.