ESET NOD32 Antivirus v3.0.672 discussion thread

Hello,

Please use this message thread to discuss ESET NOD32 Antivirus v3.0.672.0.

You are welcome to discuss things you like, experiences with installing and using the software and so forth.

NOTE: If you have require assistance troubleshooting the program or wish to post a bug report, please create a new message thread to discuss it as these types of message threads tend to become very large over time and the issue may not receive prompt attention from ESET's support staff or developers if it is posted here.


Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky

 

Well , the eset.com site/servers still point to 3.0.669 build

 

thank you!!!!!!!

 

As HiTech_boy points out, the page to download the Vista 64 bit version is still 669. http://www.eset.com/download/home-64bit.php

This may explain the support ticket e-mail I got. They probably wanted me to try the new release.

 

Actually , as of now , the version should be 3.0.672 . Even though the site says 3.0.669 , the version which the server provide is signed 21 August.

 

Sure enough. Downloaded and installed the 64 bit version and it is 672. It's just the reported version on the page that needs updating.

Thanks, ESET. Now to install this on 2 more systems and inform some friends to download the latest.

 

I'm guessing by the change-log that this still doesn't fix the 100% cpu usage. So is the only solution to solve it to disable AH and runtime packets still?

 

Just lurking in this forum, I get the feeling that the 100% CPU problem won't be fixed, because it seems ESET doesn't think it's a problem, rather it's the price one pays to use the AH and the runtime packer scan features.

I for one would say if it's that indeed the case, if a feature is that "expensive" in processing cycles, and needs to be turned off in most cases, it's not worth having in the app.

 

I still don't understand how ESET can say its not a problem and fix it when it takes up 100% cpu usage and doesn't allow anything else to run and locks up the system until it decides to release the CPU. How can this not be a bug?

 

agoretsky, can we get some kind of update on the 100% cpu problem please?

The ESET users here are probably your most technical ones and your first line of defense for our clients using your software. The problem has been open now for 3+ months.

Can't we just know where it stands or what is happening?

 

Does that mean that you didn't have this problem with older versions? If you think the issue started occuring after upgrading to a newer version than 3.0.650 or so, I could provide you that older version so that you can test it and confirm or deny that it makes a difference.

 

No I didn't have the problem with 2.7 (Vista Home Prem), but did with 3.0.x. I reverted back to 2.7 for awhile, now have 3.0.669 running ok with Advanced Heuristics and runtime packers disabled. I've been following the 100% cpu thread which as I said has been active/open now for 3+ months.

Is it a secret what ESET is doing to correct this problem? Just a short synopsis of the current status and plans would help me (and others) understand what is going on and what to expect.

 

I think you can see how ESET deals with such issues as this from the way they handled the BSOD issue on x64 machines. They basically didn't admit it was a problem with their software, and just asked for memory dumps from people having problems, and never gave any public info. Finally, after a couple of months, they came out with a new version that is claimed to, and hopefully does, resolve that issue.

My GUESS is we can expect more or less the same regarding the 100% CPU issue. THere will be a cone of silence (essentially refusing to publicly admit there is a problem) until they are ready to release a new version that addresses (and hopefully fixes) it.

It would be great if they would prove me wrong by addressing and answering your questions in a serious and detailed manner.

 

You know, this is disappointing to hear that they haven't fixed a problem that has been occurring for months now. It seems silly that users have to disable portions of their protection in order to have the program run without interfering with other programs.

I periodically try the latest 3.0 versions, but have always returned to the 2.7 one. I see no reason to even try this version.

 

Hi, I’m running version [3.0.677.0] and have had no major problems. When installing an update can I install straight over an existing version or will I need to uninstall any one before I install this?

Thanks Sphere

 

Version 3.0.677.0

 

Hi - I couldn't agree with you more about this. I also think that the majority of AV products are overrated and NOD32 is no exception (e.g. see this link: http://winnow.oitc.com/AntiVirusPerformance.html). The greatest advantage of ESET having such a fan base is that it helps improve support. Users are more likely to post in public forums and problems are more visible. At the same time, I do not believe that any of the other security products fair better in this respect.

 

Yeah I know, but I have had no issues. Just didn't see any reason to update just to have the latest version...

Thanks again

EDIT[Installed working fine]

 

Ok, I'm a bit confused here. The latest release apparently fixes some issues with 64-bit stability. Yet the 64-bit version is still 669? What am I missing here? The only updated builds are for 32-bit Home/Business builds. The link on the site to 64-bit installs are still 669. None of the people downloading these new builds are actually running a 64-bit Vista OS. If they are, the site directs them to 669 builds. So how does this improve 64-bit stability if its a updated available only to 32-bit users?

And if 3.0 is essentially a hybrid that runs in 32-bit on a 64-bit system but can run certain aspects in 64-bit when the OS calls for it, why the hell is there even a seperate 64-bit install version to begin with? Wouldnt it run on both 32 and 64 the same anyway according to ESET's own FAQ?

It doesn't make much sense to me...

Thanks in advance.

FROM FAQ

 

Just to confirm, the 64 Bit fix in this release, is it the one where a BSOD would occur after logging into windows and NOD32 was loading?

The one where people sent in their full memory dumps and such?

 

THATS correct, and seems fixed for me also.

 

the site says the wrong version. but the downloaded file is correct. at least that was the case for me.

 

Just installed the "new" Vista 64-bit version on a fresh install of Vista Ultimate 64 and no problems so far...The previous .669 version on install did cause a crash after it was running for awhile and forced a reboot (no BSOD) and it also deleted without my consent.... some critcal files from the Lexmark 64-bit printer drivers?

So this new version did not delete any Lexmark files and after a full in-depth scan - all options checked and with auto cleaning turned off no threats!

Good Work ESET

SaphireX

Version of virus signature database: 3385 (20080825)

Scanned disks, folders and files: Operating memory;C:\Boot sector;C:\;F:\Boot sector;F:\;G:\Boot sector;G:\;H:\Boot sector;H:\
Operating memory - is OK
Number of scanned objects: 273376
Number of threats found: 0
Time of completion: 2:50:13 PM Total scanning time: 1489 sec (00:24:49)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v242/Saphirex/8-26-20084-04-01PM.jpg