ESET NOD32 Antivirus v3.0.672 discussion thread

Discussion in 'ESET NOD32 Antivirus' started by agoretsky, Aug 21, 2008.

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

    agoretsky Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Posts:
    4,032
    Location:
    California
    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
     
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2008
  2. ASpace

    ASpace Guest

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

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    57,775
    Location:
    Texas
    Changelog for ESET Smart Security and NOD32 3.0
     
  4. element119

    element119 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2008
    Posts:
    72
    thank you!!!!!!!
     
  5. reelmccoy

    reelmccoy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2007
    Posts:
    4
    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. :)
     
  6. ASpace

    ASpace Guest

    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.
     
  7. ronjor

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    57,775
    Location:
    Texas
  8. reelmccoy

    reelmccoy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2007
    Posts:
    4
    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. :)
     
  9. Roadkil

    Roadkil Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Posts:
    52
    Location:
    USA
    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?
     
  10. TBacker

    TBacker Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2008
    Posts:
    6
    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.
     
  11. Roadkil

    Roadkil Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Posts:
    52
    Location:
    USA
    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?
     
  12. John2222

    John2222 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    Posts:
    140
    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?
     
  13. Marcos

    Marcos Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    14,374
    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.
     
  14. John2222

    John2222 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    Posts:
    140
    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.
     
  15. mongatu

    mongatu Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Posts:
    36
    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.
     
  16. BerserkerPup

    BerserkerPup Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2003
    Posts:
    61
    Location:
    New Jersey USA
    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.:doubt:
     
  17. SpHeRe77

    SpHeRe77 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2006
    Posts:
    17
    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
     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2008
  18. cocolucho

    cocolucho Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    Posts:
    80
    Version 3.0.677.0 o_Oo_O
     
  19. nmadani

    nmadani Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2007
    Posts:
    18

    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.
     
  20. SpHeRe77

    SpHeRe77 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2006
    Posts:
    17
    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]

     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2008
  21. Alpine

    Alpine Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    Posts:
    3
    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? :doubt:

    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
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2008
  22. Bakker

    Bakker Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2008
    Posts:
    90
    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?
     
  23. element119

    element119 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2008
    Posts:
    72
    THATS correct, and seems fixed for me also.
     
  24. element119

    element119 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2008
    Posts:
    72
    the site says the wrong version. but the downloaded file is correct. at least that was the case for me.
     
  25. SaphireX

    SaphireX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2004
    Posts:
    84
    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
     
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2008
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.