Eset NOD32 version 10.0.390 released

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by FanJ, Feb 10, 2017.

  1. FanJ

    FanJ Updates Team

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    4,632
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2017
  2. Thankful

    Thankful Savings Monitor

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2005
    Posts:
    6,552
    Location:
    New York City
    Thanks FanJ ! I updated using product update. RIP Randy.
     
  3. Minimalist

    Minimalist Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Posts:
    14,881
    Location:
    Slovenia, EU
    Updated using internal updater with no problems :thumb:
     
  4. FanJ

    FanJ Updates Team

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    4,632
    Thanks Thankful and Minimalist. I too used the internal updater.

    But I just wanted to use the off-line installer eav_nt64_enu.exe to see how that goes.
    A bit strange reason (I admit): CCleaner was still showing version 10.0.386 as being installed in stead of 10.0.390. OK, that can happen perhaps for whatever reason...
    So I downloaded eav_nt64_enu.exe (the off-line installer for NOD32 for my Win-7 64-bit).
    Now I looked at the properties of eav_nt64_enu.exe after the download.
    It is digitally signed on 31 January 2017.
    The checksums are these:
    The file eav_nt64_enu.exe has the following Checksum(s)
    MD5 - DE07BD33529AC31CC14BB8372EA258B6
    SHA-160 - 7A50CB7FCE67184E124E2DAA862DEC58356568A2
    SHA-256 - 208F3D1904B89FEE7FCB72A0E877AE3E7D240A8A9F105B1F39B7106C9B11F5A9

    But look at the details tab at the properties. It says it is version 10.0.386 and not 10.0.390.
    Maybe it is just me not understanding this. Maybe just only a minor bug. But if I'm right, and even if it's just a minor bug, I would like to ask Eset to fix this (maybe call it 10.0.391.0 or what ever you want). See screenshot.

    NOD32_2017-02-14_01.png
     
  5. FanJ

    FanJ Updates Team

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    4,632
    PS: I'm using the English version of NOD32 on Dutch Win-7 Pro 64-bit.
     
  6. Minimalist

    Minimalist Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Posts:
    14,881
    Location:
    Slovenia, EU
    Yes I've noticed that also when I installed from full installer in VM. I thought it was only a mistake in install package version since installed version is latest .390.
     
  7. itman

    itman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    8,591
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    Eset doesn't update all components with a new release; especially with an in ver. release.
     
  8. jadinolf

    jadinolf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Posts:
    1,047
    Location:
    Southern California
    I was really surprised the day it was released because Glary Utilities informed me of the update.
    It had never done that for NOD32 before.
     
  9. FanJ

    FanJ Updates Team

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    4,632
    Thank you Minimalist for confirming!
    Yes, internally NOD32 says it is .390 but the installer says .386. There is no doubt about.

    =====

    With all due respect, itman, but that doesn't matter here.
    It is very clear at the Eset download page that the version is 10.0.390.0. I do give quotes for a reason.
    It is also very clear that the off-line installer tells it is version 10.0.386.0. I do give screenshots for a reason.
    I also gave checksums and the date on which it was digitally signed. It can all be verified (as long of course the download isn't changed).
    Yes, internally NOD32 says it is 10.0.390.0. But all other info about the installed version (either from Windows itself, or from CCleaner, or from AIDA64) say it is 10.0.386.0.

    Yes, I do understand that not all components are always updated with a new version. (And I do keep records of installed components).
    But that is not the point here at all, not at all!
    The point is that they released a newer version without the right version number in its install package.

    The problem is with Eset doing improper quality assurance (or whatever you want to call it) in this case.

    Is it a big bug? No, it isn't! It is minor bug or mistake, or whatever you want to call it.
    Let's not make it bigger than it is. But it has to be adressed by Eset.
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2017
  10. Trooper

    Trooper Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Posts:
    5,501
    Thanks for the heads up!
     
  11. Minimalist

    Minimalist Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Posts:
    14,881
    Location:
    Slovenia, EU
    Right now I have two different install packages with same version number saved on my disk. :)
    It's not a big deal but it can be confusing if you check version number before installing it. I guess somebody just forgot to raise a version number.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.