Missed Updates

Discussion in 'NOD32 version 2 Forum' started by lafill, Nov 26, 2006.

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

    lafill Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2006
    Posts:
    5
    Location:
    Seattle, WA USA
    I'm new to NOD32 and very pleased with it. One question. I miss some updates if I'm away from the computer and I wonder if later updates include the missed ones? For example, I now have sig version 1882 but I was not online for versions 1875 and 1877 which do not show in the log. I assume I'm up-to-date with all the virus signatures!

    lafill
     
  2. Blackspear

    Blackspear Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2002
    Posts:
    15,115
    Location:
    Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2006
  3. Brian N

    Brian N Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,148
    Location:
    Denmark
    That it does. Even if you got an old installer from last year, it'll still download all the stuff it needs to keep you protected :) So no worries.
     
  4. lafill

    lafill Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2006
    Posts:
    5
    Location:
    Seattle, WA USA
    Thanks, Blackspear and Brian N. Very reassuring. :D

    lafill
     
  5. Blackspear

    Blackspear Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2002
    Posts:
    15,115
    Location:
    Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
    You are welcome.

    Cheers :D
     
  6. cerBer

    cerBer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2006
    Posts:
    81
    How do you know?
    My question is not to object what you are saying(which should be without any doubt correct), but to understand why this important question is answered by you, not Eset.

    So, are your answers to be considered official position of Eset,
    or, Eset have told you (but then, why did they tell you only),
    or, you have performed some experiments,
    or, it is what you think should be the truth?

    I think it is quite important, because, as you know, NOD sometimes reports itself updated when it is actually not (2.7 still does-even if the newer version is on the server). So, how can you be so sure it will always correctly know the previous version you have downloaded?

    Thanks.
     
  7. Blackspear

    Blackspear Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2002
    Posts:
    15,115
    Location:
    Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
    I know because it is a fact and has been stated numerous times in the past, including this post by Marcos.

    Because I was around at the time, any number of people could have stated the same thing.

    No, only official representatives of Eset can speak on behalf of Eset, these are Eset Moderators.

    A search of the forum will bring up the same answer.

    See answer above.

    See answer above.

    Because this is how the program and updates work.

    Cheers :D
     
  8. cerBer

    cerBer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2006
    Posts:
    81
    I would like to be as confident as you are.
    But - how you are going to detect few missing signatures?

    The program working that way, does not display false up to date messages. It is indeed very(too) optimistic to assume that program, which few moments ago was erroneously reporting to be up to date (while it was not), with the arrival of new update will by all accounts correct it's mistake and update previous, "unnecessary" update, too.
    One might assume, it requires some proof.

    Except, if it is not a program error but intended disinformation.
    But then, Eset explanation is still outstanding. I guess there would be no harm in displaying "at present update not possible" or something like that.

    In relation to this post by Marcos, if true, it would be highly welcome if not only updates, but also displayed messages would be ensured to be correct.

    Thanks.
     
  9. Bubba

    Bubba Updates Team

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Posts:
    11,271
    The "importance" of the question is in the eye of the beholder and as BS said....any number of members could as easily have answered the question that member lafill asked. In fact Eset themselves accomplish updates no different than say Microsoft in regards to sig updates being commulative. If you for example asked this same type question in our software forum but it concerned a Microsoft product....would you still be questioning the messenger and wondering why Microsoft themselves did not answer the question :doubt:

    Personally speaking....I think this is simply another case of being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative as it relates to the support assistance being provided by the individual that was providing the assistance.

    YMMV
     
  10. cerBer

    cerBer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2006
    Posts:
    81
    Indeed, after carefully reading the first post I see that OP has asked the obvious, which Blackspear perfectly answered.

    Therefore I apologize for what can be seen as unreasonable offence.


    However, it is not an attempt to be argumentative - I still believe that I am asking the important question, which is :

    If NOD is declaring(in error) that it does not need to update to, say 1883, which is on the server(proven, because another copy of NOD has updated to it from the same server), how can I be sure that when 1884 arrives, it will realize it's mistake and download 1883 too?
    I wouldn't ask this question, if NOD32 didn't show(by displaying erroneous messages) inability to always properly detect it's update status.

    P.S. With Microsoft, I have a list of all updates(in add/remove progrms), so I can verify what has been installed and what missed. How can I do similar thing with NOD32?
     
  11. Brian N

    Brian N Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,148
    Location:
    Denmark
    ^ For paying users, that will will only happen when those huge updates are released - But now when a bucket load of new servers has been added, we can only wait till the next update to see if it will happen again.
     
  12. Bubba

    Bubba Updates Team

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Posts:
    11,271
    If my understanding is correct of what you are attempting to say....there are at least 2 issues to which you are addressing.

    1) "when 1884 arrives, it will realize it's mistake and download 1883 too"
    There would be no need for Nod to download 1883 because it has downloaded 1884 and inside of 1884 is 1883,1882,1881....1776....etc.

    2) "I wouldn't ask this question, if NOD32 didn't show(by displaying erroneous messages) inability to always properly detect it's update status."
    There was a time when that indeed was a fact and you yourself was one of the loudest critics of that matter almost to a point of being nauseous. However....since the additional servers have been added that matter has become mute for the majority of the users if thread starts can be used as an indicator. If you personally are still seeing this freak occurence then by all means provide the details but if your simply attempting to bring up old news and harp on what was a problem I suggest you re-think bringing up old news that is no longer a fact. Otherwise....harping on old news will considered for what it is and will be dealt with accordingly.

    Bubba
     
  13. Blackspear

    Blackspear Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2002
    Posts:
    15,115
    Location:
    Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
    Moderating decisions are not up for debate - off topic post removed.

    This thread has been answered and as such it is now closed.

    Blackspear.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.