NOD32 4.0 Beta Proxy Issue?

Discussion in 'ESET NOD32 Antivirus v4 Beta Forum' started by hayc59, Nov 21, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. hayc59

    hayc59 Updates Team

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2008
    Posts:
    2,124
    Location:
    R.I.P. Roger(roddy32)
    I have yet to try the new BETA just for the fact
    of the proxy problem with Outpost Pro!
    has anyone runnin Outpost Pro tried this new BETA with it
    and do you know if the problem still exist's? thank you
     
  2. Marcos

    Marcos Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    14,374
    On Vista you shouldn't have this problem with 3rd party firewalls that don't support local proxies.
     
  3. legba

    legba Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2008
    Posts:
    1
    I have Vista SP1, and Outpost Pro, I installed NOD32 4 beta, for a day it downloaded fine but now, since two days it has problems.

    Why?
     
  4. ASpace

    ASpace Guest

    Just for the record . From the official change log:

     
  5. funkydude

    funkydude Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    6,851
    Um, so how is it done now? I thought proxy was the best "cleanest" solution?
     
  6. hayc59

    hayc59 Updates Team

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2008
    Posts:
    2,124
    Location:
    R.I.P. Roger(roddy32)
    how about 'under' windows xp pro?:)
     
  7. Marcos

    Marcos Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    14,374
    The technique used instead of local proxying was first implemented in Windows Vista. Microsoft hasn't added support for it to XP neither with SP3.
     
  8. catprincess

    catprincess Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Posts:
    44
    Sorry if I am being stupid, but if this is the case then how is it going to be back-ported to other operating systems after release as stated in HiTech_boy's post?:

    I don't understand. Reading your post I get the impression the proxy issue is never going to be resolved for XP but reading HiTech_boy's post where he quoted from the change log, gives me the complete opposite impression.
     
  9. Marcos

    Marcos Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    14,374
    It appears to me that the statement in the changelog was misinterpretation of facts. I'll try to clear that up tomorrow when I come to the office.
     
  10. funkydude

    funkydude Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    6,851
    Could I ask that you also enlighten us a little about this new technique, why you're using it instead of proxying with advantages/disadvantages in comparison.
     
  11. Marcos

    Marcos Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    14,374
    You can read about it here.
     
  12. catprincess

    catprincess Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Posts:
    44
    Okay. Thanks. So for XP the proxy will be the same as it is in v3 then I take it.
     
  13. funkydude

    funkydude Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    6,851
    Thank you! That's exactly what I wanted to know :)
     
  14. hayc59

    hayc59 Updates Team

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2008
    Posts:
    2,124
    Location:
    R.I.P. Roger(roddy32)
    If this is the case, I will be with version 2.7 until that
    is no longer an option and move..sadly to say :'(
     
  15. catprincess

    catprincess Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Posts:
    44
    I want to know more about this too. I have tried v3 and the proxy seriously limits the control my firewall can have over traffic and this is with a firewall that supports loopback. It's just impossible to make firewall rules for a certain program allowing access only to certain ports or endpoint restrictions because it's all done through ekrn so all restrictions end up applying to all programs. The only way out of it was to uncheck everything under web access protection (effectively disabling this protection). I ended up just going back to 2.7 for now because at least I can use IMON with my firewall without these hassles.

    Like you, and I'm sure many others, I did hope this would change with v4. I'd be trying this beta right away if it did! I'm not aware of the details of how it works with Vista and whether what I described above is a complete non-issue with that O/S. Not that I am getting a new O/S just at the moment anyway. I really don't understand why if you can design a proxy, you can't design it to work properly with firewalls. I sure wouldn't mind the proxy at all if it would just allow me proper control of my firewall! I really like NOD :) , just the proxy is a major thorn for me.
     
  16. Marcos

    Marcos Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    14,374
    This has actually changed with v4, but the technique used instead of local proxying is supported in Windows Vista and Windows 2008. For older OS, the system remains same and the traffic is stilll redirected through a local proxy.

    We'll welcome any suggestion as how this could be accomplished and would 100% work.
     
  17. GWA

    GWA Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2005
    Posts:
    59
    Location:
    Albuquerque, New Mexico
    I agree with CatPrincess. If as Marcos implies, it can't be done, then NOD has effectively eliminated a lot of (knowledable) users. While stating that Windows XP is old may be true, one can still purchase brand new computers to this day with Win XP installed. I would think that one should plan for users to be on Win XP for many more years - at least until Windows 7 proves itself to be a suitable replacement worth the money and hastle. Thanks.
     
  18. funkydude

    funkydude Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    6,851
    Well we can't really blame ESET for Microsoft adding a feature in Vista SP1 and for some unknown reason not adding it in XP SP3. I'm not sure what ESET are doing but I assume they will stick to a proxy for XP, so there won't really be a change for XP users. Or is MS planning an SP4?
     
  19. GWA

    GWA Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2005
    Posts:
    59
    Location:
    Albuquerque, New Mexico
    I'm not blaming ESET for something that MS has done; I'm asking ESET if there is a way to take what MS already offers with XP and find a way to ditch the need for a local proxy, similar to NOD 32 V2. CHUCK
     
  20. hayc59

    hayc59 Updates Team

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2008
    Posts:
    2,124
    Location:
    R.I.P. Roger(roddy32)
    Marcos, It must be a possible because NOD32 version 2.7 and Outpost Pro
    are working wonderful under Windows XP Pro!? or am I missing the whole boat :argh:
     
  21. Marcos

    Marcos Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    14,374
    The http protection in v2 (IMON) works as an LSP at the Winsock layer. There were too many problems with this approach (it was impossible to use it on servers) and using LSP's is no longer recommended by MS either. We really don't want to make the program incompatible with servers, it would also lead to conflicts with other tools working as LSP's on workstations.
     
  22. catprincess

    catprincess Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Posts:
    44
    Okay, thank you for clearing that up completely.

    What KAV 2009 uses (explained here)
    https://support.kaspersky.com/kav2009/all?page=4&qid=208279770 doesn't sound as though it works like a local proxy. Would this method work to allow absolute control over a firewall? And if so, can NOD not be made to work like this? Or is this method essentially the same as was used in NOD 2.7?
     
  23. catprincess

    catprincess Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Posts:
    44
    Yes? No? Stupid suggestion? :doubt:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.