Discussion in 'ESET NOD32 Antivirus v4 Beta Forum' started by Dark Shadow, Dec 9, 2008.
Not up to date Have a looky very Cool
And you can check it from eset gui,Wow how cool is that.
I think it's not a very useful function. I already have a program like that and it's called windows update. I'd rather see improvements in detection rate.
Something to keep in mind is that you don't have to detect an exploit for a patched vulnerability. Another means of having folks install theses updates is more effective than trying to detect everything that would exploit them, which yes, they should still be trying to do. In any case I would imagine that the development for this part is done anyway. Removing it would not make any other part of NOD32 better.
The point is its notifiying of critical updates that are only schedulede for installation at specfic times through windows update settings on my machine,Hence I am notified 7 hours early then scheduled time.The sooner a critcal patch the better in my opinion. If I forget to check I was just reminded.Detection seem excellent it past my test and matts test here.https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=227183
That's not a real and accurate test. The only tests I look at ar from www.av-test.org and www.av-comparatives.org. And according to these two nod32 is certainly not the best.
AV comparitives rates Norton really well. Go to the forum and you will see how much they are missing. It is the real world detection that matters.
Well matts test was real world testing with day old samples,who also is a member here.I take his testing more sincere since I see it live and for his credibilty,rather the some lab testing that none of us here can see anything going on behind the seens,but to each there own I guess.Either way it wouldn't not matter what nods detection rate is,I do not need one to stay clean but like having it anyways.cheers
No YUCK BOOO, HISSS, LOL....
Get rid of this Update crap, this is an AV, I don't need an AV telling me about OS updates, this is just more bloat for noobs, good god...
Crap I certainly hope ESET isn't going to start getting bloated like everyone else...
If you don't like it , disable the feauture but don't act like a pinched screaming kid.
I really love quoting this:
I find myself really liking this feature. It told me today that the KB960714 update was out before the OS did. No complaints here.
As operating system security has improved, malware authors and those who deploy their creations now invest their efforts in exploiting recently-patched vulnerabilities, on the grounds that they are more likely to get their code running on a number of computers before the computer operator can download the patch from the operating system or application vendor.
The purpose of this feature is to help reduce the attack surface of the computer running ESET's software. As far as resources go--not just in terms of disk space cost and processor utilization but also in development and testing efforts--it is actually fairly inexpensive.
It appears to me, that this feature does not work correctly:
In a Virtual Machine NOD V4 told me after installing and updating the definitions, that my patch-level is outdated. This was correct and intended (for testing). I changed the setting to "no updates" and the warning has gone - also as expected.
But than I changed it back to "critical update", but I got no warning any more. This has been done on Dec 14, several reboots have taken place, the definitions have been updated (always the same database level as in V3 on my production machine) and in the meantime there has been at least released the KB 960714 Patch for IE yesterday. So it appears, as if V4 beta does not recognize the change of setting correctly.
Well let me run it by you like this...
1. I've been in computing 20 years, I know what 'Real Bloatware' is...
2. I'm not some noob that yells for the sake of it...
3. Granted yelling like this does seem childish, so on that behalf I apologize...
4. I've seen what bloatware has done to systems... (crashes, BSOD, lockups, etc.)
5. If you've been around you've seen what problems bloatware causes...
6. It's sad seeing companies adding in things that aren't needed, and this is one of those things...
7. Windows has it's own update system, users don't need another one, this is most definitely not needed...
8. This isn't just about added luggage, it's about all the extra weight that degrades software and system performance...
Oh gee Eset wants to step in and ensure user security, sure keeping a system updated helps to ensure this, so that is why the thinking here, but again as I stated Windows has it's own update TOOL, and it's CALLED, 'Windows Security Center', and it does just a dandy job that users don't need more garbage like ESET is throwing at them.
I've been working as a Tech on XP since the day it came out, and I've never seen a problem with Windows Security Center not notifiying the user that their system wasn't up to date, and then allowing them to update, it works and it does it's job and it's all the user needs besides keeping Updates on, or doing them manually.
~Off topic comments removed. - Ron~
I totally agree
Thank you for your report.
Got to be careful of not adding in duplicate OS functionality. Trend did this and a lot of people switched away, me included. It's my understanding Windows Automatic Updates can provide this function by selecting Download and Notify in the options starting Win2k thru XP to Vista.
There is also a rumour that MS is planning to release a low on resources FREE Anti-Virus solution. It is very important for NOD32 to remain less power hungry for low power XP solutions such as Net Books which could be quite a lucrative market, and not "bloat" NOD32 as Trend did.
It is not uncommon for malware to block the Windows Security Center, disable services needed by Automatic Update/Microsoft Update/Windows Update or prevent access to their various web sites. There are also times when Windows Security Center just does not work. This feature provides another way for users who may not be aware that updates are available before of this.
One thing that I think you need to keep in mind is that you are an atypical user, nowadays: With two decades worth of computing experience, you have a better idea of how to maintain your computers, practice patch management and not get infected with malware in the first place. That's great, but you have to understand that not all users have your level of sophistication and, as a result, are precisely the sort of people who do need tools like this because they do not have your working knowledge of computer operation. As a matter of fact, I suspect there are more people these days who need this sort of thing than those who do not, and when you combine that with the fact that anti-malware companies like ESET want to create products for computer users at all skill levels, not just those who are the most experienced, I think it is understandable why a feature like this exists and is needed.
While I only have nineteen years of experience in the computing field to your twenty, I feel comfortable in identifying software that I consider bloated, as well as identifying and removing them and troubleshooting other types of computer-related issues and I just do not feel is is "bloat."
I think if you were to take a look the increases in size between ESET Smart Security v3.0.684.0 (the current production build of the software) and v4.0.068.0 (the current public beta build), you would find that the delta is small, especially when you consider all of the changes all of the changes made between the two versions, and the fact that beta typically have unoptimized debug code in them. What you are basically looking at is a few tens of kilobytes of code which transmit a few kilobytes of XML and then interrogate the OS to check the service pack level and for hot fixes against the list to see what's missing. It runs speedily even on a dial-up connection.
Lastly, on a somewhat whimsical note, I'd like to leave you with this though for consideration: When Microsoft introduced Service Pack 2 for Microsoft Windows XP in 2004, they provided Windows Security Center, which would tell you if your anti-virus software was out of date. Don't you think it is fair now some four years later that your anti-virus software can provide the same type of warning about the operating system?
One thing that I think ESET has demonstrated is that they are very "anti-bloat:" ESET's developers are very conscientious of the fact that not everyone has a new computer with the highest-frequency processor, largest amount of RAM and disk drives and fastest Internet connection and architect their products accordingly. Features are added only when they are needed and they seem to make sense. I have explained in my earlier messages to DasFox in this message thread the reasoning behind checking the patch level of the operating system, so won't repeat them here.
ESET is many builds away from releasing the production version of ESET Smart Security v4.0 and you will have ample opportunity to look at future beta builds, release candidates and then, of course, trial versions of the production version of the software. You will then be able to make your own educated decision about whether or not ESET's products are right for your computing environment.
Microsoft has provided some information about Morro, the code-name for the free successor to Windows Live OneCare. You can read about it here on Windows Live OneCare's blog.
In contradiction to others I go with ESET in this point. Stupidly there are enough people who disable auto-update and also deactivate the warning in the Security Center. Those unpatched systems (Even in these days there can be systems with xp sp0 found!) are not only a dramatic data danger for their owners, but also some kind of virus catapult for all the others. So this is a social problem, not only a personal one.
But Aryeh, taking your own kind of arguing, ESET is not consequent:
Working with LUA is a security principle, that is far far far more older than XP SP2 and far far far far far more efficient. But it also means, that the authors of security software have to recognize, that a security software has to be administered from inside a LUA. About the why and how I wrote a separate topic some days ago.
I appreciate the fact, that after 4 days(!) and a special note(!) you reacted at all. But from content, your reaction did not say anything, not even something like "We will discuss it and come back to the topic after having done so".
When ESET thinks, that 5 years after XP Sp2 there has to be done more for this aspect, what about LUA, which has been introduced in the Windows world with Windows NT about 15 years ago and in the Unix-World even long before that? It is urgent time to take action.
The people who trust Microsoft to provide them an OS but refuse to trust subsequent patches to that release never cease to crack me up.
Sorry, I'm not just talking about making things for experienced users only. I think it's perfectly proper to make software to work for various user experience levels.
You say the Security Center has failed? Well I have personally never seen this since XP has come out, also by default Windows is set up to automatically update, I have also never seen this fail from viruses or malware.
Let's turn the table here for a second. If the AV is doing the job it should be, then why is the Security Center getting disabled in the first place, to where ESET thinks they need to add in something else into the program to inform users in case this happens by adding in an extra tool?
Sounds more like you can't keep the problem from occuring, therefore rather then provide a better AV application that can handle the malware you add in an application to help, is this what you're trying to tell end-users, because it certainly seems like it to me?
Why don't you get a better Engine, Signatures, Heuristics, and Zero-Day protection going, so end-users aren't going to get a failed update, or Security Center in the first place rather then side stepping the real issue here of providing better protection?
Also these days, you won't find to often users without other spyware-malware applications on their computers. Many users nowadays typically have other programs too, like Spybot, Spyware Terminator, SpySweeper, Spyware Doctor, let's not forget Windows Defender, STOPzilla, SpywareBlaster, a-squared Free, etc...
There are plenty of anti malware applications out there! What makes ESET think the end-user needs you to come to the resuce with this Windows Update included in the first place?
What makes you think most end-users don't have other lines of defense to protect them, and that ESET is their only source of help when there's a problem? Sure you still run into the newbies who only run an AV and that is all.
But let's back up here one more time. Do you even know who your user-base is in the first place, as far your companie's presence in the software world for Windows is concerned?
I can't say I'm familar with every computer out there what trial software is being installed, but as far as some of the biggest names are concerned out there, that do truly effect the computer world of Windows, like Dell and HP, Gateway, and a few others, these always come with software by typically by Symantec or McAfee.
ESET is not a common household name to computer users, Symantec and McAfee are. Once users start learning about ESET, they have always typically learned about other AV and malware applications to protect themselves, and let's not forget aobut HIPS(Host Intrusion Prevention Systems), these so called newbies are even getting a hold of this too, and using programs now like Sandboxie.
ESET is not a typical new user newbie program being used, so I think that ESET doesn't even realize it's own user-base is more experienced, but of course to a point with some, but never the less, still more then average.
If you think ESET users are your typical Norton McAfee crowd, guess again.
No matter how little the ESET user is, they are still a step ahead, even if it is small.
Anyhow as somone mentioned, if ESET is going to stick by their guns and insist this option be included, then at least allow it to be disabled if users don't want it.
It can be disabled, there's an option in the setup to do that, but i think it should be disabled by default.
Separate names with a comma.