Very Slow Web Browsing with NOD32 V4

Discussion in 'ESET NOD32 Antivirus' started by hawki, Mar 12, 2009.

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

    SolidState Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    Posts:
    92

    No it won't be less secure as your only directing NOD32 to not mess specifically with that exe's HTTP communications... or basically telling the "Web access protection" element of threatsense to exclude/ignore ANY web communication, IE HTTP, HTTPS, 80, 8080 or 443 but I personally have found this element of threatsense is not specific to those ports but to any of the traffic of this kind.

    Solid-State
     
  2. ObsidianX

    ObsidianX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2009
    Posts:
    4
    The "-->Web Browsers" part does not exist on my settings. LOL. All I have is "Address management" and "Active mode." "Active mode" gives no option for a red x.

    Disabling web access protection completely does nothing, still over 500ms pings.

    Disabling all protection completely does nothing.

    Uninstalling Nod32 fixes everything.

    The problem has something to do with the installation ... or Eset was simply not ready for Windows 7 64 Bit.

    I've uninstalled/reinstalled for the last time ... at least until I read the problems with high pings due to Nod32 are fixed.

    Summary
    Nod32 64 and Comodo 64 installed = all internet browsers (IE8, Firefox, Chrome) return over 500ms pings. My remote desktop into work is completely useless.

    Uninstalling Comodo/Leaving Nod32 = Only Chrome continues to have riduculous latency.

    Uninstalling Nod32/Leaving Comodo = Everything is fast.

    I'm sure I'll be fine with Comodo firewall, Avast free, and SAS Pro. At least everything works.

    Win 7 Home Premium 64 bit.
     
  3. eezdva

    eezdva Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Posts:
    179
    The paid version of Online Armor is not free obviously . So you're not right there. Anyways thanks for helping out but I don't think there is a need for trash talking down some noobs :) Our cyber-life is hard enough :D

    Thanks though.

    I will check it out and keep you guys posted if this solves the problem.

    Though I think it should just work be default.
     
  4. eezdva

    eezdva Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Posts:
    179

    You're correct.

    If I understood well is that in Windows Vista after SP1 and windows 7 this has been updated . This can not be selected anymore.

    I think the idea was to make it "easier" But actually it made it worse . Cause people can't use any top rated firewall with Nod32 V4 anymore.

    V3 works flawless.

    So thanks for your help ObsidianX I appreciate it.But sadly we're back to square one. o_O
     
  5. eezdva

    eezdva Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Posts:
    179
    Oh may I add . When turning off Web acces . The browsers work fine.
     
  6. SolidState

    SolidState Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    Posts:
    92

    I'm sorry to hear you can't seem to fix your problems. I don't understand why you don't have the "Web browsers" option as it's one level up from "Active mode". Can anyone else chime in if it's there on Windows 7 because I believe Obsidian X is simply not seeing it. update confirmed on a VM that the ability to create "Internet browser"/application rules/exclusion/inclusion lists for the "Web access protection" is completely missing on Vista SP1 forward and 7. THIS SUCKS ESET!

    Solid-State
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2009
  7. eezdva

    eezdva Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Posts:
    179
    They don't have this option in Vista SP1 and Windows 7...

    That is also the main problem. We're stuck . And kind of suprised we are the only ones posting . I am sure there are many people who have this problem.

    People who don't knwo about it will probably not use Nod32. I love Nod32 so want this to be fixed.
     
  8. SolidState

    SolidState Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    Posts:
    92

    WOW I just checked some Vista and 7 VMs are you correct! That setting is missing! What gives Eset that was really stupid to remove! WOW no "Web access protection" exclusion/inclusion content filtering control to FIX/PREVENT compatibility issues! Right here in this forum I can count on one hand people who could create exclusions here to possible fix issues. Specially the guy running JRMC. Sucks to have removed/disabled Eset!

    Solid-State
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2009
  9. eezdva

    eezdva Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Posts:
    179
    Not so noob in the end hey:) ??:D
     
  10. SolidState

    SolidState Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    Posts:
    92

    I can't agree more! Perhaps there is a way to re-enable it? Eset? Anyone?

    Solid-State
     
  11. eezdva

    eezdva Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Posts:
    179
    Well Marcos knows about it. So I think /hope they are working on a fix.

    From what I understood they removed this function to make it automatic or more compatible but actually they made it worse.
     
  12. ccomputertek

    ccomputertek Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Posts:
    371
    If version 3 ESS and NOD32 works, why not just use that ?
     
  13. eezdva

    eezdva Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Posts:
    179
    Well removal and some other things work better in V4 . But that's another subject. V4 should work. No matter if V3 works in my opinion.
     
  14. ObsidianX

    ObsidianX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2009
    Posts:
    4
    Not if Comodo firewall is installed. If Comodo is installed, all the browsers I have tested have high latency > 500ms, Web Access enabled or not. In fact, even turning all Nod32's protections off does nothing. It's only cured via uninstall.

    Even using Nod32 when Comodo is uninstalled, Google Chrome continues to have > 500ms latency.

    I'm using Comodo's firewall and antivirus until Nod gets it together. I've been using Nod32 for years and years now, but breaking things that work is a deal breaker for me.
     
  15. jimwillsher

    jimwillsher Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2009
    Posts:
    668
    Just get a NAT router. Then you have no need for Comodo anyway, since nothing can get into your PC from the WAN unless you explicity request it.
     
  16. eezdva

    eezdva Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Posts:
    179
    I have a laptop . Take it around with me.

    This doesn't concern only Comodo.

    It concerns Comodo, Online Armor ,Pc tools Firewall, Private Firewall , Jetico and the list goes on :oops:
     
  17. ChickC

    ChickC Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2004
    Posts:
    26
    Location:
    Proudly, one of the, "Blue States" CT
    After blaming my ISP, reinstalling Firefox, restoring my disk, changing from Open DNS to my ISP and back, and much trouble shooting it finally dawned on me that my problem started just after installing version 4 of NOD32 on my Windows7 x64 computer. It was bad under Vista Ultimate x64 but this latest revision of NOD 32 and Windows7 x64 almost takes me back to Dial Up days!

    It simply never entered my mind that the very Nod32 software that I have recommended to so many people was actually the cause of my slow surfing and greatly increases ping rate.

    Guess the only choices left to me are:
    1. Downgrading to Version 3
    2. Suffering with what I have until EST gets around to doing something!
    3. Taking the loss on my 2 year license and finding a more reliable program after using NOD32 for many, many years.

    I am really not happy about any of those options and from previous experience with EST's tech support I do not expect them to even acknowledge the problem, let alone fix it for quite some time. Sure hope I am wrong about them this time.
     
  18. MrBeen

    MrBeen Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Posts:
    48
    I have the same problem with v4.0.474 on a fresh install of w7 x86

    if I disable the web acces filtering it works fine but after reboot the filtering is enable again

    is it possible to disable it definitely ?
    I hope that eset will correct it soon
     
  19. Fajo

    Fajo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Posts:
    1,814
    This among other issues is why when my Eset license expires here in less then a month I will not be renewing it. Eset has done nothing but went down hill for me the last year and I wont pay for the junk they are feeding now :mad:. Kind of sad 4 years of awesome service to have it all ruined in little over a year, all because they refuse to fix issues outstanding in there software. Incompatibility with Windows 7 is another big issue with them.
     
  20. eezdva

    eezdva Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Posts:
    179
    Well lets not get this thread about if Eset does well or not.

    I would like to keep it open till either a solution can be posted or someone tells me they updated the current version.

    If not it will get locked.
     
  21. eezdva

    eezdva Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Posts:
    179
    Guys download the new Beta 4.2 . All is fixed.
     
  22. ShaneR34

    ShaneR34 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2008
    Posts:
    107
    I'm having pretty much the same problem and have been for a long time.

    On both Vista 64 and now 7 64, with Windows firewall and version 4, Chrome is horrible while the other browsers seem fine. Only way to solve it is complete uninstall of Nod32.

    I'll give the beta a try....
     
  23. eezdva

    eezdva Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Posts:
    179
    BETA WORKS :) :) :) So happy. lol. Sorry for spamming but I was so frustrated. Now all is good.
     
  24. ChickC

    ChickC Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2004
    Posts:
    26
    Location:
    Proudly, one of the, "Blue States" CT
    On some sites the beta is better with Window7 x64, but with most using Firefox 3.5.6 there is still no big improvement.
     
  25. eezdva

    eezdva Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Posts:
    179
    Aha , is it not better with the Beta of FF ? Hum did you write about that on the beta section?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  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.