Eset Nod32 Vs Kaspersky
Nichole Wernett
I have 6 licences to renew at 75, yet I can not only get 10 licences of Kaspersky Internet Security for 29.99, every anti-virus seller is offering significant discounts (up to 50%) that make staying with eset too expensive and they will not budge on their price, saying that includes the loyalty discount!
Let's just forget that price at the moment (I won't) Eset is the most expensive option for me INCLUDING the loyalty discount. I could not get AV protection for eset's price anywhere else if I tried. Everybody seems to be offering new user discounts of up to 50%. One has to know where to find them...sometimes on has to setup an order and either cancel it or not complete it to get the best discount.
I already know nod32 cannot handle HSTS, my own domain has HSTS activated, and firefox will refuse access to a HSTS server if the certificate doesn't match up, when it tries to access my domain and see's the nod32 cert it gets angry and I cannot browse my site.
Your statement is also confusing. https scanning is off by default, but you have stated without it https browsing doesn't get full livegrid protection, also nod32 online knowledgebase tells people with ssl issues to disable https scanning to resolve them, but doesn't warn they lose proper livegrid protection by doing so. This is a real problem that needs resolving.
Given all the other issues I am pretty sure it is also affected by logjam, but no browsers have patched logjam yet either, the only protection against logjam currently is to disable the suspect ciphers. (which nod32 gives no control over).
I dont know a lot about this subject but - I am trying out ESET Smart Security version 9 which includes the nod32 product (antimalware/virus) and I received an error regarding the addition of a new ESET root certificate in all of my browsers. I am running Windows 10. Upon some basic research it seems that in order to monitor and protect the user from malicious SSL TLS connections, a root certificate is added for ESET. I believe this allows ESET to act as a "middle man" between the connections allowing the software to inspect the web traffic for further action. I'm guessing that this is related to the "internet security" aspects of the software bundle and probably is not included in the base "Nod32" option.
Without getting the files and analyzing them it's impossible to tell if they are subject to detection, if they are malware or PUA/PUsA or simply false positives by the said scanner. Please provide the files or files from quarantine for perusal. I'd recommend emailing them to samples[at]eset.com in an archive encrypted with the password "infected" and a link to this topic enclosed.
I have the same problem, but I'm not sure whether the drive is write-protected. (I don't think it is.) The drive works on my old computer with Kaspersky, and it worked yesterday on my current Windows 8.1 machine with McAfee, but since I uninstalled McAfee last night and installed eset NOD32 antivirus, that thumb drive hangs up the computer. Other thumb drives don't hang up the computer, however, so it seems to be the combination of that specific thumb drive and eset NOD32 antivirus. For now I start up my old computer and view the thumb drive there, but it's not an ideal solution. Has eset figured out a solution to the problem of it causing computers to hang when a thumb drive that it doesn't like is inserted?
It is so nice to see someone having thought about backup software, because it can really save your ... , you know, a certain body part many times? So thumbs up for that. It is a thought out setup. But I have to ask you, hope you don't mind, but did you had many problems setting up nod32 and Outpost ? I ask because I have seen many incompatibility issues with the combination nod32 + Outpost. Thank you, for you sharing your setup with us,and once again welcome :-))
Especially in a situation in which updates are not incremental and can reach significant size, you might consider a deployment in which persistent storage is attached to each of the non-persistent machines to keep the update cache intact between resets and image updates. Using this approach, the window of opportunity and the performance impact of a definitions update is minimized.
It's the same elsewhere, with for instance System Cleaner telling us it would like to reset our 'System folders configuration' and 'Executable files configuration' but without offering any explanation as to why, or what changes it wants to make. Why should we allow ESET to reset whatever it's complaining about, when we've no idea what that is? Simple answer: we shouldn't, and neither should you.
aa06259810