Peerguardian uninstaller5/11/2023 Or at the least there should be a special case where the user is informed of what the conflict is, provided with any instructions on how to manually resolve the conflict, then given a choice as to whether they want NOD32 to go ahead and deactivate the application or not. Therefore, it seems to me it would be a much better policy decision to develop a system (if it isn't already in place) for NOD32 to deliver important messages to the user rather than take unilateral action. In this particular case, for instance, PerrGuardian (which can essentially be considered a misconfigured firewall) can be configured by the user to resolve the software conflict without disabling the application entirely. ![]() To me this isn't a specific issue with PeerGuardian but what I feel is an overreaching policy decision by ESET. Will NOD32 start arbitrarily deactivating other software it considers undesirable due to conflicts, without concern for the potential collateral consequences to security or privacy that this might cause? What about a user (unwisely) trying to run a second antivirus program, or maybe an anti-spyware program that conflicts somehow, or a misconfigured firewire that prevents updates, etc. I'm sorry but I have to agree that there's something fundamentally wrong with tagging an application that a user is intentionally running as a virus simply because it conflicts in some way with NOD32 (as opposed to a real virus/trojan that intentionally tries to disable or limit NOD32's functionality without the user's consent). ![]() That view reminds me of "big brother" is watching you so why worry you have nothing to hide do you! A WW was fought over the right like privacy from dictatorial actions. Just because you pull the shades down on your window doesn't mean you are guilty of something. I was wrong to say that if the day came that these majors were included the thread would no longer matter, they are there and NOT doing what Eset has done.īTW, those who say p2p list are a cover up for illegal activity do user who are serious about privacy a disservice. I wish Eset would just stop and rethink their approach just as the other majors have already done. I find today that even though I have indicated to NOD32 S/W that PG 2 is to be excluded, Eset ignores this instruction! Who owns my PC anyway? If they can do it so can Eset.Ĭonsider this, I can delete/ disable the p2p list from my PC and Eset still tags it as a virus, punishing their own customer base. They are all there in dozens of multiple ranges of ip's yet we see zero posts on them tagging the PG 2 S/W as a "threat"? Those firms must be dealing with the matter differently. Reviewing the copy of the p2p list finds many examples of major software companies being blocked. It would be possible as just an example to load no lists of blocking sites from BlueTack via PG 2 and build our own lists over time one range at a time. It is the lists you and other users choose to load from their menu of lists. We have to be clear here PG 2 blocks nothing by itself without the lists the USER chooses to exploit. Even if i like that eset doesn't try to include everything that might be releated to illegal filesharing as a threat i couldn't care less if PG2 is detected as a threat. ![]() This is not the first time i heard about PG2 causing problems like this and unless you got something to hide i cannot see how using PG2 is a benefit considering these kind of issues where it cause problem for other security applications. For filesharing like Bit Torrent those might not be suitable because you have to communicate with a lot of unknown IP addresses, but still you want to block communication with sites that you don't want to find out about your activites. There are other software available for that purpose that is much better and less hassle. ![]() Some people might say they use it for privacy, but i find that hard to believe. Based on their reply when they say "We block all commercial software companies and all companies that produce copyrighted material" they do not deny the purpose of this application either. It's an application to keep the person using the computer protected when using software illegally or sharing/downloading copyrighted software. PG2 is not an application to keep your computer protected.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |