Eset Blocking Sites (Permanently) in v10.0.369.0

[Guest TESE]

Eset v10.0.369.0 is blocking permanently some domains and IP addresses like TNOD (tukero.org) even though you have white listed (URL address management) the site and IP address as ALLOWED.
 

Domain: tukero.org and IP Address: 216.58.198.19

ESET is blocking sites based upon the content they claim is dangerous or illegal (for whom? - them or you/us?).

So, who gave Eset the authority to determine what is illegal in all countries of the world and also the authority for enforcement without a court of law? Why should Eset have the legal right of DECIDING for you what sites are forbidden to visit (connect with) on a permanent basis regardless if you're a legal adult? What's the point of being a legal adult if you're not given the choice to decide what is good from what is bad?

 

Just who granted Eset the legal right to block domains and IP addresses against the PC owner (legal adult and minors)? Isn't this action of pushing Eset's own determination of what is good (safe) from what is bad (dangerous or illegal) as if Eset is acting like parents (government authorities) and we are their children (without adult rights)?

 

Seriously, adults have the legal right of "choice" to choose for themselves what sites they want to visit! Just like adults have the legal right to smoke (dangerous and unhealthy) cigarettes. The government doesn't prevent companies from selling unhealthy products like cigarettes. So, why does Eset get to block sites permanently for just only a possible potential danger?

 

Although, Eset does provide a method to white list some blocked sites (not all of them), the action required goes beyond the average PC end user, requiring the need to open the Eset application, then navigating to the "advance settings", scrolling down a long buried list of options and then inserting the site (by entering a mask for the URL address) that you want to APPROVE for accessing. This difficult method could had been made a lot easier to just offer the option in the Eset popup message informing the site was blocked. Why isn't the blocked site given an option to be corrected too? Is Eset saving us from ourselves or them?

 

Because of this action, it seems Eset is focusing more on "human behavior", than of security. In fact, in the Eset version 10.0.369.0, you cannot disable the antivirus protection without first hunting for the option under the "advance setup" location and even then it does not disable all the protection, as you must hunt around for the other locations to do just that.

 

In the prior Eset version 8, the option to temporary disable protection was given via a right click over the application system tray notification icon. Although, it didn't include disabling the protection from HIPS, etcetera.

 

Note, even when disabling all the protection in the Eset v10.0.369.0 application, you still cannot visit the TNOD site, which is blocked by Eset. HELP!!!

Who feels safer when the security becomes more draconian in Eset's version 10.0.369.0? Isn't that just a wolf in a sheep's skin? Meaning, Eset is deciding for you what sites you are denied from accessing. Legal adults are no longer in control of making their own decisions, their own choices and their own minds. Just hand over "choice" for Eset to determine for us what is good from bad or dangerous and illegal.
 
When the site address is blocked by Eset, the warning popup message says: potentially dangerous content, without any reference to a reason why the content is dangerous or illegal. If the site actually was illegal, then the site operator can easily be held responsible, just like telecoms and Internet Service Providers in a court of law. This is important because Eset bypasses the due process of law, by taking it's own action and then enforcing punishment without a court of law. Did Eset get a court order to block the service to a site domain or IP address? If so let us see the declaration, the warrant or subpoena issued by a court of law as required by law to inform legal adults.

 

Software vendors are not courts of law and there is good reason for that. Society has appointed due process of law with professionals that are educated in such matters of law. How many years, months or days does a software vendor attend an approved academic school on law? Which country laws too?

 

If Eset won't be held accountable by law, they are acting lawlessly.

 

Yes, we want security in our computing devices, but we need our right to "choice" to also be included. Eset should NOT act without our consent of approval in determining which site to allow or deny. Without choice, citizens are reduced to dependents – as indentured servitude of Eset policies without the due process of law and the right to a jury to be heard in a court of law, etcetera.

 

Is Eset always 100% right in determining what site domain or IP address is dangerous or harboring illegal content? There are no false positives here? Why shouldn't a correction be an option for the PC end user to apply?

 

Is Eset software becoming a bigger threat to our freedoms, by taking control over our choices? When given the offer of having a choice between total surrender in perpetuity or to never accept their service at all, is that really our best negotiation?

 

Is Eset just another capitalistic company targeting profit above principles and values? Should security be sold as a conscription-based service fee in perpetuity? Is Eset actually providing a SOLUTION or a service?

 

When a service demands you becomes a life-long subscriber when does that become exploitation?

 

When is security sold, provided or given away in such a manner as to RESOLVE the insecurity issue at hand? No antivirus software does that, because they all need to be patched, updated, sold again as another new version, in perpetuity. Thus, there is no real resolution, no real solution to be resolved here, except the one method of always paying, by subscribing to their (Mafia) ongoing service protection!

 

Doesn't this method of service perpetuity look a lot like an addiction? Think of drug lords or pharmaceutical drug companies pushing treatment for symptoms rather than cures.

How do you know these antivirus companies are not releasing malware, ransomware and viruses on purpose, so as to generate a fear, by making more PC end users want to purchase protection (that never cures) but treats symptoms of an insecure operating system?

 

Why isn't Microsoft sued for NEVER fixing their insecure (operating system) product? Why shouldn't the physical hardware be kept secure, rather than handing over authority to the software? The software could easily be compiled for the hardware, instead of the current situation where the hardware drivers are compiled for the bloody operating system that wants to play as DRM (a draconian vendor platform).

 

If you think about all this, then you should be able to see how computing has become crippled by insecure monopolistic platforms, that are pushing their own agendas (platforms), instead of permitting a once write code that works on all computing devices globally.

 

Now, realize with the introduction of digital currencies, whom will feel confident to trust their insecure computing device with their money? Shall we pay someone else to trust our money for us instead? Whom would you want to trust more than yourself? Does it make more sense to trust a bank with your money so they can then charge you to access your own money? Pay to use your money plan or adopt a free decentralized digital currency without middleman fees attached?

 

Would you want the bank to decide for you which individuals you are allowed or denied to pay? Would you want the bank to decide where you can spend your money, when you can gain access to your money, to send and receive, etcetera?

 

Before you jump out and say, Eset has a right to decide for everyone using it's software, which sites are allowed or denied by them, think how this process removes your right from exercising your own "choice" too.

[DKT27]

Hello TESE, I have allowed your topic as you have posted it as a guest. Having said, this is Site / Forum Feedback - it is meant to be used for discussions on issues of nsane.down and nsane.forums. The correct forum to discuss the above would be suitable in Security and Privacy Center instead. I request you to register or login so that I can move this topic to it's respectable forum and then you can discuss about it.

[steven36]

Did Eset remove whitelisting urls ?  i doubt it  or way more people would have complained because nsane has been blocked for years even though  no one has made any cracks for it here since NOD v8  some years ago.   All antivirus lies  to a certain degree and to companies  like Eset that  depend  on money  to keep going sites that pirate  there products are a threat too them. But  I always question why do Eset and others have weakness in there Activation system ? If there is any way someone is going to find it and  all it takes is a minute to disable the program and add a key even if they didn't  have no whitelist .

 

People who use trial reset for kaspersky have been disabling the program to get a new key for years so I dont see them blocking TNOD  as a big deal. and there only subject to laws under there own country as far as it being legal to block sites or not .Just like if some country have laws saying they can backdoor you're software there is nothing you can do but not use it  or somehow reverse it. Also remember Eset don't have very many false positives if you set it up right and it's there right to protect there program even though they have never done a good job of it ever ..    

[steven36]

16 minutes ago, 0bin said:

Kaspersky flag the trial Reset,

Eset flag tnod, Eset flag nsane, Eset flag Tukero, Eset modify apk when downloaded from warez sites,

 

Both good products anyway, just disabling them when doing Magician stuffs

Both of these Antivirus  served me well  why myself would never buy a key for some signature based product , i would just use a free product before I would i have recommenced there products  and  people bought keys ..People who are not going to buy software are not going to buy it regardless if the have too use a free alternative  and people who are brainwashed into the Microsoft  windows way of thinking that paid is always better will always pay .

 

Even though Microsoft Itself allow millions too pirate there software everyday and know you're real ip and could do more to try too stop but they don't do much in years. because if they mess with people who never buy software we will just switch platforms . Some people already have because  they see it as a waste of money.

[steven36]

19 minutes ago, 0bin said:

They know about trial resetter and share keys, they don't care, cause a share key user or trial resetter is a new potential user in a future update that block that, same for m$

I never had to flat out  pay for Windows or i would not use it  at all ,Windows always came with my computers  unless they gave me the next version for free . I  was  happy using XP for 10 years and I was happy using Windows 7 tell I bought PCs  with Windows 8x  . I dont buy windows I never have .. I buy PCs with windows and It's in the price still cheaper than buying one with Linux or Mac OS on it.  It's not they see pirates as potential  customers . Its got too do with you're nothing but a number too them  in Microsoft case they have no  real computation on desktop and they want too keep it that way  But in a Antivirus like ESET case if's the opposite  they would be better off without  it were computation is stiff and Free antivirus rules the market already 

[virge]

I don't understand your complaint TESE, if you find a site blocked by ESET and you want to visit it, just add to to the allowed listing. Will take you 10 seconds to fix a blocked site or sites.

[myidisbb]

On ‎5‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 1:28 PM, DKT27 said:

Hello TESE, I have allowed your topic as you have posted it as a guest. Having said, this is Site / Forum Feedback - it is meant to be used for discussions on issues of nsane.down and nsane.forums. The correct forum to discuss the above would be suitable in Security and Privacy Center instead. I request you to register or login so that I can move this topic to it's respectable forum and then you can discuss about it.

looks more like copy and paste spam

[rennoc22222]

eset internet security version 10.1.210 works fine for me by just adding blocked sites to url address management list. Been using it for years.