cmemery The purpose is to keep the information of what you browse private.  In order to identify it,  you'd have to know what "it" is.

txgunlover like any feature you can turn on or off. If someone enables a network wise filter, it has to agree or not to disclosed what was found or not and who can see it. 

Furthermore, just mentioning what malware (name of identified thread) would be a good start. In any software there is false positive. I would actually think that giving more details would increase confidence in the tool, and cause more people to subscribe to the service.

There are many antivirus softwares which all claim to detect viruses and cleans these up. Benchmarks and 3rd party will put these to test and one of the tests will be detect false-positives. Those with less false-positive, less false-negative and most true-positives (detecting properly the virus) will likely be on the top of recommended antivirus software, leading to more people buying it with confidence.

Trust needs to be earned.

marsteau If one does not have the information, one cannot share it.

txgunlover of course they have the information. They simply refuse to track it. If they are able to tell there is a malware they must have some reasons to flag it vs not flag it. If it is considered flagged, they should be able to log/track what made them believe it is a malware, etc. Again, basic functionality that many DNS service provide today (NextDNS, OpenDNS, Cloudfare) which cannot be used when Eero Secure is enabled.

marsteau The data is passed off to a service without eero seeing it.  Thereby they cannot violate privacy.  It's a blind service.

@txgunlover all I am saying is this is bad design. Whether technically a third party is involved (and has limitations) does not justify the functional shortfall. The end user is left in the dark due to technical bad implementation of the feature.

Any DNS vendor that provides security features (like content filter, security detections, etc) typically offers (at a premium) to provide logs to that user (NextDNS and other listed above are just examples). If user does not configure an account then yes, the service won't come with logs. And obviously DNS vendor would not allow sharing these logs externally other than the user who created an account. 

I believe the feature requested here should follow the pattern of other Secure+ feature: partner with an external vendor (included in Secure+ extra costs) to provide detailed logs. That would require the user to create an account to the external vendor, and then Eero would allow user to configure the Eero router to this specific account. Now all the logs would remain at the vendor site (Eero won't see the logs) but end-user would have the details he is willing to pay for to see. The current feature in Secure mode makes little sense to me, but those who are not willing to pay more for getting details could continue to use as-is.

To reuse my previous analogy, that would be like installing an antivirus software that continuously monitor my computer, but which would internally implement the scanning such as to delegate to an external site; then report on viruses without mentioning what file is detected or what virus was found (for privacy reasons). You will convene no one would buy such an antivirus software... the worst part is that Eero does not mention ANYWHERE in the doc that the secure service (security) does not come with actual logs. It is miscommunication at best, since the expectation of anyone serious about security will expect such a thing.

marsteau If they had a solution that provided this feature, people would complain they're tracking the sites they're visiting.  There are two sides to every coin.

01000001ron Thank you so much -- I'll check out Firewalla!

markomni Love my Gold with eero 6 pros.

markomni I did the same last year and it was a great decision. Bailing on Eero+ and getting a Firewalla Blue has been amazing. Firewalla keeps getting better too.