Eset good or not good

[alitaher]

My own experiences with Eset haven't been favourable tbh,it's the only AV i've used that's actually allowed a couple of viruses through without any type of warning and when it did finally realise that a virus got through it sent me on a never ending loop of reboots on both occassions and never managed to clean either virus.

It maybe just me but i found the old nod32 from 5 years back a lot more secure than the new iteration.

what a bad experience :(

Yeah it's a strange one when you consider i've used practically every AV in existance over the last 10 or so years and only Eset has let me down.

Nod32 2.7 was the ultimate AV for me,it really was a superb AV and really light.I think the site owner may remember that build. :)

as my own experience in all these 10 years there are two av that you can count on them :1.kaspersky 2. Norton no other can replace them ;)

[alitaher]

eset good YA! with WINDOWS FIREWALL CONTROL ya..... :D

ya ....! that's right man :showoff:

[alitaher]

In my opinion and old test, ESET did very good, plus it probed to be the most light av solution, in the other hand, its firewall was not the best, and detection rate was 90%based on heuristics and 10% on update system.

eset can just detect 75 % in normal mode but i don' t know why this is popular <_<

[AlienForce1]

eset can just detect 75 % in normal mode but i don' t know why this is popular <_<

- the answer is really simple -> it`s easy to crack and working licenses are easy to find !

- another good reason is that nod32 is one of the lightest AV (and there are still a lot of old computers online)

[alitaher]

eset can just detect 75 % in normal mode but i don' t know why this is popular <_<

- the answer is really simple -> it`s easy to crack and working licenses are easy to find !

that's right man you'd read my mind B)

[cyba]

I wouldn't, as a matter of principle and/or for practical reasons take one reviewer's results as gospel. I don't do that with anything I buy.

I'd want to include AV-Comparatives (partnered with Anti-Malware Test Lab since, I think, 2008) and, especially, the highly rated Virus

Bulletin (to which I subscribe)..perhaps, the top independent antivirus testing lab. Here's their current Advisory Board,

• Pavel Baudis, Alwil Software, Czech Republic
• Dr Sarah Gordon, Independent research scientist, USA
• Dr John Graham-Cumming, CloudFlare, UK
• Shimon Gruper, NovaSpark, Israel
• Dmitry Gryaznov, McAfee, USA
• Joe Hartmann, Microsoft, USA
• Dr Jan Hruska, Sophos, UK
• Jeannette Jarvis, McAfee, USA
• Jakub Kaminski, Microsoft, Australia
• Eugene Kaspersky, Kaspersky Lab, Russia
• Jimmy Kuo, Microsoft, USA
• Chris Lewis, Spamhaus Technology Ltd, Canada
• Costin Raiu, Kaspersky Lab, Romania
• Péter Ször, McAfee, USA
• Roger Thompson, Independent researcher, USA
• Joseph Wells, Independent research scientist, USA

Unlike other reviewers, Virus Bulletin make a point of testing programs' ability to discriminate between real and false positives.

Unsubstantiated statements like,

Eset is still a very good product when you look at the whole picture, but not as good as it used to be some years ago..

make no sense when NOD32 consistently maintains VBs highest strike rate across all OS platforms - not to mention (OK, I have) that this prog has a very small footprint/low resource use.

I should differentiate between full blown versions of AV-Malware software - the (so-called) 'Internet Security Suites' - and straight AV progs. Frankly, I prefer the latter plus (hard) router security, ZAPro, and dedicated malware software, e.g. MalwareBytes and SuperAntiSpyware..plus fully encrypted (on the fly) drives including C:/ (the OS) - and a couple of other specific apps for, e.g, banking (Dell Kace Secure Browser, a sandboxed version of Firefox, which isolates it from Windows and limits the sites designed to be used, or IronKey's S200 USB drive (which I have); that includes a similarly virtualised version of Firefox run from the drive itself.) All of this gives me some involvement in the process of securing my computer rather than 'handing it over' to some Security Suite..which millions of people out there (you can't blame them) will want to do. It's 'automated' and 'easy' and the various companies urge you to use it because it will save your life.

I've become very conscious, over the years, that anti-AV/malware software is a full-blown, multi-million dollar-driven PC industry. The cynic in me says these companies, like any other, will 'suck your buck' however they can. That's not to say, internet dangers don't exist, but I'd recommend a bit of reading and thinking before committiing to any of them. There may be less paranoid ways of maintaining good banking (and other) security. For one thing, I'd regularly change my passwords and make them as long and complex as possible. That will probably mean encrypting them somewhere.

[Seojinist]

+1 on the post above me..if one comparative site says that a particular AV is 'weak', another one might say it's not. The best you can do is research, compare, then decide. :D

[avmad]

I've seen many tests, and conducted my own little tests and Eset does well. They have millions of customers that would surely drop Eset if they were getting infected computers. I'm not a fan of Eset personally but it is a good AV and I recommend it to people who it would suit.

You can't just believe every test conducted and say that's the best product. You'd be changing your security every week.

Most of these big tests are money makers for the people involved, and companies pay for their own independent tests as well. You'll see their product will always come out on top. The don't show you the results of when they failed.

Take ALL tests with a pinch of salt is my advise. Also AV results can depend on country they were tested in. ie a Chinese product useally protects against Chinese based malware etc etc. The cloud helps this if users are all over the world to spread signatures around.

As for Norton. I've seen in many tests it's easy to shutdown the program with malware and not be able to start it again.

I've seen Norton fail badly when it's offline. Say a usb drive with malware and can't connect to the net features.

Also Norton auto deletes files which leaves you in trouble when they are false. I know it quarantines mostly but I have seen files deleted that couldn't be restored.

Bitdefender also deletes false positives, including Windows system files with no way of restoring them. I've seen it with my own eyes and in tests. Many more people on the Bitdefender forum complaing about the same thing.

That's why I don't rate these two products at all. I say they are dangerous to use, especially for novices who don't realise important files could get deleted.

Eset sounds pretty good now :lol:

G-Data is still heavy on resources, it uses two engines so it always will be. Apart from that it is a good product. My advice is use it but only use the Bitdefender engine. You have more control over it than you would with Bitdefender software and hopefully it won't auto delete good files.

Kaspersky. In my opinion the best out of these listed. It's good but not perfect. If you use only this to protect yourself then you could still get in trouble but it's a step in the right direction.

(Only my opinion based on experience and being very interested in all things pc security for years)

ps

I do get annoyed with people asking whats the best AV, and people saying ....... is the best :P

[Alanon]

@avmad: Completely agree.

While one can't ever determine the complete (or even half) worth of a product based on the test scans, one can see a general trend. In that context, you can see how ESET has indeed slumped a bit, but is still able to hold its own. In that same way, you can see that Kaspersky is consistently right near the summit. What is crucial, however, is that not all users will feel for either. Many would say that that is irrelevant, but I ask - What's the AV good for if you can't use it? That's why a brand-name-av is almost always a good choice - it's been around, has a stable user base, and generally, people have come to know what to expect of it.

On another note, although tests are an OK source of initial info, beware of any testing facility with dramatically different results from others. Unless they've introduced a new, shiny, revolutionary methodology, something smells funny, and I'm not eating it.

[shahinul]

I didn't want to start a polemic about G-Data the only thing I want it to point is that is not an original 100% av since it uses engines made by other av companies.

And to be on topic, as an experienced user, many times I identified new malware on pc's or fraud and malware sites(I still have Kaspersky's and Yahoo's hosting service thank you mails, sorry for Bitdefender 'cause they didn't sent me any replies ever), ESET products are not good enough.

[alitaher]

@avmad: Completely agree.

While one can't ever determine the complete (or even half) worth of a product based on the test scans, one can see a general trend. In that context, you can see how ESET has indeed slumped a bit, but is still able to hold its own. In that same way, you can see that Kaspersky is consistently right near the summit. What is crucial, however, is that not all users will feel for either. Many would say that that is irrelevant, but I ask - What's the AV good for if you can't use it? That's why a brand-name-av is almost always a good choice - it's been around, has a stable user base, and generally, people have come to know what to expect of it.

On another note, although tests are an OK source of initial info, beware of any testing facility with dramatically different results from others. Unless they've introduced a new, shiny, revolutionary methodology, something smells funny, and I'm not eating it.

you have to see an international site about these comperatives such sites like AV-comperative that don"t have any profit in there work :idea:

[avmad]

Believe me AV-Comparitives charge a lot of money to get tested, as do most others.

You could read the Comodo forums for details :)

Melih's blog http://www.melih.com...-virus-vendors/

[marke68]

@avmad What's your opinion on Avast as you do seem to know your onions when it comes to AV's,your user name kind of gives that away. ;)

[avmad]

I'm far from an expert marke :D but Avast is one of my favourites. I have used it for a long time, but not much with the latest release. I always found it to be one of the lightest products (used the IS) Good protection and features, including sandbox B)

I did have trouble with blue screens every now and again though, due to it not liking other security software I was trying to use. That might just be me though as others didn't suffer as much.

I would certainly use it again if I got another free license ;)

[DKT27]

OT:

Honestly, I've never thought avmad meant av-mad. I always say it as "avmad". Some sort of sanskrit name. :P

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, you want answers?

1. ESET is really light. High in RAM, but light in feeling. Where other AVs take over the system, and inspite of not using much CPU, they somehow make the system sluggish.

2. ESET is good. Not great, Kaspersky, Norton have gone to a different level of protection. ESET is same ol' ESET. Working good. Stop malware (at it's limits). Working light, etc.

3. Nsane the community is because of ESET. People come here for ESET, are here for ESET. I mean, talking about older members like me. People having trouble can ask and get problems solved in hours if not in minutes. :)

I tried Kaspersky IS. Let me sum it up:

Positives:

1. Very powerful.

2. Stops malware efficiently.

3. Does it job quite well, one of the best in business.

Negatives:

1. Feels slightly heavy, not that heavy, but ESET feels smooooooooth. B)

2. Interface sucks.

Let me explain. A person like me, who gets a lot of DCs, needs to stop his internet activity everytime. Now, to disable, I have to go through 5 screens to come to place where I've click stop internet activity? :huh: All the standalone firewalls, do it in tray, hell, even other IS do it in tray.

That's not it, even when you want Kaspersky to ask you everytime a app tries to access internet, you have to go through 50 non-understandable procedures just to make it do something it should do by default? :s

Avast IS:

Pros:

1. OK AV.

2. AV is Free!

3. VD Updated voice. :D

Cons:

1. Seems light on resources but slows system down as hell.

2. Doesn't stop all malware, has lot of things go by.

3. For each module, you have to configure everything.

4. VD Updated voice + headphones bad combination. :P

Microsoft:

Pros:

1.Free.

2. Does the basics. Stops normal malware.

3. Seemingly light.

Cons:

1. Takes over the system. I've got a system related problem, which effects many softwares, but directly effects MSE.

2. Is bad against stopping unknown malwares. Just not powerful enough.

3. Always uses CPU here. 5% every couple of seconds.

So that brings me back to ESET:

Doesn't stop everything. But stops a lot.

Interface is kickass. You don't need to go through settings to disable simple things.

Feels light.

Only problem? It's blocking too many sites.

AV should be used as a guidance. A value-added service. Not a system taking over dictator.

[darko999]

I guess I'll do some test over the next week, to see how major avs are doing.

[marke68]

I'm far from an expert marke :D but Avast is one of my favourites. I have used it for a long time, but not much with the latest release. I always found it to be one of the lightest products (used the IS) Good protection and features, including sandbox B)

I did have trouble with blue screens every now and again though, due to it not liking other security software I was trying to use. That might just be me though as others didn't suffer as much.

I would certainly use it again if I got another free license ;)

Cheers mate i'll take that as a virtual thumbs up. :)

[alitaher]

I'm far from an expert marke :D but Avast is one of my favourites. I have used it for a long time, but not much with the latest release. I always found it to be one of the lightest products (used the IS) Good protection and features, including sandbox B)

I did have trouble with blue screens every now and again though, due to it not liking other security software I was trying to use. That might just be me though as others didn't suffer as much.

I would certainly use it again if I got another free license ;)

why didn't you go to avast unlimited topic ? B)

[House_maniac]

eset is a great security suite the version 6 rc did well in some test i saw on malware related forums! so stop listening to these av test where companies pay for their products to perform well, i personally use comodo internet security suite,its one of the best when you configure it! eset karpersky avg 2013 are good they perform well in recent test search on youtube guys stop believing these av comparative etc!atleast for me their results are pure bullshit!eset is not bad at all if i remembered well eset has a very good web protection!

[avmad]

I'm far from an expert marke :D but Avast is one of my favourites. I have used it for a long time, but not much with the latest release. I always found it to be one of the lightest products (used the IS) Good protection and features, including sandbox B)

I did have trouble with blue screens every now and again though, due to it not liking other security software I was trying to use. That might just be me though as others didn't suffer as much.

I would certainly use it again if I got another free license ;)

why didn't you go to avast unlimited topic ? B)

Because I don't need a license. I have other genuine licenses for different things i'm using atm. B)

[Gabben]

Believe me AV-Comparitives charge a lot of money to get tested, as do most others.

You could read the Comodo forums for details :)

Melih's blog http://www.melih.com...-virus-vendors/

I don't see the problem with that. Testing those antiviruses in the same time and collecting the malware samples needs a lot of hardware and energy. I trust AV-Comparatives and AV-test.org too.

[darko999]

Well, I did a little real time test to see if ESET is doing really bad, as some people said a while ago, and it did great, from 14 very very fresh malware samples, only 1 got into memory, 13 sucessful blocked, plus, it feels light as usual, and the GUI and configuration set stills good.

Forme, stills a great Av solution.

VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnxWXjBUf5E&feature=youtu.be

POST SCAN SCREENSHOT:

PD: Detecteion of possible unwanted applications ENABLED, everything else, left as default.