App Review AVG Free Antivirus 2018 vs ESET Nod32 Antivirus 2019 (Battle Test) Warball Communauty

[JiSingh12]

Avast+ Syshardener combo the protection is top

I'm using Avast Hardened Mode, & SysHardener & OSArmor, happy with it.

 

[ForgottenSeer 72227]

I deleted the BitDefender from my device and installed McAfee and discovered a trojan c:appdata
BitDefender did not detect it >

To be fair, any product can miss something. I know it probably feels like a major blow, but you cannot expect any product to be 100% perfect every time. It's your system and your money so do what you feel most comfortable with, but in the event McAfee ever were to miss something, would you discard it and replace it with another program? Sorry @low L!fe I'm not picking on you personally, just the general mentality that some how switching products is somehow going to make you more impenetrable, it will never be perfect unfortunately.

 

[beavisviruses]

very poor result for Eset

 

[AV-Freak]

Read through the links that Kylprq has provided. I go agree with davisd. Regarding tweaking ESET @RoboMan will be able to help you out. He has helped me too but remember that copying settings is not the end thing. You have to be familiar with how each component works and learn about the product. If you allow or deny the wrong stuff, you either let malware in or you mess up your system.

Thank you for your suggestion. I will learn a lot from it.:emoji_pray::emoji_clap:

 

[Wraith]

Thank you for your suggestion. I will learn a lot from it.:emoji_pray::emoji_clap:

Welcome mate

 

[Marcos]

When making tests, one of the vital requirements is to have a proper test set. Unfortunately in this case you also included innoucous and grey applications / samples in the test set that are not subject to detection and then penalized ESET for not detecting or blocking the url.

 

[Wraith]

When making tests, one of the vital requirements is to have a proper test set. Unfortunately in this case you also included innoucous and grey applications / samples in the test set that are not subject to detection and then penalized ESET for not detecting or blocking the url.

Hello Marcos. I use ESET on my gaming PC and am a great fan of ESET. While ESET has great signatures malwares nowadays are becoming more sophisticated. Only using signatures is just a matter of time before an average user gets infected. I would really like ESET to implement a Behavioral Blocker with the ability to rollback changes(Kaspersky rocks here). The HIPS is pretty useless is Automatic Mode and the average user will not be able to use it in Interactive Mode since ESET does not have a list of safe applications in their cloud database. Hence the HIPS generates too much alerts. Imho ESET should really consider a BB like Kaspersky even if it means ditching the HIPS. J

 

[Marcos]

Hello Marcos. I use ESET on my gaming PC and am a great fan of ESET. While ESET has great signatures malwares nowadays are becoming more sophisticated. Only using signatures is just a matter of time before an average user gets infected. I would really like ESET to implement a Behavioral Blocker with the ability to rollback changes(Kaspersky rocks here). The HIPS is pretty useless is Automatic Mode and the average user will not be able to use it in Interactive Mode since ESET does not have a list of safe applications in their cloud database. Hence the HIPS generates too much alerts. Imho ESET should really consider a BB like Kaspersky even if it means ditching the HIPS. J

ESET has not used signature-based approach since NOD32 v1 which already leveraged heuristics to detect new malware not covered by signatures. Currently there are plenty of HIPS-based modules that are able to detect new malware based on its suspicious behavior. In particular it's advanced heuristics coupled with smart DNA detections, Advanced memory scanner to detect new malware upon execution, Exploit blocker to detect new exploits based on unusual behavior, ransomware shield detecting ransomware-like behavior, etc. All these leverage HIPS so HIPS is not a useless module at all. For a complete list of technologies that ESET has developed to combat new malware, please read more at ESET Technology. Moreover, in v12.1 beta a HIPS-based Behavior monitor was enabled to loudly report malware based on suspicious behavior patterns with Augur, the machine learning module, to follow soon.

What I was objecting above was grey / clean samples that were included in the test set that were not subject to detection and for which ESET was penalized for not detecting them.

 

[Mahesh Sudula]

ESET has not used signature-based approach since NOD32 v1 which already leveraged heuristics to detect new malware not covered by signatures. Currently there are plenty of HIPS-based modules that are able to detect new malware based on its suspicious behavior. In particular it's advanced heuristics coupled with smart DNA detections, Advanced memory scanner to detect new malware upon execution, Exploit blocker to detect new exploits based on unusual behavior, ransomware shield detecting ransomware-like behavior, etc. All these leverage HIPS so HIPS is not a useless module at all. For a complete list of technologies that ESET has developed to combat new malware, please read more at ESET Technology. Moreover, in v12.1 beta a HIPS-based Behavior monitor was enabled to loudly report malware based on suspicious behavior patterns with Augur, the machine learning module, to follow soon.

Great to see you here!
I have been an AV tester for the past 6-7 yrs and learnt a lot along with MT forum here:
Eset user up to 2016 June.
Eset is highly tenable to any malware that by pass it's signatures. Its removal capability is none against unknown malware so it's blocking ability.
HIPS - Allow all/ Block All.
Moreover I have seen Eset failing desperately in my tests..it sucks so much that I stopped testing it!
Eset - Signature based AV like Avira with non existent BB, Heuristics, Signature dependent modules including Anti Ransom.
Why don't you guys working upon pro active part. Deceiving the customers based upon tests, Graphs is an another thing a part from developing the product from it's flaws and accepting it.
I am looking forward to test your product if you guys work on improving the product.
Forgive me if I'm a bit harsh.
Just luk at the Eset tests in hub and YouTube. It does not qualify even for basic malware protection tests a part from great signatures. At least take these suggestions, looKing forward for a more developed product.
Best Regards.
Mahesh Sudula.
G data Beta Tester (Senior) @ G data labs.
You can confirm my identity from G data guys or Their security labs speaker - Ralf Benzmuler.
The above points are said based upon my detailed tests over these years with these security suites.
I heard or read some where that Eset is working on a behaviour module
Any info on it?

 

[Cortex]

ESET in default settings is meh. But if you know how to tweak it, it offers total lockdown security. My favourite paid AV's are ESET and Kaspersky. For free ones I prefer Kaspersky and Comodo.

Although I totally agree with you I think 99.% of people who buy ESET know nothing about it's need for tweaking & will never know, they don't inhabit security forums , never will & expect the product to work effectively 'out if the box' just like a vacuum cleaner or washing machine (they don't need tweaking) - Because of this they end up with 'meh' level of security. ESET among others need work on making the product people buy more effective without breaking the OS. NOD32 was really the first AV solution I bought, but if it don't work well out of the box it's more difficult to keep recommending to other who are none tweakers, so I look for solutions that do.

 

[Marcos14]

Do not know why you judge both ESET, it seems that Kaspersky also let pass the malware that crashed the machine.. If it is to put a module of behavior and be using too much CPU nor it would be worth it since ESET is also known for its low use of system resources, a good alternative would be to create a mode in HIPS where he would only ask if the reputation of the file was low or unknown.

 

[Wraith]

ESET is my most favourite security suite. I've been using NOD32 since version 2.1 and XP days. I'm not complaining about the static detection part. It's one of the best at detecting and removing malwares for which it has signatures and the pup detection is superb. However it's not upto the mark in dynamic detection. I'm just suggesting that if ESET implements a BB with ROLLBACK facility like Kaspersky System Watcher it'll be a GREAT improvement.

 

[Wraith]

Although I totally agree with you I think 99.% of people who buy ESET know nothing about it's need for tweaking & will never know, they don't inhabit security forums , never will & expect the product to work effectively 'out if the box' just like a vacuum cleaner or washing machine (they don't need tweaking) - Because of this they end up with 'meh' level of security. ESET among others need work on making the product people buy more effective without breaking the OS. NOD32 was really the first AV solution I bought, but if it don't work well out of the box it's more difficult to keep recommending to other who are none tweakers, so I look for solutions that do.

That's why I'm suggesting a simple yet effective BB like Kaspersky System Watcher which will be hugely effective at default settings.

 

[Wraith]

What I was objecting above was grey / clean samples that were included in the test set that were not subject to detection and for which ESET was penalized for not detecting them.

I'm not talking about this particular test and I don't care about test results. I'm talking about a general yet effective feature which can be implemented in the next version of ESET. No antivirus is perfect and will catch 100% but a good BB will greatly improve the protection offered by ESET. In fact I personally use ESET with Firewall and HIPS set to Interactive, cleaning set to Strict and DNA signatures ON.

 

[LDogg]

Don't see how you can compared a free AV to a paid suite, but I always like to look at unique testing ideas.

~LDogg

 

[Wraith]

Do not know why you judge both ESET, it seems that Kaspersky also let pass the malware that crashed the machine.. If it is to put a module of behavior and be using too much CPU nor it would be worth it since ESET is also known for its low use of system resources, a good alternative would be to create a mode in HIPS where he would only ask if the reputation of the file was low or unknown.

ESET is one of the lightest suite I've used no doubt but I don't think adding a good BB will make it heavier. The latest version of Kaspersky is almost as light as ESET.

 

[Marcos]

If you think that ESET has missed malware that was supposed to be detected, please provide me with its hash for verification. Actually it's quite easy to find malware missed by most of other AVs which is detected and blocked by ESET but that's not a reason to consider the AVs bad. As it's been stated, there's nothing like 100% malware detection in the world of AVs.

 

[Cortex]

If you think that ESET has missed malware that was supposed to be detected, please provide me with its hash for verification. Actually it's quite easy to find malware missed by most of other AVs which is detected and blocked by ESET but that's not a reason to consider the AVs bad. As it's been stated, there's nothing like 100% malware detection in the world of AVs.

In my post in actuality I wasn't really just talking about ESET, I've used NOD32 since it first was released & still use & recommend it to friends & those who PC's I maintain mainly for female friends & work colleagues as I work in a matriarchal environment.

ESET is amazingly light & thereby very suitable for none bleeding edge PC's I end up looking at. In all honestly none of the PC's I've installed ESET on have become infected, they are are used by people who have zero security knowledge. My post was was frankly OTT. (in the many years I've used NOD32/ESET I've never been infected either)