App Review Battle : ESET Internet Security 2019 vs NORTON Security 2019

[blackice]

Well to be fair and brutally honest, I would say that the vast majority of av suites and vendors fall under this category. So many suites now a days have so much bloat it's not funny. I don't need another password manager, I already have one, etc...

Most vendors market their products using fear. Why else do you see ads, or popups saying your system may be compromised? This is something I came to learn over the years. I don't buy into their fear tactics anymore, nor do I look for a program with tons of features or marketing mumbo, jumbo, like "AI." I want a product that works, little annoyances and offers great protection. Its why I use WD now and if I do use a 3rd party, it would be either SHP, or Emsisoft. No fuss, no muss, just simple not in your face AVs IMO.

Funny enough this whole thread is starting to sound like the SHP thread from last month. People want to be on the new best thing all the time. I say use what works for you, but don’t be ignorant. I liked ESET when I tried it, I like WD for its simplicity, and I like finding what works and utilizing it until I learn more, which may or may not lead me to changing setups.

 

[Divine_Barakah]

Oh absolutely

Eset along with every vendor can improve IMHO, as none of them are perfect at catching malware. In this game, there's always room for improvement, especially as hackers find more clever ways to infect people and get past the various security implementations out there. Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of Eset as well and I too would like to see them improve. I guess for @Robbie and myself, it's not so much that Eset missed something and the system got infected, it's just the torch and pitchfork mob mentality that happens sometimes when a product fails a test, or misses a piece of malware. Is there room for Eset to improve, absolutely, but just because it failed this test, or rather missed a piece of malware, doesn't mean we need to run for the hills and stop using Eset. Regardless of this result, it's still an excellent program that offers top notch protection.

I am using Eset on one of my PCs and I am enjoying it. My opinion was not based on this test nor because Eset missed a sample. Eset is one of the most lightweight and stable products I have ever used. All I want is that they improve in an area to cover a certain weakness. Anyway, thanks for sharing your ideas which I respect very much @Raiden

 

[uduoix]

There is no AV that could protect against stupidity, so we can say every AV is weak If someone keep clicking on naked girls on ads, because 'girls' want him and they know where he live, there is nothing AV can do about it. Or getting free flagship phones etc..

imo is always better to invest 15 min of time to explain someone what is going on and what can click and not, then install some AV internet security software.

 

[ForgottenSeer 72227]

Funny enough this whole thread is starting to sound like the SHP thread from last month. People want to be on the new best thing all the time. I say use what works for you, but don’t be ignorant. I liked ESET when I tried it, I like WD for its simplicity, and I like finding what works and utilizing it until I learn more, which may or may not lead me to changing setups.

Hehe I agree

I think you see similarities, because the same applies to SHP as it does to Eset here. SHP like all products isn't perfect, it has it weakness too (scripting malware), but because it doesn't get "perfect" well it "sucks." Whats funny to me at least, is that some are quick to point out it's weakness against scripting malware (which is true), but some fail to acknowledge that a lot of vendors struggle with scripting malware, even if they have things like BB's. If @cruelsister's videos are anything to go by, you'd see that she would essentially rip apart any product, despite their claims of having x technology to solve all your problems.

Your example is exactly what people should be doing IMO. It's not always about how well is scores in a test, but should be about how the product works for you and meets your needs. There's more to a product than trying to get 99-100% on a test.

imo is always better to invest 15 min of time to explain someone what is going on and what can click and not, then install some AV internet security software.

I agree wholeheartedly!

This is the one point that is often forgotten when it comes to security programs. It's fine and all to test and try out different products, we're all geeks here, so testing is in our blood, but there's no magic solution that will protect you 100% every time. Every product, even a setup like default deny can fail if you don't practice safe habits, or become too over confident in whats going on. I'm not suggesting that anyone lives in fear, but rather just practice safe habits.

As I've said before I am not a fan of when people recommend a product as a way to compensate for someone practicing unsafe habits. Sure x product may be a little better, but if you aren't teaching them any proper habits, at some point they will become infected, even with your security product recommendation.

 

[AYIZEB]

if eset is good and has a trajectory that many other security providers would like to have, but the reality is that they have to adapt their product to the trend, kaspersky has an excellent behavior analyzer, norton and emsisoft too, that if it is not infallible , but to think that users do not all have the knowledge to adapt security to the maximum, so I think eset has the right resources and professionals to be able to adapt a behavior analyzer that will be the last adequate barrier for the trend of the scene, and What I do not understand is because they do not bring it yet, it consumes more resources, well ... in my kaspersky system with all the maximum consumes 120mb of ram is not excessive at all, when browsers consume an average of 500mb.

 

[beavisviruses]

ESET ain't bad or sucks because of a single test performed with basic tweak settings. ESET is known for being kind of weak on default settings (in many scenarios). It's not an install-and-forget product. You need to invest a little time looking through it and taking out the best it can offer.

the test are in default settings, no in custom

Hehe I agree

I think you see similarities, because the same applies to SHP as it does to Eset here. SHP like all products isn't perfect, it has it weakness too (scripting malware), but because it doesn't get "perfect" well it "sucks." Whats funny to me at least, is that some are quick to point out it's weakness against scripting malware (which is true), but some fail to acknowledge that a lot of vendors struggle with scripting malware, even if they have things like BB's. If @cruelsister's videos are anything to go by, you'd see that she would essentially rip apart any product, despite their claims of having x technology to solve all your problems.

Your example is exactly what people should be doing IMO. It's not always about how well is scores in a test, but should be about how the product works for you and meets your needs. There's more to a product than trying to get 99-100% on a test.




I agree wholeheartedly!

This is the one point that is often forgotten when it comes to security programs. It's fine and all to test and try out different products, we're all geeks here, so testing is in our blood, but there's no magic solution that will protect you 100% every time. Every product, even a setup like default deny can fail if you don't practice safe habits, or become too over confident in whats going on. I'm not suggesting that anyone lives in fear, but rather just practice safe habits.

As I've said before I am not a fan of when people recommend a product as a way to compensate for someone practicing unsafe habits. Sure x product may be a little better, but if you aren't teaching them any proper habits, at some point they will become infected, even with your security product recommendation.

the product fails in the test and period, you do not have to turn the matter over. It is not the first time that Eset fails against 0 day malware.

 

[blackice]

the product fails in the test and period, you do not have to turn the matter over. It is not the first time that Eset fails against 0 day malware.

Show me a product that never fails against zero day malware, cause I want that one.

 

[beavisviruses]

Show me a product that never fails against zero day malware, cause I want that one.

that never fails that is absurd since nothing is perfect in life, that they are top products and are one of the products that least fail in the market, that if it is real and there are several better solutions and much better than Eset; Kaspersky, Bitdefender and Norton. Those 3 solutions bring you a great advantage in terms of protection.
PS: IT IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THAT ESET FAIL, with a test of a youtuber and I have several that I could name you.

 

[ForgottenSeer 58943]

if we take a look at various tests , then we can say that norton has a solid protection. It would be my favorite av....but the stupid registration bug
(no connection to the servers) and the high price...that scares me

Norton is absurd.. I just tried to re-install Norton on a fresh Windows system and presto, the communication error. After all of these years they still have this bug and it probably amounts to only half a day of development resources to fix it once and for all.

 

[blackice]

Norton is absurd.. I just tried to re-install Norton on a fresh Windows system and presto, the communication error. After all of these years they still have this bug and it probably amounts to only half a day of development resources to fix it once and for all.

I get Norton free from my ISP, but every time I start thinking about using it I see this complaint.

 

[Dave Russo]

It has always been so.

Not in the past use to be every testers example of "not recommended",true its good now,someone in there company smartened up

 

[iron2]

Would it have been different if it had a machine learning function?

 

[Aggravatorx]

one security company will fail that week and pass the next week they are all the same time after time and i said this earlier post as Raiden posted
the big guns Norton Avast Kaspersky, Bitdefender are software stores not security suites and all of them are having hard time staying afloat
the private company that purchased sophos was looking into buying Norton first i know you do not want to hear it but since microsoft stepped up with making defender and windows better for security and always improving it i i do not care for defender myself but more companies will fail or be bought out. and if you notice lately the prices are dropping for security suites more and more.

 

[blueblackwow65]

After trying many many av's the past year under 30 day trials or so , only 2 stand out Norton and Kaspersky,so I am sticking to Norton ,good performance ,great detection ,etc.Getting a yearly subscription soon.
As for others like Eset ,detection is not so good ,and settings are extremely confusing-neds a complete overhaul.
Some of the av's I have tried are avast,avg,bitdefender free,comodo,eset,f-secure,g-data,bullguard,kaspersky,mcafee,avira ,panda,webroot,zonealarm,qihoo.

 

[MacDefender]

It seems like the new ESET build that includes their advanced ML engine is doing quite well in the malware hub, scoring better overall than Emsisoft in all of the tests where both have results. Seems like something changed with the new engine.

 

[Burrito]

that never fails that is absurd since nothing is perfect in life, that they are top products and are one of the products that least fail in the market, that if it is real and there are several better solutions and much better than Eset; Kaspersky, Bitdefender and Norton. Those 3 solutions bring you a great advantage in terms of protection.
PS: IT IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THAT ESET FAIL, with a test of a youtuber and I have several that I could name you.

Here is the current membership roster of the "We Love ESET Club."

@beavisviruses President
@roguebeavis Vice President
@virusesmaximum Director of Robotic Love
@Burrito Janitor

We are a very exclusive club.
Sorry... most of you cannot join.

 

[blackice]

View attachment 229439


Here is the current membership roster of the "We Love ESET Club."

@beavisviruses President
@roguebeavis Vice President
@virusesmaximum Director of Robotic Love
@Burrito Janitor

We are a very exclusive club.
Sorry... most of you cannot join.

Can I hang out in the back room?

 

[Burrito]

Can I hang out in the back room?

Welllll..... uh.... for you ---- ok.

But you need to bring the beer.

You probably have lots of this... and it works.

 

[blackice]

Welllll..... uh.... for you ---- ok.

But you need to bring the beer.

You probably have lots of this... and it works.

View attachment 229441

It’ll be a good time

 

[Lenny_Fox]

I have a few friends on school who are strong advocates of ESET. When you have to spend time on learning how to tweak ESET (it has a great HIPS they say), why not just simply use DefenderConfigurator and max up WD? Why bother with HIPS, just run as basic user.

On Linux (Manjaro) I rarely need to enter my admin password to run elevated. When I boot into my Windows 10 partition I also see few UAC elevations requests. I have not rooted my Android phone either. Running admin is overrated IMO,