blackice

Level 15
Verified
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,
Because Configure Defender doesn’t have a marketing budget like ESET.
 

L0ckJaw

Level 11
Verified
Content Creator
I tried reinstalling on my other machine yesterday and had the same error....I really can't be bothered with Norton anymore...Shame...!
I really dont get the bug, using Norton 360 on many machines and never had the bug.
When buying Norton360 , they even migrated my old Norton Security license to 360, so over 660 days left and the licenses are not expensive.
 

alv222

Level 2
Same here but that "can't connect to Norton server" is a pain in the b#tt.
I'm using norton 360 and didnt have that issue, do you have internet explorer?
It's sort of phenomenally stupid that IE being the default browser would be the fix, or even the fact that Norton would use iFrames and ActiveX to activate their product. Also, that fix while working for some, doesn't often work for others, sadly.. If you get support on the horn that's the first thing they try. So it begs to question - maybe not use IE API to activate your product when IE is really not good, secure, or around much longer?

Norton is sloppy.
 

Dex4Sure

Level 2
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.
Can't help myself to answer this old thread... I'd pick lightweight and stable product with best in class signatures, firewall and web filter any day over the bloated offerings you just mentioned. Kaspersky is great in protection I don't deny it, but they have too much bloatware. Norton and Bitdefender are also full of bloat. Tell me, why do I need cloud back up etc when I have Office 365 subscription with 1TB OneDrive space? Alternatively, Google drive offers 2TB for 99 dollars a year... When I see AV product trying to inject all this bloat I never even give them a chance. I'd have a hard time to get infected even if I had no AV turned on at all. Been using WD from times when it was still far from the best AVs, never got infected. ESET is still among the best AV's out there and probably the lightest of them all (lightest of any local AV anyway).

On my opinion what ESET is doing is smart. They are focusing on quality of the product, its stability and its speed. Nobody wants to run an AV that slows down their computer. Nobody wants to run an AV that conflicts with Windows' built in features. This is what all the AV vendors should have in mind when designing an AV. You are building the AV around Windows. It shouldn't be Microsoft building Windows around your AV... Many AV companies are literally trying to battle with Microsoft's built in security mechanisms. Like Kaspersky tries to get you turn off device guard so you would use Kaspersky's virtualization instead... I just don't think that's smart approach by Kaspersky at all.

And if ESET was so bad, how is it that Google is using ESET's scanning engine to secure Google Play Store, as well as uses ESET's scanner in its Chrome clean up tool. Google rarely teams up with anyone except the very best. If ESET really sucks as much as you claim it does, surely Google would have picked Symantec or Bitdefender over ESET as their partner? Not to mention, ESET endpoint protection is among the best as well. There's a reason why ESET has very large user base in corporate environment. If it didn't do its job well, it wouldn't be that popular.
 

Shadowave

Level 10
Verified
ESET is a weak AV..over the years many testers and authorities proved the fact:
For instance, Deep behavior inspection, ransomware shield, Botnet protection, exploit mitigation, advanced memory scanner, Advanced DNA heuristics are ear tearing and eye washing,
They say we use ML based hand picked system to minotor threats in real time.
These modules never work since they are not made to work after all. Just to make user a more confident.
Signatures=Eset, Eset=Signatures, If a signature is not there, system is bricked up.
NSS Labs sued Mcafee, Eset,Avira for probing the tests with out proper testing. Infact many believe the same.
THEY CAN DEVELOP FROM THE CORE, INSTEAD OF MARKETING AND GIMMICK STUFF THAT LEADS TO NO WHERE
I`m using eset since ver 4 and never get infected :))​
 

artek

Level 4
Can't help myself to answer this old thread... I'd pick lightweight and stable product with best in class signatures, firewall and web filter any day over the bloated offerings you just mentioned. Kaspersky is great in protection I don't deny it, but they have too much bloatware. Norton and Bitdefender are also full of bloat. Tell me, why do I need cloud back up etc when I have Office 365 subscription with 1TB OneDrive space? Alternatively, Google drive offers 2TB for 99 dollars a year... When I see AV product trying to inject all this bloat I never even give them a chance. I'd have a hard time to get infected even if I had no AV turned on at all. Been using WD from times when it was still far from the best AVs, never got infected. ESET is still among the best AV's out there and probably the lightest of them all (lightest of any local AV anyway).

On my opinion what ESET is doing is smart. They are focusing on quality of the product, its stability and its speed. Nobody wants to run an AV that slows down their computer. Nobody wants to run an AV that conflicts with Windows' built in features. This is what all the AV vendors should have in mind when designing an AV. You are building the AV around Windows. It shouldn't be Microsoft building Windows around your AV... Many AV companies are literally trying to battle with Microsoft's built in security mechanisms. Like Kaspersky tries to get you turn off device guard so you would use Kaspersky's virtualization instead... I just don't think that's smart approach by Kaspersky at all.

And if ESET was so bad, how is it that Google is using ESET's scanning engine to secure Google Play Store, as well as uses ESET's scanner in its Chrome clean up tool. Google rarely teams up with anyone except the very best. If ESET really sucks as much as you claim it does, surely Google would have picked Symantec or Bitdefender over ESET as their partner? Not to mention, ESET endpoint protection is among the best as well. There's a reason why ESET has very large user base in corporate environment. If it didn't do its job well, it wouldn't be that popular.
Adding HTTPS certificates to enable HTTPS scanning and a Firewall is what I would consider bloat.