Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Inactive Support Threads
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Software
Security Apps
ESET
Configure ESET Antivirus for Maximum Security (by RoboMan)
Message
<blockquote data-quote="czesetfan" data-source="post: 967288" data-attributes="member: 93724"><p>To compare BitDefender and ESET. I understand that this thread is for people who want to understand things and set up AV to suit themselves. I see it as questionable whether ESET also takes it that way. Looking at ESET's corporate communications, I see the message everywhere: The important thing is the perfect balance.</p><p> Security solutions that install in minutes. You simply set them up and then you can leave them to work independently and seamlessly in the background. <strong>So install and worry no more</strong>. The concept of Balance also implies, in my opinion, a certain caution in the "aggressiveness" of the various default settings, as ESET sees it as better to miss something occasionally than to deal with FP more often. This can be seen in the Default settings of the firewall (everything "out" open), HIPS (almost no blocking) and even the AV engine itself (PUA disabled). ˇProtection effectiveness in various tests should be (and is mostly measured) just in the most user-friendly Default settings. </p><p>I also think that AV should work "autonomously" without user interaction. He is working on the PC, not "fighting" with malware. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite132" alt=":unsure:" title="Unsure :unsure:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":unsure:" /></p><p></p><p>Translated with <a href="http://www.DeepL.com/Translator" target="_blank">www.DeepL.com/Translator</a> (free version)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="czesetfan, post: 967288, member: 93724"] To compare BitDefender and ESET. I understand that this thread is for people who want to understand things and set up AV to suit themselves. I see it as questionable whether ESET also takes it that way. Looking at ESET's corporate communications, I see the message everywhere: The important thing is the perfect balance. Security solutions that install in minutes. You simply set them up and then you can leave them to work independently and seamlessly in the background. [B]So install and worry no more[/B]. The concept of Balance also implies, in my opinion, a certain caution in the "aggressiveness" of the various default settings, as ESET sees it as better to miss something occasionally than to deal with FP more often. This can be seen in the Default settings of the firewall (everything "out" open), HIPS (almost no blocking) and even the AV engine itself (PUA disabled). ˇProtection effectiveness in various tests should be (and is mostly measured) just in the most user-friendly Default settings. I also think that AV should work "autonomously" without user interaction. He is working on the PC, not "fighting" with malware. :unsure: Translated with [URL="http://www.DeepL.com/Translator"]www.DeepL.com/Translator[/URL] (free version) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top