App Review eScan Internet Security Suite 2024

[partha_roy]

However, it has been downloaded from the official website...
If you have the file directly, send it to me and I'll schedule a test.

It lets you download older versions due to its weird subscription model, which prevents free upgrades to newer versions. Nonetheless, here's the link to the latest version:

eScan : Secure – Scalable – Reliable : Antivirus, Content Security and Firewall Protection for Servers and Endpoints

eScan total security suite with cloud security 2014 offers excellent real time protection to computers from virus attacks and cyber threats.

escanav.com

 

[XLR8R]

Nobody even in India uses this. At least I've never seen anyone using this dead piece of software. Quick heal is good. It has a good detection rate too apart from a lot of false positives but it's tolerable. Quick Heal has a good hold on Indian market. Same goes for K7 too.

A lot of MSME and Government organizations in India use this software actually. Not uncommon to see this in Indian MSME offices and banks (!) especially in the western part of the country.

 

[anirbandutta01]

A lot of MSME and Government organizations in India use this software actually. Not uncommon to see this in Indian MSME offices and banks (!) especially in the western part of the country.

K7 is far better than Quick Heal ( which is worst ) & eScan.

 

[XLR8R]

K7 is far better than Quick Heal ( which is worst ) & eScan.

I would rate eScan and K7 on par, more or less, although K7 has the technology edge but eScan has the better overall protection IMHO

 

[devjitdutta2025]

For home use, K7 is the best but it needs some tweaking to get the full protection out of it. eScan and QH are in the same category. All show and ads in the television but protection is just meh. Moreover, K7 has the least impact on the PC while eScan has the most. But for endpoint protection in an office, QH and eScan will be better than K7.

 

[XLR8R]

For home use, K7 is the best but it needs some tweaking to get the full protection out of it. eScan and QH are in the same category. All show and ads in the television but protection is just meh. Moreover, K7 has the least impact on the PC while eScan has the most. But for endpoint protection in an office, QH and eScan will be better than K7.

Bruh you cannot put eScan into the same category as QH, eScan actually does do a decent job at protection even today despite the seemingly ancient looking software UI. It is one of the better implementations of the BitDefender engine in general and has no compromises on on-access scanning while still managing to be faster than BD itself.

 

[devjitdutta2025]

Bruh you cannot put eScan into the same category as QH, eScan actually does do a decent job at protection even today despite the seemingly ancient looking software UI. It is one of the better implementations of the BitDefender engine in general and has no compromises on on-access scanning while still managing to be faster than BD itself.

eScan is just meh. The protection you’re talking about comes from the BD Engine. And once you try K7, both QH and eScan feel much much heavier on the PC. Subtract BD from eScan and you’re left with not so much of protection. K7 BB and firewall needs to be tweaked to improve the protection.

 

[XLR8R]

eScan is just meh. The protection you’re talking about comes from the BD Engine. And once you try K7, both QH and eScan feel much much heavier on the PC. Subtract BD from eScan and you’re left with not so much of protection. K7 BB and firewall needs to be tweaked to improve the protection.

BitDefender signatures alone is not everything. Check how VIPRE works vs. eScan - VIPRE is very slow to react and often does not display notifications of found malware (also noted I think by Shadowra). Unlike Total Defense and VIPRE, eScan is not using the BitDefender SDK in a straight fashion, you will find eScan uses what appears to be a self-configured, own rules based AVC (older version of BitDefender ATC). eScan is having own drivers for just about everything unlike those SDK products that are largely a UI shell on BD's SDK components. PBAE seems basically like their additional layer on top of ATC/AVC and it is actually pretty effective. There have been times in the past eScan did better than BitDefender at protecting the system!

Of course, that doesn't mean eScan is a better product. I am sure it had the potential to be better if eScan paid better (AFAIK the dev salaries are not so good even compared to K7).

 

[bazang]

In the world of cybersecurity, "quality" is measured by protection rates, system performance, and—most importantly—the security of the antivirus itself. eScan has struggled in all three categories, leading many experts to view it as a lower-tier product compared to giants like Bitdefender or Norton.
The "poor quality" reputation stems from several critical issues, including a massive security failure that occurred just recently.

1. The 2026 Supply Chain Attack (The "Dealbreaker")​

As of January 2026, eScan’s reputation took a massive hit when its official update servers were compromised.

• The Incident: Attackers gained access to eScan’s infrastructure and pushed a malicious file named Reload.exe to users as a "legitimate" update.
• The Irony: This malware actually disabled the antivirus's ability to update itself, effectively "killing" the software on the user's machine and leaving them wide open to further attacks.
• The Takeaway: When an antivirus becomes the source of an infection, it loses the fundamental trust of the security community.

2. "Frankenstein" Architecture​

eScan is often criticized for being a "messy" product under the hood:

• Borrowed Engines: It uses the Bitdefender scanning engine as its core. While Bitdefender is excellent, eScan's own "layers" added on top are often buggy or less effective.
• Over-complicated Interface: The UI is frequently described as "clunky," "outdated," and "cramped." It often feels like several different programs were glued together rather than built as a single, smooth experience.
• Resource Heavy: Despite claiming to be lightweight, users often report high CPU spikes during scans, which can make modern PCs feel sluggish.

3. Inconsistent Lab Results​

While top-tier brands (Kaspersky, Bitdefender, ESET) consistently score 99.9% to 100% in independent tests, eScan is a "wildcard."

• Mixed Performance: In some tests, it does well; in others (like the AV-Comparatives Real-World Protection tests), it has fallen behind the pack, failing to block threats that other software catches easily.
• High False Positives: It is known for flagging legitimate files as viruses more often than its competitors, which causes "alert fatigue" for the user.

4. Lack of Modern "Extras"​

Modern antivirus suites are expected to provide a complete "digital life" package. eScan falls short here:

• Weak Web Protection: It has historically struggled to block malicious URLs and phishing sites effectively in real-time.
• Missing Features: Compared to competitors, it lacks polished features like integrated Cloud Backup, high-quality VPNs, or advanced identity theft protection.

---

Summary Table: eScan vs. Top Tier (2026)​

Feature	eScan	Top Tier (e.g., Bitdefender/Norton)
Trust/Security	Poor (Recent supply chain breach)	High (Proven track record)
User Interface	Cluttered & Outdated	Clean & Modern
Protection	Inconsistent (Good engine, poor layers)	Industry-leading (Near 100%)
Impact on PC	High CPU usage during scans	Minimal background impact