eScan is an Indian antivirus program that isn't very well known in Europe but is quite popular in the professional sector in India.
For several years now, it has offered a very comprehensive antivirus solution powered by its Cloud engines and Bitdefender.
Despite a rather basic and outdated installation process, let's take a look at what eScan has to offer.
Interface :
As I mentioned in the introduction: eScan’s installation process is quite outdated, reminiscent of installations on Windows 2000 and Windows XP.
Its interface hasn’t changed much, relying heavily on tiles similar to those in Windows 8.
However, in terms of performance, I find it quite slow and unresponsive.
On the other hand, eScan is packed with very advanced settings, some of which aren’t even enabled by default! (like blocking unknown applications, which I enable)
Web protection: 11/12
All URLs have been blocked except for one.
Fake crack : N/A
The sample is too old and the site that distributed it was down.
Skipped.
Malware Pack : 35 out of 101 threats remain
Due to a recurring false positive from eScan (detected by Bitdefender and eScan Cloud), I was unable to launch KillSwitch, even though I had added it to the whitelist.
During startup, you can see eScan blocking several attacks with its Advanced Proactive module, which I had enabled. The consequences would have been dire if it hadn’t been enabled.
Although it is effective, it is not infallible, as the KVRT result is conclusive: System infected with a Trojan in memory!
Surprisingly enough: Kaspersky detects two eScan files as KillAV (one in ProgramData and the second is... the installation setup... it's all a bit confusing...)
Final scan :
Avast : 0
NPE : 3
KVRT : 8 (10-2 => eScan files) - Infection memory
Final opinion:
eScan offers robust protection, but its configuration options are questionable.
Why release antimalware software that’s weakened by default? Because most of the protective shields aren’t enabled!
If these shields hadn’t been enabled, the test could have gone badly; these are important shields that aren’t active by default.
Surprisingly, eScan’s two detections in KVRT—whether false positives or not—could scare users away...
I’m on the fence.
For several years now, it has offered a very comprehensive antivirus solution powered by its Cloud engines and Bitdefender.
Despite a rather basic and outdated installation process, let's take a look at what eScan has to offer.
Interface :
As I mentioned in the introduction: eScan’s installation process is quite outdated, reminiscent of installations on Windows 2000 and Windows XP.
Its interface hasn’t changed much, relying heavily on tiles similar to those in Windows 8.
However, in terms of performance, I find it quite slow and unresponsive.
On the other hand, eScan is packed with very advanced settings, some of which aren’t even enabled by default! (like blocking unknown applications, which I enable)
Web protection: 11/12
All URLs have been blocked except for one.
Fake crack : N/A
The sample is too old and the site that distributed it was down.
Skipped.
Malware Pack : 35 out of 101 threats remain
Due to a recurring false positive from eScan (detected by Bitdefender and eScan Cloud), I was unable to launch KillSwitch, even though I had added it to the whitelist.
During startup, you can see eScan blocking several attacks with its Advanced Proactive module, which I had enabled. The consequences would have been dire if it hadn’t been enabled.
Although it is effective, it is not infallible, as the KVRT result is conclusive: System infected with a Trojan in memory!
Surprisingly enough: Kaspersky detects two eScan files as KillAV (one in ProgramData and the second is... the installation setup... it's all a bit confusing...)
Final scan :
Avast : 0
NPE : 3
KVRT : 8 (10-2 => eScan files) - Infection memory
Final opinion:
eScan offers robust protection, but its configuration options are questionable.
Why release antimalware software that’s weakened by default? Because most of the protective shields aren’t enabled!
If these shields hadn’t been enabled, the test could have gone badly; these are important shields that aren’t active by default.
Surprisingly, eScan’s two detections in KVRT—whether false positives or not—could scare users away...
I’m on the fence.
