AYIZEB

Level 1
If that is true, but in my opinion it has the best signatures of the entire industry, the problem is that this should focus its efforts on zero day detention, but of course the product is focused on lightness and a proactive detention system can be something heavy.
 

elquenunca

Level 3
Tried it yesterday as a paid user of Eset, but the new Norton 360 is so much lighter and a whole lot of better protection.
The firewall from Norton compared to Esets one is so much more robust. Deinstalled Eset and reinstalled Norton 360 again.
The one thing i really dislike of Eset is the kinda sissy robot when you open Eset :sick:
humbly I do not think the same in my modest opinion Eset is better. Norton would not recommend it to my worst enemy:confused:
 
If you learn to configure HIPS it offers similar protection. However, this requires work on the user part, possibly defeating the purpose of a suite?
HIPS are not useful, they only cause false positives.

Based on my experience Eset has grown a lot over the years, it is very light on the system and with version 13 it is even lighter; however it still lacks definitions on what other competitors eg Norton has, it has more detection even against 0 day threats, as indeed also Avast and Avira
Considering norton has an behavior blocker aswell, why should the adware that is avast and avira be better?
 

Aggravatorx

Level 2
reminds me of Mcdonalds but the truth is Mcafee feels a lot smoother then norton and Mcafee gives you everything except the kitchen sink.
and sometimes it feels like norton sonar works and the next time it wont and there updates are never updated on the weekend because there
all eating at the big M
 
reminds me of Mcdonalds but the truth is Mcafee feels a lot smoother then norton and Mcafee gives you everything except the kitchen sink.
and sometimes it feels like norton sonar works and the next time it wont and there updates are never updated on the weekend because there
all eating at the big M
Mcafee is a jack of all trades, a master of none, I still dont like it, its next to impossible to uninstall.
 
Norton seems fine to me — but lately I find that it is so geared for “set it and forget it” and low FP’s that it doesn’t cater to those of us who are willing to deal with more FP’s for better protection.

SONAR is good but the BB aspect doesn’t seem to be very active anymore. SONAR is still great as basically a cloud based reputation scanner but the BB is hard to trip by homemade ransomware and startup item simulators.

Norton’s firewall and IPS modules are fairly commendable for being low FP and being able to offer protection but I think the value is debatable. These components are more likely to slow down your networking especially if you have multigig Ethernet.

But it’s not really fair to compare to McAfee. Norton’s signatures are top notch. McAfee checks off a lot of the features but the performance of each one of them is lackluster at best.
 

Aggravatorx

Level 2
was not comparing hate them both just saying mcafee offers so much junk and it feels faster i know everyone will like
or dislike a security program and one runs better on his or her machine then the other guy.thats why there is 100+
security programs to choose from but the topic here is eset and with the newer version out it feels really smoother
then most other security programs.
 
was not comparing hate them both just saying mcafee offers so much junk and it feels faster i know everyone will like
or dislike a security program and one runs better on his or her machine then the other guy.thats why there is 100+
security programs to choose from but the topic here is eset and with the newer version out it feels really smoother
then most other security programs.
Totally, I agree that how heavy or buggy a security program is, that’s a big factor too and no amount of great detection excuses that.

I should also mention that the recent Symantec IPS BSODs is yet another reason I dislike “kitchen sink” security suites. Having your security software do too much inspection makes it open to both stability and security issues.
 
I won’t say anything more about Norton or McAfee and we are all anxiously awaiting more user feedback and HUB results. Unfortunately in a market with 100+ competitors, comparing to a popular product is probably one of the better ways to describe one.
In the meantime, would anyone like to give us a blurb about ESET? I lost track of them a while back when NOD32 had the reputation of being extremely light and they were investing a lot in on-execution sandbox analysis. How have things changed since then?
 

Nightwalker

Level 17
Verified
Content Creator
I won’t say anything more about Norton or McAfee and we are all anxiously awaiting more user feedback and HUB results. Unfortunately in a market with 100+ competitors, comparing to a popular product is probably one of the better ways to describe one.
In the meantime, would anyone like to give us a blurb about ESET? I lost track of them a while back when NOD32 had the reputation of being extremely light and they were investing a lot in on-execution sandbox analysis. How have things changed since then?
It is still extremely light with the best heuristics (the sandbox thing) of the market with good signatures too, it has all the modules that one needs to fully protect the system and it has one of the best if not the best PUA detection.

I am not using ESET at the moment, but I think it is the most balanced antivirus solution by default, it has a very good balance between protection, false positives, system performance and usability; it is simple very well coded.

Contrary to some folks opinion, ESET strong point is actually its zero day detection, the advanced heuristics with dynamic sandbox thing, there are many security enthusiasts that think that the DNA detection is a signature one and so they downplay how good ESET zero day protection is.

Another myth is that ESET has weak default settings, that is far from the true, it is very good by default, for a real scenario usage and I must say that ESET is much better in this case than the professional tests suggest.
 

Nightwalker

Level 17
Verified
Content Creator
guess what a well setup srp is better then any av. wondering why the malware testers have not used a good srp in their malware tests?those experienced users here know that already.
Because it would be very boring to have everything blocked, thats how a "good" SRP works, but this is a bit off-topic.

Personally I dont see why SRP is better than an antivirus solution, it is a different mechanism that is far from being optimal for most users. I can totally see the value of SRP for home users and in a corporate scenario usage with a very restricted software usage, but thats it.

If a home user wants to run GTA V cracked.exe or hot bikini girl.jpg.js, SRP is just a inconvenience that will soon be replaced.
 
Because it would be very boring to have everything blocked, thats how a "good" SRP works, but this is a bit off-topic.

Personally I dont see why SRP is better than an antivirus solution, it is a different mechanism that is far from being optimal for most users. I can totally see the value of SRP for home users and in a corporate scenario usage with a very restricted software usage, but thats it.

If a home user wants to run GTA V cracked.exe or hot bikini girl.jpg.js, SRP is just a inconvenience that will soon be replaced.
I have spent maybe 10 years of my career making trusted boot / secure boot systems. My experience has been that SRP type solutions tend to be treated as nagware by the average user — it’s like seeing those self signed certificate dialogs. Customers don’t treat “this thing isn’t trusted” as a very serious error — they at best treat it like it is an unnecessary safety nag and at worst think it’s a conspiracy to use the Microsoft Store or join some developer program, etc....
What users take seriously is “this contains a virus” or “this is considered harmful”. That is more like a cloud reputation scanner (like SONAR or Emsi Anti Malware Network or more or less a cloud AV).