Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="SeriousHoax" data-source="post: 842005" data-attributes="member: 78686"><p>This is correct. Also what I&#039;ve learnt from the ESET forum is that they are extremely sensitive about false positives and performance impact. Sometimes way too much. For example, a month ago in the hub a ransomware sample was missed by ESET as well as bypassed other popular AVs behavior blocker. I posted that sample on ESET forum and a day later upon analyzing they found out, ESET&#039;s ransomware shield initially detected that as a potential ransomware but another false positive mechanism triggered in so to avoid false positive ESET let that ransomware run. This is just one example. I&#039;ve seen other discussion where they even said that they sometimes prioritize avoiding false positives over detection and their defense to this statement was that if an user run something malicious on their PC, soon their cloud protection which is named Live grid would be able to protect other users from executing that malware. They also said their enterprise customers care more about not having any false positives. But no matter what, to prioritize false positives avoiding over detection kind of sounds wrong. But this is how they are and one of the reason they focus a lot on signatures more than most other AVs. They have similar mindset for performance impact. They won&#039;t implement any feature that affects its performance hence it&#039;s extremely light.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="SeriousHoax, post: 842005, member: 78686"] This is correct. Also what I've learnt from the ESET forum is that they are extremely sensitive about false positives and performance impact. Sometimes way too much. For example, a month ago in the hub a ransomware sample was missed by ESET as well as bypassed other popular AVs behavior blocker. I posted that sample on ESET forum and a day later upon analyzing they found out, ESET's ransomware shield initially detected that as a potential ransomware but another false positive mechanism triggered in so to avoid false positive ESET let that ransomware run. This is just one example. I've seen other discussion where they even said that they sometimes prioritize avoiding false positives over detection and their defense to this statement was that if an user run something malicious on their PC, soon their cloud protection which is named Live grid would be able to protect other users from executing that malware. They also said their enterprise customers care more about not having any false positives. But no matter what, to prioritize false positives avoiding over detection kind of sounds wrong. But this is how they are and one of the reason they focus a lot on signatures more than most other AVs. They have similar mindset for performance impact. They won't implement any feature that affects its performance hence it's extremely light. [/QUOTE]

Verification