throwaway43079

New Member
Hello! I've been using ESET for about 3 years now and I am satisfied with it, I have been infection free so far, but I do tend to watch antivirus ranks on here and on av-comparatives.org. Most recently they did their mobile security review for 2019 and I was deeply disappointed that they didn't include ESET with this one, the last one they were included in was in 2017.

But moving on, I've noticed that ESET hasn't been doing so well in any category here lately, average at best and it's making me reconsider my choice to use them to protect me. When it came up for renewal last year I decided to try Kaspersky for a few months, I like some aspects of it but to me it has too many unnecessary things that I don't care for e.g. VPN, which I know most things can be disabled but whatever happened to the basic fundamentals? In the end it was just too heavy for my computer and the virus signature updates took over 5 minutes to install depending on how long my computer had been turned off which reminded me of how long Emsisoft took to update as well.

Basically my question(s) is should I go by what is knocking malware out of the ball park according to av-comparatives.org and the Malware Hub or just stick with what I know and comfortable with? ESET's real-world protection, malware protection and malware removal is concerning to me: https://www.av-comparatives.org/vendors/eset/windows/
 

roger_m

Level 24
Verified
Content Creator
It is almost always one of the first antiviruses to have signatures for new threats. It has been doing very well in testing at the Malware Hub (with custom settings), due to very good signatures and proactive protection.
 

Mahesh Sudula

Level 16
Verified
Malware Tester
One important point :
Testing any security suite in combo with other tightening ( I call them as Restriction based ) or simply Windows based Linux Reinforcement.
That's not how it goes out there in WILD.
For a matter if fact,, yes HUB tests are reliable for a normal user (~ assuming worst of worst scenarios and infections ~80%) - Results are very very reliable!

Personally, I won't pick ESET.. Rather other suites like Bitdefender, G data, Kaspersky, Symantec. They are stronger enough alone with/ without any user intervention whatsoever.
 

Cortex

Level 11
The fact you have been infection free does say a fair bit - Some alternatives such as G-Data, BitDefender & as you have found Kaspersky will may your PC if it's not leading edge. Personally I like ESET & protected me for many years. An alternative which is pretty light & has good protection is Norton - I find it on PC's I own as light as ESET. Though, in my opinion (& there are 434 million threads on this forum) ESET is OK, most tests are done in conditions we are unlikly to encounter unless we are idiots.
 

throwaway43079

New Member
In the past Norton was really my first product, since then I've tried Webroot, avast!, Kaspersky and Emsisoft. I've always wanted to see what all the hub bub was about with Bitdefender but every time I think about installing it there's always a discouraging word. It's too buggy, it's heavy...on and on.

One reason I remain infection free is I've personally learned from my mistakes and more cautious with what I do and where I visit because about 10 years ago I ran into a terrible virus and since then I educated myself more on staying safe. But in recent years you hear about legitimate websites that you may visit daily get compromised, so.
 
Last edited:

SeriousHoax

Level 9
Verified
Malware Tester
I'm not sure what you're talking about the hub test because ESET is doing very well in the hub. Best in class signatures and web protection, one of the lightest and personally for me is the lightest security suite out there. There's also highly configurable HIPS. The only downside is, it's newly introduced behavior blocker module is almost non-existent. The likes of Kaspersky and Norton are far better in this category. But it's great in everything else. Like roger_m said, it's almost always the first AV to have signatures for new threats. Besides, you being infection free for three years says a lot. But if you wanna try something new then try Kaspersky one more time. The new 2020 version has improved a lot performance wise so you might not face similar issue again. Or try Norton, it's very light as well and doing excellent in hub tests but protection against phishing & malicious sites is weak.
 

Burrito

Level 19
Verified
I think you are correct to use tests as the basic criteria for the evaluation of software.

Two things---

1. Tests generally use the software at default settings. Nothing wrong with that.... and.... that's the way it should be done. But when we MT's people change settings of the software and/or add supplementarily software, that would affect the results of tests.

2. Tests are a good basis for the evaluation of products. But you need to look at all the tests over time.

In the recent test from my preferred tester (SE Labs), ESET looks great.

1566738145178.png
 

throwaway43079

New Member
All of this is enlightening until I came across this some time ago: Solved - PC infected with Backdoor

:(

Let's say if ESET didn't use signatures, then what other areas could it protect you? People complain that the HIPS is basically non-existent, if the cloud was gone then how would it perform?

I know most companies rely on signatures and the cloud but what if you come across something that isn't detected by either?

How does their Ransomware Shield fair in the real-world?

Do other companies and or ESET have something else when one part of detection might fail?
 
Last edited:

blackice

Level 9
Verified
All of this is enlightening until I came across this some time ago: Solved - PC infected with Backdoor

:(

Let's say if ESET didn't use signatures, then what other areas could it protect you? People complain that the HIPS is basically non-existent, if the cloud was gone then how would it perform?

I know most companies rely on signatures and the cloud but what if you come across something that isn't detected by either?

How does their Ransomware Shield fair in the real-world?

Do other companies and or ESET have something else when one part of detection might fail?
The HIPS is designed for custom rules to lock the system down. It’s nonexistent in default. It’s incredibly powerful if you learn to use it.
 

Burrito

Level 19
Verified
All of this is enlightening until I came across this some time ago: Solved - PC infected with Backdoor

:(

Let's say if ESET didn't use signatures, then what other areas could it protect you? People complain that the HIPS is basically non-existent, if the cloud was gone then how would it perform?

I know most companies rely on signatures and the cloud but what if you come across something that isn't detected by either?

How does their Ransomware Shield fair in the real-world?

Do other companies and or ESET have something else when one part of detection might fail?
The example of devjit2018 being infected is just a reminder to us all. We can all get schwacked once-in-awhile. He's an advanced user and tester. And that is no reflection on ESET in-and-of-itself. Every AV can be penetrated.... and all of us can have an oversight or a little bad luck.

It's been many years since I demo'd ESET. But the experts say it's highly configurable. If you learn how to fine-tune ESET, and possibly even added another capability, you'd be good.

Or, if you just have the itch to switch products.... then do it. Many of us here have used many products. That's the MT way --- for good or for bad.

Throwing out PUPs/PUA -- which can be addressed in other ways, there is one product that stands out taking the two last MRG 360 tests and the SE Labs test above. Maybe take a look at that product.


 

Wraith

Level 13
Verified
Malware Tester
The above case is the ONE and ONLY time when I had been infected using ESET for the last 5 years. I don't know why ESET doesn't participate in AV Comparitives but it's a very good AV with one of the best signatures, web filter, firewall and it's one of the lightest AV out there. The default settings are meh but if you tweak it, you'll have very good protection. If you're paranoid, I'll suggest combining VoodooShield with ESET to make it bulletproof. The only thing ESET lacks is dynamic protection since it doesn't have any behaviour blocker (the one that's built into ESET stays at hibernating mode). In the end it all comes down to your surfing habits. :emoji_beer:

How does their Ransomware Shield fair in the real-world?
Non-existent. I've never seen it in action.
 

Raiden

Level 13
Verified
Content Creator
@throwaway43079

I really don't think you have anything to worry about. Tests aren't the end all be all, furthermore you have already mentioned the most important part of security and that is, your overall surfing/computing habits. There's a lot of great programs our there (Eset being one of them), but most of the time all people talk about is security programs and not how to be safe online, aka, your surfing habits. IMO, your habits will do more to keep you safe than any security solution can. No product, no matter how good can provide 100% protection every time. If you practice poor habits, sooner or later you will get bitten unfortunately. At the end of the day, if you get hit with a piece of ransomware and you didn't have any backups of your data, it doesn't matter if that product scored 100% on tests, all that matters is you got infected and you lost your data.

As to Eset doing "poorly" on AV-Comparatives, I really think this is a little misleading IMHO. Take a step back for a minute and as yourself, is 98.4% really a failing mark? It's not in my books, I can tell you that much. The problem is, testing organizations like AV-Comparatives, wanna be testers on YouTube, etc... have decided that the "passing grade" happens to be 99-100%. IMHO, this is both un-realistic and misleading, as it makes people assume that if they pick a product that gets 99-100%, they will never get infected, which I've already stated is not true.

As for you staying with Eset, here's my take. In all honesty, Eset is a great programs that offers excellent protection. It is a little weak on the dynamic side of things, but if one wants to learn about it's advanced features, you can really lock a system down if one so chooses. Furthermore, it seems like you haven't needed these advanced features, as you have been infection free for a while now, which brings me back to my first point in this thread. Your overall computing/surfing habits, will do more to keep you safe, than any program can. So in saying this, as along as you keep practicing good computing habits, chances are you will remain infection free, regardless of which security program you use.

At the end of the day, if you like Eset and it isn't causing you any issues, I would stay with it and not worry about these test results. You already know how to stay safe online and at the end of the day that's all that matters. If you want a change, by all means go for it and try different things, it can't hurt. Heck if you want, just try using WD and harden it with something like Configure Defender and see how that goes.

All in all, don't stress about these results. If the program is working for you and meets all your needs, stay with it. Furthermore, don't get fooled in to thinking that 98.4% is a failure, it's not and it's one of the reasons why I don't always pay attention to tests, because they have very unrealistic expectations IMHO.;)
 
Last edited:

throwaway43079

New Member
I've known of this test for sometime:
Some people in the comments are calling ESET utter garbage and if you scroll down you'll see him saying that basically his testing methods are correct, I'm right and you're wrong and frankly, hearing his opinion in the video sounds arrogant to me.

Personally I've never cared for The PC Security Channel's testing methods, he works for Emsisoft now and it seems like nothing is ever good enough to him unless their scoring 100% or of course you're Emsisoft. :cautious:

Soon after I discovered this article from AV-Comparatives: Spotlight on security: Why do AV products score so highly in professional tests? | AV-Comparatives

Marcos also has his take on it: Very poor test result
 

AYIZEB

Level 1
eset is good in static detention but not proactive, if the firm has no record of that malware, the pc will be infected, the other solutions have a functional bb that will not prevent you from being infected if you are an aggressive user but it can save you of some situations.
 

rych999

New Member
For me Eset have the best signatures in industry. Some people may talking about Kaspersky or Bitdefender, Norton etc but I have my own observations. When I see some malicious sample in my inbox / spam I'm always uploading that to virus total and You know what? Eset always catch em. I know that virustotal working with some delay but it give some background. I don't know maybe I'm strange but preffer when my AV remove malware before I will run it. Eset does it. BTW Tests are tests:emoji_money_mouth: this is not real scenario especially this one from Leo.