Take this test with a huge grain of salt. Still, watch ESET be crushed by zero day samples/links. Still a product worth the use. Take the work from an ESET user This software needs a bit of tweaking to offer a great protecting level
Well, someone will inform the tester and after enabling the required settings for PUP/PUA he'll return for another new videoThis test is totally Bs!detection of unsafe programs are disabled by default and He don't even know there are such settings:notworthy:
What about Hips?it can even work as an ANATI EXE!
Thats true and in my opion the average user doesn't tweak an antivirus. We need a reference for those tests...and the base is that the options are disabled by default.This test is totally Bs!detection of unsafe programs are disabled by default and He don't even know there are such settings:notworthy:
Video shows the real world scenario with an average user with no IT background downloading some "free" stuffs (cough cough ... Pirated) having no signatures available.
Eset is a good product with very low system impact. They just need to make the default settings a bit more secure.
They should really consider setting the HIPS component to smart mode as default.That's the problem with ESET for a long time. It has a very powerful HIPS that comes configured from factory to do basically nothing The average user does not want to spend time playing around with their security software that's something that just enthusiasts do. It should come with more aggressive settings.
Bad result?I don't see any bad results there but there's definitely an issue with the methodology.
As for the urls, it appears to be there were no malicious ones that were not blocked by ESET but those not blocked was mainly fresh phishing from today which was not blocked at that time by any AV.
As for the on-demand scan "test", I "like" tests where one puts all mess (benign files, apps with Chinese gui, PUAs, etc.) into a folder, then scans the files and presents undetected files as missesAVs that detect such files have FPs and should be penalized for that but in these "tests" they get good points for detecting FPs.
A credible tester should know what he or she has in the test set, should be able to distinguish malware from PUAs, greyware and other benign applications and remove such from the test set. Including non-malicious files usually substantially skews the final results.
Also note that on-demand scans do not reflect the real-world scenario. In real world, malware is usually downloaded by malicious scripts on compromised websites or spread by spammed email. Running just an on-demand scan cannot test other protection layers that might have prevented the malware from being downloaded and executed.
If you refer to ESET AV then I say it's ok. But if you refer to ESET IS and say the default settings are enough for a home user then I say you don't use the IS but the AV will do.I do not know why they get so complicated ...
Eset default is enough for a home user ..
Let's be honest people just use facebook and facebook..The most dangerous are the pushing