devjit2018

Level 9
Tester
Verified
Today's malware are becoming more sophisticated. So ESET has to focus on their BB and improve it. Relying only on signatures these days is not a smart move. But I won't call it a bad suite. In fact ESET is one of the top performers out there(alongwith Kaspersky, Emsisoft, Norton, Bitdefender).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Burrito and fabiobr
Well no antivirus is perfect. But the way you are saying about ESET you seem much angry over ESET. I don't think that protection set to the maximum because in that case ESET is very annoying and i will have to say very strong. It is not a real time test. In real word you never run exe knowing that it will harm your system. Mostly viruses and other threats downloaded from internet so having a excellent web filter can stop them or it may be firewall. I also agree with you that ESET needs to be improve a lot. Since last few years it is not what it used to be.
It's not that I'm upset with Eset, I'm just saying it's not the first time it fails. If it is a real-time test, then the threats are hidden among sound files, such as music files, a dll or any file that does not look evil. In the video you can clearly see how the maximum protection is being used and the antivirus is practically useless.
 

devjit2018

Level 9
Tester
Verified
I agree with you that ESET failed to protect the PC. If ESET had a good BB like Kaspersky maybe the results would've been different. But if you look at other videos of JD, you'll see that Emsisoft, AVG, Avast all were bypassed(and they all include BB). And I won't call this ESET setting maximum. There are some firewall and HIPS rules that need to be configured to extract the maximum protection(if you don't want to set them to Interactive mode). See this link-

 
I agree with you that ESET failed to protect the PC. If ESET had a good BB like Kaspersky maybe the results would've been different. But if you look at other videos of JD, you'll see that Emsisoft, AVG, Avast all were bypassed(and they all include BB). And I won't call this ESET setting maximum. There are some firewall and HIPS rules that need to be configured to extract the maximum protection(if you don't want to set them to Interactive mode). See this link-

the smart mode is the inteligent mode, this is the protection maximum. Interactive mode is not the maximum setting.
Putting the antivirus in interactive will not change the result
 

Threadripper

Level 6
ESET is unbelievably light and bug-free, but default settings are crap, and unless you play with HIPS which for 99% of users will either be too intrusive or too complicated, you're reliant on signatures for the most part. It runs seamlessly, even on the oldest of machines and web protection is stellar - LiveGrid means signatures are updated to the second in theory while connected to the internet, but for threats it's never seen before it's useless.

Does it mean ESET is useless? Absolutely not, you'd have to be very unlucky to unintentionally come across malware it hasn't seen before but of course there's a chance. It definitely has its strong points with web filtering, IPS, firewall and pure lightless and the bug-free nature of it, master the settings and it's great.

Source: Used ESET on 5 devices 2018-2019.
 

devjit2018

Level 9
Tester
Verified
the smart mode is the inteligent mode, this is the protection maximum. Interactive mode is not the maximum setting.
Putting the antivirus in interactive will not change the result
It's pointless to argue with you after this. Interactive Mode offers the BEST protection but you have to give ESET a learning period otherwise it'll drive you insane. If you don't believe me read the ESET documentation.
 
It's pointless to argue with you after this. Interactive Mode offers the BEST protection but you have to give ESET a learning period otherwise it'll drive you insane. If you don't believe me read the ESET documentation.
Nor does it make sense to discuss with you, they are just excuses, putting the interactive mode will not change the test result.
 

devjit2018

Level 9
Tester
Verified
Nor does it make sense to discuss with you, they are just excuses, putting the interactive mode will not change the test result.
lt will change the test results because interactive mode is not the same as smart mode. I don't work for ESET so I won't bother with excuses. I use ESET and so I very well know what the interactive mode is capable of. There are many people in MT who use ESET. You can ask any of them if HIPS in interactive mode is much more powerful than in smart mode.
 

Attachments

lt will change the test results because interactive mode is not the same as smart mode. I don't work for ESET so I won't bother with excuses. I use ESET and so I very well know what the interactive mode is capable of. There are many people in MT who use ESET. You can ask any of them if HIPS in interactive mode is much more powerful than in smart mode.
and ? not change the result this setting
 
  • Haha
Reactions: devjit2018

Threadripper

Level 6
I couldn't use interactive HIPS, updating Firefox had a crazy amount of prompts I think it was around 50. I used learning mode for a long time but there's things like that you don't think of. Good for relatively static systems I suppose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: devjit2018

devjit2018

Level 9
Tester
Verified
I couldn't use interactive HIPS, updating Firefox had a crazy amount of prompts I think it was around 50. I used learning mode for a long time but there's things like that you don't think of. Good for relatively static systems I suppose.
Yes ESET HIPS is better suited for static systems where you don't install/uninstall softwares regularly. In fact any default deny setup is better suited for static systems. I used to have HIPS in interactive mode before I purchased AppGuard. But ever since using AG I have the HIPS to smart mode and have created some custom rules.
 

mlnevese

Level 15
Verified
ESET is one of the best products out there but I've said it before and I'll say it again. HIPS in a consumer-level product is not a good idea. It takes a long time and a lot of knowledge to properly configure HIPS for maximum protection. For a consumer-level product automation should be as high as possible. In this regard Avast, Bitdefender and kaspersky are going the right way. The average consumer has no time and is not interested in learning everything necessery to properly configure HIPS and Firewall rules manually.
 
ESET is one of the best products out there but I've said it before and I'll say it again. HIPS in a consumer-level product is not a good idea. It takes a long time and a lot of knowledge to properly configure HIPS for maximum protection. For a consumer-level product automation should be as high as possible. In this regard Avast, Bitdefender and kaspersky are going the right way. The average consumer has no time and is not interested in learning everything necessery to properly configure HIPS and Firewall rules manually.
but in zero day protection FAIL
 
  • Haha
Reactions: devjit2018

devjit2018

Level 9
Tester
Verified
but in zero day protection FAIL
Looks like someone is here only to judge a product against zero day malware. If that's your aim ditch signature based antivirus. Go for default deny or anti executables like Exe Radar Pro, VoodooShield, AppGuard. Don't troll over here. No matter how much you try, ESET failing in some zero day malwares will not make ESET bad over here at MT because unlike you, experts here know that all default allow AV's will fail to detect true zero day malware at some point or the other.
 
Last edited:

devjit2018

Level 9
Tester
Verified
ESET is one of the best products out there but I've said it before and I'll say it again. HIPS in a consumer-level product is not a good idea. It takes a long time and a lot of knowledge to properly configure HIPS for maximum protection. For a consumer-level product automation should be as high as possible. In this regard Avast, Bitdefender and kaspersky are going the right way. The average consumer has no time and is not interested in learning everything necessery to properly configure HIPS and Firewall rules manually.
I agree with you here. From a regular home user point of view, I would choose Kaspersky above any suite. The BB is superb, the 2019 version is light and it's set and forget. For inexperienced users, just turn on TAM and you're good to go. In my family pc, I've been using KIS with SH and AdGuard and I'm yet to come across any malware infection. But if you like tweaking and you're an advanced user who knows what you're doing, ESET IS offers plenty of protection and customisation (although they still have miles to go in creating a good BB like Kaspersky).
 

Terry Ganzi

Level 24
Verified
This thread has gone totally left.
Is eset a good product yes it is.
does it suffer from a weakness yes it does.
The question should be what can we do to fix it with out to much fluff.
Look I've use Emsisoft for yrs it's phishing protection sucks hard,every new release it have update problems,malware running in memory,reported false positives still get block after a while and it virus cleaning leaves alot of the malware remnants , and one more, in the update logs sometimes in three days you only see three or four per day updates , i think update logs change how you view them now.(may be wrong about logs, cause i don't use it any more).
Long story short i'll use Eset any day before that ever grace my pc again. (And my license is still valid).
in all the years i used Emsisoft (like more that 7yrs) I've only seen phishing protection work twice in normal usage,tried Norton,Eset and Kaspersky for 30 days and got more phishing protection notices on normal Googled pages that Emsisoft. Even if the security weak or not phishing notices gives a person a sense of protection.
Eset problems isn't major but arrogance can make it become that with time.
Any person using Eset should not fear or dump the product, don't turn a fixable flaw into a panic outbreak.
 
Last edited: