Battle ESET Internet Security VS Norton Internet Security for better protection?

[KonradPL]

Hello

Guys what will be better option for protection for family devices like laptop`s and mobile phones(android)?
(In Eset i`ll set hips and firewall rules for anti ransomware protection)


thanks for yours help

 

[SeriousHoax]

in zeroday Eset is trash

Trash is an extreme word. But Norton and others are usually better at zero days.

 

[beavisviruses]

Trash is an extreme word. But Norton and others are usually better at zero days.

in all test with Eset testing vs zeroday malware is FAIL

 

[SeriousHoax]

in all test with Eset testing vs zeroday malware is FAIL

Any example?

 

[beavisviruses]

Any example?

Looking youtubers review ....

 

[SeriousHoax]

Looking youtubers review ....

Ok

 

[amico81]

in all test with Eset testing vs zeroday malware is FAIL

how many home-users come into contact with zeroday malware?

 

[beavisviruses]

how many home-users come into contact with zeroday malware?

if a malware is not detected by the signatures, your antivirus must respond with the behavior blocker

 

[L0ckJaw]

in zeroday Eset is trash

Well thats your opinion ;-) and Eset now has a Behaviour blocker.

 

[Cortex]

I think beavisviruses may be referring to a review by 'The Security Channel' by Leo? ESET did't do to well on that test, but interestingly the time before he tested it ESET did well. IMHO you cannot base the efficiency of anything based on a YouTube video life is not like that.

I install ESET on several of my friends lowly laptops with no tweaking whatsoever. You can tweak it but I still feel you will likely survive without it. If you choose to use cracks / keygens & the like will likely result in infection regardless what AV solution you use - A sensible approach is to stick VS on the end of ESET, you are unlikely to have issues & stay light. Though for me ESET is the shining light for those who require lightness, on this PC I can use anything I want to without much slowdown, I really like Norton too which is on this PC, so it's not bias.

 

[Nevi]

Looking youtubers review ....

If you should pick an antivirus based on YouTube videos, you would install and uninstall in an eternity.
Eset is a strong reliable antivirus. It's not perfect, but no antivirus are.

 

[SeriousHoax]

One of the other thing is Eset is crazy fast at adding new signatures to their database but Norton depends a lot on the cloud. Some people might disagree but I think Eset has better signatures than most AVs. Barely any average home user will be infected with Eset on their PC in default settings.

 

[blackice]

I think beavisviruses may be referring to a review by 'The Security Channel' by Leo? ESET did't do to well on that test, but interestingly the time before he tested it ESET did well. IMHO you cannot base the efficiency of anything based on a YouTube video life is not like that.

I install ESET on several of my friends lowly laptops with no tweaking whatsoever. You can tweak it but I still feel you will likely survive without it. If you choose to use cracks / keygens & the like will likely result in infection regardless what AV solution you use - A sensible approach is to stick VS on the end of ESET, you are unlikely to have issues & stay light. Though for me ESET is the shining light for those who require lightness, on this PC I can use anything I want to without much slowdown, I really like Norton too which is on this PC, so it's not bias.

A note on that review. He failed it because a single ransomware was missed. He didn’t even finish the test, even though the detection rate of ESET was fairly high otherwise.

 

[ForgottenSeer 72227]

how many home-users come into contact with zeroday malware?

That's a very good question and quite frankly for home users the chances of running into a real zero day piece of malware is probably close to zero. Not that it cannot happen, but in all honesty the stress level that is present on security forums about zero day malware is so high, it's no wonder why people have overkill setups IMO.

if a malware is not detected by the signatures, your antivirus must respond with the behavior blocker

That's IF the BB detects it. There is no guarantee that the BB will catch it either. Just because a product has a certain piece of technology like a BB, it doesn't mean that it all of a sudden becomes perfect and will catch malware 100% of the time.

I think beavisviruses may be referring to a review by 'The Security Channel' by Leo? ESET did't do to well on that test, but interestingly the time before he tested it ESET did well. IMHO you cannot base the efficiency of anything based on a YouTube video life is not like that.

Youtube tests in general are fun, but they shouldn't be relied upon 100% IMHO. If one wants to use tests to evaluate a product, one needs to look at all tests, not just cherry pick certain ones to prove a point.

A note on that review. He failed it because a single ransomware was missed. He didn’t even finish the test, even though the detection rate of ESET was fairly high otherwise.

That's the problem with those tests.

No offence, but we all know that all products aren't perfect and can miss things, so if you are going to fail a product because it let in one piece of malware, well then your being unrealistic IMHO. The problem isn't that it missed something, the problem is that people expect 100% perfection and unless it meets that criteria it sucks. Furthermore, the tests that are done on YouTube only feed into the paranoia that people need to find a product that provides 100% protection, which unfortunately does not exist.

 

[Nightwalker]

@Raiden always reply exactly what I want to when I am too lazy to write about, but in a more refined way (sometimes it sucks to not be a native english speaker).

 

[ForgottenSeer 72227]

@Raiden always reply exactly what I want to when I am too lazy to write about, but in a more refined way (sometimes it sucks to not be a native english speaker).

Thanks!

For the record your english is very good!

 

[beavisviruses]

A note on that review. He failed it because a single ransomware was missed. He didn’t even finish the test, even though the detection rate of ESET was fairly high otherwise.

Norton is excelent but Eset no, looking this reviews:
-
-
-
-
Eset is trash, only someone who has no idea of computer science would use Eset to protect, I do not think they need more evidence or if? There are better antivirus and much better than Eset.

 

[Burrito]

Eset is trash, only someone who has no idea of computer science would use Eset to protect, I do not think they need more evidence or if? There are better antivirus and much better than Eset.

Beavis Viruses,

Laughing.... and I'm with you... I think Norton is better. (Not factoring corporate instability)

But ESET is not trash.

Look at the last few SE Labs tests. And those tests are done far more rigorously than Youtube tests...

 

[silversurfer]

Eset is trash, only someone who has no idea of computer science would use Eset to protect, I do not think they need more evidence or if? There are better antivirus and much better than Eset.

Your comments are just your biased opinion, facts are looking different to me...
The truth is that only one who has not a clue about ESET will claiming that it's unable to protect home-users

 

[SeriousHoax]

only someone who has no idea of computer science would use Eset to protect

Damn! I'm continuously laughing for the past two minutes after reading this line Can't help myself Anyway man, that's your opinion. Cheers!

 

[beavisviruses]

Beavis Viruses,

Laughing.... and I'm with you... I think Norton is better. (Not factoring corporate instability)

But ESET is not trash.

Look at the last few SE Labs tests. And those tests are done far more rigorously than Youtube tests...

View attachment 217231

in zero day yes is poor,

I do not think I need to show more evidence about it?