Status
Not open for further replies.
Products to compare
ESET Internet Security
Norton Security
Compare
Internet protection (Web Guard, Anti-Phishing, Antispam, Browser extension)
Proactive protection (Behavior blocker, HIPS, Sandbox)
Network protection (Firewall, Botnet protection)
Ransomware protection
Banking & Payments protection

Cortex

Level 11
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.
 

SeriousHoax

Level 8
Verified
Malware Tester
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

Level 9
Verified
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.
 

Raiden

Level 13
Verified
Content Creator
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.
 
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

Level 18
Verified
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...

1563727364683.png
 

silversurfer

Level 51
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
Malware Hunter
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 ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.