- Dec 30, 2012
- 4,809
ESET Nod 32 Antivirus 8 review
- Thread starter Venustus
- Start date
It is advised to take all reviews with a grain of salt. In extreme cases some reviews use dramatization for entertainment purposes.
- Jun 12, 2014
- 314
Thank you for sharing, Venustus.
My take on this review:
Near the end he says that he's not going to execute any of the remaining samples from the malware pack because ESET wouldn't have detected them anyway. In my opinion this is a completely ridiculous statement. First of all he seems to be unaware of the Advanced Memory Scanner, which is designed to catch the malware the file system scanner misses, but of course you have to execute the samples in order to trigger an alert from it, as this is a post execution detection mechanism.
Further some of the samples could have been droppers, so unless he executes them he cannot find out if ESET would have prevented them from downloading and installing malware, aside from not detecting them as droppers.
So in the end he doesn't understand how the program works, he doesn't execute a single sample (aside from one case, only in order to trash the HIPS for doing its job) but yet he has the audacity to conclude that the program isn't good enough on its own to protect you from malware.
My take on this review:
Near the end he says that he's not going to execute any of the remaining samples from the malware pack because ESET wouldn't have detected them anyway. In my opinion this is a completely ridiculous statement. First of all he seems to be unaware of the Advanced Memory Scanner, which is designed to catch the malware the file system scanner misses, but of course you have to execute the samples in order to trigger an alert from it, as this is a post execution detection mechanism.
Further some of the samples could have been droppers, so unless he executes them he cannot find out if ESET would have prevented them from downloading and installing malware, aside from not detecting them as droppers.
So in the end he doesn't understand how the program works, he doesn't execute a single sample (aside from one case, only in order to trash the HIPS for doing its job) but yet he has the audacity to conclude that the program isn't good enough on its own to protect you from malware.
Yes, this is far from being the only test performed by someone who simply doesn't know the product he tests or knows it superficially. To test objectively a product you have to know it which cannot happen by hastily going through the settings. That's why I'm quite amused when some of the viewers claim that this or that reviewer has done a better test than the testing organizations - that is ignorant to put it mildly. Not that the official organizations tests are perfect but they have the technical means and the personnel to do it in a better and more professional way. That's why tests like that (youtube-made) are prohibited to be posted or given links to at Wilders Forums.
- Mar 8, 2013
- 49
I agree for the most part in what you are saying. I think there are a few individuals, who do these Youtube reviews, and they do a good job in general. In fact I believe there are many who believe they are performing a valuable service and are quite well meaning in their efforts. That said, there are far more who I see as tinkerers or hobbyists with no real credentials to do proper testing. Now, you will see some blow back in reaction to what has been said here, but I always hear the same excuses. We fill a need, or I don't trust independent testing organizations or we are totally unbiased because our testing is not commissioned by any security company, or I know how to do proper testing so my evaluation is correct, and my personal favorite, you must be a fanboy of this product. I have not talked to a single poster of these videos (I have talked with almost two dozen in the past year) who didn't claim their expertise and testing methodologies to be sound. It reminds me of the old "Dire Straits" song with the lyrics, "Two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong!
What is most disconcerting to me is the actual number of people who look on Youtube to see what a reviewer said about this AV or that AV and then make their decision based on that review. Youtube has seen a huge explosion of these videos in the past few years because almost anyone has the ability to record and post a good looking high definition review. Frankly, I am surprised that none of the security companies (none that I know of) or even the independent labs haven't pursued legal action. Why? Because in some cases these reviews border on the slanderous. While people do have the right to post their opinion in the form of a Youtube review, at the very least you also should have to back up what you are saying with real facts and complete testing methodologies used. Even then there is no guarantee or proof of the individuals qualifications. I can download gunny sacks of malware on to my desktop, open it all and then wait to see what happens. That's not testing!!! As mentioned in this thread, there is a serious lack of understanding of how the individual products work. I don't know how many Youtube videos have destroyed a product like Webroot's SA but don't realize or understand how the product functions. Conventional testing does not apply. In the past year there have been a couple of posters in particular who have made absolutely slanderous claims in their reviews. A good example is this Eset review, and the reaction to it here, which I am sure the poster will write off to the large group of Eset fanboys who reside here. This is one of a handful of security products that is almost universally lauded for it's excellence. Boy, am I glad the lid has been blown off the steaming pile of dung ESET has been producing for the past decade. I've also seen the other poster take a verbal flamethrower to Emsisoft Anti-Malware 9 just a few months ago. Again, pretty much a superior product in it's effectiveness but the poster exposed it to be a piece of software you don't ever want on your system. Take the top 10 or 12 computer security products right now, at this moment, that do well in almost all of the independent professional testing labs and you will find a Youtube "Tester" who claimed it failed their testing. What is sad is that I am not exaggerating. Please don't PM me with your credentials or why you are different from all the other Youtube security critics. I know, you are the one who is doing a great job!
What is most disconcerting to me is the actual number of people who look on Youtube to see what a reviewer said about this AV or that AV and then make their decision based on that review. Youtube has seen a huge explosion of these videos in the past few years because almost anyone has the ability to record and post a good looking high definition review. Frankly, I am surprised that none of the security companies (none that I know of) or even the independent labs haven't pursued legal action. Why? Because in some cases these reviews border on the slanderous. While people do have the right to post their opinion in the form of a Youtube review, at the very least you also should have to back up what you are saying with real facts and complete testing methodologies used. Even then there is no guarantee or proof of the individuals qualifications. I can download gunny sacks of malware on to my desktop, open it all and then wait to see what happens. That's not testing!!! As mentioned in this thread, there is a serious lack of understanding of how the individual products work. I don't know how many Youtube videos have destroyed a product like Webroot's SA but don't realize or understand how the product functions. Conventional testing does not apply. In the past year there have been a couple of posters in particular who have made absolutely slanderous claims in their reviews. A good example is this Eset review, and the reaction to it here, which I am sure the poster will write off to the large group of Eset fanboys who reside here. This is one of a handful of security products that is almost universally lauded for it's excellence. Boy, am I glad the lid has been blown off the steaming pile of dung ESET has been producing for the past decade. I've also seen the other poster take a verbal flamethrower to Emsisoft Anti-Malware 9 just a few months ago. Again, pretty much a superior product in it's effectiveness but the poster exposed it to be a piece of software you don't ever want on your system. Take the top 10 or 12 computer security products right now, at this moment, that do well in almost all of the independent professional testing labs and you will find a Youtube "Tester" who claimed it failed their testing. What is sad is that I am not exaggerating. Please don't PM me with your credentials or why you are different from all the other Youtube security critics. I know, you are the one who is doing a great job!
- Jun 12, 2014
- 314
@stephentony
While I agree with you, I also think we should focus our attention on the particular review and what's wrong with it and not start another debate about YouTube tests in general.
While I agree with you, I also think we should focus our attention on the particular review and what's wrong with it and not start another debate about YouTube tests in general.
I'm just glad we aren't censored on what we can post and watch review wise. I don't think this review is going to change anyone's mind around here one way or the other. I enjoy watching all of them even if I don't agree. I see no reason to critique a reviewer. I not a Eset
fan but this review didn't make me think less of it.
fan but this review didn't make me think less of it.
Similar threads
