Can someone explain why such a rule in Eset blocks the entire internet? I just saw a list of dangerous ports here on the forum, but found that trying to completely block any port results in loss of internet access. I don't understand how this works.
ESET v18
- Thread starter czesetfan
- Start date
Would somebody help me to understand this, please 
I know Leo's videos can be a bit controversial, but at 10:28 he tests ESET against ransomware protection. He has real time protection disabled and claims this known ransomware should be blocked by HIPs protection. When it isn't, there are about 4 replies that say this:
And in my uneventful online life, do I really need to pay more to get Live Guard, as I'm not downloading the internet everyday? Otherwise, there are some really nice features in ESET Internet Security.
I know Leo's videos can be a bit controversial, but at 10:28 he tests ESET against ransomware protection. He has real time protection disabled and claims this known ransomware should be blocked by HIPs protection. When it isn't, there are about 4 replies that say this:
I am running a trial version of ESET Internet Security, and when I disabled the real time shield, and checked the Live Grid setting, it was still On. Real time didn't disable it, and I'm sure, I would think that it wasn't disabled on his end either (he didn't go to that setting and turn it off), so what are they talking about, does Live Grid need real time protection on as well, would that ransomware have then been blocked?
And in my uneventful online life, do I really need to pay more to get Live Guard, as I'm not downloading the internet everyday? Otherwise, there are some really nice features in ESET Internet Security.
Last edited:
Leo's testing methodology is flawed when it comes to ESET. ESET has repeatedly and clearly stated (on their forums, on their documentation and by Marcos on some of Leo's videos) that it needs all modules enabled to work.
It's been like this for many years and he refuses to learn either by ignorance or actual malice at this point. His recent comparison video is a clear example of bad testing methodology, as he uses a heavily outdated version of ESET against ransomware while using more up-to-date competitor solutions. Had he an used updated version of ESET on that test, it would've caught the ransomware just like the others.
Edit: regarding Live Guard, unless you often download files from unknown sources, I would say it's not really worth it. You will get the signatures eventually anyway as these unknown files get flagged by ESET.
It's been like this for many years and he refuses to learn either by ignorance or actual malice at this point. His recent comparison video is a clear example of bad testing methodology, as he uses a heavily outdated version of ESET against ransomware while using more up-to-date competitor solutions. Had he an used updated version of ESET on that test, it would've caught the ransomware just like the others.
Edit: regarding Live Guard, unless you often download files from unknown sources, I would say it's not really worth it. You will get the signatures eventually anyway as these unknown files get flagged by ESET.
So ESET would need the Real time protection on as well, all modules on as you said, in this test to have blocked the ransomware. So the others who mentioned Live Grid, it really wasn't the issue then, as it was On. I agree, I'm not a fan of disabling modules to test a product, I don't use my AV in half mode protection.
edit: thank you for your follow-up edit, I appreciate that as well
Last edited:
Eset didn't put the ransomware remediation into consumer products unfortunately
What I do in my PC is use layers although I'm using the version that does have ransomware remediation (hitman pro alert , comodo fw , checkpoint threat emulation, Symantec ips all as extra layers to ESET endpoint advanced )
There are all kinds of free anti ransomware tools people can use and one of the best ones is Kaspersky anti ransomware Wich has the incredible behavior module roll back of system watcher
Last edited by a moderator:
Would somebody help me to understand this, please
I know Leo's videos can be a bit controversial, but at 10:28 he tests ESET against ransomware protection. He has real time protection disabled and claims this known ransomware should be blocked by HIPs protection. When it isn't, there are about 4 replies that say this:
I am running a trial version of ESET Internet Security, and when I disabled the real time shield, and checked the Live Grid setting, it was still On. Real time didn't disable it, and I'm sure, I would think that it wasn't disabled on his end either (he didn't go to that setting and turn it off), so what are they talking about, does Live Grid need real time protection on as well, would that ransomware have then been blocked?
And in my uneventful online life, do I really need to pay more to get Live Guard, as I'm not downloading the internet everyday? Otherwise, there are some really nice features in ESET Internet Security.
ESET keeps saying that it requires all the default modules to work in order to guarantee 100% functionality of each module. The modules play off each other and they hand over the tasks in the identification and kill chain. You can't just disable things willy nilly like in any other AV and smile thinking that you have defeated the AV.
Leo is being disingenuous and idiotic. He is disabling real time protection because it functions too well to protect against the threat. It's like someone testing a bullet proof vest but the vest stops all the bullets so they decide to test just the plate carrier without the plates themselves and OH MY GOD NYLON STRAPS AND MATERIAL DOES NOT PROTECT AGAINST BULLETS!!!!!
If he is not skilled to design his own encryptor not detected by the real time portion of the AV then maybe just maybe he shouldn't touch that portion of the test? Yes I am a general surgeon so I know how to cut thus today I will perform your brain surgery since why not? It's surgery and I am a surgeon?!
What's worse than no test? A test performed idiotically causing misinterpretation of the results.
Most of these YouTube tests for me are for amusement only: As far as I can remember in this life, I've never turned off my AV, dumped 2000 malware files on my desk and ran them one after the other usually not giving the AV the ability to restart after an infection & based the effectiveness of the AV for normal use on the results - These files would normally have to get onto your PC & by normality would be scanned by your browser etc - As for ransomware its really the only thing that does worry me & so multiple external drive backups of all data should sort it.
Thank you, as that's all he did, was stir the pot with how he tested it, and got people worked up, or in my case questioning it.
I appreciate the replies from you all, as they have a great discount for first time users. Not only is the protection solid, but I also like the Tools module, like Running processes, Network Inspector (I also used that in Kaspersky Plus) and the Firewall that can be as busy (notifications) as I want or don't want.
Something that just kind of hit me, is there is no upsell within the Essential app that I'm missing "these features" from the Premium version that I could have. Just a nice clean UI and modules.
With LiveGuard, why wouldn't I want the files deleted immediately after analysis? What is the thought or "benefit" of them having it for 30 days?
It gives them time to further time to analyze the sample probably very rarely they are going to do so anyway
Thank you
that's what I was kind of thinking too (I just needed confirmation), a little more time on their end, otherwise that may not have offered that as an option (30 days).
Last edited:
This Leo kid is a real troll. His tests are irrelevant and misleading. He has more malice than professional knowledge.
Leo at some time in the pas seemed to have some association with Emsisoft or am I mistaken here?
In this video leo tested ESET with all protection including realtime protection on and yet failed to detect unknown ransomware sample also, locking security or protection feature like live guard behind extra money to be paid is not good internet security users should get same level of peotection as the ultimate they can make the vpn and other privacy features for the ultimate but, not the protection that it's already weak against new threats and lack strong behavioural blocker.
Lol. Not this again...
this has been discussed many many many times you can search about it, this is not a legitimate test. Even you and I can do a test and make the software look weak or good.
ESET's version is 5 months older than its competitors in this video. You can check it on the video itself. It would've caught that sample otherwise. This alone invalidates this test and it has been discussed at length here. Leo has an agenda against ESET from the looks of it as he has repeatedly gimped ESET's tests on many occasions.
I agree on the security capabilities across versions, though. Bitdefender and Kaspersky offer the same degree of protection from their cheapest to their most expensive solutions. ESET still locks security behind a (very expensive) premium price tag.
You may also like...
-
ESET Endpoint vs Home Premium: what's the major difference beyond the obvious? (remote management)- Started by cartaphilus
- Replies: 6
-
-
Eset Smart Security Premium v18- Started by Shadowra
- Replies: 21
-
