- Mar 16, 2019
- 3,862
Eset vs Ransomware
- Thread starter SeriousHoax
- Start date
It is advised to take all reviews with a grain of salt. In extreme cases some reviews use dramatization for entertainment purposes.
- May 26, 2014
- 1,130
- Mar 16, 2019
- 3,862
Yes, that's what I thought too. But actually I don't like to use more than one real time product. So, still using only Eset and OSArmor as an extra layer.
I'll just post what I said in another thread on the topic. I just changed the vendor names.
Well to be fair nothing is ever perfect. Despite the fact that people say that nothing is 100% perfect, it still kinda fascinates me when people act surprised when a product missed something, or failed a test. I'm not making excuses for Eset, personally I still think it's a great product, with very good protection, however, no matter what you use, you still always need to practice basic security 101. When it comes to ransomware, the only and I mean the ONLY 100% guaranteed protection from any type of ransomware is to simply backup. It's the only guaranteed protection against this type of thing. Look at Wanacry and how it got past so many products initially, what about the new Asus security fiasco?
Over the last 4-5 months I've seen various tests posted here, from all sorts of products and them missing stuff. All this does is reinforce the point that every product can miss malware and every product can fail at some point. IMHO we need to stop looking for something that will offer 100% protection every time, it's not available, nor will it ever be. At the end of the day, use which ever program you like most and be sure to practice good security hygiene and chances are you will be more than fine.
Well to be fair nothing is ever perfect. Despite the fact that people say that nothing is 100% perfect, it still kinda fascinates me when people act surprised when a product missed something, or failed a test. I'm not making excuses for Eset, personally I still think it's a great product, with very good protection, however, no matter what you use, you still always need to practice basic security 101. When it comes to ransomware, the only and I mean the ONLY 100% guaranteed protection from any type of ransomware is to simply backup. It's the only guaranteed protection against this type of thing. Look at Wanacry and how it got past so many products initially, what about the new Asus security fiasco?
Over the last 4-5 months I've seen various tests posted here, from all sorts of products and them missing stuff. All this does is reinforce the point that every product can miss malware and every product can fail at some point. IMHO we need to stop looking for something that will offer 100% protection every time, it's not available, nor will it ever be. At the end of the day, use which ever program you like most and be sure to practice good security hygiene and chances are you will be more than fine.
- Mar 16, 2019
- 3,862
I agree with everything you said. But I'm just surprised that Eset missed so many PUPs in this test. Eset is usually good with PUPs. The system wasn't infected by any malware so in that case Eset did fine. I'm currently trying out Eset and so far very happy with itI'll just post what I said in another thread on the topic. I just changed the vendor names.
Well to be fair nothing is ever perfect. Despite the fact that people say that nothing is 100% perfect, it still kinda fascinates me when people act surprised when a product missed something, or failed a test. I'm not making excuses for Eset, personally I still think it's a great product, with very good protection, however, no matter what you use, you still always need to practice basic security 101. When it comes to ransomware, the only and I mean the ONLY 100% guaranteed protection from any type of ransomware is to simply backup. It's the only guaranteed protection against this type of thing. Look at Wanacry and how it got past so many products initially, what about the new Asus security fiasco?
Over the last 4-5 months I've seen various tests posted here, from all sorts of products and them missing stuff. All this does is reinforce the point that every product can miss malware and every product can fail at some point. IMHO we need to stop looking for something that will offer 100% protection every time, it's not available, nor will it ever be. At the end of the day, use which ever program you like most and be sure to practice good security hygiene and chances are you will be more than fine.
Were pup and pua detections enabled in this test? Tried to skip through the video to see if it was ever shown. But didn't see it.I agree with everything you said. But I'm just surprised that Eset missed so many PUPs in this test. Eset is usually good with PUPs. The system wasn't infected by any malware so in that case Eset did fine. I'm currently trying out Eset and so far very happy with it
- Mar 16, 2019
- 3,862
He didn't mentioned it anywhere. He just said default settings.
That doesn't help.
During installation the user has the decision to enable or not pup detection. But there are also additional detection setting that can be enabled on advance settings.
- Jun 24, 2016
- 2,485
lol, device control is off, firewall is in automatic mode. That's default ESET, and default ESET is garbage. If default settings for any product were enough, no vendor would waste time creating tweaks and option.
- Aug 30, 2012
- 6,598
These videos steadily become a main clickbait...
IMO it's starting to get out of hand. I'm not saying that people shouldn't be allowed to perform tests, but the frequency that these videos get posted is not helping making things better and more clear, it's just adding to the confusion. Furthermore, I'm not a huge fan of people "acting" like "security experts" because they were able to run malware in a VM. Testing these products in general is very difficult and it's not as easy as it's made out to be. They often don't represent how it works in the real world and I always get a kick reading the YouTube comments of people freaking out that this or that product is a pos because it didn't get 100%. If you really look at it, these YouTube testing methodologies really haven't changed, if at all.
Step 1: Disable real-time AV
Step 2: Perform right click scan on folder full of malware with unknown age.
Step 3: Re-enable real-time protection and run any missed samples
Step 4: Scan with on demand scanners.
In the real world no one operates their computer this way.
IMHO the vast majority of these "YouTubers" don't offer any helpful advice, nor do they fully explain/understand the products nor the malware. How many times do you see people run a piece of malware in a VM, nothing happens and their conclusion is "well it must be broken." Yes, it may be broken, however there are tons of malware now that are VM aware and if they detect that they are in a VM they simply don't run.
Again, I'm not against people performing tests, but I just wish they would take the time to properly understand how the products work and potentially the malware. Furthermore I would really be happy if people would take the time to really explain things and notify people that these results should be taken with a grain of salt and that real world usage will be different.
Similar threads
