Has anyone checked this test? What's your opinion about this? How did Eset perform here?
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.Results are a bummer,wish these test would be run after Robomans hardenimg downloads ,never the less I keep voodoshield with Eset incase of bypass.I think this is enough
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
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.These videos steadily become a main clickbait...