Q&A Impressed with ESET

Guilhermesene

Level 6
Thread author
Verified
Well-known
Jun 1, 2019
272
Hello everyone from the community!

I am currently using Bitdefender, but I have a 3 year license of ESET Smart Security Premium (I had already used ESET for 3 years). I got a file here (which I downloaded from the internet), which is an activator of the Windows operating system, the only antivirus that detected the file as malicious is ESET. I am impressed to see how powerful ESET's detection engine is compared to other software that.

01.png

File scan: Virustotal

I'm thinking about going back to using ESET because all the malware I caught to test on the MalwareBazaar website was detected even though they were very recent, I even saw the detection being done by ML-Augur.

I am impressed to see how sensitive ESET is with regards to PUP/Adware detection. What is your opinion about the product? Is it worth switching to this product even if I lose remote control functionality (example Bitdefender Central)?

Sorry for this post, maybe unnecessary but I was impressed to see that only ESET detected the file.

Thank you guys from the community.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

amico81

Level 21
Verified
Top poster
Well-known
Jan 10, 2017
1,057
yes, eset offers one of the best protection against pups/unwanted software.
On default the protection is good, but you need to tweak some settings and HIPS for more layers of protection.
superb product of lightness. But i would stay with bitdefender if you have a license.
Bitdefender has a better behavior blocker...web protection on the same level ( my opinion).
 
Last edited:

Guilhermesene

Level 6
Thread author
Verified
Well-known
Jun 1, 2019
272
yes, eset offers one of the best protection against pups/unwanted software.
On default the protection is good, but you need to tweak some settings and HIPS for more layers of protection.
superb product of lightness. But i would stay with bitdefender if you have a license.
Bitdefender has a better behavior blocker...web protection on the same level ( my opinion).
Thank you so much for your answer.

I'll think about it better, but your opinion was a great help to me ;)
 

Freud2004

Level 10
Verified
Well-known
Jun 26, 2020
469
I am impressed to see how sensitive ESET is with regards to PUP/Adware detection. What is your opinion about the product? Is it worth switching to this product even if I lose remote control functionality (example Bitdefender Central)?

For me, it's a reason not to switch to ESET. KMS it's not a virus, it's not a Trojan, it's an application that it's used to make legit another application without their permission. Why ESET will be your conscience? Let me chose if I want to use a KMS or not, I want an antivirus not a digital conscience.... This is it's why I like Kaspersky, it doesn't care about KMS and friends in 80% of the situation.
 

Nightwalker

Level 23
Verified
Helper
Top poster
Content Creator
Well-known
May 26, 2014
1,275
ESET is one of the best security solutions out there, consistently being a top tier product with a real nice balance of detection, false positive rate and system performance impact.

It is very good by default and can be extensively customized, it is one of the few antivirus that I dont have any reserves about and that can be used for any user in any environment , it is that good.

Now, for the question about changing from Bitdefender, if the latter is working, why bother?
 

Vitali Ortzi

Level 22
Verified
Top poster
Well-known
Dec 12, 2016
1,113
For me, it's a reason not to switch to ESET. KMS it's not a virus, it's not a Trojan, it's an application that it's used to make legit another application without their permission. Why ESET will be your conscience? Let me chose if I want to use a KMS or not, I want an antivirus not a digital conscience.... This is it's why I like Kaspersky, it doesn't care about KMS and friends in 80% of the situation.
Still eset is good for piracy and I had less false positives with it over Kaspersky but I use Kaspersky as it’s the best overall balance in my opinion basically similar performance or a tiny bit more then eset nowadays while protection is better

Personally I won’t touch bitdefender but by default it’s more secure then eset
 

Anthony Qian

Level 6
Verified
Well-known
Apr 17, 2021
276
This example cannot show how powerful ESET's engine is. The sample, as you said, is a Windows activator and different AV vendors have different viewpoints on it. Because such tools, if not trojanized, usually do no harm to your system, some antivirus software, such as Kaspersky, will not consider them malicious. Some antivirus vendors, such as ESET and Norton, have zero tolerance for "illegitimate" tools, therefore classifying them as a PUA or even a Trojan... It's just a matter of different detection criteria. When testing PUA, many AV testing organizations mainly focus on Adware, etc., instead of those samples in the gray area between clean and malicious.
 
Last edited:

KonradPL

Level 5
Verified
Well-known
May 1, 2018
224
This example cannot show how powerful ESET's engine is. The sample, as you said, is a Windows activator and different AV vendors have different viewpoints on it. Because such tools, if not trojanized, usually do no harm to your system, some antivirus software, such as Kaspersky, will not consider them malicious. Some antivirus vendors, such as ESET and Norton, have zero tolerance for "illegitimate" tools, therefore classifying them as a PUA or even a Trojan... It's just a matter of different detection criteria. When testing PUA, many AV testing organizations mainly focus on Adware, etc., instead of those samples in the gray area between clean and malicious.
it`s depend of user habits and what is better for him. Personaly I don`t accept activators, cracks, keygens etc. On the other hand it could be a way malware to infect OS
 

roger_m

Level 36
Verified
Top poster
Content Creator
Dec 4, 2014
2,571
For me, it's a reason not to switch to ESET. KMS it's not a virus, it's not a Trojan, it's an application that it's used to make legit another application without their permission. Why ESET will be your conscience? Let me chose if I want to use a KMS or not, I want an antivirus not a digital conscience.... This is it's why I like Kaspersky, it doesn't care about KMS and friends in 80% of the situation.
I agree. What matters to me is the detection of actual malware, rather than harmless cracks, PUPs etc.
 

Anthony Qian

Level 6
Verified
Well-known
Apr 17, 2021
276
it`s depend of user habits and what is better for him. Personaly I don`t accept activators, cracks, keygens etc. On the other hand it could be a way malware to infect OS
Before using such tools, my suggestion is that users should first look up their reputation in the Kaspersky Security Network. Some activators with high reputation are actually safe to use, which, of course, is not morally or legally right...

However, if they are blacklisted by Kaspersky, they might potentially corrupt your system and you should not use them. In fact, Kaspersky also classifies some potentially dangerous activators/keygens as PUP.
 

Guilhermesene

Level 6
Thread author
Verified
Well-known
Jun 1, 2019
272
This example cannot show how powerful ESET's engine is. The sample, as you said, is a Windows activator and different AV vendors have different viewpoints on it. Because such tools, if not trojanized, usually do no harm to your system, some antivirus software, such as Kaspersky, will not consider them malicious. Some antivirus vendors, such as ESET and Norton, have zero tolerance for "illegitimate" tools, therefore classifying them as a PUA or even a Trojan... It's just a matter of different detection criteria. When testing PUA, many AV testing organizations mainly focus on Adware, etc., instead of those samples in the gray area between clean and malicious.
In reality I don't use pirated products. All software installed on my machine is licensed (such as Macrium Reflect among others), when I can't buy it, I look for a similar and free alternative (eg 7-zip) which for me is even better than paid software such as WinRar.

I didn't know that KMS was something legitimate, in my mind I always associated KMS with activators mainly from Windows.

At this point I returned a clean Windows image and I'm using KIS in default denial mode (to have another layer of security), but I confess that I was impressed with ESET regarding PUPS/Adware.
 

Guilhermesene

Level 6
Thread author
Verified
Well-known
Jun 1, 2019
272
Its belong to Eset policy against crack & patch....
detecting a crack dose not mean (oh its great detection....)
btw , Eset is good software (in level of detection...)
This point of view from ESET is really interesting. I don't know why but, it registered in my mind that the software that detected these KMS files as malicious were great at protection (don't ask me why I think so), but now regarding your comment it opened my mind about it and I will certainly change of opinion.
 

omidomi

Level 70
Verified
Helper
Top poster
Malware Hunter
Well-known
Apr 5, 2014
5,993
This point of view from ESET is really interesting. I don't know why but, it registered in my mind that the software that detected these KMS files as malicious were great at protection (don't ask me why I think so), but now regarding your comment it opened my mind about it and I will certainly change of opinion.
If you hate cracker & cracked software , YES , great company :D
but many companies just see that software hurt system or not , they do't attention to marked as cracked software as malware untill that do't hurt your system....
 
Last edited: