is ESET good for computer noobs?
- Thread starter Brie
- Start date
Please provide comments and solutions that are helpful to the author of this topic.
I think even Eset got faulty updates during last year (Q4). But that did not made headlines much compared to the Crowdstrike.
Compromising the corporate sector creates more headlines than the home users.
Eset also got it's fair share of the business market it's just that Crowdstrike is at the top according to Gartner.
Attachments
The high-profile incidents are just the tip of the iceberg. Below the surface, a constant flow of less-severe, yet still impactful, issues are a normal part of the software update cycle for any large-scale product, especially those that interact so intimately with a user's system like antivirus software.
False positives are a frequent source of user frustration and are well-documented in tech forums and reviews. False positives are a constant issue with antivirus software, and while independent tests may show relatively low numbers, the impact of even a few can be significant. It's a trade-off between aggressive detection (which can lead to FPs) and missing real threats. Both Norton and McAfee have a history of erring on the side of caution, which has led to numerous complaints about false positives.
Microsoft as the "king of problematic updates" is a common sentiment within the tech community. Microsoft has a long history of pushing out updates, especially for Windows, that cause various issues, from breaking specific software to causing performance problems and, in some cases, rendering systems unbootable. These incidents, while frequent, are often more about compatibility issues with the vast array of hardware and software configurations than a single, critical error. This is in contrast to the specific, targeted, and sometimes catastrophic errors seen in some of Norton and McAfee's updates, which have often been traced to a single faulty file or definition.
False positives are a frequent source of user frustration and are well-documented in tech forums and reviews. False positives are a constant issue with antivirus software, and while independent tests may show relatively low numbers, the impact of even a few can be significant. It's a trade-off between aggressive detection (which can lead to FPs) and missing real threats. Both Norton and McAfee have a history of erring on the side of caution, which has led to numerous complaints about false positives.
Microsoft as the "king of problematic updates" is a common sentiment within the tech community. Microsoft has a long history of pushing out updates, especially for Windows, that cause various issues, from breaking specific software to causing performance problems and, in some cases, rendering systems unbootable. These incidents, while frequent, are often more about compatibility issues with the vast array of hardware and software configurations than a single, critical error. This is in contrast to the specific, targeted, and sometimes catastrophic errors seen in some of Norton and McAfee's updates, which have often been traced to a single faulty file or definition.
Most I have faced recently were behavioral protection-related.
Faced FPs with B, K, and Symantec, far more than MD and Avast-AVG.
I think Crowdstrike share of corporate sector is larger than ESET (considering it is a solely corporate product) which made the impact of temporary fault stronger.
There are millions of users that are renewing their subscriptions year after year with the same antivirus software, they are happy, they’ve never had any issues and would swear to the efficacy of the software.
Antivirus software is also linked to specific hardware and software configurations, after all, it is the processor that runs the logics.
It’s all just a matter of personal and subjective opinions, and experiences.
There are people who have used Norton/McAfee/F-Secure, X,Y,Z 15-20 years and have no complaints.
The false positives, how hard is it to create an exception? All software has bugs and all AV produce false positives. Not sure what’s the point and how it is related to wether or not Eset is suitable for noobs, which is the question here.
Antivirus software is also linked to specific hardware and software configurations, after all, it is the processor that runs the logics.
It’s all just a matter of personal and subjective opinions, and experiences.
There are people who have used Norton/McAfee/F-Secure, X,Y,Z 15-20 years and have no complaints.
The false positives, how hard is it to create an exception? All software has bugs and all AV produce false positives. Not sure what’s the point and how it is related to wether or not Eset is suitable for noobs, which is the question here.
Last edited:
It is techniqually easy, only after getting confident it is a false positive.
I rather have False Positives than False Negatives
following the concept "better safe than sorry".
True. Easier to create an exception on the FP( few clicks here and there) than doing Cyber Incident Response which is more troublesome( needs to report to regulators in a timely manner,need to answer the W's with the C Level execs etc,need to investigate employees etc)
You can always contact customer care.
We forgot to mention FSecure is now using the Avira Engine. Better to do a trial of the AV mentioned here and observe which one suit your needs,pc specs,budget etc etc.
We forgot to mention FSecure is now using the Avira Engine. Better to do a trial of the AV mentioned here and observe which one suit your needs,pc specs,budget etc etc.
Always do a trial and see what works for you. That’s it, nothing else can be done.
Observe how the software behaves (plus by the time you try this and that, you are gaining 4-5 months protection for free).
You may also like...
-
Does Thunderbird download spam emails on the computer?
- Started by IceLion36
- Replies: 15
-
-
-
-
ESET Internet Security (1 Year / 1 PC) Latest Version + Free Updates €17,90- Started by Brownie2019
- Replies: 1
