Question is ESET good for computer noobs?

[Brie]

hi
is ESET good for PC illiterates?

 

[bazang]

For these people, a more suitable option is something much more quiet, that will only announce itself once in a while, potentially never ever.

The one that produced the fewest call backs when installed on computer illiterate users' systems has been F-Secure - which I am not saying the OP should use. Not promoting here. The next one with a few call backs is Bitdefender.

To be perfectly honest, if the users had any problems, then 99.99% of the time they did not know it or just did not bother to report it. Go back a year or two later, and some systems would have PUA/PUP garbage on them.

 

[Divergent]

The problem with Eset is that for it to provide efficient protection, it needs to be initially configured correctly, and possibly, some alerts may have to be displayed from time to time (HIPS, Folder Guard, LiveGuard) and so on.
The configuration straight out of the box is not the most efficient one.
This mandates that both the administrator and the Eset user have basic knowledge of the product (at least).

The alerts can inevitably overwhelm someone who’s got no idea what all that is about (think parents, girlfriend/boyfriend and so on).

For these people, a more suitable option is something much more quiet, that will only announce itself once in a while, potentially never ever.

Not to mention solutions like Bitdefender and McAfee come with SCAM protections that remove suspicious texts and emails.
And they usually cost cheaper than Eset.

So for me, it’s a no-brainer who to choose.

McAfee, Trend Micro, Norton/Avast, Bitdefender.

Eset is configured to be non-intrusive out of the box. It uses Eset LiveGrid, its cloud-based reputation system, to automatically handle most threats. It will quarantine known malware and suspicious files without a single pop-up, which makes it perfect for the vast majority of users who are simply browsing the web and using common applications.

Many users do not even open the GUI after installation. The program runs quietly in the background, only alerting the user in the rare event of a major, system-level threat that requires a decision.

I added an additional link in my previous post to advise the user to combine the concept of Habit-Based security. By teaching the user a few simple rules, like "don't click on suspicious links" or "don't open unexpected attachments," you've already mitigated most of the common threats that the antivirus would have to deal with. In this scenario, the antivirus acts as a final safety net, which is exactly what Eset's default configuration is designed to do

 

[Trident]

It will quarantine known malware and suspicious files without a single pop-up, which makes it perfect for the vast majority of users who are simply browsing the web and using common applications.

There are pop-ups. They manifest in the form of LiveGuard and Folder Guard Alerts (at the very least).
That’s if Eset Ultimate is used, in other editions these features are not available.
Of course, it can all be configured (through poking around the settings) so no alerts will be displayed.

 

[Divergent]

There are pop-ups. They manifest in the form of LiveGuard and Folder Guard Alerts (at the very least).
That’s if Eset Ultimate is used, in other editions these features are not available.
Of course, it can all be configured (through poking around the settings) so no alerts will be displayed.

ESET Home Security Essential is designed to provide a very quiet, low-pop-up experience, much like the older ESET Internet Security product did for many users out of the box.

It is good to distinguish this, thank you for your input.

 

[Sorrento]

I am not better than anyone; I am the least experienced among the rest of members, just want to do the job with least possible effort.

You have options available to you. You can use one of these methods to stop the tampering.

Administrative accounts and passwords restrict who can make changes to critical system settings.

Parental controls, while often used for children, can be configured to lock down a system for any user, limiting access to certain applications and enforcing time limits.

Tamper protection is a core security feature that actively prevents malicious software and users from disabling or modifying the security program's settings without deliberate action. These features are the industry's answer to the your frustration with people "faffing around" and causing technical problems.

I do realise that & to a degree i wasn't being entirely serious - Locking downs friends & relatives PC's is OK but not always what they wish, (i usually image their systems anyway) but we are living on planet earth & people are who they are - My point was that AV which is critical software & IMHO the less that can be changed by those who do not understand can be helpful - ESET has many options & changing some could compromise its function? I have a good friend who strays to the literal in conversation that not meant totally literal so I often have to add (this is a joke C)

 

[Parkinsond]

the less that can be changed by those who do not understand can be helpful

There is a good solution for such a dilemma; AV settings include "advanced" mode, only tech savvy users (and a minor percentage of curious, average users) will like to enable such a mode to play with more options in settings.
Personally I do not enjoy fiddling with too many options of settings in general, not only for AV, unless the default settings are inconvenient (such as disabled user decision by default in K).

 

[Divergent]

I do realise that & to a degree i wasn't being entirely serious - Locking downs friends & relatives PC's is OK but not always what they wish, (i usually image their systems anyway) but we are living on planet earth & people are who they are - My point was that AV which is critical software & IMHO the less that can be changed by those who do not understand can be helpful - ESET has many options & changing some could compromise its function? I have a good friend who strays to the literal in conversation that not meant totally literal so I often have to add (this is a joke C)

Joking aside, this was a good opportunity to explain the options available to others who may encounter this problem.

 

[Trident]

I do realise that & to a degree i wasn't being entirely serious - Locking downs friends & relatives PC's is OK but not always what they wish, (i usually image their systems anyway) but we are living on planet earth & people are who they are - My point was that AV which is critical software & IMHO the less that can be changed by those who do not understand can be helpful - ESET has many options & changing some could compromise its function? I have a good friend who strays to the literal in conversation that not meant totally literal so I often have to add (this is a joke C)

Typically when a setting that compromises security is changed, some form of warning will appear on the UI (usually a red X and “you are not protected” notice).

Unless this appears, it can be assumed that the settings being changed, do not compromise security.

So users will be happy with a well configured Eset.

Problem is, how exactly would you know what they want and need, so you can configure the product accordingly… in the end for any misconfiguration they will blame you. They will say “I thought you were an expert, you can’t configure one antivirus properly”.

In the light of this, I keep my opinion that AVs with little to no settings are much better suited to protect such users.

 

[stonjean633]

Typically when a setting that compromises security is changed, some form of warning will appear on the UI (usually a red X and “you are not protected” notice).

Unless this appears, it can be assumed that the settings being changed, do not compromise security.

So users will be happy with a well configured Eset.

Problem is, how exactly would you know what they want and need, so you can configure the product accordingly… in the end for any misconfiguration they will blame you. They will say “I thought you were an expert, you can’t configure one antivirus properly”.

In the light of this, I keep my opinion that AVs with little to no settings are much better suited to protect such users.

Little to no settings, less notifications and popups asking the user what to do with the file,or allow or deny the connection etc etc. It's like you are the AV, you should be the expert on analyzing such events and still asking the home user what to do. In the enterprise world it's a different story thou.

When I was a junior in the AV industry, I accidentally DENIED something. I lost remote connection and all internet access for a client (Govt DoD) during malware troubleshooting. It was a learning experience for me to go for all the hassle and knowing it was the Firewall asking Hello, would you allow me or not. I figured it out too late. My bad!

My point is, if it happens to the Tech people what more to the average end user. I too feel that ESET got lots of notifications and configs that can lead to misconfiguration.
On the flip side, I praise Eset for being so light in the system it's like Panda Dome in terms of system impact.

 

[Divergent]

For many users, sticking with the default security features in Windows is the best approach. It's often the safest option because if something goes wrong with a third-party product, like a false positive, many users don't know how to handle it.

From my long-term experience with products like ESET, I've found that leaving the default settings alone and focusing on good user habits is the key to success.

The fear that third-party antivirus software will "screw up" a system from tampering is often overblown, especially when I've seen major vendors like Norton and McAfee cause more harm from updates over the years.

 

[Parkinsond]

especially when I've seen major vendors like Norton and McAfee cause more harm from updates over the years

I feel the later part of the sentence is not matching the earlier part "The fear that third-party antivirus software will "screw up" a system is often overblown"!

 

[Trident]

I feel the later part of the sentence not matching the earlier part "The fear that third-party antivirus software will "screw up" a system is often overblown"!

Yeah, exactly what I thought too. Furthermore, I’ve used Norton veeeery long time (and everyone around me) and I’ve seen a defective update once.

 

[Divergent]

I feel the later part of the sentence is not matching the earlier part "The fear that third-party antivirus software will "screw up" a system is often overblown"!

I edited and placed tampering in that sentence structure since that's a common concern in the debate. The program works well for everyone I've installed it for, even beginners know not to change the advanced settings.

 

[Brie]

thank you all for the replies.

I remember Bitdefender as being complicated.

I think that I am going to do a trail of 'F-Secure'.

 

[stonjean633]

Yeah, exactly what I thought too. Furthermore, I’ve used Norton veeeery long time (and everyone around me) and I’ve seen a defective update once.

Defective update, that sounds trouble.... I remember LPT$VPN 594 during 2005 causing 100% cpu with TM products. Even McAfee, Norton and recently Crowdstrike wreak havoc on faulty updates.

 

[Parkinsond]

Defective update, that sounds trouble.... I remember LPT$VPN 594 during 2005 causing 100% cpu with TM products. Even McAfee, Norton and recently Crowdstrike wreak havoc on faulty updates.

Long time ago, Symantec corporate AV after definitions update started insanely quarantining lots of system files as malicious.

 

[stonjean633]

Long time ago, Symantec corporate AV after definitions update started insanely quarantining lots of system files as malicious.

Fun times....oh boy. But at least they learned from it.

Before a Signature is release, it will go through an intensive QA Process before being released to Update Servers. But still things like this happens and humans tend to make mistakes.

 

[Trident]

Fun times....oh boy. But at least they learned from it.

Before a Signature is release, it will go through an intensive QA Process before being released to Update Servers. But still things like this happens and humans tend to make mistakes.

These mishaps are not reserved just to third-party AVs or just to Symantec or one vendor. Everyone’s got a history with these.

Also, talking about defective/problematic updates in the context of Microsoft and Windows… we all know who’s pushing the highest number of problematic updates.
In fact, you better go and count the updates that didn’t cause problems.

So third-party AVs have got nothing to do with these problems.
Such false positives happened many years ago, since then vendors have implemented machine creation and validation of signatures.

 

[Parkinsond]

These mishaps are not reserved just to third-party AVs or just to Symantec or one vendor. Everyone’s got a history with these.

Also, talking about defective/problematic updates in the context of Microsoft and Windows… we all know who’s pushing the highest number of problematic updates.
In fact, you better go and count the updates that didn’t cause problems.

So third-party AVs have got nothing to do with these problems.
Such false positives happened many years ago, since then vendors have implemented machine creation and validation of signatures.

It is a day-to-day observation; FP here, tomorrow it is there; FN there, tomorrow it is here; no security solution, whatever how much I like, is foolproof; not a fan of anyone, just selecting the least trouble-prone.

 

[stonjean633]

These mishaps are not reserved just to third-party AVs or just to Symantec or one vendor. Everyone’s got a history with these.

Also, talking about defective/problematic updates in the context of Microsoft and Windows… we all know who’s pushing the highest number of problematic updates.
In fact, you better go and count the updates that didn’t cause problems.

So third-party AVs have got nothing to do with these problems.
Such false positives happened many years ago, since then vendors have implemented machine creation and validation of signatures.

Also those were the big names in AV that's why one faulty update affects many users worldwide. It shows Consumers and Corps trust those AV vendors.
If it's some unknown or unproven AV brand ( eg Protegent, SiyanoAV or some startup AV ) it won't make it to the headlines as if nothing happened. Less users, less impact,less noise and exposure.