Known Problems with Most Common AV's

[Venustus]

The UI is very confusing with small text and grouped settings. Not easy for new users (I had problems with tweaking)

Agreed,they need to redesign it.

 

[davisd]

Many false and misguiding information is posted here, including personal opinions which doesn't reflect the products general usage problems. Not including the products version in which the bugs/problems listed still persists/are worked on by development of company X is another problem, as many new readers who want to chose appropriate Antivirus for their system, might mistakenly get steered away by reading this topic, if first post is not frequently updated with the latest news and code repaired/adjusted in X antivirus software. I like the idea, but by listing that somebody said that "product X has high memory usage/UI is childish" is just innacurate to "public" readers and doesn't help in any way.

 

[Mahesh Sudula]

Trend Micro :
Pros :
Nice UI, Steady protection and disinfection capabilities, Cloud assisted signatures, Very very limited signatures offline
Great web blocking and anti phishing, Thorough blocking and very good unknown removal, Awkward update procedure, BB is very very good and added ML is a plus, Cheap to buy
Cons :
Silent system hogger, Data harvester, Merged threat labs with NSA, Quarantine does not allow manual deletion ( only after an year).
Top notch file reputation mechanism ( Fp's bonus), Seems to hacked and looted by many hacking groups around, Most wanted by many Black hats.

 

[Divine_Barakah]

Trend Micro :
Pros :
Nice UI, Steady protection and disinfection capabilities, Cloud assisted signatures, Very very limited signatures offline
Great web blocking and anti phishing, Thorough blocking and very good unknown removal, Awkward update procedure, BB is very very good and added ML is a plus, Cheap to buy
Cons :
Silent system hogger, Data harvester, Merged threat labs with NSA, Quarantine does not allow manual deletion ( only after an year).
Top notch file reputation mechanism ( Fp's bonus), Seems to hacked and looted by many hacking groups around, Most wanted by many Black hats.

I really like Trend Micro but it is a little heavy for me. Anyway one could find cheap keys for it and it offers decent protection.

Agreed,they need to redesign it.

You may find this weird but I like Eset's UI

 

[Venustus]

You may find this weird but I like Eset's UI

It seems cluttered and not very intuitive for novice users,nevertheless everyone has different opinions

 

[ForgottenSeer 72227]

when a new version of firefox is released, the problem can repeat
kaspersky used to have the same issue with chrome in the past and require a new patch update from kaspersky to fix
it seems like firefox is having a hard time dealing with AVs: kaspersky, avast, sophos,...
chrome has been stable for a while

I think part of the issue is that Firefox maintains their own cert store, where as chrome and everyone else use the one built into Windows. Firefox can also use the one built into Windows, but doesn't by default if I'm not mistaken. I think this is one of the things that Mozilla is trying to address. I guess the question is now, is it Mozilla's fault or 3rd party AV's? One could argue is what why is Mozilla maintaining their own cert store? The other side can argue that well, Firefox is Mozilla's product so they should be allowed to do what they want. To be fair 3rd party AV's should know by now how this works when it comes to Firefox. I don't blame Mozilla at all and quite frankly it's their product, so they shouldn't be getting all the flack for something they designed and has worked for years without any issues until 3rd party AV's started doing HTTPS scanning.

I guess one of the main questions is, is HTTPS scanning even worth all the trouble it causes? Regardless of the fact that these companies are the "good guys", it still breaks HTTPS and how it was designed to work.

 

[ForgottenSeer 72227]

It seems cluttered and not very intuitive for novice users,nevertheless everyone has different opinions

I think this may be a good point to highlight in this thread. Some of the issues that people have listed for various products can be attributed to personal preference, may not necessarily be a con for some. Also, I guess another thing to keep in mind is when was the last time people used some of these products when they encountered these issues.

Don't get me wrong, I think this thread is a great idea, and does highlight the fact that every product has it's cons, as no product is perfect and doesn't meet everyone's needs. It's just something to keep in the back our your minds. Furthermore just because someone may see a product they like/use listed, it doesn't mean they need to stop using it. If it's working for you and meets your needs don't change because you see cons for your product listed here.

 

[LahiruRajinda]

ESET- Average detection rate/ Weak HIPS,BB
Avira- Launcher bundled with PUP
Avast- Shady tactics to force users to buy their product
BullGuard- Huge database & installation size

 

[Evjl's Rain]

I think this may be a good point to highlight in this thread. Some of the issues that people have listed for various products can be attributed to personal preference, may not necessarily be a con for some. Also, I guess another thing to keep in mind is when was the last time people used some of these products when they encountered these issues.

Don't get me wrong, I think this thread is a great idea, and does highlight the fact that every product has it's cons, as no product is perfect and doesn't meet everyone's needs. It's just something to keep in the back our your minds. Furthermore just because someone may see a product they like/use listed, it doesn't mean they need to stop using it. If it's working for you and meets your needs don't change because you see cons for your product listed here.

if people use it to tweak, it will be a nightmare but if if they use it to do some basic things like exclusion, entering firewall, or changing 1-2 options, it will fine and people like it due to the clean ui

 

[ForgottenSeer 72227]

if people use it to tweak, it will be a nightmare but if if they use it to do some basic things like exclusion, entering firewall, or changing 1-2 options, it will fine and people like it due to the clean ui

That's totally fair and I agree with you. My post wasn't necessarily directed at you, or what you said about Eset sorry if it came across that way.It was just wanted to highlight a fact for someone to think about in regards to all products. I've used and like Eset too, but I too can also see how the UI and settings page can get very confusing fast. So it's why I always tell people to try a product for yourself and see what you think, as no product is perfect and doesn't meet everyone's needs.

 

[brambedkar59]

I think part of the issue is that Firefox maintains their own cert store, where as chrome and everyone else use the one built into Windows. Firefox can also use the one built into Windows, but doesn't by default if I'm not mistaken. I think this is one of the things that Mozilla is trying to address. I guess the question is now, is it Mozilla's fault or 3rd party AV's? One could argue is what why is Mozilla maintaining their own cert store? The other side can argue that well, Firefox is Mozilla's product so they should be allowed to do what they want. To be fair 3rd party AV's should know by now how this works when it comes to Firefox. I don't blame Mozilla at all and quite frankly it's their product, so they shouldn't be getting all the flack for something they designed and has worked for years without any issues until 3rd party AV's started doing HTTPS scanning.

I guess one of the main questions is, is HTTPS scanning even worth all the trouble it causes? Regardless of the fact that these companies are the "good guys", it still breaks HTTPS and how it was designed to work.

Mozilla is pretty serious with their Cert store.

Currently, Mozilla is caught between a rock and a hard place because DarkMatter has a history of shady operations but also has a clean history as a CA, without any known abuses.

On one side Mozilla is pressured by organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Amnesty International, and The Intercept to decline DarkMatter's request, while on the other side DarkMatter claims it never abused its TLS certificate issuance powers for anything bad, hence there's no reason to treat it any differently from other CAs that have applied in the past.

Fears and paranoia are high because Mozilla's list of trusted root certificates is also used by some Linux distros. Many fear that once approved on Mozilla's certificate store list, DarkMatter may be able to issue TLS certificates that will be able to intercept internet traffic without triggering any errors on some Linux systems, usually deployed in data centers and at cloud service providers

Surveillance firm asks Mozilla to be included in Firefox's certificate whitelist

Mozilla caught between a rock and a hard place on the issue of DarkMatter root certificates.

www.zdnet.com

 

[Wraith]

there are some. most of them are related to its protection. I can submit some but I'm afraid some ESET users may disagree

There's no scope of disagreement my friend. A software will have bugs and they should be reported. I asked this question because I myself have found some issues with ESET and so I was surprised that no one else has found out any bugs in ESET till now.

 

[Wraith]

ESET:
- The UI is very confusing with small text and grouped settings. Not easy for new users (I had problems with tweaking)
- Scan mode ("Scan On" option) in "Real-time file system protection" needs more detail explanation in app when clicking on the ! mark. Users have to visit help.eset.com to read more detail about it (and they do explain)
- Poor zero-day protection = silent HIPS in default settings
- Newly developed Behavioral blocker is not yet competent
- HIPS is HIPS. it can block everything including safe files. It's not easy and takes time to configure => not user-friendly (any HIPS in general)
+ HIPS can make your PC unbootable if you don't know how to use it
- "Enable detection of potentially unsafe applications" is a real FP machine (not to be confused with "Enable... unwanted applications" = detecting PUPs). This blocked too many files on my PC. However, the option contributes to ESET's great signatures => FPs (That's why they give an option to enable or disable it during installation, but not the other one)
- No free version
- Admins usually find a lot of reasons to defend their products when there is a flaw or bypass discovered by an organization or an user

(- for unknown reason, my first installation of ESET made my PC unusable until I went to Safe Mode and uninstalled ESET. The second try worked)

Yes these are all very valid points there mate. But except for the last part I won't count them as bugs. The zero day protection of ESET falls behind even free av's like AVG. I'm not talking about the protection perspective rather I'm talking about bugs like which BD has like after virus disinfection all hidden files and folders will be enabled.

 

[JB007]

For all 3rd party AVs except ESET. Stupid leftovers after uninstall that are not removed and keep running in background and uninstall can break components. For example KAV remover can break system restore.

Hello @uduoix
You are right for KAV remover ! Troubleshoot - Error 0x81000203

 

[Dave Russo]

For all 3rd party AVs except ESET. Stupid leftovers after uninstall that are not removed and keep running in background and uninstall can break components. For example KAV remover can break system restore.

Also removing Eset can only be done in safe mode with there Esetuninstaller application,at least {I couldn"t get rid of it without it}

 

[436880927]

Also removing Eset can only be done in safe mode with there Esetuninstaller application,at least {I couldn"t get rid of it without it}

It's just the minority - the majority can uninstall ESET fine. Nonetheless, ESET do have a cleanup tool as well just in case things go wrong (which does occasionally happen).

 

[JB007]

there are some. most of them are related to its protection. I can submit some but I'm afraid some ESET users may disagree

Hello @Evjl's Rain
I am looking forward to your post !

 

[Venustus]

Also removing Eset can only be done in safe mode with there Esetuninstaller application,at least {I couldn"t get rid of it without it}

And you need to reinstall your network drivers after using it

 

[436880927]

And you need to reinstall your network drivers after using it

I've seen this issue, I can confirm it used to exist at least. I do not know if ESET have fixed it. I spectated it several years ago when their firewall driver was causing a system to enter a BSOD loop and after it was uninstalled in safe mode, the network drivers were a mess.

 

[bribon77]

Comodo Internet Security.
A strength But the opposite is that it is difficult to try to configure it. and sometimes it is difficult to understand (For a new user).