Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Anthony Qian" data-source="post: 984338" data-attributes="member: 91446">Yes. I actually love ESET’s detection methodology - using one signature to detect a number of virus variants, unlike other AVs tending to name new malware as Trojan.Generic.xxx.But ESET is too arrogant to consider users’ feedback, including sample submissions. Also, ESET is crazy about false positive control, which may partially result in its bad performance at detecting malware. IMO, if I have zero tolerance to false positives, I won’t install any AV products. A certain number (below industry avg.) of false positives is acceptable, as long as it’s easy to exclude and submit samples and the vendor can rectify this error in a timely manner.I have tried ESSP with LiveGuard included, and I must say LiveGuard’s behavior is annoying because it will block unknown apps from being accessed for some minutes and the detection rate has not significantly improved.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Anthony Qian, post: 984338, member: 91446"] Yes. I actually love ESET’s detection methodology - using one signature to detect a number of virus variants, unlike other AVs tending to name new malware as Trojan.Generic.xxx. But ESET is too arrogant to consider users’ feedback, including sample submissions. Also, ESET is crazy about false positive control, which may partially result in its bad performance at detecting malware. IMO, if I have zero tolerance to false positives, I won’t install any AV products. A certain number (below industry avg.) of false positives is acceptable, as long as it’s easy to exclude and submit samples and the vendor can rectify this error in a timely manner. I have tried ESSP with LiveGuard included, and I must say LiveGuard’s behavior is annoying because it will block unknown apps from being accessed for some minutes and the detection rate has not significantly improved. [/QUOTE]

Verification