Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="devjit2020" data-source="post: 1084171" data-attributes="member: 94800"><p>I’m not into any argument there. We all know the efforts Shadowra &amp; CS puts into their videos. My point is that these two tests do not prove that ESET is a weak product as one member states. Defender &amp; Eset handles threats in different ways. We all know Eset has one of the best signatures and hence it’s mostly dependant on these. WD has a mixture of ML, cloud &amp; sigs. If you look at another angle, you’ll see WD CF access blocking many legitimate apps and in the false positive tests it also shows. Eset&nbsp; has no FP. Their goal is to set a balance between detection &amp; usability. An advanced user can tweak the settings to make it a lot more stronger at the cost of usability. I was once a tester of ESET in this forum (username wraith ). With my configured settings, added FW &amp; HIPS rules, I’ve yet to become infected (except once because of my own foolishness).</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="devjit2020, post: 1084171, member: 94800"] I’m not into any argument there. We all know the efforts Shadowra & CS puts into their videos. My point is that these two tests do not prove that ESET is a weak product as one member states. Defender & Eset handles threats in different ways. We all know Eset has one of the best signatures and hence it’s mostly dependant on these. WD has a mixture of ML, cloud & sigs. If you look at another angle, you’ll see WD CF access blocking many legitimate apps and in the false positive tests it also shows. Eset has no FP. Their goal is to set a balance between detection & usability. An advanced user can tweak the settings to make it a lot more stronger at the cost of usability. I was once a tester of ESET in this forum (username wraith ). With my configured settings, added FW & HIPS rules, I’ve yet to become infected (except once because of my own foolishness). [/QUOTE]

Verification