Battle Qihoo 360 VS ESET Smart Security 8

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Manzai

Thread author
Hello :)

Are you like ESET or Qihoo ;)

For me

ESET : Good detection, very light but bad in 0-day malware (No configuration)

Qihoo : Very good detection, light but too many false positive and update for BD and Avira engine (1 update / day )
 

Petrovic

Level 64
Verified
Honorary Member
Top Poster
Well-known
Apr 25, 2013
5,355
Only true AV's, at this moment, are Avast, AVG, Avira, Dr.Web, Bitdefender, F Secure (own lab, own engine), ESET, Panda, Kaspersky, Trend Micro, McAfee, Sophos and Norton. My top 3 always were ESET, Kaspersky and Norton.
f-secure - no own engine, it cloud detection
Only true AV's, at this moment:
Avast/Dr.Web/ESET/Kaspersky/Microsoft/Symantec
 

Malware1

Level 76
Sep 28, 2011
6,545
Only true AV's, at this moment, are Avast, AVG, Avira, Dr.Web, Bitdefender, F Secure (own lab, own engine), ESET, Panda, Kaspersky, Trend Micro, McAfee, Sophos and Norton. My top 3 always were ESET, Kaspersky and Norton.
Others are just copying one or more of them, using their engines, their definitions, or both, making hybrid Antivirus solutions that are too heavy or too unstable, having too false positives, and for the sanity, they are just 2 or more AV's combined together. IMO others are not comparable to these above in any possible way.
Except AVG, Avira, Bitdefender, Panda, Trend Micro and Sophos :)
Maybe except F-Secure too, but I don't know much about it.
 

BoraMurdar

Community Manager
Verified
Staff Member
Well-known
Aug 30, 2012
6,598
f-secure - no own engine, it cloud detection
Only true AV's, at this moment:
Avast/Dr.Web/ESET/Kaspersky/Microsoft/Symantec
As far as I know, F-Secure has has own AV lab, next Avast and Kaspersky I think it's most recognizable one in catching new malware in the wild. I know that F-secure take the definitions from Kaspersky, and after that from Bitdefender, but they always add their own engine to the product. That way you can notice that (maybe in 2012) F-Secure has always had a better detection than Bitdefender (I think it was product of the year)
 

Adhit Prakosho

Level 19
Verified
Top Poster
Well-known
Sep 14, 2014
929
ESET will not save you when it come to unknown malware, qihoo at least will block the start up entry from being created. which after reboot the malware is on the pc but not active. that's a big different for an average user
how is it possible Eset did not know a new malware because Mr. @Petrovic and Mr. @Malware1 always hunting for new malware and Sud.
ESET lab also working hard to provide the best service. for example, I is new user will trust ESET can protect my computer.
although there is no guarantee of 100% safe and I probably would learn and ask people who have experience in using ESET.
how to properly set up the ESET, in order to get a hard security. :)

I'm sorry, my english is bad. Peace :)
 

nissimezra

Level 25
Verified
Apr 3, 2014
1,460
how is it possible Eset did not know a new malware because Mr. @Petrovic and Mr. @Malware1 always hunting for new malware and Sud.
ESET lab also working hard to provide the best service. for example, I is new user will trust ESET can protect my computer.
although there is no guarantee of 100% safe and I probably would learn and ask people who have experience in using ESET.
how to properly set up the ESET, in order to get a hard security. :)

I'm sorry, my English is bad. Peace :)
i did 3 test with ESET and 360IS both unknown ransomware in all 3 cases ESET did not do anything to protect me but the 3 tests with unknown malware 360IS did prevent the ransomware from creating a startup entry, in all 3 casses after force restart no signed of the malware but in 1 case file were encrypted

which one would you choose now? of course ESET because it costs money and has a good name, it doesn't matter if it failed to protect you from a ransomeware you will still go with the name. That's the power of the marketing.
 

nsm0220

Level 21
Verified
Sep 9, 2013
1,054
I would very well use ESET Nod32 or SmartSecurity, over 360 Internet Security or Total Security.
but one trouble with eset is their zero day protection doesn't work at all unless you configured it

Only true AV's, at this moment, are Avast, AVG, Avira, Dr.Web, Bitdefender, F Secure (own lab, own engine), ESET, Panda, Kaspersky, Trend Micro, McAfee, Sophos and Norton. My top 3 always were ESET, Kaspersky and Norton.
Others are just copying one or more of them, using their engines, their definitions, or both, making hybrid Antivirus solutions that are too heavy or too unstable, having too false positives, and for the sanity, they are just 2 or more AV's combined together. IMO others are not comparable to these above in any possible way.
btw F Secure still uses Bitdefender unless they change it

ESET:
- very low FP rate
- great HIPS
- great malware detection
- great PUP detection
- doesn't copy detections from other vendors

Qihoo:
- better detection
- very high FP rate
- average PUP detection
- copies detections from other vendors
you forgot to add Qihoo haves zero day protection while eset haves zero day protection but their zero day protection needs to be configured before it can work and their HIP is not great to me because of that
 

nissimezra

Level 25
Verified
Apr 3, 2014
1,460
but one trouble with eset is their zero day protection doesn't work at all unless you configured it
you can't cnfig it, coz then it will become so buggy that you will brake the pc. it will popup on everything. not usable

BTW I use ESET on 2 of my pc's and all other 5 using 360Is. ESET is a good AV but when the licences end i'm not planing to buy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cats-4_Owners-2

Ink

Administrator
Verified
Staff Member
Well-known
Jan 8, 2011
22,361
Preventing zero-day malware is far easier said than done. Why not concentrate on educating yourself against current known malware, and have other backup measures for the worse case scenario.

Definitions, Heuristics, Behavioural, IDS/HIPS are only as useful as the end PC user. A Sandbox cannot determine between safe or harmful, as all changes to the main OS are denied or isolated.

That's why it's recommended to utilise multiple layers of protection, not multiple AV engines.
+ Up to date OS + Apps
+ Up to date Anti-malware + Firewall
+ Default UAC (see below)
+ Password protected Admin account - Prevents Standard users from making OS changes when an UAC prompt appears.
+ Backup (File and/or System Image)
(and anything else goes here, in case I missed something).

Product A vs B will continue on and on, so find a product that suits you best with your level of experience.

Let the others play with their zero-day malware. :p
 

jackuars

Level 27
Verified
Top Poster
Well-known
Jul 2, 2014
1,689
Preventing zero-day malware is far easier said than done. Why not concentrate on educating yourself against current known malware, and have other backup measures for the worse case scenario.

Definitions, Heuristics, Behavioural, IDS/HIPS are only as useful as the end PC user. A Sandbox cannot determine between safe or harmful, as all changes to the main OS are denied or isolated.

That's why it's recommended to utilise multiple layers of protection, not multiple AV engines.
+ Up to date OS + Apps
+ Up to date Anti-malware + Firewall
+ Default UAC (see below)
+ Password protected Admin account - Prevents Standard users from making OS changes when an UAC prompt appears.
+ Backup (File and/or System Image)
(and anything else goes here, in case I missed something).

Product A vs B will continue on and on, so find a product that suits you best with your level of experience.

Let the others play with their zero-day malware. :p

and Adblocker :D
 

nissimezra

Level 25
Verified
Apr 3, 2014
1,460
Preventing zero-day malware is far easier said than done. Why not concentrate on educating yourself against current known malware, and have other backup measures for the worse case scenario.

Definitions, Heuristics, Behavioural, IDS/HIPS are only as useful as the end PC user. A Sandbox cannot determine between safe or harmful, as all changes to the main OS are denied or isolated.

That's why it's recommended to utilise multiple layers of protection, not multiple AV engines.
+ Up to date OS + Apps
+ Up to date Anti-malware + Firewall
+ Default UAC (see below)
+ Password protected Admin account - Prevents Standard users from making OS changes when an UAC prompt appears.
+ Backup (File and/or System Image)
(and anything else goes here, in case I missed something).

Product A vs B will continue on and on, so find a product that suits you best with your level of experience.

Let the others play with their zero-day malware. :p
we are not talking about zero day malware and how to prevent infection. we are talking about ESET VS 360.

as for your recommendation I use only one

+ Up to date OS + Apps Never
+ Up to date Anti-malware + Firewall only built in firewall
+ Default UAC (see below) Never
+ Password protected Admin account - Prevents Standard users from making OS changes when an UAC prompt appears. No password and allow sharing without password at work group
+ Backup (File and/or System Image) Yeh thats the one. at least 3.
 

BoraMurdar

Community Manager
Verified
Staff Member
Well-known
Aug 30, 2012
6,598
we are not talking about zero day malware and how to prevent infection. we are talking about ESET VS 360.

Is there ESET vs 360 or Kaspersky vs Bitdefender or any other A vs B, in most cases the end of the story is about the same.
If you are careless and have ultragiga hybrid AV (that will come up in the future and will have 10 engines inside :rolleyes:) you will still get yourself infected. Example :
You will go on some unknown site that redirects you to some page to download what you want. If someone is really careless the site will automatically download ThisIsRansomware.exe and sure, you will click on it to see what happens. OMG I got my PC locked!!!! This AV I am using really sucks!!! :mad::mad::mad::mad:!
Well, no. It's human error.
Especially if you have unpatched Windows and apps (Adobe, Java), malware writers treat are people who doesn't update their OS and uses older version of the most used programs, that I mentioned above. And of course, doesn't utilize UAC.
 

nissimezra

Level 25
Verified
Apr 3, 2014
1,460
Is there ESET vs 360 or Kaspersky vs Bitdefender or any other A vs B, in most cases the end of the story is about the same.
If you are careless and have ultragiga hybrid AV (that will come up in the future and will have 10 engines inside :rolleyes:) you will still get yourself infected. Example :
You will go on some unknown site that redirects you to some page to download what you want. If someone is really careless the site will automatically download ThisIsRansomware.exe and sure, you will click on it to see what happens. OMG I got my PC locked!!!! This AV I am using really sucks!!! :mad::mad::mad::mad:!
Well, no. It's human error.
Especially if you have unpatched Windows and apps (Adobe, Java), malware writers treat are people who doesn't update their OS and uses older version of the most used programs, that I mentioned above. And of course, doesn't utilize UAC.
sorry to disappoint you but UAC won't always protect you. a lot of malware can bypass it so it doesn't worth the headache.
Every user has different needs, some users can get along fine with basic AV or even without AV. other won't do good with 10 AV'S.
if you know well enough the OS you'll be fine with basic AV. check startup and tasks and most likely u r ok

cheers
 

BoraMurdar

Community Manager
Verified
Staff Member
Well-known
Aug 30, 2012
6,598
sorry to disappoint you but UAC won't always protect you. a lot of malware can bypass it so it doesn't worth the headache.
Every user has different needs, some users can get along fine with basic AV or even without AV. other won't do good with 10 AV'S.
if you know well enough the OS you'll be fine with basic AV. check startup and tasks and most likely u r ok

cheers
:)
I am not in love with UAC so you can disappoint me with the fact that UAC cannot always protect you.
And that's true. But it reduce chances that something will run on the PC unnoticed.
 

Striker

Level 7
Verified
Mar 27, 2013
327
ESET:
- very low FP rate
- great HIPS
- great malware detection
- great PUP detection
- doesn't copy detections from other vendors

Qihoo:
- better detection
- very high FP rate
- average PUP detection
- copies detections from other vendors


Qihoo copies detections? I am miss something here, huch? Qihoo have one of the best heuristics in the world and qihoo is most off the time one of the vendors that detect malwares before any other vendor. often it is the first one.Qihoo is the biggest av vendor in asian. im pretty sure they dont copie detections like baidu or other "avs", realy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

About us

  • MalwareTips is a community-driven platform providing the latest information and resources on malware and cyber threats. Our team of experienced professionals and passionate volunteers work to keep the internet safe and secure. We provide accurate, up-to-date information and strive to build a strong and supportive community dedicated to cybersecurity.

User Menu

Follow us

Follow us on Facebook or Twitter to know first about the latest cybersecurity incidents and malware threats.

Top