App Review Question about tests...

[IceMan7]

Maybe this isn't the right place but there were a few comparisons of AVs here. This forum has so many threads, so this may have been discussed before. Anyway, I can't find it
What happened here with Panda and Norton?


Here's a similar problem for Eset and Heimdal.


Bitdefender went crazy in this test and it almost broke


In the case of Bitdefender, I also saw several tests where it hung during on-demand scanning.... It simply did not react and scanned in a time not counted in minutes but in a calendar.
But I did not save the links....

What happened in these three tests? Did the heroes give up or is it simply the fault of the "virtual machine" on which they were installed?
If this was discussed somewhere here on the forum, please provide links. If not, then some commentary on what happened. Thx.

BTW
I looked through the Eset and Bitdefender forums. At least roughly.
And if you compare what users have problems with, then compared to Bitdefender, Eset has none at all. Romanians' failure.
Somewhere someone admitted that Bitdefender does not do beta tests due to costs. That's probably because the beta tester is only a user and that's why there are still many problems and most often when an update or patch appears. They fix one, they break the other

 

[Bot]

It's not uncommon for antivirus software to encounter issues during tests, especially when run on virtual machines. Some of these issues could be due to the software's incompatibility with the virtual environment, bugs in the software, or even the way the tests were conducted.

Regarding Bitdefender, it's known to be a bit resource-intensive, which could explain the long scanning times you mentioned. As for the issues after updates or patches, it's a common problem with most software, not just antivirus.

I agree that user feedback is crucial in improving any software. If Bitdefender indeed doesn't conduct beta tests due to costs, it's unfortunate. However, it's also possible that they rely on other methods for quality assurance.

As for Eset and Heimdal, without specific details, it's hard to comment on what might have gone wrong in the tests.

Remember, no antivirus is perfect, and they all have their strengths and weaknesses. It's always a good idea to keep your software updated and use multiple layers of security for the best protection.

 

[RansomwareRemediation]

Maybe this isn't the right place but there were a few comparisons of AVs here. This forum has so many threads, so this may have been discussed before. Anyway, I can't find it
What happened here with Panda and Norton?


Here's a similar problem for Eset and Heimdal.


Bitdefender went crazy in this test and it almost broke


In the case of Bitdefender, I also saw several tests where it hung during on-demand scanning.... It simply did not react and scanned in a time not counted in minutes but in a calendar.
But I did not save the links....

What happened in these three tests? Did the heroes give up or is it simply the fault of the "virtual machine" on which they were installed?
If this was discussed somewhere here on the forum, please provide links. If not, then some commentary on what happened. Thx.

BTW
I looked through the Eset and Bitdefender forums. At least roughly.
And if you compare what users have problems with, then compared to Bitdefender, Eset has none at all. Romanians' failure.
Somewhere someone admitted that Bitdefender does not do beta tests due to costs. That's probably because the beta tester is only a user and that's why there are still many problems and most often when an update or patch appears. They fix one, they break the other

What's the point of testing the antivirus so much, if Eset's protection is terrible against 0 day malware, can you explain to me? . Its behavior blocker is null and its modules are liquidated. The antivirus is not that wonderful, unlike Bitdefender, which despite not doing as much testing, is one of the best at detecting 0-day malware.

 

[Jonny Quest]

What's the point of testing the antivirus so much, if Eset's protection is terrible against 0 day malware, can you explain to me? . Its behavior blocker is null and its modules are liquidated. The antivirus is not that wonderful, unlike Bitdefender, which despite not doing as much testing, is one of the best at detecting 0-day malware.

Which is why I bought Eset Premium, for Live Guard supposedly being better at behavior blocker protection. But since I'm not a power user, or downloading the internet everyday and running multiple files daily, I'm not sure it was worth the extra cost.

BD's BB (ATD) does have a excellent and better known track record, as well as with Kaspersky's System Watcher.

 

[IceMan7]

Regarding Bitdefender, it's known to be a bit resource-intensive, which could explain the long scanning times you mentioned.

It's not about time. If a competitor in a test scans the system in about 10-15 minutes and BD can't in 3 or 4 hours, it's probably not normal. I've seen more than once that either the tester finishes the scan or... simply has to, because BD hangs during the scan.

As for Eset and Heimdal, without specific details, it's hard to comment on what might have gone wrong in the tests.

The case does not only concern Eset and Heimdal, but also Norton and Panda. And even Bitdefender, where if the tester had not roared after BD hung up by restarting the system while the test was being performed, the system would probably not have recovered.

My theory is that the virtual machine must have had some errors. First Eset and Heimdal break down, and then after a week Norton and Panda. Where the author of these tests has never had such problems before or even later

What's the point of testing the antivirus so much, if Eset's protection is terrible against 0 day malware, can you explain to me? . Its behavior blocker is null and its modules are liquidated. The antivirus is not that wonderful, unlike Bitdefender, which despite not doing as much testing, is one of the best at detecting 0-day malware.

So I understand that now everyone online is not supposed to test any solution except Bitdefender and Kaspersky (maybe 1-2 more) because all solutions including Eset have terrible 0-day protection?
Eset had weaker protection but not terrible. Don't exaggerate.

Today, Eset has LiveGuard working since version 18, which at least in theory looks more advanced than BD. Cloud solutions are the future today, when it comes to the speed of detection and spread of 0-day samples. You just have to wait a little longer for the effects, as is always the case with new products.
And this is starting to become visible, because Eset has gained a lot. And because of this, it is a more refined antivirus program than BD in terms of performance and optimization.

And there is also a different philosophy of BD from Eset. BD bases its protection not on signatures but mainly on behavioral protection. Eset did it differently and today it also got LiveGuard, which works. Most users who use a computer first scan the computer or a given file and then run the file. And not the other way around. And in this respect, the user's behavior is closer to Eset - first signatures and then the LiveGuard cloud.
It is safer to first scan the file and possibly delete it, than to run it.

I'm getting ahead of the comment that I'm some kind of Eset fanboy. No, I'm not. But I understand that BD and Eset are like poles apart. They have a completely different philosophy in the operation of their AV.

 

[Bot]

It's not about time. If a competitor in a test scans the system in about 10-15 minutes and BD can't in 3 or 4 hours, it's probably not normal. I've seen more than once that either the tester finishes the scan or... simply has to, because BD hangs during the scan.

It's indeed unusual for Bitdefender to take significantly longer than its competitors during a system scan. This could be due to a variety of factors such as system resources, software bugs, or even conflicts with the virtual machine. It's recommended to report such issues to Bitdefender support for further investigation.

The case does not only concern Eset and Heimdal, but also Norton and Panda. And even Bitdefender, where if the tester had not roared after BD hung up by restarting the system while the test was being performed, the system would probably not have recovered.

My theory is that the virtual machine must have had some errors. First Eset and Heimdal break down, and then after a week Norton and Panda. Where the author of these tests has never had such problems before or even later

It's possible that the virtual machine environment could have contributed to the issues you observed in the tests. Virtual machines can sometimes behave differently than physical ones, which could lead to unexpected results. It's also worth considering that these tests might not reflect real-world performance, as they are often conducted under specific and controlled conditions.

 

[IceMan7]

But since I'm not a power user, or downloading the internet everyday and running multiple files daily, I'm not sure it was worth the extra cost.

Don't worry. You're insured You never know when you'll come across a dangerous file.
By the way, LiveGuard recently checked a file weighing 58MB for me. It took about 40 seconds. Before, it wouldn't let me run the file.

It's also worth considering that these tests might not reflect real-world performance, as they are often conducted under specific and controlled conditions.

Of course. Nobody runs 3000 or more malicious files at the same time on a daily basis

It's recommended to report such issues to Bitdefender support for further investigation.

I'll write like this. Years later, Bitdefender's strange activities are nothing new. Most people just ignore it.

 

[RansomwareRemediation]

It's not about time. If a competitor in a test scans the system in about 10-15 minutes and BD can't in 3 or 4 hours, it's probably not normal. I've seen more than once that either the tester finishes the scan or... simply has to, because BD hangs during the scan.

The case does not only concern Eset and Heimdal, but also Norton and Panda. And even Bitdefender, where if the tester had not roared after BD hung up by restarting the system while the test was being performed, the system would probably not have recovered.

My theory is that the virtual machine must have had some errors. First Eset and Heimdal break down, and then after a week Norton and Panda. Where the author of these tests has never had such problems before or even later



So I understand that now everyone online is not supposed to test any solution except Bitdefender and Kaspersky (maybe 1-2 more) because all solutions including Eset have terrible 0-day protection?
Eset had weaker protection but not terrible. Don't exaggerate.

Today, Eset has LiveGuard working since version 18, which at least in theory looks more advanced than BD. Cloud solutions are the future today, when it comes to the speed of detection and spread of 0-day samples. You just have to wait a little longer for the effects, as is always the case with new products.
And this is starting to become visible, because Eset has gained a lot. And because of this, it is a more refined antivirus program than BD in terms of performance and optimization.

And there is also a different philosophy of BD from Eset. BD bases its protection not on signatures but mainly on behavioral protection. Eset did it differently and today it also got LiveGuard, which works. Most users who use a computer first scan the computer or a given file and then run the file. And not the other way around. And in this respect, the user's behavior is closer to Eset - first signatures and then the LiveGuard cloud.
It is safer to first scan the file and possibly delete it, than to run it.

I'm getting ahead of the comment that I'm some kind of Eset fanboy. No, I'm not. But I understand that BD and Eset are like poles apart. They have a completely different philosophy in the operation of their AV.

you're sure? This video proves the opposite.

 

[IceMan7]

you're sure? This video proves the opposite.

Yes, I am sure. This test is a manipulation. There are hundreds of posts about this topic on the internet.
Only if someone doesn't like something, and in this case Eset, then no arguments will come through.

It's no wonder you're a BD defender when you have their logo on your avatar

 

[RansomwareRemediation]

Yes, I am sure. This test is a manipulation. There are hundreds of posts about this topic on the internet.
Only if someone doesn't like something, and in this case Eset, then no arguments will come through.

There is no manipulation, it is a realy test and it is clearly seen how Eset is totally useless vs the unknown malware. There is no worse blind man than he who does not want to see. Be careful, I'm not attacking Eset. I only speak from what I see. I don't marry any brand, in fact I'm using Avast now.

 

[IceMan7]

The test is manipulated. Eset was an older version with an update 4 or 5 months old (I don't remember exactly), outdated. And secondly, Leo doesn't understand that in Eset all modules are like communicating vessels. This is not the first time that a security module in Eset disables something. I wonder why it doesn't disable something in other AVs?

I would be blind if Eset lost the game on equal terms, but I wouldn't admit it. I'm a bigger fan of BD myself and I've already written about it in another topic. But this test is a manipulation.
Eset is not completely useless against the unknown malware. There are much worse and numerous AV solutions on the market.
It's great that you have Avast. And in my opinion, it doesn't even come close to Eset and is even worse against the unknown malware.

However, each test is different. And basing an opinion on one manipulated test is not serious. This applies to every solution.

Now Eset also has LiveGuard which works and it looks completely different and above all better with new threats. Wait half a year until more tests of the new Eset appear. Those that are already there are very promising. And if it works as it is in theory, you will be singing a different song in half a year

 

[rashmi]

Which is why I bought Eset Premium, for Live Guard supposedly being better at behavior blocker protection. But since I'm not a power user, or downloading the internet everyday and running multiple files daily, I'm not sure it was worth the extra cost.

BD's BB (ATD) does have a excellent and better known track record, as well as with Kaspersky's System Watcher.

ATD and System Watcher are far superior to LiveGuard. Kaspersky's offer of a free antivirus with System Watcher is generous; it offers protection that rivals or exceeds that of competing paid antivirus software. Kaspersky Free, a premium-quality product offered at no cost, is sufficient for most users. Paid products cater to users needing/wanting additional features or controls.

 

[IceMan7]

ATD and System Watcher are far superior to LiveGuard.

Why do you think LiveGuard is worse?
Bitdefender performs behavioral analysis on the computer on which it is installed and creates a virtual machine from it. Eset does the same but in the cloud.

The principle is the same. It is only constructed differently.
Of course, the Bitdefender or Kaspersky solution has been known for a long time and we can see their effects. Apart from that, Kaspersky probably does it in a similar way (correct me if I'm wrong) to Eset in the cloud.
Eset only now, after corrections from version 18, finally has it working.
In this topic, after the test, I myself asked if it was Eset's luck

App Review - Shadowra's Big Comparative : Episode 2 - Paid Antivirus

In this video, we compare 8 paid antivirus programs. The aim is to see how effective they are, and rank them from worst to best. Please note: - the antiviruses are already ranked in the video, I've taken into account Web blocking, the reaction to an attack, my malware pack and how the...

malwaretips.com

I currently have a license for Fsecure and I was considering Bitdefender first.
But the current version of Eset, after testing here on the forum and online, gives a lot to think about
I even installed Eset for 30 days and I can see that it works really well. Besides, Eset works so well and quickly on the computer that the computer got wind in its sails.

If Eset refines LiveGuard, then together with DNA, HIPS and other solutions it can be at the level of BD or Kaspersky. Or even surpass them.
Therefore, being a fan of the BD solution, I am really curious how Eset will improve after some time and how LiveGuard will gain momentum. On paper, Eset looks much more advanced than BD. Because the cloud is the future. Because Eset is more stable and works much easier.
That is why in the appropriate topic I asked for another Eset vs BD comparative test, but more advanced, to see how completely different approaches to the same thing work in practice - on the computer (BD) and in the Eset cloud (plus a huge signature database).

 

[TuxTalk]

Iceman is blinded by his own ignorance. He just wants us to post here what he wants to hear, any opposite is in his opinion a lie and not true.
This Iceman is someone that has been here before and has been totally verbally a shamed by another member here so that he " the other name" left this forum.
I can be wrong but i recognize his pushing topics style, same as he did before. So welcome back Icey and lets see how long you can keep up here now.

 

[RansomwareRemediation]

Bitdefender performs behavioral analysis on the computer on which it is installed and creates a virtual machine from it. Eset does the same but in the cloud.

Eset does the same as Avast's cyber capture, that is not a behavior blocker, the cloud is very easy to bypass with any script.

 

[Jonny Quest]

Iceman is blinded by his own ignorance. He just wants us to post here what he wants to hear, any opposite is in his opinion a lie and not true.
This Iceman is someone that has been here before and has been totally verbally a shamed by another member here so that he " the other name" left this forum.
I can be wrong but i recognize his pushing topics style, same as he did before. So welcome back Icey and lets see how long you can keep up here now.

But, isn't there some truth to this? Being newer to Eset, I don't know

If Eset refines LiveGuard, then together with DNA, HIPS and other solutions it can be at the level of BD or Kaspersky. Or even surpass them.
Therefore, being a fan of the BD solution, I am really curious how Eset will improve after some time and how LiveGuard will gain momentum. On paper, Eset looks much more advanced than BD. Because the cloud is the future. Because Eset is more stable and works much easier.
That is why in the appropriate topic I asked for another Eset vs BD comparative test, but more advanced, to see how completely different approaches to the same thing work in practice - on the computer (BD) and in the Eset cloud (plus a huge signature database).

 

[RansomwareRemediation]

Why do you think LiveGuard is worse?
Bitdefender performs behavioral analysis on the computer on which it is installed and creates a virtual machine from it. Eset does the same but in the cloud.

The principle is the same. It is only constructed differently.
Of course, the Bitdefender or Kaspersky solution has been known for a long time and we can see their effects. Apart from that, Kaspersky probably does it in a similar way (correct me if I'm wrong) to Eset in the cloud.
Eset only now, after corrections from version 18, finally has it working.
In this topic, after the test, I myself asked if it was Eset's luck

App Review - Shadowra's Big Comparative : Episode 2 - Paid Antivirus

In this video, we compare 8 paid antivirus programs. The aim is to see how effective they are, and rank them from worst to best. Please note: - the antiviruses are already ranked in the video, I've taken into account Web blocking, the reaction to an attack, my malware pack and how the...

malwaretips.com

I currently have a license for Fsecure and I was considering Bitdefender first.
But the current version of Eset, after testing here on the forum and online, gives a lot to think about
I even installed Eset for 30 days and I can see that it works really well. Besides, Eset works so well and quickly on the computer that the computer got wind in its sails.

If Eset refines LiveGuard, then together with DNA, HIPS and other solutions it can be at the level of BD or Kaspersky. Or even surpass them.
Therefore, being a fan of the BD solution, I am really curious how Eset will improve after some time and how LiveGuard will gain momentum. On paper, Eset looks much more advanced than BD. Because the cloud is the future. Because Eset is more stable and works much easier.
That is why in the appropriate topic I asked for another Eset vs BD comparative test, but more advanced, to see how completely different approaches to the same thing work in practice - on the computer (BD) and in the Eset cloud (plus a huge signature database).

The cloud is not the future, how can you know what is the future and what is not? unless you have magical powers. All cloud-based antiviruses are super easy to pass. Example Windows Defender, Avira, Eset and others.

 

[Jonny Quest]

The cloud is not the future, how can you know what is the future and what is not? unless you have magical powers. All cloud-based antiviruses are super easy to pass. Example Windows Defender, Avira, Eset and others.

Thanks, you're helping to answer my question with your two posts.

 

[IceMan7]

Iceman is blinded by his own ignorance. He just wants us to post here what he wants to hear, any opposite is in his opinion a lie and not true.
This Iceman is someone that has been here before and has been totally verbally a shamed by another member here so that he " the other name" left this forum.
I can be wrong but i recognize his pushing topics style, same as he did before. So welcome back Icey and lets see how long you can keep up here now.

Don't use words you don't know the meaning of.
Am I ignorant? I wrote clearly, the technology used in the latest ESET looks very good in theory. And I don't ignore it. In version 17, the previous one, it didn't work well. Now, after the tests we can see, Eset works much better.
Ignorance is exactly in your case, because you assume that Eset works like it did a year or a few years ago and they haven't improved anything.

I will repeat. In theory, Eset now looks very good. It takes time to see if it will work well in practice. We have known the Bitdefender and Kasperky solution for years. They have refined it over the years and we have evidence for years that it works.
I am not blinded. The IT industry and security are not standing still. For years, BD and Kaspersky were at the forefront, but that doesn't mean they will be there all the time.

I don't know any Iceman. I registered to find a replacement for Fsecure, which has now become Avira. And I've written a few times that my first choice was to go back to Bitdefender after years. And I'd probably do that today. But I'm still curious about Eset's new solutions and how they'll work in the near future. I'll find a successor to Fsecure and I won't be involved here.

And even if BD is still better but only slightly, I prefer the peace of mind of Eset. It always has a better-developed solution that doesn't throw out errors like BD. Not to mention the fact that Eset flies on the computer and you don't feel it at all.

But, isn't there some truth to this? Being newer to Eset, I don't know

That's what I'm writing about. Two different paths to the same thing. Only time will tell which is better, more effective and efficient.

The cloud is not the future, how can you know what is the future and what is not?

Performing calculations on an installed machine has its limitations. It is the user's machine. Secondly, according to trends, AI security awaits us, which will be in the cloud.

Bitdefender also uses the cloud. Kaspersky too. Fsecure DeepGuard was also a cloud technology.
More and more services are escaping to the cloud in general and this trend is not decreasing but increasing.
In addition, Bitdefender is not perfect either. Higher in the test, where Norton crashed, Bitdefender let threats through, despite the fact that its signature is in VT. And this is not the only test where BD behaves like this.
There is no perfect solution for everything. And there never will be. And every AV, even with the best solutions, can give up on some threat.

Ending this conversation. I do not ignore the current Eset technology and I am curious how it will work after many tests. Today, for me, the leader is still BD, but only a cow does not change its views. And maybe in some time it will turn out that ESET will be better. Maybe. Time will tell.
I don't put a period and sign a pact with the devil and I don't have blinkers on to claim that only BD

*Kaspersky doesn't exist for me for political reasons. But I have already written on this forum that I respect him and have always considered him one of the best.

 

[rashmi]

I asked for another Eset vs BD comparative test, but more advanced, to see how completely different approaches to the same thing work in practice

A test using *unknown malware would show how ESET and other antivirus programs compare in proactively blocking threats.

* The comparison test should execute only those samples that are unknown to both/all participants.