Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Inactive Support Threads
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Security
Video Reviews - Security and Privacy
Question about tests...
Message
<blockquote data-quote="IceMan7" data-source="post: 1120469" data-attributes="member: 121355"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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?</p><p>Eset had weaker protection but not terrible. Don't exaggerate.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p>It is safer to first scan the file and possibly delete it, than to run it.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="IceMan7, post: 1120469, member: 121355"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top
