Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CyberDevil" data-source="post: 1113587" data-attributes="member: 91290">A pleasant result for Eset, though most likely achieved due to some luck. Eset has an excellent signature engine and good system-level web protection through HTTPS/QUIC scanning (which can be further configured, for instance, to block dangerous top-level domains). However, its HIPS is too weak, even though it has been slightly improved, and behavioral analysis is almost nonexistent. While this benefits performance, it weakens protection.The absence of behavioral analysis in the Smart Security Premium version is compensated by Live Guard, where unknown files are uploaded to the cloud for analysis in a virtual environment. This approach is convenient for maintaining local machine performance but has its downsides:<ol>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">The cloud verdict requires a wait time ranging from 10 seconds to 15–20 minutes, depending on the sample size and potentially other factors.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">The analysis is limited to a maximum file size of 64 megabytes, so many files simply bypass this system, leaving only the reputation checks from LiveGrid as a fallback.</li>
</ol>The lack of HIPS is also partially offset in Smart Security Premium with a separate folder protection module, which can also safeguard browser profiles. However, this does not provide full system protection against accidental damage or configuration changes.Overall, Eset is an excellent, flexible, lightweight, and customizable antivirus that I enjoy using. However, its zero-day protection is objectively weaker than that of Kaspersky and Bitdefender. That said, there are no perfect products—just those that suit our needs.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CyberDevil, post: 1113587, member: 91290"] A pleasant result for Eset, though most likely achieved due to some luck. Eset has an excellent signature engine and good system-level web protection through HTTPS/QUIC scanning (which can be further configured, for instance, to block dangerous top-level domains). However, its HIPS is too weak, even though it has been slightly improved, and behavioral analysis is almost nonexistent. While this benefits performance, it weakens protection. The absence of behavioral analysis in the Smart Security Premium version is compensated by Live Guard, where unknown files are uploaded to the cloud for analysis in a virtual environment. This approach is convenient for maintaining local machine performance but has its downsides: [LIST=1] [*]The cloud verdict requires a wait time ranging from 10 seconds to 15–20 minutes, depending on the sample size and potentially other factors. [*]The analysis is limited to a maximum file size of 64 megabytes, so many files simply bypass this system, leaving only the reputation checks from LiveGrid as a fallback. [/LIST] The lack of HIPS is also partially offset in Smart Security Premium with a separate folder protection module, which can also safeguard browser profiles. However, this does not provide full system protection against accidental damage or configuration changes. Overall, Eset is an excellent, flexible, lightweight, and customizable antivirus that I enjoy using. However, its zero-day protection is objectively weaker than that of Kaspersky and Bitdefender. That said, there are no perfect products—just those that suit our needs. [/QUOTE]

Verification