Advice Request Why does everyone here like ESET so much?

[cruelsister]

I don't like ESET.

 

[XhenEd]

I don't like ESET.

Why? Oh, why?

 

[AlphaBeta]

Personally, I used a combination of ESET and Malwarebytes over the past few years. I have never been infected and my PC never lagged. I prefer Kaspersky now as a substitute for both ESET and Malwarebytes.

 

[Deleted member 2913]

I don't like ESET.

Please give info why? Would be interesting coming from you

And what AVs you like? Comodo banned for this query

 

[cruelsister]

It's not that good against Scriptors and as with all traditional AV's has no defense against true zero day threats. I did a few videos last year on the former issue, and one this year on the latter- although ESET caught the payload (which was an older malware file) it allowed my trojan to drop that payload (but to be fair none of the majors tested in the series detected mine).

And I have to mention Comodo- their AV is wretched.

 

[Overkill]

It's not that good against Scriptors and as with all traditional AV's has no defense against true zero day threats. I did a few videos last year on the former issue, and one this year on the latter- although ESET caught the payload (which was an older malware file) it allowed my trojan to drop that payload (but to be fair none of the majors tested in the series detected mine).

And I have to mention Comodo- their AV is wretched.

What AV do you prefer?

 

[Deleted member 2913]

What AV do you prefer?

Would like to know too.

What AVs/IS you find good?

 

[Azure]

It's not that good against Scriptors and as with all traditional AV's has no defense against true zero day threats. I did a few videos last year on the former issue, and one this year on the latter- although ESET caught the payload (which was an older malware file) it allowed my trojan to drop that payload (but to be fair none of the majors tested in the series detected mine).

And I have to mention Comodo- their AV is wretched.

One of the new features of the ESET 10 beta is...

• Script-Based Attack Protection - Protects you against malicious Windows and PowerShell scripts.

Once it reaches stable, are you considering doing a test to see if they have improved?

 

[cruelsister]

Absolutely. The lack of efficacy against scriptors is something that is shared by all traditional AV products that cross over to the Enterprise space. The reason for this is obvious in that scripts are used widely in the enterprise doing all sorts of legitimate things; the issue for the AV is in distinguishing good from bad (Symantec took a great stride in fixing this by today's acquisition).

But yeah, I would love to give it a shot once the version is released (I won't even code a special something especially for them).

 

[shicomu]

Hi,

I was just wondering, why does everyone here like Eset so much? It never performs on par with security suits such as those from Bitdefender or Kaspersky, and even Eset's test results from antivirus testing labs (such as AV-Test) seem quite mediocre when compared to Bitdefender, Kaspersky, Trend Micro or even Norton. In everything ranging from performance impact to protection. Yet everyone here swears by it. What up with that?

I've seen just a bit too many customer rigs with bitdefender ( and others ) that were just stuffed with all kinds of nasty stuff...
Those are real world scenarios that just puts me off a product.

For about 5 years i was a reseller for kaspersky , the product was good but got more and more issues...
It also started to eat up more and more resources...
When the out of the box installs needed essential tweaking to perform i bailed out...
The pricing is still not that good , the product is still sluggish ( imho ) and the performance is not that great ( again ; in real world scenarios with customer rigs involved )

Three years ago i started a relationship with eset and it has been a blast on all levels.
Their support is great , the pricing is just right and i see a real difference with my customers.
No longer i'm getting tons of crap on customer rigs when they are 'converted' to eset.

All that combined makes for a solid choice imho.

 

[malis2007]

i do like ESET.. but it did disappoint me with blocking suspicious sites..
i tried reporting this site to them:
fast-internets.com
They did indeed, block it for a while.. but for some unknown reason.. unblocked it.
and when i tried contacting them regarding this issue, none replied.
why is it that hard to make them block a suspicious site..?

the best respone i got regarding the reporting of malicious/suspicious sites to be blocked, was from none other than bitdefender.
once i performed a scan to check the site..
they have automatically added it to their database as a suspicious site without any further interfere.

may i ask, what is the easiest way to report a suspicious site to almost all AV vendors..? (aside from sending an email to each one of them, waiting for their response, then their delayed approval..?[that if, they approved])

thanks for reading.. and your help in advance.

 

[conceptualclarity]

Absolutely. The lack of efficacy against scriptors is something that is shared by all traditional AV products that cross over to the Enterprise space. The reason for this is obvious in that scripts are used widely in the enterprise doing all sorts of legitimate things; the issue for the AV is in distinguishing good from bad (Symantec took a great stride in fixing this by today's acquisition).

Which acquisition was that?

As for the original question, ESET has a very consistent high performance in the testing. It doesn't often equal Kaspersky and Bitdefender, but it's nipping at their heels.

I have found ESET lighter on my too old system than the Webroot of a couple of years ago. The difference is that Webroot would have too many surges of excess CPU Usage that would hamper my usage (as did Roboscan and Microsoft Security Essentials), whereas ESET is very steady.

I was impressed by this articulation of its features: https://cdn1.esetstatic.com/eset/US...ti-layered-approach-and-its-effectiveness.pdf

Note: I have PUPs detection unchecked on ESET configuration, otherwise I might be less favorable about it.

 

[Andrew999]

I like Eset but probably Kaspersky more.

 

[novocaine]

I am an online gamer, performance is critical for me, I have used ESET, Kaspersky, Bitdefender, Avast, AVG,
from my experience using them all, I prefer ESET and Kaspersky but as now I use 64 bit, I pick ESET over Kaspersky as it has limitation on 64 bit operating system

so why I like ESET and Kaspersky among them:
1. Performance, ESET is very light, some said that it feels like no AV and I think it's true, Kaspersky is light but ESET is lighter
2. UI, ESET and Kaspersky have nice UI, clean, easy to use, and straight away. Kaspersky has best UI I think
3. Tools, as performance is critical point for me, I always keep an eye to running process, network activity, ESET and Kaspersky provides easy tools for me
5. The last part is Protection as there is no 100% protection of any AV. even test result doesn't prove anything for me because a winning for protection doesn't last for long time, it can be just for few seconds. ESET, Kaspersky, Bitdefender, Avast and AVG have good protection. there is no best but there is some good protection. AV has good protection when they have live or seconds-count respond to new threats like LiveGrid on ESET, KSN on Kaspersky, GPN on Bitdefender, etc. as long as the AV signature is up to date, then it has good protection.

again I don't trust any published test as my experience proves the vice versa, I'm using win 10 Pro 64 bit, it is scored that ESET has poor performance etc, but actually it run very light and it has best performance among the others from my experience with the feel like no AV installed, it is also scored that ESET protection is worse that some AV but have you yourself pick some malware samples and test it? or at least watch some test videos on youtube, there are some videos that show ESET protection above some high-scored AVs on published test, so?

 

[XhenEd]

I am an online gamer, performance is critical for me, I have used ESET, Kaspersky, Bitdefender, Avast, AVG,
from my experience using them all, I prefer ESET and Kaspersky but as now I use 64 bit, I pick ESET over Kaspersky as it has limitation on 64 bit operating system

so why I like ESET and Kaspersky among them:
1. Performance, ESET is very light, some said that it feels like no AV and I think it's true, Kaspersky is light but ESET is lighter
2. UI, ESET and Kaspersky have nice UI, clean, easy to use, and straight away. Kaspersky has best UI I think
3. Tools, as performance is critical point for me, I always keep an eye to running process, network activity, ESET and Kaspersky provides easy tools for me
5. The last part is Protection as there is no 100% protection of any AV. even test result doesn't prove anything for me because a winning for protection doesn't last for long time, it can be just for few seconds. ESET, Kaspersky, Bitdefender, Avast and AVG have good protection. there is no best but there is some good protection. AV has good protection when they have live or seconds-count respond to new threats like LiveGrid on ESET, KSN on Kaspersky, GPN on Bitdefender, etc. as long as the AV signature is up to date, then it has good protection.

again I don't trust any published test as my experience proves the vice versa, I'm using win 10 Pro 64 bit, it is scored that ESET has poor performance etc, but actually it run very light and it has best performance among the others from my experience with the feel like no AV installed, it is also scored that ESET protection is worse that some AV but have you yourself pick some malware samples and test it? or at least watch some test videos on youtube, there are some videos that show ESET protection above some high-scored AVs on published test, so?

Don't be deceived by "64-bit limitations".
I think ESET is, more or less, affected by it also. The limitations are generally OS dependent. ESET might have more or less 64-bit limitations than Kaspersky.

The good thing is that Kaspersky announces it, albeit discreetly.

I agree in the majority of your points, though.

 

[_CyberGhosT_]

I am an online gamer, performance is critical for me, I have used ESET, Kaspersky, Bitdefender, Avast, AVG,
from my experience using them all, I prefer ESET and Kaspersky but as now I use 64 bit, I pick ESET over Kaspersky as it has limitation on 64 bit operating system

so why I like ESET and Kaspersky among them:
1. Performance, ESET is very light, some said that it feels like no AV and I think it's true, Kaspersky is light but ESET is lighter
2. UI, ESET and Kaspersky have nice UI, clean, easy to use, and straight away. Kaspersky has best UI I think
3. Tools, as performance is critical point for me, I always keep an eye to running process, network activity, ESET and Kaspersky provides easy tools for me
5. The last part is Protection as there is no 100% protection of any AV. even test result doesn't prove anything for me because a winning for protection doesn't last for long time, it can be just for few seconds. ESET, Kaspersky, Bitdefender, Avast and AVG have good protection. there is no best but there is some good protection. AV has good protection when they have live or seconds-count respond to new threats like LiveGrid on ESET, KSN on Kaspersky, GPN on Bitdefender, etc. as long as the AV signature is up to date, then it has good protection.

again I don't trust any published test as my experience proves the vice versa, I'm using win 10 Pro 64 bit, it is scored that ESET has poor performance etc, but actually it run very light and it has best performance among the others from my experience with the feel like no AV installed, it is also scored that ESET protection is worse that some AV but have you yourself pick some malware samples and test it? or at least watch some test videos on youtube, there are some videos that show ESET protection above some high-scored AVs on published test, so?

As a veteran gamer myself I can say you hit the nail on the head with this post. Well put.
I went one step further with my light config and went to all Signature-less solutions.
Great post.

 

[CMLew]

I don't like ESET. In fact if people ask me for recommendation, I'll introduce Emsisoft.
Why?
1) It's cheaper.
2) Got freebies (free software)
3) Loyalty discount (up to 60%)

But does ESET is bad?
Nope. ESET does what it should do. Highly configurable HIPS.

 

[novocaine]

Don't be deceived by "64-bit limitations".
I think ESET is, more or less, affected by it also. The limitations are generally OS dependent. ESET might have more or less 64-bit limitations than Kaspersky.

The good thing is that Kaspersky announces it, albeit discreetly.

I agree in the majority of your points, though.

that's interesting, I thought that ESET has no limitation as they provide specified intaller in 32 or 64 version.

 

[shicomu]

In that perspective ; kaspersky allready is having quite a lot of issues when you upgrade your install ( example : 8.1 > 10 or 10 build 15** > 10 build 16** )

Where eset is capable of "inline" upgrades ( from the software itself ) , kaspersky has to be removed and reinstalled to fix those issues...

 

[shmu26]

that's interesting, I thought that ESET has no limitation as they provide specified intaller in 32 or 64 version.

it needs a lot more than just having a x64 installer. HIPS for x64 is a pretty complicated matter, because certain key processes are duplicated, and it is hard for AVs to keep on top of them 100%.