Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


novice last won the day on July 26 2015

novice had the most liked content!


Profile Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

1,135 profile views
  1. First steps in correcting a problem is to acknowledge there is a problem. Blindly defending ESET no-matter-what doesn't help anyone. Let's close this discussion here. I was talking about 2 PC used to browse the internet daily (wife and daughter) Win 7/64, fully updated , admin account, UAC set to max, IE with SmartScreen filter enabled.
  2. I prefer a FP compared with a Ransomware not being detected I have HIPS in "Smart mode"; never had a warning from HIPS in over 2 years That is true. However , there are competitors able to score 100% or close to it ,each and every test. Nobody has intention to make ESET look bad; the tests are the same for all players involved This is a strange logic. Is like saying :" I drink a glass of water every day and I did not get cancer; hence the water is protecting me against cancer" I have been using MSE for over 6 years on certain computers and I never got infected, so what conclusion should I make????
  3. Yes, you are right, let's lock this thread and move it somewhere else , so will be invisible to the common user and pretend this problem never existed; you have some time now till next AV comparative review , for another good explanation.
  4. If the malware has " been seen on less than 10 machines in total" what other "proper" submission is to be expected??? That means the "LiveGrid" of 10 machines somewhere in the word reported this malware , hence the conclusion "has been seen"
  5. I do not think so. Marco's answer was very clear :" It's been seen on less than 10 machines in total " which suggests that "10 machines with ESET" Would be impossible for ESET to know that my machine (with Kaspersky let's say) encountered that specific malware. Regardless how are you trying to sugarcoat it, the fact remains: for a while now ESET is subpar compared with other players on the market. Strange thing, all these players which performed better than ESET , have a free version to offer (Avast!, Bitdefender, Avira, Kaspersky, Microsoft)
  6. Still I did not get it: if ESET encountered 10 times a certain malware which otherwise was detected by a significant number of vendors, why did not add a rule or something to have that particular malware detected? Why was necessary for an user to pinpoint the problem and to persuade ESET to implement a detection????
  7. I was referring to this: The official explanation: " It's a Chinese ransomware written in Python with Chinese instructions. It's been seen on less than 10 machines in total. " While the OP complained : " another of real-life experience with ransomware bypassing ESET protection layers. It is still "at large" even for now with ver15819 definition and has 3 days of reputation history... Other vendors have successfully blocked the encryption through their behavioral detection layer "
  8. Most anti viruses, if not all , have these days sophisticated mechanisms to deal with unknown malwares : behavior blockers, heuristics, HIPS, generic signatures.... To expect to get a sample first and add detection after is impossible these days ; I remember one of ESET officials saying " this sample was seen only 10 times by ESET , in the whole word, that's why we did not detect it" I was shocked by such statement.
  9. Sorry, I did not see it at first. But 98.4%???? . We have Avira (free) , Kasersky (free) at 100%, Bitdfender (free) at 99.9%, Microsoft (free) at 99.6% .
  10. The odds of encountering a sample cannot justify the acceptance of ESET low performance; when even Microsoft scores better , the expectation would be that somebody from ESET would step in and offer an official statement.
  11. If the devices have identical names, how can the OP "remove the device that hasn't been connected for a longer time"????
  • Create New...