TJP
-
Posts
238 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
10
Posts posted by TJP
-
-
Not surprised to see Eset getting the equal lowest score at 1 athough I'm sure Eset think it's one too many
-
Good bad or indifferent what anyone say's..... try it, see for yourself is the way to go. If it was that bad dy'a think we'd all be using it? I certainly wouldn't, if that was the case ESET wouldn't last two minutes - yes I have a gripe with NOD32 but doesn't affect it's performance? I've never caught anything nasty no matter what AV Comparatives say, NOD32 slapped my hands once or twice stopping me going to 'dodgy' sites.... I can take the drive out and do a scan on a different computer with another AV and it comes up clean.
At least, you don't get pop-ups after pop-ups with NOD32 like you do with one renowned AV free or paid.... and many others for that matter.
One thing is often overlooked is many AV testers use different methods of testing.... what would be the point if they ALL used the same method? They're in the job to make money not waste it.
Dave
Standardised anti-virus testing would be nice..it'll likely never happen as too many interested parties with money on their minds be it from testing or test results *takes off tin foil hat*.
As for AV-Test, I wish they would explain, in great detail, how they test some of the products as their performance results are the polar opposite to my own experiences. I find AV testing is a non-factor for me as Eset have a proven track record and have been in the AV business for some time now..I've also witnessed today's test darling become tomorrow's digital toilet paper! Many of these tests are published on websites and in magazines so the results do have real world implications.
As for version 9 of Nod32 and ESS, I expect more of the same from Eset. No internet browser add-ons, no temp file sweepers or system tweakers, just low system impact virus protection that is dependable & stable.
-
I do hope someone from Eset can ascertain what the issue is with AV-Test as I'm seeing their reports being quoted more often; probably because the reports are sort into the various categories.
Unbeknown to my father, I removed KIS 2015 and installed the trial version of ESS; he called me 12 hours later, thanking me for fixing his PC as it was running a lot faster. I told him that he was using ESS and that I hadn't touched anything else
Empirical data FTW 
-
Just curious SweX, do you know what websites should be avoided?
Seems someone on the forum has already uncovered who is posting the rubbish on the adblock forum: https://adblockplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=28581#p121718
My POV is is that I run a lightweight ad-blocker called Bluehell - it blocks most of the 'annoying' adverts.
-
Kaspersky since a long time ago (someone needs to do a Kaspersky vs ESET comparison for performance).
For what it's worth, AV-Comparatives rates Eset to have the least resource intensive anti-virus whilst Kaspersky is part of their 'second tier' of products. I find rather generous given my own real world experiences.
I do not wish to slander or defame Kaspersky Labs as they kept my PC safe for many years. When KL changed their focus to releasing products on a yearly basis, I believe their QA went into the toilet and KIS became a resource hog. The 2014 internet security product became a chore to use - it noticeably slowed my PC's performance - at which point I changed back to Eset. My father is using the 2015 version of KIS and complains about the exact same issues I once did. My real world summation is that I found KIS has a noticable & detrimental performance effect on the PC's its installed on.
There is no doubt Kaspersky Labs earns great test results and there are plenty of happy customers on the official Kaspersky forum and on websites such as Wilder's Security Forums - KIS may work differently on other peoples PC's to mine.
Further, no anti-virus program is perfect; ESS has its share of faults too. That said, ESS is perfect for my PC set-up: it isn't a resources hog, provides very solid protection, doesn't install a host of useless add-ons such as browser plug-ins and Eset release highly stable software.
-
Interesting set of exploit tests; Eset performed okay (mid pack at 80%) with room for improvement. FWIW, ESS tied with the F-Secure internet security suite however they missed different exploits. The usual suspects Norton and Kaspersky were at the top of the list along with Avast.
HitmanPro sponsored the test were granted the ability to adjust their own software based off what MRG found they didn't catch and were awarded the 'best of the test'! That said the test clearly shows the pre (90%) and post (100%) scores for HitMan Pro.
I'd love someone from Eset to make a comment about the MRG test results.
-
This link for the Standard installer (not slim) gives me the same detection that SCR get's above in post #22: hxxp://www.piriform.com/ccleaner/download/standard
Naturally I get the same thing SweX yet when I try the alternative slim link (as found on Major Geeks) hxxp://www.piriform.com/ccleaner/download/slim- no PUP warnings!
I don't believe this is an Eset 'issue' - I could be wrong - but I wouldn't be suprised if something is being packaged into the so-called full release.
-
Best place for me to DL CCleaner (and the excellent CCEnhancer) is Major Geeks. Never had a single issue with MG in a very long time of using their website - neither does Eset or my former Russian AV suite.
-
A good overview of the report was posted on Major Geeks several days ago: hxxp://www.majorgeeks.com/news/story/av_comparatives_asks_what_is_most_important_in_av_software.html
It's great to see Eset amongst the top 4 AV's for the PC in every location
That said, according to the report, AV-C and AV-Test are the best known AV labs so it's important that the issue with AV-Test's performance test is sorted sooner rather than later. Why? Simple really - the number one response was an AV that has a low system impact. FWIW, good detection rate was second...Since it was purely voluntary, the statistical quantities are skewed, but with 6,400 respondents, it has some significant insights.
The respondents came from Europe (46 percent), Asia (23 percent), and then North America with 18 percent. OS's broke down as half the respondents specifically reported using Windows 7; another third had upgraded to Windows 8 or 8.1. As for Mac and Linux users, they could at least gloat over beating out Windows Vista, which came in at just 1 percent.
How did they choose their AV product? The vast majority (60 percent) said their choice was based on good scores in independent tests. Three quarters said they had no recent problems with antivirus protection, but 4.4 percent reported a protection failure within the last week.
So what was the most important aspect of their decision? 64 percent chose low impact on system performance. Next came good detection of malware and malicious behavior while the rest wanted "good malware removal/cleaning abilities." -
So many AV products with A+ ratings are horrible system hogs in the real world for many users. I don't understand AV-Test scores as I can name several of their 'top' AV's (as of today - who knows in a week, month or years time which will be the test favourite) that I've tried that slow my PC to a crawl. The one AV 'winning' the majority of the tests causes the blue screen of death on my PC and it's the only product to do so.
First rule of thumb is to trust your own personal experience...it's why I'm back with Eset and couldn't be happier.
-
Look at all those test winning AV's picking up this unwanted file..
Well... there are also many AVs which doesn't "pick it up". Also "test winning" is very much expansible and doesn't say many things...
It was meant in jest (given forums such as Wilders analyse AV test results and often cite Eset's performance as being an issue) - but let's not let a little fun get in the way.
-
Look at all those test winning AV's picking up this unwanted PUA file..(sorry, I couldn't help myself).
FWIW, I've experienced the same issue as the OP with other files; simple solution as explained is to uncheck ESS from scanning for PUA's.
-
And governments wonder why people who elect them into power distrust them
Good on Kaspersky for discovering the malware; it won't mean I return to KIS anytime soon
-
A very good result for Eset as expected
-
Viber caught with their pants down and they don't like it - tough. I'm glad Eset has a moral backbone
-
Perfect timing for me as my local Eset distubutor gave away free mobile security licences last year and mine just expired
-
I don't know what the problem is SweX. AV-Test says ESS is a reource hog whilst AV-C and most importantly, my own real world use, is ESS is the complete opposite to the AV-Test findings. Perhaps I have a supercomputer as my desktop
My issue is plonkers will read the APC article and think ESS is a resource hog and choose something else as a result.
-
Nice work Eset
"The only products that use ASLR and DEP 100 percent are from ESET (consumer) and Symantec (business)" - enough said!
-
As always, excellent results for protection (5.5/6.0) and usability (5.5/6.0) and the same score as always for performance (3.5/6.0). AV-Test obviously didn't see the AV-C performance test
If I were a part of Eset, I'd be asking AV-Test how their performance testing results differs so greatly to AV-C findings.
Edit: I was at the library and had a look at one of the major PC magazines here in Oz (APC). They had an article on AV suites and are using the AV-Test scores for their recommendations:
I'd imagine the AV-Test reviews are syndicated to many other magazines & websites so I'd want them to explain the performance hit ESS apparently causes. For the record Bitdefender & KIS were their top picks...as mentioned in a prior post, KIS 2015 was akin to a 100 tonne boat anchor on my father's PC when I installed it.
-
Someone needs to forward the results to AV-Test
-
It's an odd bug because I've seen memory usage as low as 65MB and as high as 230MB. As of right now, version 8 remains around the 90MB - 100MB for the vast majority of time.
-
That's good TJP, the working set is what one should watch. If it increases be sure to make a dump. And I guess then we can rule out the V8 install over V7 as the possible cause for this. But fingers crossed TJP
Yeah, I know the working set was the correct one to look at however both task manger and working set details were the same figure (or very close). Day 2 and the RAM usage via working set remains between 90-100MB.
-
look at "working set" at details tab not processes tab
There was no need as they were indicating the same RAM usage:
-
I've reinstalled a fresh download of ESS version 8. The key difference is that I uninstalled version 7 and rebooted, deleted any remaining ESET folders (in \AppData\Local and \AppData\Roaming), ran CCleaner and installed ESS version 8.
Version 8 of ESS has been operational for several hours I see no RAM usage increases over the three hours. Per the attached picture, ESS UI is using 7.9MB and the ekrn.exe 91.2MB (now at 89.1MB as I type this). I cannot be sure what has caused the change:- Module and/or signature updates,
- A clean install of ESS version 8 rather than installing version 8 over the top of version 7,
- Manual change to the Diagnostics settings from create minidump - which is the default - to 'Do not generate memory dump', or
- A combination of all of these.
I'll continue to monitor the RAM usage to see if it climbs again.
Cheers.
Empirical data FTW 
That said, according to the report, AV-C and AV-Test are the best known AV labs so it's important that the issue with AV-Test's performance test is sorted sooner rather than later. Why? Simple really - the number one response was an AV that has a low system impact. FWIW, good detection rate was second...
AV-Comparatives - File Detection Test March 2015
in General Discussion
Posted
Solid score for Eset at 98.6% which puts Eset towards the back of the list...that said Eset scored far less FP's than all but one other vendor.
Up the FP's to score a better detection result?