Jump to content

MartinPe

Members
  • Posts

    47
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by MartinPe

  1. 7 hours ago, AlSky said:

    Possibly it is what you indicate, the important thing would be to know what is the cause and what is the solution applicable to the problem. I'm waiting for Marcos's response to the Log Collector I sent him as requested.

    I do have the same problem. It goes about 800mb to 1gb and then drop after a long time to 300mb. Just for fun, Alsky, do you have and AMD CPU? Wonder if the AV works differently from Intel. Seeing from the high usage, I changed my nvme to the new PCIE-4 one. Didn't reinstalled Eset. 

  2. 23 hours ago, peteyt said:

    Is he a decent tester? I rarely watch any of these videos normally as they can be sneaky with how they test e.g. disabling key features. Not heard of this channel

    He has his way of testing, what I consider interesting is how the AV react when the system is locally attacked. Not filtered from the web or AV blocking the malware already on disk. Karspersky and Bitdefender handle his way of testing very well. Windows Defender not so much since it didn't was able to catch the malware before being written on disk. 

    The ver 12 didn't go well last time, but very happy to see that v13 is handling his test very well.

    It's just fun to see some AV having troubles like Malware Bytes that seem to suffer as much as Windows defender. 

    Personnaly, I have more confidence with www.av-comparatives.org

     

     

  3. On ‎11‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 9:55 AM, itman said:

    Microsoft security propaganda grows exponentially with each passing day.

    Only Microsoft would publish along the lines that its WD sandboxing feature is something "revolutionary" in the security industry. Whereas in fact, it is a patch to correct WD's abysmal lack of self-protection as @Marcos stated previously. Additionally, its current status environmental variable implementation "hack" can be easily disabled by malware.

    Well... no, even a guy from Google is praising this move publicly. WD is no longer the laughing stock like before.  They get 100% detection, but at the cost of false positives. If I wanted to use the best month over month of best protection, I would be using Bitdefender. But I stick with Eset even at 98% each months it's pretty incredible with no FP. It's blazing fast, very low footprint compared to Bitdefender and I don't get annoyed like Bitdefender or WD with Protected Folders active when I do Delphi (yes I still use Delphi) programming.  All that in a very competitive price.

    Small company like Eset are working harder with less resources compared to Bitdefender with their so 500 millions customers.  

  4. 2 hours ago, Marcos said:

    Actually my answer was not accurate since self-defense protects the AV itself as well as crucial system processes. However, an isolated scanner prevents potential (ie. not yet known) vulnerabilities in the AV itself from being exploited. This is crucial because AVs run with highest system privileges and exploiting vulnerabilities would give attackers highest privileges to do further malicious operations on a compromised system.

    As I've read, the sandbox feature is disabled by default in Defender. This is understandable since it will likely have adverse effect on performance.
    I'm also glad to inform you that we should add support for isolated scanning relatively soon as well, hopefully with negligible impact on performance which, however, takes a lot of time.

    Cool. 

  5. 5 hours ago, novice said:

    https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/real-world-protection-test-august-2018-factsheet/

    ESET  ($59.99/year)      98.4%

    MSE (free)                      100% (99.5% and 0.5% user dependent)

    Avira (free)                     100%

    BitDefender (free)         100%

    Panda (free)                   100% 

    We all would like to see ESET always get 100% like Bitdefender and Kaspersky. Windows Defender does a very good job but it had a lot of false positives in the test. And ESET is way more performant than Windows Defender and you don't get a flood of popups to let applications access to My Documents if you activate the protected folder features.  

  6. Well, I trust Eset so far with the Ransomware protection. Compare to other vendors aka Kaspersky or Bitdefender, you have to manually approve some applications in the User\Documents folders. As a gamer (Steam) and part-time dev. (Delphi), Eset doesn't annoy me.

     

    But I guess that's a trade-off Eset had to do because I visit each months www.av-comparatives.org and look at the latest Real World Protection Test  , we can see that compared to Bitdefender and Kaspersky, Eset get compromise more. I just hope that with new signature and HIPS updates that these exploits gets blocked. Even Windows Defender can block more without getting compromised. But has more false positive and it's slower than Eset.  

    As far I can see lately, many users of Bitdefender complains that the latest version of their security solution is taking a lot more memory and impact the system more.  

    Hope with v12, Eset can improve without impacting system resources and gives the best protection and no longer seeing compromises exploits on av-comparatives ;)

  7. From the av-comparatives.org, you still are not a certified AV for anti-phishing tests, sadly the report doesn't show the score of Eset or other venders in this test. And for your defense, not many vendors passes this test it seems. But I'm curious, did av-comparatives sent you your score? And if yes, can you disclose it? And are we well protected from fishing with Eset?

    One good thing is that Eset is always one of top performer and usually in the top 5-7 in protection , but wished that your product would be better in the compromise area from their tests. But I cannot argue that 99.1% of protection is bad :)

     

  8. I am pretty sure that we all want ESET to be the best security software possible. The only thing that bothers me is the number of "Compromised" compared to Bitdefender, Panda and all. I hope ESET will find a way to get that number a lot lower in the future. I know that the detection rate was still over 99%. It's just for me 16 "Compromised" tells me that there are still holes in ESET that needs to be closed.

     

    Martin

×
×
  • Create New...