SCR

No, I'm not kidding and I didn't say I was going to throw it away. I will put it to good use when the time comes.

I got one of those DHL emails. I have my email client set to only present a "Preview" so I didn't receive any warnings at all. One look at the preview had me hitting delete immediately. I never open attachments unless it's something I request. That sort of makes me the final filter. Common sense is your best protection. When in doubt.. Don't. In my opinion people have become far more complacent about security on their devices. They give it less thought then they do when changing channels on a TV. Someone said that it should not be necessary to learn about Eset's configuration. If people would give their security software a fraction of the time they've spent learning about Facebook, tweets and any other software on their system they would be far better off. With regard to MBAM. I removed it, it presented way to many headaches. As soon as I find someone that I dislike enough I'll give them my lifetime license.

It's more then obvious to me.

As far as I'm concerned Microsoft lost any credibility they may have had as a company on the sneaky back door Win 10 release. That's just not the correct way to treat customers. Looks like they're still at it.

Who said anything about test samples? I'm conducting a Real World Test. Our test methods are completely different. I'm not throwing rocks at my front window because they told me it was unbreakable. As the end user I am more interested in how a product works in my world which, of course, is the only Real World that matters to me. My result is of an average user doing average things on a high speed Internet connection. I'm not an IT Security Specialist just a happy Eset customer. To clarify, I am currently using EIS on both systems one set to Automatic Mode and one to Interactive Mode. I don't go around the Internet looking for trouble, no rock throwing allowed. Eset has sent up warnings a few times in each system. We follow the advice of the warning and carry on. That's it 100% protection in my Real World. To be honest the real World Test is on the machine set on Automatic mode and uses the default setup, shy of me setting up the network and printer, and used by my wife who has had some very basic security training. Basically if anything pops up, especially in red, to ask me. If I'm not around close the browser and open a new one and don't go wherever you were. I really have no idea why people manage to get their machines infected. There is plenty of information on line, in books, etc. to get a clue of how to safely surf and use the Internet. I post here because average users read these posts. This negativity about one program having a better detection rate then Eset by 0.07% prompted me, a average user, to let them know the Tests conducted by these Testing companies does not necessarily reflect what their experience will be as an average user. Most of this stuff is way over my head however I am curious as to what makes things tick.

Thanks itman. That pretty much falls in line with my thoughts as to the source of their funds. It also confirms my feelings toward the results of their tests. That is, read them, think a bit about them and then return to "my" own on going "Test." Test Status: Perpetual Method: Daily Use of two Windows 7 Computers and several prior versions of a Windows OS Product Tested: Nod32, ESS, EIS and several beta's of each Length of test to date: In excess of 10 years, probably 15 or more I can't remember. Number of Infections: Zero Number of False Positives: Zero Results to Date: Eset Products prevented infection to my systems 100% of Real World time. Conclusion: I'll continue to use the 100% effective Eset products.

What I would like to know is where does the money come from to support these so called "testing" organizations.

Wow, I sure am glad July was over 15 days ago considering that earth shattering news

Not all "testing companies" are created equal. I take what they report with as much weight as I do the latest news headlines which are created to sell newspapers.

Nothing is 100% effective 100% of the time. They may score 100% in "tests" but in a real world situation things are different. So if they say they are 100% effective 100% of real world time I would tend to not believe the claim, just my opinion. I've been using Eset for 10 or more years and have never been infected Does this mean Eset is 100% effective? Actually no and neither is anything else.

itman, thanks for the info.

Oh, I thought from your post showing the error you where having trouble accessing the site. I do not have the credentials necessary to do any further testing. I apologize for not understanding the problem.

For what it's worth I tried connecting to https://www.dmdc.osd.mil After a 5 second pause I got redirected to: https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/appj/dwp/index.jsp Is the 2nd location the site you wanted to reach? Using EIS v10.1.219.0 on Win7 Pro x64 with Chrome browser v60.3112.90

That has been my exact feeling about all MBAM versions beyond 1.75. Everything they added was already taken care of by Eset in a more efficient hassle free manner. @TomFace, Thanks for the link.

Click the link below for more information and explanation about locked files. It should put your mind at ease. http://support.eset.com/kb2155/?locale=en_US Quote from the above link:

As i said I have been having some nagging issues with my normally smooth running system. My boot times have been anything but my former normal time of about 45 seconds. I run a clean boot with the exception of EIS. In addition EIS has been running, for lack of a better description, weird. I too removed MBAM with their removal tool and the difference is night and day, EIS is behaving normally, boot time is back to normal from the up to two minutes or more. Looking back through the events and checking when I installed MBAM they both coincide. Even though I did not have MBAM starting at boot it was causing problems just being installed. @cyberhash: I believe Malwarebytes has tried to be something other then their formal self to quickly and their program is no longer remotely compatible with my system.

Thank you for your reply. I have long been aware of the pitfalls of having more then one AV in real time. You could say that I learned the hard way. Back in my earlier computer days I had three installed thinking oh yeah I'm safe now. Actually I was I couldn't do a thing on the computer. It finally gave up and wouldn't boot. Can you say reinstall without a backup. At this point I guess the question becomes what exactly is Malwarebytes, Is it a Malware scanner or a AV or both. Prior to version 3 it seemed to be a Malware scanner and worked well with Eset now it claims to be able to replace your AV yet also claims to be compatible with many top AV's as Tom points out. Pretty confusing.. I'm starting to wonder if it just being installed may be causing some minor issues that I'm having. One way to find out.

I tried to replicate the anomaly on my system with out experiencing the same results you describe. The sound blips from time to time going in and out of full screen mode which coincides with the screen change but the audio doesn't lag nor does the video.The results were identical with gamer mode on or off and with disable gamer mode automatically on or off. I didn't receive any EIS warnings during my test. How many times do you go in and out of full screen mode repeatedly and in what time frame to produce the warning?

I'm not seeing any major problems on my Win7 x64 system running EIS.v10.1.219. MBAM v3.1.2 is slow to load and added 8 to 20 seconds or more to my boot time, depending on what EIS is doing, and about 0 to 2 seconds to a page load in the Chrome browser. It's pretty resource hungry using around 207 MB of memory at idle and 360 MB scanning. They've added a "Lower the priority of manual scans to improve multitasking" setting which helps on the CPU load. Using a manual scan it takes 3:05 minutes to scan 314,339 items using about 16.5% of my CPU. The scan raised the temperature of my CPU to 128 degrees F. from it's idle of of 82 degrees F. I do not have any mutual exclusions set. However because I'm still not convinced that I need MBAM running in real time along side EIS duplicating protections I'm using it like I did with the free v1.75, a second opinion scanner. I'd still like to hear some opinions as to the effectiveness and advantages of running both in real time.

Thanks for the information Peter. There for a while I thought you guys were on fire with the mega module updates.

I am quite careful as well and rarely see a PUA. From your post I incorrectly assumed you hadn't seen one and didn't want you feeling left out I am confused as well about the comment. by COStark26 As far as certificate notifications, I have not been seeing many of them yet. Lucky I guess. I've had occasions where one would pop up I just close the browser and find whatever I'm looking for some place else.

You can receive PUA warnings if the download contains an additional install of something along with the intended program even if is possible to decline the additional software when the install is run. For example CCleaner is an excellent and safe program. However the free edition includes a tool bar so Eset kindly informs me with a PUA alert when I attempt to download it. You can ignore the alert or disconnect. You will again receive a PUA when you run the install. I should also add the the author of CCLeaner kindly offers free edition without the tool bar refereed to as the "Slim Edition" a week or so after the latest version release.

Then by all means uninstall the outdated v7 and install v10.1x, and you will have the best protection you can get. As it stands now you do not have the best protection you can get by about 3 versions.

Over the years I have tried quite a few different security suites and have always come home to Eset. Key factors to me when it comes to any security software are liking the software, peace of mind, ease of use, protection level, system resource impact, reputation and finally the cost now and renewals. I can't say anything bad about Kaspersky Internet Security as I only used it about two maybe three weeks a year or so ago. It missed a few of my most important bench marks. Specifically peace of mind, I didn't like it, ease of use and system resource impact. I think you are paying an introductory price. I would be considering the renewal cost. I only need a two system license so the cost difference is not that big of a deal. Don't get me wrong here I'm retired on a fixed income, money matters and I make a great deal of effort to save where I can. There is a cost threshold that I must consider for everything. However, Eset has not reached that threshold for me, yet. I hope Kaspersky works well and you enjoy it, but for me I'll stick with Eset, Out of idle curiosity what FUD are you talking about?

You can do a search in the rules window. Click on the spy glass in the upper right corner and it opens to enter a search item.