Why is ESET failing so bad?

[Super_Spartan 56]

Back when I got my first license in 2002, it was because I wanted a light AV soltution that protects well, and Eset's NOD32 was one of the AVs that never got an in the wild virus slip through

 

just look at these tests and see how horrible Eset is doing

 

what is going on? why has it done so bad?

 

this is not he only test that I've seen, it doesn't score too well on AV comparatives as well. why is the company going back?

 

The most recent and extensive real-world test!

hxxp://www.mrg-effitas.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/MRG-Effitas-Online-Banking-Browser-Security-Assessment-Project-Q2-20132.pdf


100% score in detected and protection of important data even if infected!

 

[rollers 4]

I have used Eset for years and it has never let me down.  I personally wouldn't pay much attention to the tests as I don't trust the results.   I feel that some of them are sponsored by companies and the sponsors normally end up with a good ranking.  

I have tried many other of the AV's over the years but have always come back to Eset.   You pay your money and takes your choice.  I am happy with mine. 

[SweX 871]

+1 rollers, I fully agree.

 

I won't comment on the MRG test.

 

But regarding the AV-Comparatives test, how can you say that it doesn't do well on the test by AV-C?

 

ESET is one of few vendors in the tests by AV-C that has a high consistency and stays on a stable level of 97-99%. 

 

People tend to take the test results too serious sometimes. Real-world usage wich is impossible to make tests on obviously is much more important. The tests are useful no doubt, but one shouldn't take them as serious as only because a vendor has a bad month (bad luck with the samples) doesn't mean that it's a bad product overall.

 

As I said to another member, if TEST results are very important to you, then you can see that ESET is not the product for you. But, if you want a great product that has a fantastic balance between system performance and protection then ESET may be what you're looking for.

 

 My point is that I haven't stayed with ESET all these years based on the test results. 

[SweX 871]

Speaking of tests....this test by AV-Test is showing that ESET is very bad when it comes to system performance,

(second worst in the test to be exact). 

 

hxxp://www.av-test.org/en/tests/home-user/windows-7/julaug-2013/

 

Cheers. 

[rollers 4]

I am also looking forward to the further improvements of version 7 when it is released

[Marcos 5,070]

I am also looking forward to the further improvements of version 7 when it is released

 

What improvements do you mean in particular? ESET already excels in detection and performance when it comes to real-world use.

[Marcos 5,070]

Back when I got my first license in 2002, it was because I wanted a light AV soltution that protects well, and Eset's NOD32 was one of the AVs that never got an in the wild virus slip through

 

just look at these tests and see how horrible Eset is doing

 

what is going on? why has it done so bad?

 

this is not he only test that I've seen, it doesn't score too well on AV comparatives as well. why is the company going back?

When judging a product by a test, one should first look at the methodology. Without knowing how exactly the test was performed and what samples were used, looking just at the result might be deceiving. E.g. one shouldn't test behavior-blocking or sandboxing capabilities if a product doesn't have such features. Also self-made samples do not represent malware that endangers users in real life.

The current advanced banking malware like Hesperbot performs man-in-the-middle attacks and also uses a mobile component to steal authorization codes sent by SMS to a victim's mobile phone to authorize payments. For more information about how Hesperbot works, I'd recommend reading this article:

hxxp://www.welivesecurity.com/2013/09/06/hesperbot-technical-analysis-part-12/

 

ESET provides excellent protection against real-world threats (especially when it comes to zero-day malware), with extremely low false-positives ratio, regardless whether a home, business or server product is used.

[SCR 195]

Speaking of tests....this test by AV-Test is showing that ESET is very bad when it comes to system performance,

(second worst in the test to be exact). 

 

hxxp://www.av-test.org/en/tests/home-user/windows-7/julaug-2013/

 

Cheers. 

They must have tested it on a very bad system.

[mana 1]

Test results are important. Individual test results are still valid no matter what.
Test methodology is important but it is different issue.

- AV comparatives (real-world protection test... etc)
- AV-Test
- VB100
- Dennis Technology Labs
- MRG Effitas Online Banking project

 

They are well known and I don't think their test methodology are horrible or nonsense.
I know some people really doubt that AV-Test methodology recently but it doesn't mean their test data is useless.

Why do AV vendors participate independent lab tests (AV comparatives, AV-Test, VB100)?
Because consumers do not always choose or purchase product based on fan boy mind. (one of big reasons)
consumers need standards to measure products. ESET is also using test results for their product marketing

These days some AV vendors shied away from taking part in testing because they knew their level of protection had no chance of getting a good score
I don't rely one single test but still independent lab tests provide valuable data to measure products.

some AV vendors have an ambivalent attitude toward well known independent lab tests.
If they get high score, they use it for marketing right away. If they don't? As you know they are talking about test methodology.
Most of AV products provide multi-layer protection but behavior-based detection and signature-based detection are still huge part.

I cannot say ESET is best or top grade because other products show better protection level and repair level.
It's very clear high score products usually get high score in most other tests.
It doesn't mean ESET is horrible or bad. I think ESET is stll good grade AV. Weak point is zero day threat protection (zero-day unknown malware, exploit)
ESET HIPs(auto mode) is working for just ESET product self-defense since v5 so you cannot expect strong behavior based malware blocking
That's why ESET finally adds Advanced memory scanner and Exploit-Blocker in version 7
I hope that Advanced memory scanner and Exploit-Blocker are really effective for unknown malware.
 

Edited October 5, 2013 by mana

[SweX 871]

 

Speaking of tests....this test by AV-Test is showing that ESET is very bad when it comes to system performance,

(second worst in the test to be exact). 

 

hxxp://www.av-test.org/en/tests/home-user/windows-7/julaug-2013/

 

Cheers. 

They must have tested it on a very bad system.

 

The hardware they test on is the same for all the products.

 

In anycase, I should clarify that my point was that the results doesn't reflect what I feel on my rather old system when I use ESET.

And since they use newer hardware than me the performance results in this particular test is anything but correct, as it shows that ESET has a big impact on the performance, when infact the impact is very tiny.

[Marcos 5,070]

Weak point is zero day threat protection (zero-day unknown malware, exploit)

How do you know? According to my observation, ESET is usually the only AV to detect zero-day malware I come across. From time to time we also receive complaints that ESET has incorrectly blocked a website and no other antivirus flagged is as malicious. After checking the website, we confirmed that the website contained a malicious java script which was the reason for blocking.

As for Advanced memory scanner, it's not that it would detect new threats that ESET couldn't recognize before. It could but only by startup and on-demand scans which did not provide real-time protection to users.

[rollers 4]

 

I am also looking forward to the further improvements of version 7 when it is released

 

What improvements do you mean in particular? ESET already excels in detection and performance when it comes to real-world use.

 

ESET NOD32 Antivirus and ESET Smart Security 7.0.104 beta have been released.

Changelog:

• Added Specialized cleaner
• Added configuration of action to be taken after a removable device is connected
• Fixed bugs discovered after the June release

 

As per the above, anything added is an improvement in my book :-)   You are speaking to the converted here that Eset is superb, that's why I have used it for years and continue to use it.  

[Dangermouse 5]

Have a look at this to see how some AV survey results are created https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjNG69AGagY

[SCR 195]

 

 

Speaking of tests....this test by AV-Test is showing that ESET is very bad when it comes to system performance,

(second worst in the test to be exact). 

 

hxxp://www.av-test.org/en/tests/home-user/windows-7/julaug-2013/

 

Cheers. 

They must have tested it on a very bad system.

 

The hardware they test on is the same for all the products.

 

In anycase, I should clarify that my point was that the results doesn't reflect what I feel on my rather old system when I use ESET.

And since they use newer hardware than me the performance results in this particular test is anything but correct, as it shows that ESET has a big impact on the performance, when infact the impact is very tiny.

 

It's not what I see either. I still use ESS on my 9 year old XP machine running at 1.8GHz and 1 gig of RAM. Now if it will run on that without impacting performance then I don't understand what they mean in the test. Maybe they forgot to uninstall the previous test AV before trying ESET. 

Edited October 6, 2013 by SCR

[SweX 871]

 

 

 

Speaking of tests....this test by AV-Test is showing that ESET is very bad when it comes to system performance,

(second worst in the test to be exact). 

 

hxxp://www.av-test.org/en/tests/home-user/windows-7/julaug-2013/

 

Cheers. 

They must have tested it on a very bad system.

 

The hardware they test on is the same for all the products.

 

In anycase, I should clarify that my point was that the results doesn't reflect what I feel on my rather old system when I use ESET.

And since they use newer hardware than me the performance results in this particular test is anything but correct, as it shows that ESET has a big impact on the performance, when infact the impact is very tiny.

 

It's not what I see either. I still use ESS on my 9 year old XP machine running at 1.8GHz and 1 gig of RAM. Now if it will run on that without impacting performance then I don't understand what they mean in the test. Maybe they forgot to uninstall the previous test AV before trying ESET. 

 

Haha that's funny because my system is also 9yrs old what a coincidence It has AMD Athlon2800+ but I only got 512MB of RAM, it would run smoother with 1gb or more of course. And the reason for not upgrading is simply for the reason that everything in it is 9yr old, hdd, graphics, processor etc etc. So it's not worth to spend money on.

 

The on-board soundcard died 3 days ago, so now I am using an external one via the USB port wich works just as good actually.

[mana 1]

As for Advanced memory scanner, it's not that it would detect new threats that ESET couldn't recognize before. It could but only by startup and on-demand scans which did not provide real-time protection to users.

 

 

"Advanced memory scanner, which scans running applications when their state is changed to look for possibly suspicious or malware-like behavior."

 

 

I think that it's kind of real-time behavior-based detection component but after Marcos's explanation... now it sounds very limited.

Edited October 7, 2013 by mana

[stackz 112]

I think that it's kind of real-time behavior-based detection component but after Marcos's explanation... now it sounds very limited.

 

I think what Marcos means is that previously this form of memory scanning was only available during startup and on-demand scans. The limitations with this approach is that memory detection is reliant on a single snapshot of the memory.

Now with it being available as a real-time detection, it is better able to detect suspicious and/or malware like behaviour patterns.

Edited October 7, 2013 by stackz

[Marcos 5,070]

I think what Marcos means is that previously this form of memory scanning was only available during startup and on-demand scans.

 

Exactly. Threats detected by the Advanced memory scanner could be discovered even before by the on-demand or startup scanner, however, since they were run only intermittently there was a good chance new threats could run for a certain time until they were detected.

[Janus 210]

 

I think that it's kind of real-time behavior-based detection component but after Marcos's explanation... now it sounds very limited.

 

I think what Marcos means is that previously this form of memory scanning was only available during startup and on-demand scans. The limitations with this approach is that memory detection is reliant on a single snapshot of the memory.

Now with it being available as a real-time detection, it is better able to detect suspicious and/or malware like behaviour patterns.

 

 

 

 

I think what Marcos means is that previously this form of memory scanning was only available during startup and on-demand scans.

 

Exactly. Threats detected by the Advanced memory scanner could be discovered even before by the on-demand or startup scanner, however, since they were run only intermittently there was a good chance new threats could run for a certain time until they were detected.

 

 

And that is in my perspective a huge improvement. You could say that, Real Time scanning has been boosted, to higher level of protection,... I am tempted to say that we have reached full circle, regarding real time scanning.

 

Regards, Janus :-))

[SweX 871]

 

I think that it's kind of real-time behavior-based detection component but after Marcos's explanation... now it sounds very limited.

 

I think what Marcos means is that previously this form of memory scanning was only available during startup and on-demand scans. The limitations with this approach is that memory detection is reliant on a single snapshot of the memory.

Now with it being available as a real-time detection, it is better able to detect suspicious and/or malware like behaviour patterns.

 

Yep that's exactly how it was before, so yes this is a great improvement "thumb up"

[The Red Moon 5]

I must say that in the few years i have used a windows computer i have come across about half a dozen malwares in a real time situation.I am very curious to know just what sort of people are coming across hundreds of malwares which can justify these test results.

 

I have tried most security products and by far ESET has been the most friendliest towards my computer with hardly any impact at all which i regard as more important than high detection rates.

 

I personally do not browse on the dark side and generally i visit a set number of trusted websites so my likelihood of coming across malware is quite low in that respect.

 

I mean really do we expect to come across such big amounts of malware?

If by any chance i do come across a malware and ESET stops it then that is job well done by ESET and it is doing what it is supposed to do.

[TJP 143]

I've been following the test results of anti-virus programs for some time now and the results go in cycles. Back when Nod32 was still in version 2, it was the 'best' AV based on various tests, then Kaspersky became the 'must have' AV followed by Avira, G-Data and currently it's Bit Defender getting praise for achieving very high test scores (apologies if I left any vendors out). Make of this what you will...

 

There are several AV companies that remain near the top throughout the years and Eset is one such vendor. That is enough peace of mind for me. There is no AV will protect any PC 100% of the time; the only thing that can is the person using the keyboard and mouse.

[Guest MrHacker]

Test results are important. Individual test results are still valid no matter what.

Test methodology is important but it is different issue.

- AV comparatives (real-world protection test... etc)

- AV-Test

- VB100

- Dennis Technology Labs

- MRG Effitas Online Banking project

 

They are well known and I don't think their test methodology are horrible or nonsense.

I know some people really doubt that AV-Test methodology recently but it doesn't mean their test data is useless.

Why do AV vendors participate independent lab tests (AV comparatives, AV-Test, VB100)?

Because consumers do not always choose or purchase product based on fan boy mind. (one of big reasons)

consumers need standards to measure products. ESET is also using test results for their product marketing

These days some AV vendors shied away from taking part in testing because they knew their level of protection had no chance of getting a good score

I don't rely one single test but still independent lab tests provide valuable data to measure products.

some AV vendors have an ambivalent attitude toward well known independent lab tests.

If they get high score, they use it for marketing right away. If they don't? As you know they are talking about test methodology.

Most of AV products provide multi-layer protection but behavior-based detection and signature-based detection are still huge part.

I cannot say ESET is best or top grade because other products show better protection level and repair level.

It's very clear high score products usually get high score in most other tests.

It doesn't mean ESET is horrible or bad. I think ESET is stll good grade AV. Weak point is zero day threat protection (zero-day unknown malware, exploit)

ESET HIPs(auto mode) is working for just ESET product self-defense since v5 so you cannot expect strong behavior based malware blocking

That's why ESET finally adds Advanced memory scanner and Exploit-Blocker in version 7

I hope that Advanced memory scanner and Exploit-Blocker are really effective for unknown malware.

 

 

Really i agree with you but in some parts i don't.

I never Trust these Test Companies because if you see in every Test Bitdefender wins but according to me Bitdefender is worst. If you want to see test i would suggest you to see test of MalwareDoctor on YouTube.

 

Yes ESET lacks in Zero Day Protection & from the version 5 i believe ESET should have Behavior Blocker & RealTime Cloud Based Protection. 

If you Don't Believe you can see this link hxxp://malwaretips.com/Thread-ESET-Do-you-think-ESET-Should-have-BB 

Now ESET v7 will be the best in all. 

[SweX 871]

Really i agree with you but in some parts i don't.

I never Trust these Test Companies because if you see in every Test Bitdefender wins but according to me Bitdefender is worst. If you want to see test i would suggest you to see test of MalwareDoctor on YouTube.

 

Yes ESET lacks in Zero Day Protection & from the version 5 i believe ESET should have Behavior Blocker & RealTime Cloud Based Protection. 

My opinion is that the Youtube tests is not any better than the Org tests, but that's a different discussion.

 

Anyhow, the new AMS in V7 (Advanced Memory Scanner) is real-time based, before it was used only at start-up or when an on-demand scan was runned. But now it does it's job all the time.

 the Advanced memory scanner, which scans running applications when their state is changed to look for possibly suspicious or malware-like behavior.

 

 

And ESET products do have real-time cloud powered updates, the product get's small updates every 2-5 min since V6. 

 

HTH

Edited October 12, 2013 by SweX

[TJP 143]

 

And ESET products do have real-time cloud powered updates, the product get's small updates every 2-5 min since V6. 

 

HTH

 

 

Hello SweX,

 

Where can I read about the 'cloud' updates? It's the first I've heard of ESS having such a feature.

 

Cheers.