• Announcements

    • Marcos

      Filecoder.Crysis updated to decode .dharma files   03/01/2017

      We are happy to announce you that we have updated the Filecoder.Crysis decoder to support decryption of files with the .wallet and .onion extensions. The decoder is downloadable from https://download.eset.com/com/eset/tools/decryptors/crysis/latest/esetcrysisdecryptor.exe.
Patrice

Is ESET discovering Malware ?

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, SCR said:

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.


I think that MBAM is still effective second opinion tool.  If you really throw away lifetime license. I'm willing to take it. * I know you are kidding :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, sky7 said:


I think that MBAM is still effective second opinion tool.  If you really throw away lifetime license. I'm willing to take it. * I know you are kidding :)

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/4/2017 at 2:23 AM, John Alex said:

Why exactly an average user has to " take time and learn how to use it or dig into the settings and config it manually because Eset in default settings is not that strong."?     Why are not the default setting strong enough?

I really believe this is a stupid approach to ask the user " just need to config it!"......

It is not the first time when ESET misses a ransomware detection, in spite of having a "dedicated' antiransomware module which should detect these based on behavior rather than signature....

Each day I am more and more disappointed.....

Hello,
When you buy a car you need to know how to drive it.
If you are on the road and the car stopped working what you want to do?Are you telling yourself am an average driver?Lol.
Imagine it's night and no one will help you.
But what if you know how to fix the problem or at least have some knowledge of the cars and their mechanics?
Sorry for my bad English I'm sure you know what I mean.
Eset settings are those mechanics!
You need to learn them but if you don't want to learn how to drive your VA or you are lazy why you bought an advanced antivirus?
Why not a simple av?With zero protection(zero because  those simple Avs don't have exploit protection, memory protection and more)
Why you ppl only count ransomware and flash memory viruses as malware?exploit is malware, memory attack is malware and...
I'm sure that Malwarebytes can't handle memory attack but Eset can try to block it because it has memory protection but Malwarebytes don't.
Did you even know that?no, because you only count ransomware as malware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/5/2017 at 0:31 AM, persian-boy said:

Why not a simple av?

I asked myself the same question..... Why not a simple AV , like MSE?

Is free, you do not have to set up anything and has a detection rate of 99.4%  , compared with ESET (paid) 99.1%  (consistent over 6 months period)

hxxp://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/09/2017 at 10:07 PM, John Alex said:

I asked myself the same question..... Why not a simple AV , like MSE???

Is free, you do not have to set up anything and has a detection rate of 99.4%  , compared with ESET (paid) 99.1%  (consistent over 6 months period)

hxxp://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php

As shown In previous posts AV charts can be problematic. One company will show one thing and another will show another. It depends on many factors e.g. what samples are used. 

In my opinion all AVs are pretty similar in the end in most cases. If one misses something it will probably find something else the other ones didn't. 

All I can say is as an eset user ive never been infected as far as I know/remember but I also take security into my own hand, regularly make sure eset is working fine etc.

persian-boy likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 8:23 PM, John Alex said:

Why exactly an average user has to " take time and learn how to use it or dig into the settings and config it manually because Eset in default settings is not that strong."?????     Why are not the default setting strong enough????

I really believe this is a stupid approach to ask the user " just need to config it!"......

It is not the first time when ESET misses a ransomware detection, in spite of having a "dedicated' antiransomware module which should detect these based on behavior rather than signature....

Each day I am more and more disappointed.....

So why John Alex are you even here if ESET is so bad and you are so "disappointed"?

Is it just to troll the forum and look for opportunities to inject your sage wisdom :blink::lol: and call other users "stupid" ? 

I for one, do not need or want your advice.

Edited by TomFace
Arik and persian-boy like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 6:41 PM, peteyt said:

All I can say is as an eset user ive never been infected as far as I know/remember

Hi,

I have been using MSE 4.10 for a while and, again, never got infected, so "not being infected" is not a measure of "effectiveness" of your antivirus solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, John Alex said:

Hi,

I have been using MSE 4.10 for a while and, again, never got infected, so "not being infected" is not a measure of "effectiveness" of your antivirus solution.

True.

The biggest factor in not getting infected is a user's security "awareness." Safe browsing habits including only downloading software from legit known vendor web sites and the like. Ditto for e-mail settings and handling of attachments and the like, etc. etc. Add to that absolute diligence in applying all system and app software patches immediately when available. Unfortunately and in spite of the ever increasing malware epidemic, the average PC user does none of the above. For a security aware user, using MSE or WD most likely is adequate since both only concentrate on the most prevalent malware. Additionally, WD/MSE protection for Chrome or Firefox browsers are definitely sub-par to that provided by IE or Edge due to their use of browser based SmartScreen.

Also when using either of  Microsoft AV home solutions, you are relying on the Win firewall for network protection. Protection capability is conditioned upon using a NAT/SPI router with its own firewall protection and ensuring it is properly configure for security. Although the Win firewall  provides adequate inbound protection it lacks the advanced network features Eset's IDS provides or the ability to easily configure outbound firewall rules.

Edited by itman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, itman said:

Eset's IDS provides or the ability to easily configure outbound firewall rules

Thank you for your answer!

I am using MSE + PC Tools Firewall Plus on a Win7/64.

I had for years NOD 32 installed on my PC and my wife's PC, never found anything in "Quarantine".

I still have one active license and one spare for NOD 32v , but v10 is heavy on my computers (compared with v8) , and , even though ESET should offer better protection than MSE , however on all AV Comparatives test in the last year , MSE performed better than ESET.

So, why bother?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, John Alex said:

PC Tools Firewall Plus

That firewall hasn't been supported for years; ever since Symantec bought PC Tools and "killed off" the software. It is definitely not up to protecting against current network threats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, itman said:

protecting against current network threats

It is a rules based firewall with basic HIPS, other than compatibility issues, what  is to be "supported"?

Isn't the job of the antimalware to protect against "current network threats"????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, John Alex said:

Hi,

I have been using MSE 4.10 for a while and, again, never got infected, so "not being infected" is not a measure of "effectiveness" of your antivirus solution.

I see a lot of people doing YouTube security tests where they throw everything they can at an AV. The problem is there is always a risk of something getting through. An AV is just a program and is prone to mistakes. Security starts with the user.

5 minutes ago, John Alex said:

It is a rules based firewall with basic HIPS, other than compatibility issues, what  is to be "supported"?

Isn't the job of the antimalware to protect against "current network threats"????

Well apart from possibly missing out on newer technology if it is no longer supported there could also be vulnerabilities which could in turn make it useless. It's like people who still use CO which being no longer supported could have many vulnerabilities. Using an AV on XP in my opinion is like having a state of the art prison but with a big hole in the fence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, John Alex said:

Isn't the job of the antimalware to protect against "current network threats"????

You also have another more pressing issue. You are using Win 7. The bulk of malware today is coded for commercial targets. As such, it is specifically targeted at Win 7 which many corps. still use. Note that most of the NSA exploits being employed today were designed and work on Win 7. If your a "fan" of Microsoft security protections, at least upgrade to Win 10 since they are most effective on that OS version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.