AVComparatives...how is this possible?

[novice 20]

Oct 2017

ESET 98.4%

MSE 99.1%+ 0.9% user dependent=100%

 

[TomFace 539]

Oh boy....another A/V comparison..... Let's stop the presses and wait for the other shoe...    

(more from the troll https://forum.eset.com/topic/13014-is-eset-discovering-malware/?do=findComment&comment=64941 and https://forum.eset.com/topic/13014-is-eset-discovering-malware/?do=findComment&comment=65550)

 

 

 

Edited November 25, 2017 by TomFace

[novice 20]

2 minutes ago, TomFace said:

....another A/V comparison

I agree with you, shouldn't be "another A/V comparison",  but now seems to be a monthly event for ESET, when it scores the worst among "big names"

It seems like ESET got lost in sophistication (UEFI scanner!!!!) but ignores the basics.

 

 

[Super_Spartan 56]

1 hour ago, John Alex said:

I agree with you, shouldn't be "another A/V comparison",  but now seems to be a monthly event for ESET, when it scores the worst among "big names"

It seems like ESET got lost in sophistication (UEFI scanner!!!!) but ignores the basics.

 

 

All I can tell you is that in the 14 years that I've been using ESET NOD32 Antivirus (not even the Internet Security with its firewall), I have never gotten a virus and I do visit all kinds of sites you can imagine. ESET's HTTP scanner automatically blocks any bad sites/connections. nuff said. Take these tests with a grain of salt. I for one, will never trust Microsoft with my computer's security and their heavy Windows Defender. http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php?chart=chart4&year=2017&month=10&sort=1&zoom=2

Edited November 25, 2017 by Phoenix

[novice 20]

15 minutes ago, Phoenix said:

All I can tell you is that in the 14 years that I've been using ESET NOD32 Antivirus

I have been using various antiviruses for the last 10 years and MSE in the last 5 , and I also got ZERO infections.

And what???

Each and every month is the same situation on AV Comparatives, when ESET alone, from big players performs poorly, yet we are asked to "believe"

Enough with all kind of explanations....can we get results???? 

Edited November 25, 2017 by John Alex

[0xDEADBEEF 43]

OK, according to their more detailed setup mentioned in the cumulative result (see itman's link in this thread), I think their testing methodology is fair, which means ESET could do better. 

Edited November 26, 2017 by 0xDEADBEEF

[Marcos 5,070]

Also take into account that there's nothing like 100% malware detection. Moreover, if you don't know details about the sample set and the methodology used,  you shouldn't make hasty conclusions. For instance I mean if CoinMiners were included in the test set and a particular tester scanned samples with default settings, they would be undetected even if otherwise recognized with the detection enabled.

[TomFace 539]

All you have to do is consider the source.

According to John Alex  "we are asked to "believe"". I must have missed the religious sales pitch by ESET.

As Marcos said "there's nothing like 100% malware detection". That also hold true for everything that exists materialistically on this Earth. Any rational person known that.

Some folks like to change their A/V more often than they change their underwear.

Not my idea of a hobby (or worthwhile practice...changing A/Vs that is). 

John Alex  is just trolling (again). Please don't feed the troll, if you do it'll never leave.

Edited November 25, 2017 by TomFace

[SCR 195]

I would like the AV testing labs to publish their income sources. I think it might shed some light on their testing methodologies. But I could be wrong.

Just another month and another AV test with the same non real world predictable results.

[novice 20]

22 minutes ago, SCR said:

non real world predictable results.

Seems like the results were predictable for all other players, except ESET....

[SCR 195]

2 hours ago, John Alex said:

Seems like the results were predictable for all other players, except ESET....

Yeah "players"

 

[itman 1,659]

20 hours ago, 0xDEADBEEF said:

The test procedures they disclosed are too vague from my perspective. Of course my interpretation of their test might be wrong, so please take my comment with a grain of salt.

The full methodology A-V Comparatives uses is given here: https://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/avc_prot_2017a_en.pdf .

Edited November 26, 2017 by itman

[0xDEADBEEF 43]

1 hour ago, itman said:

The full methodology A-V Comparatives uses is given here: https://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/avc_prot_2017a_en.pdf .

didn't know that they talked more in the cumulative report  thanks. 

[itman 1,659]

FYI - in this recent AV-Test comparative on Win 10, Eset did better than WD on real time protection: https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/windows-10/ . Also they tested ver. 10 and not 11 which has more protection features.

Bottom line - test results vary by AV lab depending on what malware samples are used at any given time and methodology deployed. This is why I always recommend one average AV lab test results to determine a given product effectiveness.

[novice 20]

On ‎11‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 10:14 AM, TomFace said:

Not my idea of a hobby (or worthwhile practice...changing A/Vs that is). 

Have you seen this?

And this?  "We don't perform behavior blocking"

 

[Marcos 5,070]

42 minutes ago, John Alex said:

Have you seen this?

And this?  "We don't perform behavior blocking

Yes, we have seen that somebody coded a keylogger and complains that it is not detected. If security software was to detect any future malware without updates, then why every AV would need to get updated on a regular basis to provide maximum protection? We kindly ask you to stop this as your behavior will be considered trolling and appropriate measures will be taken. You have a free choice in selecting the security solution that fits you best and that you are satisfied with.

[novice 20]

5 hours ago, Marcos said:

If security software was to detect any future malware without updates, then why every AV would need to get updated on a regular basis to provide maximum protection

Sir,

Pretending that you do not understand the issue , doesn't help anyone.

The guy coded a keylogger, created a HIPS rule , and expected detection from the newly created HIPS rule, but nothing happened.

For a HIPS rule to work,  you do not need "updates".

I complained 100 times so far , that in my years of using NOD32 , I never got an alert from HIPS, but you told me that is "normal"

Well, somebody smarter than me, proved otherwise....

 

[peteyt 393]

18 minutes ago, John Alex said:

Sir,

Pretending that you do not understand the issue , doesn't help anyone.

The guy coded a keylogger, created a HIPS rule , and expected detection from the newly created HIPS rule, but nothing happened.

For a HIPS rule to work,  you do not need "updates".

I complained 100 times so far , that in my years of using NOD32 , I never got an alert from HIPS, but you told me that is "normal"

Well, somebody smarter than me, proved otherwise....

 

Is hips in automatic?

[novice 20]

No, in "Smart Mode".

[Azure Phoenix 11]

2 hours ago, John Alex said:

No, in "Smart Mode".

The first post says "I am amused that Smart Security didn't block it. I've set HIPS mode to interactive"

[novice 20]

23 minutes ago, Azure Phoenix said:

The first post says

whose first post?

Edited December 27, 2017 by John Alex

[Azure Phoenix 11]

9 hours ago, John Alex said:

whose first post?

From this thread

https://forum.eset.com/topic/14195-hips-doesnt-block-unknown-keyloggers/

[novice 20]

10 hours ago, Azure Phoenix said:

From this thread

https://forum.eset.com/topic/14195-hips-doesnt-block-unknown-keyloggers/

"Interactive" is more sensitive than "Smart Mode"; in interactive mode you should get each and every possible alert from HIPS.

If you do not get it in this mode, you will not get it in "Smart Mode" either.

Edited December 27, 2017 by John Alex