Complains about ESET.

[Arik 5]

Hello,

Dear users of ESET, I would like to discuss about a topic that Is a bit annoying atleast for me.

I see some pepole In this forum recenlty that are often complain about ESET protection and they compare It to other security vendors.

Then, marcos himself needs to quote them and explain them why ESET Is so great and good compare to other security products.

If you don't like ESET In any way Don't use It!

Because I think everyone wants this forum to stay friendly and helpfull

and not that new users will come and see that almost every second topic Is titled about this "ESET Bad In ransomware"

I think It's a little bit bad Issue In my opinion.

Even though that I like to get popcorn when I see marcos quote those guys who complain so hard about ESET

I won't name pepole here but oh well...

[TomFace 539]

All users of the forum should read/review and abide by the forum rules https://forum.eset.com/topic/76-rules-of-the-eset-security-forum/

Forum behavior expectations are clearly stated there.

 

Edited December 31, 2017 by TomFace

[Arik 5]

Just now, TomFace said:

Users of the forum should read (or re-read) and abide by the forum rules https://forum.eset.com/topic/76-rules-of-the-eset-security-forum/

Forum behavior expectations are clearly stated there.

 

Yes, you are right Just wanted to tell to the trollers who are trolling In this behavior that If they don't like ESET they can move on simple as that.

[novice 20]

fo·rum

ˈfôrəm/  

noun

noun: forum; plural noun: forums; plural noun: fora

1. 1.

   a place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.

   "it will be a forum for consumers to exchange their views on medical research"

   synonyms:

   meeting, assembly, gathering, rally, conference, seminar, convention, symposium, colloquium, caucus; More informalget-together; formalcolloquy "forums were held for staff to air grievances" setting, place, scene, context, stage, framework, backdrop; medium, means, apparatus, auspices "a forum for discussion"

   • an Internet site where users can post comments about a particular issue or topic and reply to other users' postings.

 

I believe the forum is fine the way it is ;

You want only post like "Are you happy with ESET?"

 

[itman 1,659]

In regards to @TomFace posting about forum rules:

Quote

15. Do not post "A vs. B" or "Which product is best?" type messages in the forum.

I believe this rule pretty much covers these never ending Eset vs. MSE/WD AV Lab test results postings.

If one wants to complain about Eset's ranking in a lab test - fine. Leave other products tested in the comparative out of the discussion.

[novice 20]

27 minutes ago, itman said:

If one wants to complain about Eset's ranking in a lab test - fine. Leave other products tested in the comparative out of the discussion.

How would this help or change anything????

[itman 1,659]

22 minutes ago, John Alex said:

How would this help or change anything????

Maybe this will help.

Each security vendor develops their product under guidelines developed by their management. Eset's "philosophy" in this regard is as follows. Provide the best overall security protection with the minimum impact to the end user or to system performance. Elaborated, this means that the standard in regards to false positives and user interaction in regards to application execution in any form is zero tolerance.

Given the current state of security technology in regards to the above, this will result in a very low percentage, less than 1% on average, of malware samples used in AV lab tests not being detected. The question one needs to ask in regards to these non-detected malware samples is what is the likelihood of one encountering in real world PC use? Unforunately, I know of no formal studies done in this regard. Perhaps Eset should do their own study to "put this issue to bed" once and for all. As @Marcos has frequently pointed out to postings of new malware in the forum that was not initially detected, the frequency of the malware distribution world-wide was very low; in most cases less than a handful. Additionally, in many of these cases the malware distribution was isolated to one country or location within.

One universal technique used in business is cost performance analysis. To remain profitable and therefore continue to exist, a business must allocate it resources to areas that will yield the greatest product performance results. In economic theory, this is referred to as marginal utility analysis. A security vendor can develop a solution that will yield 100% detection 100% of the time with zero user interaction required. Would the marketplace support acceptance of this product if its cost was $500 per license? Of course not. 

[novice 20]

Nice "speech", unfortunately lacks substance:

1 hour ago, itman said:

Eset's "philosophy" in this regard is as follows. Provide the best overall security protection with the minimum impact to the end user or to system performance.

It is rather common sense than a philosophy. All AV companies have the same.

 

1 hour ago, itman said:

less than 1% on average, of malware samples used in AV lab tests not being detected. The question one needs to ask in regards to these non-detected malware samples is what is the likelihood of one encountering in real world PC use?

Microsoft used the same justification when they had a low detection rate (years ago) and everybody laugh in their face.

 

1 hour ago, itman said:

A security vendor can develop a solution that will yield 100% detection 100% of the time with zero user interaction required. Would the marketplace support acceptance of this product if its cost was $500 per license? Of course not

Bitdefender, with 99.9% detection rate and 3FP offers a free version ($0 per license);Kaspersky, 99.7% detection rate and 2FP has a free version

So, it is possible, without any "philosophy"...

Hope you do not take it personally.

Happy New Year!

[Azure Phoenix 11]

2 hours ago, itman said:

In regards to @TomFace posting about forum rules:

I believe this rule pretty much covers these never ending Eset vs. MSE/WD AV Lab test results postings.

If one wants to complain about Eset's ranking in a lab test - fine. Leave other products tested in the comparative out of the discussion.

If an user isn't allowed to discuss ESET's results then moderators might as well remove every single AV testing thread. Be it professionally, like AV-test,  or not like YouTube testers. That would be fair.

 

Guys, do remember that not all criticism is bad. I can understand you all like ESET and believe those people do so as well. They want ESET to be the best it can be.

 

Internet trolls do exist. But just because someone says something you don't agree with doesn't make them a troll.

 

 

 

[peteyt 393]

24 minutes ago, John Alex said:

Nice "speech", unfortunately lacks substance:

It is rather common sense than a philosophy. All AV companies have the same.

 

Microsoft used the same justification when they had a low detection rate (years ago) and everybody laugh in their face.

 

Bitdefender, with 99.9% detection rate and 3FP offers a free version ($0 per license);Kaspersky, 99.7% detection rate and 2FP has a free version

So, it is possible, without any "philosophy"...

Hope you do not take it personally.

Happy New Year!

And bitdefender used to crash all the time when i used it, closing itself. Granted i haven't used it for years but that and another issue have made me have a bad image of it just the same way most people have a bad image of norton. 

The thing is no one is saying people cant post results of tests but no point posting posts every time another program appears to do better.

[itman 1,659]

2 hours ago, John Alex said:

Bitdefender, with 99.9% detection rate and 3FP offers a free version ($0 per license);Kaspersky, 99.7% detection rate and 2FP has a free version

Then by all means, I believe you should use one of those solutions and report back after an extended use period about your experiences encountered with them. I, for one, have used the paid versions of both products in the past and my experiences with them were not pleasant to put it mildly. I have also used Norton/Symantec Endpoint, Emsisoft, Avast, Avira, and Malwarebytes Premium to name a few others. Add to that HIPS like products such as DefenseWall, PrivateFirewall, and the like.

A funny story I tell is the first time I used Eset, I was on Win 7. My PC blue screened on the next subsequent reboot. Had to restore from an image backup and almost ditched Eset at that point. Worked through that problem and have been using it every since.

Edited December 31, 2017 by itman

[Marcos 5,069]

3 hours ago, John Alex said:

Bitdefender, with 99.9% detection rate and 3FP offers a free version ($0 per license);Kaspersky, 99.7% detection rate and 2FP has a free version

I'd recommend you try each AV with 100% detection in tests and let us know after a few months about your experience. As itman said, personal experience is invaluable. Also I fully support the idea that everyone should use what fits him or her best. So we kindly ask you to stop complaining about tiny differences in detection rate and use whatever security solution you like most and fits you best.

[itman 1,659]

Implied is that the free versions of major AV vendors products are equal to that of their paid versions. They are not. For starters are privacy , tech support, and "nag" purchase screen issues. Then there are the security protection differences. A-V Comparatives did a feature analysis last summer between paid vs. free AV solutions by the same vendor here: https://www.av-comparatives.org/free-vs-paid-2017/ . Below are excerpts from it in regards to Bitdefender and Kaspersky:
 

Quote

Bitdefender Antivirus Free Edition vs Bitdefender Antivirus Plus

Differences in features and services between free and paid versions

Feature differences according to vendor’s website

The Bitdefender website shows that Antivirus Plus includes ransomware protection, free online
support, WiFi Security Advisor, Online Banking Protection, Password Manager, Search Advisor,
Vulnerability Scan, File Shredder, Safepay (a secure browser), and Safe Files.

 

Kaspersky Free vs Kaspersky Anti-Virus

Differences in features and services between free and paid versions

Feature differences shown in program

Controls for the System Watcher component, which is intended to monitor and undo changes caused
by malware, are not shown in Kaspersky Free.

The main program window of Kaspersky Free shows greyed-out controls for the Safe Money, Privacy
Protection, Parental Control, and Protection for all devices features, which are only available in the
(paid) Internet Security suite.

 

PC Magazine also did its own analysis this month on free anti-virus solutions here: https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2388652,00.asp . Contrary to what has been previously stated, the top free AV performer was Avast which scored 97% in malware detection and 87% in URL blocking. Note that the protection scores shown are for NOD32 and not Eset IS/SS:

Edited December 31, 2017 by itman

[TomFace 539]

8 hours ago, Azure Phoenix said:

If an user isn't allowed to discuss ESET's results then moderators might as well remove every single AV testing thread. Be it professionally, like AV-test,  or not like YouTube testers. That would be fair.

 

Guys, do remember that not all criticism is bad. I can understand you all like ESET and believe those people do so as well. They want ESET to be the best it can be.

 

Internet trolls do exist. But just because someone says something you don't agree with doesn't make them a troll.

 

 

 

There are other websites where anyone can look up A/V comparison results. Maybe those posts SHOULD be banned from this forum. That is not my call.

Besides I think it's already addressed in the forum rules as itman has pointed out previously.

It's really quite simple, users need to conform to the rules of THIS forum if they want to be a part of it. Perhaps those who are confused should review the posts by dwomack and Aryeh when this forum was launched as to understand its purpose. I've included those links if you are interested.

https://forum.eset.com/topic/96-welcome-to-the-eset-security-forum/

https://forum.eset.com/topic/96-welcome-to-the-eset-security-forum/?do=findComment&comment=397

 

 

Edited January 1, 2018 by TomFace

[itman 1,659]

I will also add that AV Lab and other org. ad hoc security testing is only one criteria in evaluating an AV security product. As noted previously, actually real world end user experience with the product and the vendor is really the most important criteria.

Below are two links to a web site where individuals can rate their experience with a product and the vendor who markets it. The Avast reviews are negatively illuminating to say the least. The Eset reviews are the exact opposite:

https://www.consumeraffairs.com/computers/avast-antivirus.html

https://www.consumeraffairs.com/computers/eset-antivirus.html

[Marcos 5,069]

As Itman said, personal experience is invaluable. If users were not satisfied with ESET's protection capabilities or performance, ESET's products wouldn't be that popular in many countries, including Japan which you will likely agree is very sensitive to quality and efficiency of any goods. Also if ESET was not good enough, it wouldn't have ranked among two best AV desktop solutions and in top 4 in the mobile segment in probably all annual AV-Comparatives surveys where it's users who cast their votes based on their personal experience with various security products.

To sum it up:
1, There's nothing like 100% detection of malware. Tests are always performed on a very limited test set.
2, Without knowing the methodology and its relevance to real-wide use it's necessary to take the results with a pinch or better with a lump of salt.
3, AV solutions may behave differently in different conditions, scenarios and systems. What works for one just fine may not work well for another users.
4, Should you encounter a technical issue, a problem with performance, etc. on a particular system, ESET's customer care and we, moderators of the forum, are here to assist you with pinpointing and resolving it.
5, We are open to constructive criticism. We listen to our customers and improve our products also based on your feedback.

[Arik 5]

3 hours ago, Marcos said:

As Itman said, personal experience is invaluable. If users were not satisfied with ESET's protection capabilities or performance, ESET's products wouldn't be that popular in many countries, including Japan which you will likely agree is very sensitive to quality and efficiency of any goods. Also if ESET was not good enough, it wouldn't have ranked among two best AV desktop solutions and in top 4 in the mobile segment in probably all annual AV-Comparatives surveys where it's users who cast their votes based on their personal experience with various security products.

To sum it up:
1, There's nothing like 100% detection of malware. Tests are always performed on a very limited test set.
2, Without knowing the methodology and its relevance to real-wide use it's necessary to take the results with a pinch or better with a lump of salt.
3, AV solutions may behave differently in different conditions, scenarios and systems. What works for one just fine may not work well for another users.
4, Should you encounter a technical issue, a problem with performance, etc. on a particular system, ESET's customer care and we, moderators of the forum, are here to assist you with pinpointing and resolving it.
5, We are open to constructive criticism. We listen to our customers and improve our products also based on your feedback.

tbh I totally agree with you!

Also, don't forgot It's very popular In Israel aswell

That's one of the things I very like about ESET Is that I have full support In my country lanaguge and have a full site of ESET In my lanaguge.

[Azure Phoenix 11]

My point was that, it is perfectly reasonable for a user to discuss a test if that was the point of the topic. In the end that means that people will compare the results among each vendors, because well that was the point of the test, wasn't it?

 

 

[peteyt 393]

24 minutes ago, Azure Phoenix said:

My point was that, it is perfectly reasonable for a user to discuss a test if that was the point of the topic. In the end that means that people will compare the results among each vendors, because well that was the point of the test, wasn't it?

 

 

The issue isn't really with the tests themselves. People seem to keep posting regularly comparing and complaining about eset if it does scores less than another AV.

The point is there's no such thing as 100% protection so I'd be very wary if a test shows an AV with 100%. Also The problem is these tests use limited malware samples. You will see multiple tests from different testers with multiple results because of this. I could do a test myself let's say and hand pick samples that some AVs find and one doesn't to make that AV look bad. Yet at the same time I could do the opposite and make the same AV look good.

For this reason these tests should always be taken with a pinch of salt. If you go by test results as a way to choose an AV you would have to repeatedly change your AV. As has been stated on here it's important to note these tests are not realistic. A user is never going to for example intentionally download multiple samples. I would rather go by user experience over these tests and my own experience with using multiple AVs in the past led me to and keep me using eset.

 

[novice 20]

21 minutes ago, peteyt said:

 The problem is these tests use limited malware samples. You will see multiple tests from different testers with multiple results because of this. I could do a test myself let's say and hand pick samples that some AVs find and one doesn't to make that AV look bad. Yet at the same time I could do the opposite and make the same AV look good.

Either you do not understand or you pretend not to understand; nobody "hand picked" samples to make ESET look bad , while some other samples were used for the rest of the tested antiviruses , just to make them look good.

When a test is being performed by a specialized entity , THE SAME SAMPLES are used for all players involved.

I agree that the samples could be limited in number, but this is a fact of life: for example, in order to pass some exam  you need to solve a limited number of questions in a limited amount of time; if you do it, you pass.

If don't, complaining that is no a real life situation and that you are known as a "good guy" in the neighborhood is not going to help you to get admitted. 

It is simple like that!

[peteyt 393]

4 hours ago, John Alex said:

Either you do not understand or you pretend not to understand; nobody "hand picked" samples to make ESET look bad , while some other samples were used for the rest of the tested antiviruses , just to make them look good.

When a test is being performed by a specialized entity , THE SAME SAMPLES are used for all players involved.

I agree that the samples could be limited in number, but this is a fact of life: for example, in order to pass some exam  you need to solve a limited number of questions in a limited amount of time; if you do it, you pass.

If don't, complaining that is no a real life situation and that you are known as a "good guy" in the neighborhood is not going to help you to get admitted. 

It is simple like that!

I wasn't saying the samples are hand picked my point is if you Google different test results you will see there can be big differences e.g. one test one is high and another low or at least lower. My point is that different testers will use different malware samples and so will show different results so people should avoid basing their points on specific test results. 

My point of real life situations is very important. Test results only show one part of the story. In real life situations most users are not going to download thousands of malware samples for example.

[novice 20]

5 hours ago, peteyt said:

In real life situations most users are not going to download thousands of malware samples for example.

If in real life situations most users are not going to download thousands of malware , why not use a simple and free antivirus???

[Marcos 5,069]

15 hours ago, Marcos said:

To sum it up:

1, There's nothing like 100% detection of malware. Tests are always performed on a very limited test set.
2, Without knowing the methodology and its relevance to real-wide use it's necessary to take the results with a pinch or better with a lump of salt.
3, AV solutions may behave differently in different conditions, scenarios and systems. What works for one just fine may not work well for another users.
4, Should you encounter a technical issue, a problem with performance, etc. on a particular system, ESET's customer care and we, moderators of the forum, are here to assist you with pinpointing and resolving it.
5, We are open to constructive criticism. We listen to our customers and improve our products also based on your feedback.

Since everything has been already said and explained, we'll draw this topic to a close.