Jump to content

AV Comparatives August 2018 , another dissapointment for ESET


novice
 Share

Recommended Posts

https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/real-world-protection-test-august-2018-factsheet/

ESET  ($59.99/year)      98.4%

MSE (free)                      100% (99.5% and 0.5% user dependent)

Avira (free)                     100%

BitDefender (free)         100%

Panda (free)                   100% 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To correct your posting, the only free products tested were:

1. Avast and AVG - essentially the same product.

2. Panda

3. Windows Defender; not MSE.

As far as Eset's performance on the test, it is consistent with prior scores received in this test series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

I can't resist asking novice again: Why are you disappointed? Has ESET ever failed to protect you? There's nothing like 100% malware protection in real world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, itman said:

As far as Eset's performance on the test, it is consistent with prior scores received in this test series

Yes , consistency is good!

But not on 98% for the last 24 months when  even MSE scores better!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Marcos said:

Has ESET ever failed to protect you?

I ran my PC for months without any antivirus and was OK.

Based on your philosophy (has ESET ever failed to protect you) I can say that my mouse never failed to protect me in these months, hence I should use it as antivirus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, novice said:

I ran my PC for months without any antivirus and was OK.

Yes, that most certainly would be the case if you unplugged or disconnected the network adapter connection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

It can happen that users who practice safe computing, keep the OS and apps up to date and are behind a router with regularly updated firmware will never get infected. However, antivirus programs are mainly intended for the others.

Although I practice safe driving, I have a car insurance, just in case because one never knows...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Marcos said:

I have a car insurance, just in case because one never knows...

Yes, but PZT is mandatory contractual car insurance in Slovakia :D

Edited by novice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, novice said:

https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/real-world-protection-test-august-2018-factsheet/

ESET  ($59.99/year)      98.4%

MSE (free)                      100% (99.5% and 0.5% user dependent)

Avira (free)                     100%

BitDefender (free)         100%

Panda (free)                   100% 

We all would like to see ESET always get 100% like Bitdefender and Kaspersky. Windows Defender does a very good job but it had a lot of false positives in the test. And ESET is way more performant than Windows Defender and you don't get a flood of popups to let applications access to My Documents if you activate the protected folder features.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, TomFace said:

It's just more fresh baked "meadow muffins" from the master baker "novice" .:lol:

If you are ignorant, you can say so.

In reality ,is  the latest report from AV Comparatives for August 2018.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Kieran Barry said:

Yet for some reason that only the gods seem to know, you are still very much involved within the ESET community.

I am crying for over 300CAD spent on various ESET licenses , when I see a free antivirus performing better.

This is my involvement...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, novice said:

I am crying for over 300CAD spent on various ESET licenses , when I see a free antivirus performing better.

This is my involvement...

They say they have tested 193 URLs with malicious software. How do you know that if 500 were tested, the free AV's would not drop their score?

193 URLs to me does not sound like a lot at all when there are potentially millions of malicious URLs found on the web. No AV is going to protect against 100% of them. 

As part of my thesis at University, we had to manually scan through 2000 files for malicious content using various different methods, 193 test cases is nothing so in my opinion this test really doesn't show much at all.

EDIT: I would also like to point out the quote that appears at the bottom of the test page:

Quote

We would like to point out that while some products may sometimes be able to reach 100% protection rates in a test, it does not mean that these products will always protect against all threats on the web. It just means that they were able to block 100% of the widespread malicious samples used in a test.

 

Regards,

Kieran Barry

Edited by Kieran Barry
EDIT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kieran Barry said:

193 URLs to me does not sound like a lot at all when there are potentially millions of malicious URLs

ESET missed 1.6% of samples from 193, this means  3.088

Another scenario would be to imagine the same ratio on a million samples: this would be 16,000 misses.

Usually the samples used in AV Comparatives are the new /fresh ,active , zero day. 

Who is interested to see if an antivirus will block a malware from 3 years ago for which everyone has a signature already????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, novice said:

I ran my PC for months without any antivirus and was OK.

I thinked like you, when I didnt use any AV but the CCleaner case, changed my mind about not using AVs because when CCleaner got hacked, no regular user could notice it, especially when the hacked version was on the Official CCleaner site.

I must say I got lucky at that time because I wasnt using CCleaner on my pc during the time it got infected.

https://www.howtogeek.com/326742/ccleaner-was-hacked-what-you-need-to-know/

Edited by razorfancy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again …..………, you are in essence "beating a dead horse" when it comes to this issue.

In another like latest realtime malware test by an AV Lab: https://www.mrg-effitas.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/MRG-Effitas-2018Q2-360-Assessment.pdf , Eset scored 100%. I have repeatedly stated that in regards to AV Lab tests, results need to be averaged against all lab tests that AV vendor participates in. Also those results should be for an extended period of time with a minimum of 6 months and preferably, a year. In this regard pertaining to AV-C, they run a "dynamic" test series which will give a reviewer a more accurate view of an AV product's protection capability. In the last test in this series, Eset scored 99.8%:

Eset_AVC_Malware.thumb.png.ced77ab5506d739a36bb2cd3afb3cede.png

Edited by itman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, novice said:

Who is interested to see if an antivirus will block a malware from 3 years ago for which everyone has a signature already????

Because there have been multiple recent malware examples of new malware variants based on "old" malware. Malware is constantly "recycled" by developers for the simple reason it is less costly than coding a new version from scratch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, itman said:

Also those results should be for an extended period of time with a minimum of 6 months and preferably, a year

OK 6 months, then, from the same AV Comparatives:

Real-World Protection Test February-June 2018

ESET compromised 0.9%

MSE compromised 0.1%

Real-World Protection Test July-November 2017

ESET compromised  0.9%

MSE compromised 0.1%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, novice said:

MSE compromised 0.1%

Again, it was Windows Defender; not MSE. I do hope you know the two products are not the same. MSE only exists on Win 7 and prior.

Also as far as WD's 6 month average goes in the Realtime test series, it scored 1.9% for user decision required with 19 false positives. Also note that AV-C does not penalize user decision detection in their Realtime test series. They do level a 50% penalty for same in the Malware test series. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, novice said:

If you are ignorant, you can say so..

YOU HAVE NOW TAKEN THIS TO A NEW LEVEL OF DISGUST ... talk about a lack of intelligence, no reputable member of this Forum goes out to incite others needlessly.

But "novice" chooses to do so.

If "novice" were trying to improve ESET's performance, I would think that going through proper channels would be in order.

But "novice" has not chosen that course.

"novice" has been a member of this Forum since July 20, 2013. If according to "it's" information, "it" purchases a 3 year license, the said license would have (assuming "it" joined the Forum at the time "it" purchased the license) would have expired in 2016/17. And if "it" spent 300 CAD on a 3 year ESET license, "it's" not very intelligent. I can buy a 3 year ESS license for under $100 (and actually cheaper:P)

But yet "it", "novice", is still around. Why could that be?  It's because "novice" is a troll...plain and simple.

There is no point in trying to have an intelligent discussion with "it". The only purpose for a troll to exist is to raise havoc wherever "it" chooses to live.

see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

So please, do not feed the troll.:rolleyes:

In the "Grand Scheme" of life, trolls hold little, if any, significance.

Just ignore them.;)

Edited by TomFace
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Marcos locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...