Kaspersky 3 : Eset 0

[nexon 8]

ESS najnovšia verzia - Life Guard POVOLENÝ 

 

[Mr_Frog 14]

Show the details of files detected by KVRT.EXE, don't just display the number of objects detected. I am an ESET and Kaspersky user and so far there is no compelling reason for me to choose Kaspersky over ESET. I think you have also against the rules in this forum.

[itman 1,659]

Actually, Kaspersky Antivirus Removal Tool (KVRT) is a free stand-alone malware removal tool run locally to detect entrenched malware and/or its remnants and remove them. It actually is quite effective in doing so.

Other like software in this category for example is Norton's Power Eraser.

Edited May 5, 2022 by itman

[nexon 8]

Porovnávam z dlhodobého hľadiska... 

Aj real time ochrana ale eset proste nestačí na kaspersky... 

Eset som používal 6 rokov.. A asi od roku 2014 kaspersky doteraz... 

Takisto podľa av comparatives čím ďalej tým viac sa eset prepadá. 

Kvrt je to iste ako keby som spustil full scan v kaspersky antivirus. 

Edited May 5, 2022 by nexon

[Marcos 5,074]

First of all, please post in English when discussing malware detections so that the others can react to it. Also be constructive, avoid trolling and ranting which is against this forum rules.

It's a matter of fact that a screenshot tells nothing. What conclusion would you make of this ? We don't claim that Kaspersky failed here but at the same time the detection is correct:

 

I strongly recommend that you provide the detected files for analysis to find out if they are actual threats that are subject to detection.

[nexon 8]

I thought that this is CZ and SK section so i wrote in sk language... 

 

Also your screen tell us nothing because only 3 av (2 because trend Micro as 1 av) all of these not detected something... Also might be a false positive when only 2 antiviruses detected it. 

[Marcos 5,074]

It's similar to your screenshot meaning that without an actual sample it's impossible to tell if it's subject to detection. The sample from my screenshot is clean but detection is important for identification of the ransomware and for forensic analysis. On the other hand, it's not a problem if an AV doesn't detect it.

Before discussing the detections in your screenshot, please provide the samples for analysis so that we know for sure what they are and if they are actually subject to detection.

[nexon 8]

Okay next time... 

Can eset improve detection in future? 

In past was really good av but now average. I have clients which massively moving into kaspersky or bitdefender. Also many people can stop using eset because eset - USA... 

ESET have 2 EULA right? One is for Eueopean Union and next is for USA or? 

In detection eset is good... False positive is perfect (none or only very few) best av in false positives. But in ransomware detection and protection is not so good also in malware detection. Performance impact on system is light which is good. 

Screen bellow is only for motivation for eset guys. 

I wish that eset will do this on the top. I trust in you!

Edited May 6, 2022 by Marcos
Screenshots removed

[notimportant 5]

Those 3 objects detected by KVRT.exe could be some harmless reg files or something similar that is not actual malware. It is not the first time I saw cases like this when comparing ESET to other AV vendors. Unfortunately without the samples that were detected this is another irrelevant claim. It would be great if you could back-up those claims.

However I must mention that there are hundreds of thousands of new malware samples every day and its impossible that every AV will detect every new file and things like missing a sample will happen to ESET, it will happen to Kaspersky, and so on ... 😛 

[nexon 8]

Yeap i know...

Also other fact is that 400 milion users against 110 milion users...
More users = more and better update definitions based on cloud technologies.

Also if you watch on AV-comparatives from long term then you know who is better at overall. Not only on this my detection... but several years in row. 

[itman 1,659]

I will say this.

Eset didn't participate in the latest AV-Test Ransomware test: https://www.av-test.org/en/news/defending-against-ransomware-28-protection-solutions-put-to-the-test-under-windows-10/ . I find this a bit disconcerting since Eset is a series participant in AV-Test Commercial product testing. 

Edited May 6, 2022 by itman

[nexon 8]

Sorry i dont trust other tests... Only one reliable av comparatives..

[Mr_Frog 14]

Based on my personal experience, I cannot acknowledge your statement. As I said before Im using ESET and Kaspersky even McAfee too. I've also been using KVRT.EXE for a long time. Most of what I've seen detection from KVRT.EXE apart from actually malware on client computers is software crack or PUA, that's why I'm really curious about the detection details from the screenshots you posted. Personally in choosing a good antivirus for me, I don't just focus on detection capabilities, but also the availability of tools that I can use for more definite protection and false positive. If you don't work in a company that has systems connected through a network, a false positive might not be too serious problem, but otherwise, it could be a more complicated problem than being attacked by malware/viruses/ransom. Generally in an company system there must be backups and if attacked the thing that needs to be done is time to restore and resume normal work, but if your system is compromised by those who should be protected. That would be a different matter and would not be as simple as recovering the data. What I want to say here is comparing or choosing antivirus is not as simple as A = 0 and other AV is not 0. I think not that simple.

[nexon 8]

Everybody have favorited program...

I saw many tests... And yeah i replaced Eset i will be back with eset if they can beat other brands...

[Marcos 5,074]

I wonder if your opinion changed if the 3 detected files turned out to be actually clean or grey, such as benign cracks or whatever. In that case ESET would be better than the said AV. However, without getting the samples and checking them we can't tell what they are.