Why isn't Enable detection of unsafe apps enabled by default?

[Super_Spartan 56]

So while installing NOD32, I noticed it has PUP detection on by default which is great and it's one of the only companies that does this. BUT why isn't Enable Detection of unsafe applications enabled by default? newbies just install an AV and forget it and this could decrease their level of security.

 

Really disappointed by ESET on this

 

[TomFace 540]

Good question. Maybe it will be addressed in V9. I'm thinking it all depends on ESET's definitions of unwanted vs. unsafe. I know during installation you are asked about unwanted applications-unsure what that triggers* in the actual setup. I would like it to be pre-selected, but perhaps it is a desired to be a "user option". Are you sure PUA detection is enabled by default or is that's what triggered* by the set up screen?

Edited May 28, 2015 by TomFace

[Super_Spartan 56]

Yes I always enable PUP detection during setup and it is also ticked in the options but the option under it for potentially unsafe applications is unticked by default! I've been forever and just noticed this option. ESET seems to think that people may want to allow potentially unsafe applications? So sad! I don't know who's decision was this to not keep it as an option enabled by default!

[Marcos 5,462]

Neither potentially unwanted nor unsafe applications are enabled by default. However, we ask the user to explicitly enable or disable PUA detection mainly for legal reasons. Unlike PUAs, potentially unsafe applications are usually perfectly legitimate tools that can be installed in corporate networks and used by administrators, however, they can be misused in the wrong hands. Image the troubles it would cause if ESET detected and removed tools installed by administrators by default. Needless to speak about the number of complaints from the makers of those applications.

[Super_Spartan 56]

Neither potentially unwanted nor unsafe applications are enabled by default. However, we ask the user to explicitly enable or disable PUA detection mainly for legal reasons. Unlike PUAs, potentially unwanted applications are usually perfectly legitimate tools that can be installed in corporate networks and used by administrators, however, they can be misused in the wrong hands. Image the troubles it would cause if ESET detected and removed tools installed by administrators by default. Needless to speak about the number of complaints from the makers of those applications.

ah ok, thanks for the explanation, makes sense now. I wish the installer can also ask us about them though during the installation like it asks about PUPs

[TomFace 540]

Yes it makes sense-thanks Marcos.

Edited May 27, 2015 by TomFace

[rugk 397]

Nice explanation. However I think you inverted something there. AFAIK the potentially unsafe application are those with the potential for misuse.

But you wrote this:

 Unlike PUAs, potentially unwanted applications are usually perfectly legitimate tools that can be installed in corporate networks and used by administrators, however, they can be misused in the wrong hands.

 

The same way it's also sted in the product internal help of ESS as an explanation for potentially unsafe application:

[They are] legitimate programs whose function is to simplify the administration of networked computers. However, in the wrong hands, they may be misused for malicious purposes.

Edited May 27, 2015 by rugk

[Marcos 5,462]

Nice explanation. However I think you inverted something there. AFAIK the potentially unsafe application are those with the potential for misuse.

 

Yup, that was a typo which I have corrected now. Thanks for the heads-up : )