Add ons!..why I don't like them!

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by ttomm1946, Mar 29, 2015.

  1. Mortal Raptor

    Mortal Raptor Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2014
    Posts:
    1,013
    I've been a NOD32 user since v2 so I wasn't scared to take this plunge and now with a 7 user license, I can cover all my PCs for myself and close family members

    2015-03-30_195429.png
     
  2. WildByDesign

    WildByDesign Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2013
    Posts:
    2,587
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    I like how the UI is clean, sharp, and yet easy on the eyes.
     
  3. Mortal Raptor

    Mortal Raptor Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2014
    Posts:
    1,013
    True, some AVs make me puke when I look at their GUI.
     
  4. Securon

    Securon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    Posts:
    1,960
    Location:
    London On
    Good Afternoon! I just re-installed ESS on my system...and it's light and nimble...although admittedly everyone's set-up reacts differently. And Eset has always shunned collaboration with providers of Marketing incentives that promote the install of Toolbars and Pop-Up Ads...and Nag Screens...that's why I'm sticking with Eset. And it's the one app I've experienced that's Rock Solid in reacting with other apps on my system...it avoids asking the user too remove existing apps during install...that In my mind signals that it's assured of it's engineering, in providing the user with a peace of mind factor...very important in terms of useage. Sincerely...Securon
     
  5. Mortal Raptor

    Mortal Raptor Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2014
    Posts:
    1,013
    I think that's why they take a very long time between official updates/releases, they test the product extensively before issuing a public release. Just look at other AVs, you do a clean install of Windows then your AV, then within a week or two they have a whole new version. Not a bad thing necessarily, but just comes to show how stable Eset's products compared to others in terms of bugs, quirks, reliability.
     
  6. Charyb

    Charyb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2013
    Posts:
    679
    Don't forget Emsisoft. Emsisoft doesn't use extensions and they are focusing on PUP detection.

    -----

    I am only using one extension and that is AdBlock Plus with EasyList and EasyPrivacy. It has never failed me and I have no reason not to trust it. I have read of bad extensions making it into the store or adding to or changing their intended function so I keep extensions to a minimum.
     
  7. Mayahana

    Mayahana Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2014
    Posts:
    2,220
    I would rather use Trustport if I wanted a traditional AV - as that gives me Bit Defender+AVG. The reason Trustport is so light is it has no 'extras', doesn't scan HTTP/S, it's a pure old school file scanner so it really only scans when you download stuff, or new stuff is written to your hard drive. Since my NGFW/UTM has a full WebScanner, I don't need redundancy on my desktop so a traditional AV is perfect.

    I'm not comfortable using a dated AV, and especially not paying for one until 2020 - a LOT can change between now and 2020. Who knows, maybe we won't even be using AV's in 2020. Also given the way the AV market changes, it's highly unlikely you'll want to run the same thing in 2020 as you do today.
     
  8. Frank the Perv

    Frank the Perv Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Posts:
    882
    Location:
    Virginia, USA

    Congrat's bro.

    Wow.... locking in for the long haul.

    No more playing the field.

    It's just ONE from here on in... no more variety.

    No more hot dates with new exciting AVs..

    Sounds sorta depressing.

    Thanks for the motivation bro. I'm going to go uninstall an AV just so I can try a new one.

    Which one goes today... McAfee or ZoneAlarm... that is the question.

    .
     
  9. gerardwil

    gerardwil Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2004
    Posts:
    4,750
    Location:
    EU
    Funny, I don't have a training button there. 2015-03-30 23_28_45-ESET NOD32 Antivirus.jpg
     
  10. wshrugged

    wshrugged Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    Posts:
    266
  11. Mortal Raptor

    Mortal Raptor Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2014
    Posts:
    1,013
  12. Mortal Raptor

    Mortal Raptor Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2014
    Posts:
    1,013
    If I had the choice between those 2, protection wise, it would be McAfee they have a lot of improvements so it's not heavy anymore BUT it has a lot of bloat like Bit defender like system. Optimizers and stuff, I wouldn't touch Zone alarm either, olso the question is, are you willing to ignore the bloat?
     
  13. Nevis

    Nevis Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2010
    Posts:
    812
    Location:
    255.255.255.255
    The 1st thing I do is get rid of all extensions
     
  14. Tarantula

    Tarantula Guest

    You prefer ads instead?
     
  15. Mayahana

    Mayahana Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2014
    Posts:
    2,220
    AV addons. FYI. But yes, in general I prefer system or gateway level adblocking. uBlock is only temporary until Adguard gets their stuff together.
     
  16. Brummelchen

    Brummelchen Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Posts:
    5,868
    +1
    since working in firefox forums its like same old story every day! either outdated (hello kaspersky) or not functional via browser failure up to crashing the browser. and in most cases it dont raise security. only few are really good if they are functional - script filtering. but the next update will smash all and user often complain about stupid browser (firefox) - and went back to the previous version including all vulnerabilities - omg
    https://www.mozilla.org/security/known-vulnerabilities/firefox.html

    since SSL become vulnerable (poodle test) even the ssl check is obsolete. the ssl check rely on ssl3 and that is vulnerable so the AV soft is vulnerable itself. thats why mozilla now removed such ssl option from firefox (v37) - firefox has its own root check.

    https://blog.mozilla.org/security/
     
  17. 142395

    142395 Guest

    I think whether addon is good or not depends if these addons are good for you. Addon-less AV programs instead rely on proxy-based network scanning, and depending (mainly TLS) implementation it can be more intrusive.
    In Norton, there can be at maximum 3 addons in a browser (3 for IE, 2 for Fx. 1 for Chrome on my Win7/NIS2014), but they are basically usuful. Norton vulnerability protection supplements IPS by inspecting scripts, and even Norton toolbar is usuful if you use ID safe or want to avoid even suspicious and unclassified sites. I don't think all job of AV plugin can be implemented in official store addon for their restriction.
    But I admit some AV such as Kaspersky install too many addons and I usually disable many of them.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.