PC Mag Review of ESS

well it didn't inspire confidence when i was greeted by not 1 but 3 ads for
norton on that page alone, and then in the review it goes on about norton getting 10 out of 10, how many more ways do they need to push it before it becomes obvious
that and the fact we had nis2008 on a comp here and it was awful
i'm certainly glad it wasn't my comp

 

So you're saying that, contrary to the article's claims, ESS is a top-notch spyware detector and remover, and its firewall provides state-of-the-art outbound protection?

 

The ESS only it has 1 week of life, taking away 8 months what it was in the embryo

 

not saying that at all but a review should do what it intended to do, review the software not advertise another at the same time.
nod might not be perfect but norton is far from it, and not forgetting norton have had years of experience and it's still a bloated computer hog.
and as for state of the art what software is.

 

This is so far off the mark I don't even know where to begin.

First off, I'm sure the reviewer had no control what banner ads from which advertising companies were going to be placed alongside his text when he submitted the article to his editors. That was up to the webmaster, and the server bots which crawled the article for keywords to deliver related ad banners.

Secondly, the article itself did a fine job of reviewing ESS, the comments spot-on, and I see no elements of advertising for any competiting vendors. People who oppose the review due to emotional (instead of factual) reasons and groping for just about any John and Joe excuse to discredit the review may disagree.

Third, you say that you don't disagree with the review, so why are you here nitpicking? Either the review is a truthful and honest representation of ESS, or it is not. And if it is not, I want to hear logical arguments as to why it isn't instead of the usual worthless fanboy rantings. Simple as that. I cannot see what reason is there to come in swinging with completely off-topic blows against Symantec.

Let's act like the educated, civilized human beings we are, shall we?

 

Apparently Norton doesn't fit this description anymore although I haven't run it since the 2003 version. As far as advertising goes the reviewer seems enamoured with Panda. But who knows maybe Panda deserved the praise it received.

 

I'm not going to rag on Norton, but I did use it for an extended period of time before I started selling and using NOD32.
I would say after about 2002-03, Norton went downhill very quickly. It became the definition of bloatware.

I am using Eset Smart Security on all my systems now and not one time have I run into any problems. It installed flawlessly with no trouble and activated everything seemlessly.

You should never take 1 magazine's review as the definitive review. You will get as many different reviews as there are reviewers. Its just going to happen. My personal review is that it's an awesome product that has set the bar high and will continue to impress.

 

Why is almost no one addressing the question posed by the original poster?

Like the original poster, I'd like to know whether the criticisms in the article have merit. Whether other products are advertised on the Ziff-Davis site is immaterial to the content of the article itself.

So far, I haven't read a single rational criticism of any claim made in the article itself. Indeed, my own experiences with ESS are in agreement with the reviewer's claims. As someone who owns an ESS license into 2010, I'd like to read intelligent comments about ESS. Comments about Symantec products are irrelevant to my concerns.

I wish the moderators would recognize that many of the posts in this topic are irrelevant to the original poster's question.

 

worthless fanboy rantings is going a bit far
i didn't say i agree or disagree with the reviewer.
ok maybe i lost the plot after seeing 3 popups for norton in the middle of a review.
i'm pretty new to nod so not quite a fanboy...........yet
anyway i'll bite my lip and say no more because it looks like this will drag on otherwise

 

I agree completely. However, Ziff-Davis has on occasion published an article based on facts and experience. I submit that the review of ESS is one such article. The original poster wanted to know whether the specific claims in the Ziff-Davis article had merit. I think they do, since they are in concord with my own experiences with ESS.

I wish members of this forum would address the specific claims in the article rather than present the cop-out, non-intellectual assertion that Ziff-Davis is simply biased.

Please, what about the specific claims in the article itself?

 

I agree that the testing criteria have not been explicitly disclosed in the article itself. However, if you were to contact Ziff-Davis, you would probably be provided with those criteria. I see no evidence that Ziff-Davis is hiding those criteria.

Since my own experiences with ESS, as a four-year licensee of ESET products, agree with the reviewer's observations, my inclination is to believe the conclusions of the reviewer rather than the unsubstantiated claims of members of these forums.

Can you cite a specific claim in the article with which you disagree? What evidence can you cite to support your counter-claim?

 

Why should the tone you perceive in the article (a tone which I do not perceive) matter when you do not dispute the claims of the article? The original poster wanted to know whether the claims are correct, not whether the tone of the article is agreeable.

Why are the moderators of these forums allowing the discussion to drift away from the specific question posed by the original poster?

 

In other words, it's not that the article itself is inaccurate, it's just that you don't appreciate the fact that the review didn't paint ESS as a stellar top-of-the-line product?

And why is that? The reviewer used numbered ratings to measure ESS' ability to detect and remove spyware. This is not a subjective matter, and instead of just labeling a product as "excellent", "fair" or "poor", a numerical score on a set rating scale can be easily applied based on predefined criteria. Other antivirus reviews use numerical ratings to measure detection and removal rates as well; does this fact invalidate them all too?

You're more than welcome to your opinion, but I'd like to hear the reasoning you use to justify it, as I'm sure it'll be very interesting indeed.

 

Just two days ago I e-mailed my clients the link to this topic as evidence that they should subscribe to ESET Smart Security. Unfortunately, at a loss of hundreds of dollars to ESET, I must cite the same link as evidence that they should not subscribe to ESET Smart Security. The arguments posted by romjor are evidence enough that ESET security has nothing substantial to stand on.

 

As far as ditching ESS due to a magazine review and a moderator's rather... interesting comments, I have to disagree.

ESS' main shortcomings as identified by the review were poor malware cleanup, poor firewall controls and outbound protection, and a jumpy spam filter. I personally do not place too much importance on cleanup, as the way I prefer to use antivirus software is to let them detect and stop infections in the first place, instead of installing them after infection occurs and hoping they can clean up the mess. I use HIPS/behavior blockers to stop processes from tampering with each other on the application level, and I prefer a firewall that only has direct outbound control instead of the full bells and whistles. As for the spam filter, my mail is filtered at the server level, and I couldn't care less even if ESS completely lacked this feature.

A review can be completely accurate, yet irrelevant. For my computing environment and personal preferences, this happens to be the case, and ESS' flaws as pinpointed by the review do not matter to me. Eset has always pursued its own strange policies with its products and services (eschewing outbound firewall protection, slow and often nonexistent response to user-submitted samples), and dissension to these policies are often handled in a brusque, "we know better than you" manner, but for the moment I will still recommend Eset products to people who ask me about them, with no reservations.

 

Did any of you actually read the whole article? (I can tell one or two have, but most seem to be posting in ignorance).

As I've previously said, it is well-balanced, with plenty of positive comments, but also lots of contructive criticism. I'm an ESET fan like most of you are, but you've got to be able to acknowledge that ESS and NOD32 aren't perfect.

It also depends on what your priorities are for certain features. For example: For me, memory footprint is more important than leak test results, and efficient use of system resources is more important than anti-spam capabilities.

Steve.

 

I have not used the Norton AV, but I found that McAfee is a diabolically awfull shocking excuse for a program.

I was on holiday & staying in a Bed and breakfast in England ( the UK ).
The man of the house was having a problem with his PC, he happened to mention
that to me so I offered any help I could give. He accepted my offer.

He was having great difficulty with a program, we could not solve the problems. I suggested he get NOD32. He said, why should I buy that when I have one. I can't recall what one he had, that was 4 years ago. He was indignant at me for suggesting it & would not do it.
So the time came for us ( my wife & I )to return home.
However, many times we spoke to each other on the phone & again I advised NOD32 when he repeated that he couldn't get that program to work and the support for it was useless.

So, the day dawned when he phoned me to tell me he was going out to buy NOD32, I told him he would not regret it.

When he returned home he phoned me, with a very angry tone in his voice. He asked the salesman what was the best anti-virus program, he bought McAfee because the salesman had not heard of NOD 32 and it must be no good or he would have heard of it. I could not get through to him, he really was angry.
So he installed it. I got phone call after phone call that he couldn't get it to work.

Then we went on holiday & we stayed with him for a week.
Naturally the PC was mentioned. We were only staying with him for 1 week but I spent 2 full days with him & his PC. I tried to get McAfee to work, no way.

I have never seen anything like it and I doubt if I ever will again. He was driven crazy by the setting up of it. It wouldn't store his username & password. He had to enter them for nearly everything he wanted to do. He could get nothing done. It was so complicated & complex I could not believe it. He phoned the support , this was vastly overpriced, in the UK £1 per minute. After 15 minutes he had to hang up. There was nothing problematic in the computer, it was the program.

I again recommended NOD32, I was expecting a big argument, and got one.
However, next day he asked was NOD any good. I must have said the correct things, then he asked me to let him think on it for a few minutes. Then he asked where could he get it, I replied online.

So he went online & I guided him through the process, he paid for it, downloaded & installed it. In 3 minutes it was working as it should do, not a problem. I said, there you are, that's it. Then he got his username & password by email & we entered them, was he pleased or what.
He could not believe it. He really was amazed, he shook my hand and said he should have listened to me sooner. It continues to work to this day and he will never change to another.

 

that's the biggest plus with nod32. it simply works and works and works....

 

In less than a minute, I can use Microsoft Visual Studio to create a Windows application that does nothing, but still claims to offer security and keeps on working. Really, the "keeps on working" argument is nonsense if the functionality is missing.

The article cited by the original poster identifies many areas in which ESS keeps on working but lacks functionality (and security) compared to competing products.

I have been using NOD32 for two years. During these years, I have consistently recommended NOD32 to my clients and friends. Last week I upgraded my own computers to ESS with a two-year license renewal. I remain an enthusiastic supporter of ESET products.

However, my enthusiasm for ESET products does not blind me to the shortcomings of the current version of ESS.

As for "keeps on working," you can read here about how ESS brought one of my own computers to a grinding halt:

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=190881

 

I've read the review. It sounds like a fair review. The method of infecting a pc without security and then trying to clean it is questionable (but you can come accross it when helping some click click noob). I am a fan (and reseller) of the NOD32 AV product. It is generally considered to be among the best supported by tests.

However, I don't think antispyware is it's strength. It is a nice addition for an antivirus program, but as stand alone spyware scanner there are better options. It still the same in ESS I guess.

I was stun that the default behaviour of the EES firewall is to permit all outbound traffic! Vista (not XP) own firewall DOES block this by default. Interactive learning mode should be default with predefined rules for common programs.

I didn't read he did learn the antispam solution (spam/not spam buttons) so he tested the antispam solution out-of-the-box. It is common practice to let antispam solutions learn for a while. 80% spam caught, but 13% false positives...

I'm waiting for other reviews. The firewall defaults must be fixed!

 

"I was stun that the default behaviour of the EES firewall is to permit all outbound traffic! Vista (not XP) own firewall DOES block this by default. Interactive learning mode should be default with predefined rules for common programs."

I agree. Little did I know that when I used the Firewall Leak test, they also let some nasties come in on Automatic - In my case for Automatic read Firewall Off

 

I think that one important point that is being missed in this whole discussion is that one security suite is never the best at doing everything. So unless you are willing to install multiple separate components, you must choose a suite that best fits how you use the computer.

For example - Do you have a heavily infected system and need removal capabilities? The reviewer said Panda's suite did the best job in terms of complete removal. But he also said that ESS removed the most dangerous stuff. So there's a trade-off between a small system footprint and complete and total removal capabilities. You, the user, have to choose which is most important to you.

Are you having trouble with keyloggers? Then, according to the review, McAfee's Site Advisor and Trend Micro's TrendProtect do the best job of preventing new infestations, while Norton did the best job of removing existing keyloggers. But MSA and TMTP aren't suites, are they? They are stand-alone components. (Sidebar: why is the reviewer comparing a suite app's performance to stand-alone components?) And Norton isn't as good as Panda at removing existing spyware, while the spyware-removal champ Panda stinks at removing keyloggers.

If you read the review carefully, you can find other, similar examples.

So pick the best suite for you based on your needs, and then request that your chosen company address your concerns in future updates/releases.