PC Welt ESET Smart Security 5.0 Test by AV-Test

http://www.pcwelt.de/produkte/Pruefstand-ESET-Smart-Security-5-Beta-im-Test-1937755.html

Above average results all over. Even though the test was made by AV-Test.

 

It means that ESET 5 has great improvements.

 

Solid performance for a beta!

 

I don't know german but a review where the AV is not compared with any other... I don't know if the results are impresive or poor

 

This time, I hope ESET will fulfill its supporters' Great Expectations...

 

LOL You are good to use this word "supporter" instead of FanBoy.FanBoy is something like crazy their favorite all the way.Do you think am I a FanBoy?

 

Is there a new malware engine in the Beta?
Where is this stated?
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1867810&postcount=1

One test where Eset is slammed
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1883688&postcount=65
and the next test where Eset is doing reasonably well, both by the same
testing company (AV-Test) within a short period of time.
How can AV-Test be trusted?

 

Maybe Eset responded with an improved product.

 

I need charts D00d

 

Now the ESET fanatics are satisfied. No bashing yet, except for maybe one.

 

It should be the same engine as version 4. The HIPS and cloud in the Beta are not functional.

 

I am not a fanatic and certainly not married to the Eset product. I would just like to understand why Eset has a history of performing poorly with AV-Test.

 

It means that Av-Test is stupid! https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=300559

 

Correction, there is still bashing even though the product did well. Expected better, but nevermind.

 

I was referring to the ESET Supporters -In General-.
I don't like Fanatics, Fan/Funny-Boys etc.

 

Not sure what you mean but for me and probably everyone else both features are fully functional. For instance, using cloud scan times can be reduced by 40% and more to say the least. Needless to say that cloud has already contributed to better detection and minimizing FPs.

 

Thanks.
I'll have to try it.

 

I can second that. Working fine here.

 

I just tried it again. I guess we'll have to disagree about what 'fully functional' means.

 

HIPS is in automatic mode indeed unnoticable, but remember what Marcos said, it is heavily subject to evolution overtime. This is just ESET first release of the HIPS in this way, and if you switch to interactive mode you will see the mechanism really works. They just have to add more rules and improve whitelisting, achieved through revolution.

How can you say the cloud is not functional? It is impossible to tell, since it is just working in the backend and no messages about cloud functionality is provided in anyway. The only thing you can "do" is check your processes in the cloud.

 

Do you see scans accessing the cloud as with Hitman Pro? Do you see rules created by Eset in the HIPS? I don't. How is this "fully functional"?

 

The "cloud" by ESET that you mentioned is not for scanning.It is like a "sidekick" feature for ESET.It helps to improve the detection and minimizes the FPs.Moreover,decreases scanning time.Why?Because if the "Cloud" ready to CHECKS and shows your running processes are safe,why does ESET need to scan it again?That's why it can decrease the scanning time by 40%.Sorry if I have grammar errors here.

 

This is just a new feature from ESET.Just give ESET some times..They are working out now.Did you change the automatic mode to interactive mode?

 

I doubt using the cloud to verify my 14 running processes will significantly impact my scan times.

 

Using automatic mode with rules. I have no problem giving Eset time. Just don't tell me it's "fully functional", because it's not.