Emsisoft Anti-Malware 8.1 released

Definitely not this year, remember that Emsisoft never gives ETA they release it when they think its ready and stable enough.
One thing i can say is that they are working hard on it.

 

Got a 3 PC lic, for 2014 for EAM 8. Honestly, is there any point in keeping MBAM pro while I have EAM8??

 

I have been using EAM for over a year now. I disable MBAM Pro real time and use it only as a second opinion. It never found anything so far...

 

Not when EAM reaches a 100% detection rate. Until then keep MBAM.

 

And how do you know that MBAM catches everything that EAM misses? EAM might well detect more on its own because of its behaviour analysis component. Complementary AV deployment is like putting on a second kevlar vest in case somebody aims for your head.

 

So you've said before. I however liken it to a vest designed to stop cop killers which would pierce a normal vest.

 

There are no sources out there that confirm the suggestion that MBAM can complement EAM. The only test that I know of where both are tested, are MRG Effitas projects where EAM has always been in front of MBAM. Just to make sure, I don't want to start a discussion which product is better. It is just this idea of a complementary AV that bothers me quite a lot.

The term already implies something as a given which in fact has yet to be proven. Complementary means little to zero redundancy while filling the gaps. The reality is a great deal of redundancy and as far as filling the gaps is concerned one simply does not know.

 

Yes, totally agree. Been using EAM for over a year with MBAM Pro realtime enabled. MBAM only detected two malwares. The rest were caught by EAM.

 

So MBAM did what it's designed to do then, compliment your AV as it caught the two that slipped by EAM. Thank you.

 

i will keep the two programs in real time

 

Actually he didn't provide nearly enough information to reach a conclusion here. It is possible that the second file guard in the manifestation of MBAM might have caught the malware, that was not detected by EAM's file guard, before EAM's behaviour guard had a chance to react to the threat.

 

Entirely possible that was the case. It would be difficult to say either way.

 

So much drama. Hahahaha
Well to be honest, i would recommend you keeping just 1 of them running in real time and keep the other one just as a second opinion scanner.

Personally i run EAM with all settings maxed (Scan all read files and Paranoid Mode) along with HMP scanning every start up / restart.

 

noob

 

Hahahaha I wonder if FleischmannTV 's going to tell you not to have HMP scanning every start up / restart?

 

It certainly doesn't increase security

Scan read all files doesn't increase security, at least go back to one setting above. Personally, I would change it to "scan only programs before they are executed". This on-access scanning only makes you feel good and sadly it has become mandatory with most AV's today. At least in EAM you can change it back to a useful setting.

Paranoid mode is ok, but then I would ditch the HIPS in Online Armor. But then again, I wouldn't have started with Online Armor to begin with, if I already had EAM. HIPS and behaviour analysis (even more so in paranoid setting) have way too much overlap. I am pretty sure the upcoming suite won't have the HIPS.

 

I used to have it scanning only new or modified files but changed it a to scanning all read files. Felt no difference anyways.
To be really honest, i dont know whats the difference having Paranoid Mode on. I certainly dont feel ANY DIFFERENCE at all.

 

Oh the drama. How do you stand it? Anyway what does the Emsisoft say about Paranoid mode?

 

i see the diference when i put paranoid mode active it will give you more pop up alerts

 

With a name like EAM & not an AV monthly contender in those
AV Tests - Is EAM a fully functional AV?

 

Malware is malicious software. Viruses are only a subcategory of malicious software. Actually all products with the name "anti-virus" should be called anti-malware as well, because they cover much more than just viruses.

EAM is not a contender in all tests because they cost money and Emsisoft does not have the same budget as the very big players like Kaspersky, which is in every test. They are tested at AV-Comparatives, MRG-Effitas and some more.

Yes, EAM is not only a fully functional AV but it's one of the best of them. It is the only AV I would ever put on my own system, if I decided to use these programs again.

 

+1
You said it, bro' !

 

If I'm not mistaken, you also like Avast and F-Secure. But I don't want to disparage Emsi at all, because they do an admirable job with research and innovation despite their lack of size and resources while people still insist on enabling some bigger but intellectually next to bankrupt vendors who might as well hire random guys on the street.

 

Yes, I have said some positive things about both of them.

With Avast it was the point of configurability and the customizable installation. With Emsisoft on the other hand, I don't need a custom installation because it comes lean as it is. Regarding the configuration, I would only change the file guard to scan on execution only and the surf protection to block privacy risks silently. Aside from that, I see no need for changing the settings. Regarding the web protection of both programs, if you asked me why I would not install Avast's and am content with EAM's, it's because EAM's surf protection is based on a simple blacklisting mechanism whereas Avast's is a stream scanner and, oh boy, do I vigorously hate those.

Speaking of F-Secure I think I restricted my praise to the Anti-Virus only. The Anti-Virus comes lean as it is as well, so here I see just as little need for a customizable installation. Regarding the settings, I have to admit, I think the program is a catastrophe. Further, from my own experience, it slows the system down a notch more than EAM. The Internet Security of F-Secure I wouldn't touch, because it comes with unnecessary features.

Detection wise, in my humble opinion, EAM is superior to Avast and at least as good as F-Secure, though my guess is EAM tops this one as well. Despite the one AV-Comparatives behavioral / heuristics report, independent testing labs have failed to test anti-malware products in a way that EAM can clearly show how good its behavioral analysis really is. I also would really like to see how the behavior guard reacts to exploitation attempts, but dedicated exploit testing is another thing which comes way too short in comparative testing.

So in the end I would choose EAM over them any day.

 

Yup, not infrequently do I hear/read completely different things from real users than what the big labs suggest, so it's not much an exaggeration to say even their tests are heavily flawed/limited (except AVC Real World Test) and EAM is probably the best. I think that's one of the most important reasons why most AV vendors are unwilling and/or unable to innovate, dependent on know-how from others and incapable of detecting anything until a few others have finished their malware analyses. They care more about looking good in tests, or at best, proving to offer stuff that others can do almost as well or only slightly better. So, when one of them is bypassed by malware, there's a higher chance that all others will end up the same.