ESS 5 fails !

I'm agree with that, I personally think that the time signatures and over and really starting time behavioral analysis.

 

Really, what is in a word: "unreliable". I have seen his tests and I do understand French by the way and I can tell you that his tests are reliable and he has a good methodology. Marcos will always try to find all the excuses in a book. Youtube bring testing to the masses with regard to computer security. Moreover his tests results are in par with other testing organizations' results with regard to ESET.

Vigen you are doing an outstanding job and the only thing I can is that you keep doing what are you are doing. Job well done.

Merci pour tout ton effort et ne soit pas decourage par certains commentaires negatifs. A bientot. i.e Thanks for all your effort and do not be discouraged by some negative comments. See you soon.

Thanks.

 

Merci pour ces encouragements thank you for the encouragement.

I try to be consistent.

 

So in summary the best tests are performed by the editors of their own products

 

Well, well, well now it is official: 99% of users should go on the Internet naked without any protection whatsoever since it is only the other 1% of users that will visit those shady sites full with malware. Please security companies, whoever you are, do not advertise to me since I'm not part of that 1%. Moreover, I will only visit good looking, professional, and ethical websites, nothing shady. Furthermore, I know those websites will never be hijacked and they do not have any drive by download etc...

Man, you make life so simpler for me right now.

Thanks a million... .

 

Eset has always been reasonable regarding missed samples. They are always willing to take a look at the samples and add them if they are malware.
Eset has to balance these submitted samples against currently spreading malware.

 

Interesting link.It might have been written by a lawyer as it more or less covers every eventuality of someone/organization finding fault with eset ,which is then dismissed by one of those eset pearls of wisdom
ellison

 

Vigen, I have felt that this has been a weak area of Eset for a long time now. Sometimes its just too late if the malware has been allowed to execute to stop it from infecting your system even if it was detected after execution. Eset should really focus on improving in this area since I have noticed more than 1 of these test over the past year where they fell under the industry standard. Just dismissing your test is not going to make them improve the protection offered by their products. If you don't want to to submit your sample to Eset then you may be able to submit them to a third party for verification. If it were me then I would submit them to Eset, and a third party for verification if possible.

 

Nice to see a common sense and balanced response

 

Thanks! Its always good to be fair, and balanced.

 

The real service to users would be to allow an AV to detect malware that is claimed it does not. When there is will there is a way.

 

I should also make clear NOD 32 is the only AV i'm currently using, and i always give none bias opinions. I also look at the facts when drawling any conclusions about anything in life. So i don't want to sound sided against Eset. Samples should be provided upon request if someone is going to publish their work. A request such as wanting to verify samples is totally reasonable. I can not make any comments about the testing methodology, and guidelines set by AMTSO since I have not looked into them yet. One thing to keep in mind is an innovative tester may not agree with the methodology or guidelines used by AMTSO, and if we all adhered to some set guidelines then we could find ourselves being nothing more than drones, and technology & science would be greatly limited in it's growth. Sometimes you have to think outside the box.

 

sorry, that is not what i mean
the important here is how your product protect you under real world conditions

i can assure you there is no other scanner that can guarant to you reliable detection when it comes to "in the wild" threats detection, which are real [threats with higher priority] than other threats because they are widespread

 

i have write at the beta form about the cloud :

 

URLs posted in sites as "Threatcenter", "malware domain list" and similars must be blocked

and the signatures can be added later to VSD, only when the prevalence is increasing or as soon as they can be added, not necessarily the date were discovered

 

Everyone is arguing about his test methology and samples but no one addresses the 2nd issue and that is the absolesence of the cloud detection. The cloud needs massive improvement in order to compete with the likes of Sonar or Kav.

I am not being harsh I am just saying that if ESET 5 is going to introduce CLOUD detection then at least introduce a good one..

 

Eset is at a turning point right now. To which way it turns is about to be played out. I said when the beta came out, I was surprised this is all they came forth with. It seemed like a half-hearted effort, for which some have argued for years was their standard operating process.

Eset has also reaped great rewards for certain aspects of their product that others could not match. So, it is like, do we go left, or do we go right. They have never clearly defined as to which direction they intend to go.

As for the beta, the HIPS module blew me away. We have to look at things from a user stand point, not through our eyes, but that of the 99.8 percent of normal non-educated users. Not to deflame them but the reality is, the HIPS module will never work on a globally sold product. It is to confusing and in its current state, very frustrating. What were the internal beta testers thinking when going through this process. Now, it isnt finished and they know more then I, so maybe, just maybe, they have a final outcome for this module that will suffice for average users.

Back to going to the left or right. Product are designed for the masses. Most are continuing to try and become user friendly and easy to use, but very protective at the same time. I think, this is why Avast made the statement that its sandbox in the future may be set to be on by default. All it takes is one, just one infection for normal users to bail. They dont understand, this is just a reality.

You either have to find ways to offer stellar detection or you fold. Behavior blockers are nice but really take time to develope. I renewed my license till 2014 for Eset, I like them and their product. But they have better deliver before this RC is officially released, or it will be the version that is remembered in bad terms, like all security products have seen. I hope the best for them, but some better change and quick, or my license till 2014 may not even end up vailid till then.

 

Who knows if those rewards and "aspects" (mainly heuristics) will continue to be "great" considering that their main "hueuristic" expert jumped ship some time ago.

But alas, I have hope.

 

Hello,

The "main 'heuristic' expert" is still at ESET and was actually appointed CEO earlier this year.

Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky

 

err, thats part of the problem Aryeh. The experts keep getting promoted and that leaves the cupboard bare for a period.

you folks will be fine, just get that HIPS module ready for everyday users and version 5 will be a total sucess.

 

Ahh the great Power Point Reviewer position.

I DEMAND MORE POWER POINT ~ Snipped as per TOS ~!

 

and maybe that heuristic pioneer is hearing their users very closer