Author Topic: Moving up to ESET NOD32 v5 (Read 23669 times)

Arizona Hot · « **on:** November 14, 2011, 10:20 AM »

My virus signature subscription for my current antivirus NOD32 v4.0.424 expires this week; so I have been researching alternatives because if I am going to change AV, now is the time to do it. What I have seems to be at or near the top of the heap in the contentious AV business. About the only change I expect to make is to move from NOD32 v4 to v5. The PCMag review says it is low on malware blocking, but I use Sandboxie to handle that. Both reviews say NOD32 is good at scanning potential programs. I use MalwareBytes also for that. Does anyone have any better reviews to suggest than the ones below?

ESET NOD32 Antivirus 5 Review & Rating PCMag.com

ESET Smart Security 5 - CNET

mouser · « **Reply #1 on:** November 14, 2011, 10:36 AM »

just keep in mind that Eset Nod32 can be bought standalone, or as part of a firewall suite called Eset Smart Security. I use the latter (on one pc) and am reasonably happy with it, though I have not carefully reviewed the competitors.

superboyac · « **Reply #2 on:** November 14, 2011, 11:36 AM »

I finally switched to MSE recently after years of using paid software. They all just progressively got worse and worse, and I don't like paying annual or monthly things anymore. I haven't had anything to complain about with MSE. My question for anyone now is why use NOD or Kaspersky or anything else when MSE is now proven to be pretty darn reliable, no?

Ath · « **Reply #3 on:** November 14, 2011, 01:22 PM »

+1 to superboyac, but MSE can be replaced by at least 3 other free AV packages, with exact the same result. I'm curious about any answers to his questions too

rgdot · « **Reply #4 on:** November 14, 2011, 01:41 PM »

FWIW
The free ones are or were questionable when I last used them.

Avira: Prompts (pop up, pop under) to buy pay version
Avast: It needs (or needed?) yearly renewal via email and it prompted you months in advance. Effectively a sales pitch like Avira.
AVG: Reasonably sales pitch free but I wouldn't exactly call it lightweight.

Arizona Hot · « **Reply #5 on:** November 16, 2011, 10:16 AM »

I got bitten once by a trojan called "Privacy Danger". Took me a couple of days on another computer to get what I needed to get rid of it. Could I really feel safe with a free program like MSE after that?

mouser · « **Reply #6 on:** November 16, 2011, 10:27 PM »

This post at dottech.org might be useful:

"Microsoft Security Essentials vs Avira vs avast! vs AVG: A comprehensive comparison to help you decide which (free) anti-malware security software you should use"

http://dottech.org/f...ware-you-should-use/

Jibz · « **Reply #7 on:** November 17, 2011, 01:29 AM »

I think it depends a lot on your use of the computer what will work for you.

If you visit questionable websites, or download/run questionable software on your computer, then you probably should go with a commercial security package.

If you are the type who uses internet explorer and immediately clicks the 'protect my computer' link in any browser window that pops up saying "Your computer is infected with 123345234 threats!!!!", or freely clicks any attachments e-mailed to you, then a commercial package might be a good investment too (although no level of security, except possibly unplugging the network cable, can save you from determined stupidity

).

Otherwise, I think one of the free ones (possibly coupled with running an on-demand anti-malware scan (MBAM comes to mind) every now and then), is to a large extent more than sufficient.

[rant]

Also, like superboyac notes, many of the commercial suites have gone from good to unmanageable giant piles of ... I used KAV/KIS since version 5, back then it was lean and powerful. Every version since then has gotten bigger, more bloated and slower. It is now at the point where you see special editions for laptops and notebooks, or recommendations to run older version on those, because the latest versions will bring any system that isn't quadcore with 4 gb+ to its knees

.

Also, I was getting sick of the way that buying the upgrade from within the software was more expensive than buying an upgrade box in a computer shop, and even that was often more expensive than buying a box of last years version in the shop and installing that and then simply upgrading to the latest version (*glaring at Symantec*).

[/rant]

I've tried some of the other free ones, but either they constantly nag you about upgrading to the paid version, or they have clunky upgrade procedures. MSE is free with no annoying adds or anything, and it updates automatically alongside your Windows

.

Steven Avery · « **Reply #8 on:** November 17, 2011, 01:54 AM »

Hi,

The problem with MSE is 2-fold. It is the target that baddies will most want to foil. Also, Microsoft has a mediocre track record on zero-day happenings (new exploits that need immediate protection update). This problem is reduced though if you tend to work with overlapping security stuff (like Mamutu or a firewall that has decent HIPS, like Online Armor).

I agree that all the alternatives have ups and downs, but I am reluctant to rely on MS for those two reasons, even if they got the basics right. So MSE is acceptable, but not fantastico.

Steven

Ath · « **Reply #9 on:** November 17, 2011, 02:00 AM »

and it updates automatically alongside your Windows
-Jibz (November 17, 2011, 01:29 AM)

... unless you're behind a proxy, in that case it'll update about 1 out of 10 times successfully, even though Windows Update works like a charm

It's Avast for me, does a definitions-update about every 4 hours, and the yearly 'license upgrade' is painless from within the application, entering a non-existent e-mail address is accepted without a hitch

oblivion · « **Reply #10 on:** November 17, 2011, 02:11 AM »

For what little it's worth... I use NOD32 AV on my desktop machine and I went through a crisis of confidence back at renewal time myself. At the time, I was using MSE on my netbook and it seemed okay, and I spent a while wondering why I was paying money for the desktop and getting acceptable protection on the netbook for free.

I never really got to a definitive answer. However, the "MS is the obvious target for malware" argument has a fair amount of clout so I stuck with NOD32 on the desktop (it's still very quick and seems reliable). The netbook ... well, I picked up a lifetime VIPRE Premium license for a very reasonable sum (like, if I decide I hate it I won't feel I've lost out) and so far I'm happy with it.

But I don't use IE and I keep my machine in a bucket of bleach overnight.

cyberdiva · « **Reply #11 on:** November 17, 2011, 09:56 AM »

This post at dottech.org might be useful:
"Microsoft Security Essentials vs Avira vs avast! vs AVG: A comprehensive comparison to help you decide which (free) anti-malware security software you should use"
http://dottech.org/f...ware-you-should-use/
-mouser (November 16, 2011, 10:27 PM)

Thanks, Mouser. I found this useful, though the testing (done last year) used version 1 of MSE, and the current version is 2. What difference that would make is unclear, except that I'm pretty sure version 2 does much faster scans than version 1. Also, I was surprised that the testing used paid versions of AVG and Avira but the free version of Avast. Not sure why they did that. Still, a very interesting read.

superboyac · « **Reply #12 on:** November 17, 2011, 10:14 AM »

For what little it's worth... I use NOD32 AV on my desktop machine and I went through a crisis of confidence back at renewal time myself. At the time, I was using MSE on my netbook and it seemed okay, and I spent a while wondering why I was paying money for the desktop and getting acceptable protection on the netbook for free.

I never really got to a definitive answer. However, the "MS is the obvious target for malware" argument has a fair amount of clout so I stuck with NOD32 on the desktop (it's still very quick and seems reliable). The netbook ... well, I picked up a lifetime VIPRE Premium license for a very reasonable sum (like, if I decide I hate it I won't feel I've lost out) and so far I'm happy with it.

But I don't use IE and I keep my machine in a bucket of bleach overnight.
-oblivion (November 17, 2011, 02:11 AM)

I went through a similar dilemma a while back with kaspersky. I had used Kaspersky for years. I love the feature set, it has tons of options. But it became bulkier and bulkier with each version. I started getting pissed off when clicking on buttons stopped doing anything. Often times, you'd click the button to update the database, and nothing would happen. Then the update would happen several minutes later. Things like trying to stop a scan that is going on would be similarly unresponsive. It slowed down my computer more and more. Whenever I tried to get customer support, they would make me first send them information about EVERYTHING in my computer, and before answering any questions, they would first make sure you are not using any pirated anything. They act like the pirate police. So I asked myself why I was paying for this??

So I tried MSE, and I've been using it since. It's easy, it works fine, I don't worry about subscription payments. It seems faster than Kaspersky, but it has far fewer options. Still, I don't care anymore. I want programs that work now, and I want them to be as lightweight, quick, and responsive as possible. Those are my criteria. I don't want a zillion options anymore. I combine it with a firewall, and stuff like WinPatrol, which I will gladly pay for because BillP knows how to program stuff. His program is effective, it's small and light, and it works beautifully. Why the big AV companies, or Adobe, or MS, or anyone big can't do that is something I often wonder about. It has to do with money in the end. That's where all the answers seem to be. In the end, BillP is not going to be rich, and Adobe is going to be very rich. Why that means BillP makes great software, and Adobe makes crap...I don't know, but that sure seems to be the trend. Why these two things (money and quality) in software seem to have an inverse relationship doesn't make sense. But then again, why does a cable ISP not require a contract, but DSL does? Or as Kramer says, "Why does Radio Shack ask you for your zip code when you buy batteries?"

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #13 on:** November 17, 2011, 11:37 AM »

I want programs that work now, and I want them to be as lightweight, quick, and responsive as possible. Those are my criteria.
-superboyac (November 17, 2011, 10:14 AM)

+1

MSE & UAC get my vote. You can waste processor cycles by the ton hoping that whatever babysitter you pick is vigilant (read CPU intensive) enough to catch some sparkling new zero day exploit. Or... You can go the reduced permissions route (std User acct + UAC), which never uses any processor time and actually be relatively safe.

I just don't see it as much of a contest.

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #14 on:** November 17, 2011, 12:26 PM »

+1

MSE + Windows Firewall on Windows 7

AVG - cumbersome and annoying interface that they keep changing for no good reason & too many adverts
Avira - over agressive
Avast Free - very good, ads increasing though. Been my free option of choice until recently.

Note: MSE can be used by small businesses too - unlike all the other free offerings.

kyrathaba · « **Reply #15 on:** November 17, 2011, 06:31 PM »

I haven't had anything to complain about with MSE. My question for anyone now is why use NOD or Kaspersky or anything else when MSE is now proven to be pretty darn reliable, no?

+1.

Tuxman · « **Reply #16 on:** November 18, 2011, 04:56 PM »

Because MSE is not reliable. Lame heuristics, questionable "security status", niot really flexible, average detection rate.

(Oh, and about "Personal Firewalls": Welcome to the world of scareware, guys.)

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #17 on:** November 18, 2011, 05:07 PM »

Because MSE is not reliable. Lame heuristics, questionable "security status", niot really flexible, average detection rate.
-Tuxman (November 18, 2011, 04:56 PM)

And you base this assertion on what size test group? I've got a total of 100 machines, that have been running in various locations, for about 2 years now.

Tuxman · « **Reply #18 on:** November 18, 2011, 05:10 PM »

... and MSE did not find malware, so you have none?

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #19 on:** November 18, 2011, 06:16 PM »

MSE certainly picks up a few things that the others haven't, and cleans them off without doing damage (which some of the others don't).

MSE is designed for an average user and as such does a really good job. If you want something really technical you probably don't want a free AV you probably want an expensive suite that asks lots of questions all the time.

I have seen many computers now running Norton, MacAfee, NOD32 suite, Avast Internet Security, AVG suite that have been infected and actually most of them were pretty open to attack because the users didn't know how to respond whan a pop-up says do you want to allow SVCHOST to access the internet etc.. Users either say yes to everything or they say no to everything. The first have totally unprotected systems (worse than XP firewall) and the second group can't do anything and call me to sort it out.

MSE with Windows 7 firewall just works well and doesn't ask stupid questions that confuse average users.

For more advanced users why do you actually need more - you should have the intelligence to avoid threats even without massive protection!

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #20 on:** November 18, 2011, 06:16 PM »

... and MSE did not find malware, so you have none?
-Tuxman (November 18, 2011, 05:10 PM)

Between that and the occasional spot checks with a variety of other utilities, yes. The key is in reduced permissions ... If the user doesn't have permission to break the machine, then neither does the bugg. It's Just. That. Simple.

Anything else is just a waste of processor time.

Tuxman · « **Reply #21 on:** November 18, 2011, 06:19 PM »

edit, more worthy posting:

You use a couple of tools to check if MSE has left something but you don't want to change to some integrated solution (like paid AV)?

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #22 on:** November 18, 2011, 06:24 PM »

I have seen many computers now running Norton, MacAfee, NOD32 suite, Avast Internet Security, AVG suite that have been infected and actually most of them were pretty open to attack because the users didn't know how to respond whan a pop-up says do you want to allow SVCHOST to access the internet etc.. Users either say yes to everything or they say no to everything.
-Carol Haynes (November 18, 2011, 06:16 PM)

B~I~N~G~O!

Our sales manager blew himself out of the water, just last week doing exactly that. (He thought he could "handle" an install by his-self...) Customer had a copy of I'm-On-Mc(crack)Afee and the firewall asked of app X couled access the internet ... He ~~said~~ clicked no. The app in question was the printer driver install he was in the process of running.

It was a 70 mile round trip (the next day) for me to go rescue is his ass.

Tuxman · « **Reply #23 on:** November 18, 2011, 06:29 PM »

Why exactly does a printer driver demand access to the internet?

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #24 on:** November 18, 2011, 06:32 PM »

So are "personal firewalls" or "suites" IMO.
-Tuxman (November 18, 2011, 06:19 PM)

I'm no fan of software firewalls either, so I'll give you that. Unless one is dealing with a road warriors laptop, in which case something basic (like the Windows built in firewall) works just fine. Any other time firewalling should be done (by hardware) at the network border only.

Most of what a firewall purports to do is already covered by the "Turn off unused services" part of the 80-20 rule of information security. (e.g. There's no point in blocking a closed port)