yeah id like to see that.

Me too

Can you make online class to setup malex.py and learn cyber security from you. I'll subscribe it. Please consider my idea.

@@harisjafri9459 There will be a lot of educational cybesecurity content coming up on TPSC for absolutely free. :)

@@pcsecuritychannel thanks . Kindly share how to securely work remote from home. Other than setup secure vpn .

but isn't it just a glorified g2a using stolen keys

@@chickencoopowner No, it is not. They obtain all their licenses from official sources, not random users, they are not a "G2A". lol

Very unfair test. ESET have publically stated that HIPS/etc do not function properly if real time protection is disabled, as they need the realtime protection to get filesystem events.

ESET is just very weak to detect ransomware.

Thats right its kinda wrong to not use that feature because he is turning off the function that doesn't even allow the ransom to be executed at first.idk what is the point of turning off the best feature of the eset.

@@phallen3063 it's to simulate a zero day attack.

I posted this in a reply to another thread, but it deserves posting here: This was not a fair test. To cut a very long story short, the ESET anti ransomware protection WILL NOT function if realtime protection is disabled. You need realtime protection enabled for those modules to fully function - because they rely on some other tasks that the realtime protection does under the hood. ESET could do better by warning you of this when you turn it off, however they do state that only ADVANCED users should turn modules off. A normal user will leave them alone and get full protection. ESET offers no way to disable signature detection while leaving the rest of the product fully functional. There is no reason why you would want to do this (other than specific synthetic tests) so I do not see this as a demerit. ESET really does protect against day 0 unknown threats! It has saved me a few times already. It is also lightweight, and does not interfere with software development (something a lot of other products fail at). No, I am not sponsored by ESET. I have been using it for years and rely on it however. I have a lot of experience as an IT administrator and have used all of the big name products. I can only strongly recommend a couple, ESET being one of them.

@@soiledhalo2296 How disable real time protection make test defense against zero day possible?

"Secondly, by disabling real-time protection you prevent HIPS from receiving events on the file system level and thus make HIPS and all HIPS dependent components ineffective" Do you have any citation for this cause if so I will definitely change how I do these tests.

@@pcsecuritychannel He is an admin in ESET's support forum so he knows what he says: forum.eset.com/profile/10-marcos/ This test is completely wrong because disabling real time protection the way you did, not only disables signature based blocking but disables a bunch of other security modules. For example In ESET's advanced settings you can see that it says REAL-TIME & MACHINE LEARNING PROTECTION in the same category. So it is clear that disabling real-time protection disables Machine Learning features too!

@@pcsecuritychannel why are you disabling modules at all? It makes non sense, nobody holds an AV working just with a parts of modules.

@@DmitriyDarkJoney The intent is to test how the software handles new threats for which there are no available signatures. Basically how well users are protected during those critical handful of hours when a piece of malware has gone public, but has not been sufficiently analyzed yet.

The man itself, Marcos.

So what you're saying is you're angry he tested the what if it got past the first line of defense and testing to see how it handles a file that managed to get on

No, not at all. As I explained in detail, the test was seriously flawed. Disabling real-time protection does NOT equal disabling signature-based detection. That's not the way Eset works. The PC Security Channel made a mistake but won't admit it.

Admit it. ESET is just not good at blocking ransomware based on its behavior. This is a fair testing procedure that applies to all of the AVs Leo tested.

This was not a fair test. As a programmer I can understand the reply from ESET and understand the reasoning behind this test being unfair. To cut a very long story short, the ESET anti ransomware protection WILL NOT function if realtime protection is disabled. You need realtime protection enabled for those modules to fully function - because they rely on some other tasks that the realtime protection does under the hood. ESET could do better by warning you of this when you turn it off, however they do state that only ADVANCED users should turn modules off. A normal user will leave them alone and get full protection. ESET offers no way to disable signature detection while leaving the rest of the product fully functional. There is no reason why you would want to do this (other than specific synthetic tests) so I do not see this as a demerit. ESET really does protect against day 0 unknown threats! It has saved me a few times already. It is also lightweight, and does not interfere with software development (something a lot of other products fail at). No, I am not sponsored by ESET. I have been using it for years and rely on it however. I have a lot of experience as an IT administrator and have used all of the big name products. I can only strongly recommend a couple, ESET being one of them.

@@ZippletTech I do agree with you. ESET is very accurate in comparison to some big name in the industry. Also Lightweight and do not interfere much with computer resources.

I would say that the best 3 av's atm are Kaspersky, Norton and Bitdefender.

He explained it in an earlier video. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/sKecn9lql62okmw.htmlm37s

@@Hans5958 yeah, but i've seen this video first, then the avast one, that's why i didn't understand it

He doesn't even read the comments I think

He tested Kaspersky 2 and 6 months ago. Bitdefender, 4 months ago.

ilker erol He does

I have tested my bitdefender by only turning on Ransomware shield Wanna cry blocked But Cerber encrypted atleast 40% of my stuff on the other drives except C: drive

Yes please

No way! ESET sucks it looks like to me lol.

@@marky.159 f-secure is better than eset too.. 😄

Hi, where it said that? Can you give a link please?

Yes, I have done such a test with Windows Defender and might do more with other AVs.

@@pcsecuritychannel I watched the windows defender test video, it was very very interesting, if possible repeat it with ESET, I am afraid you will get similar performance :-)

@TPSC pls do

Yeah and please test kaspersky in both recommended and highest settings, thanks!

@@franklinAll8735 Recommended already blocks everything so that's a bit unnecessary

Kaspersky Free would be a great test, but any Kaspersky I suppose would work. Would be interested to see this for sure.

@@MaksKCS I dunno. From my experience behavioral protection is more aggressive on high settings which is a good thing in these types of tests.

as u/serioushoax said The PC Security Channel is definitely not the best test that you can trust and no one should fully base their AV using decision on his tests alone. You will be surprised to know often how little research he does before testing a product. He has a test called something like Windows Defender Sandbox. That test is a nightmare. He didn't even know what Windows Sandbox is. That video is 100% filled with misinformation. Watch that if you haven't already then search what Windows Dender Sandbox actually is. That was the most stupid thing he did. As I said, he is often very ignorant and doesn't do his research before testing. The ESET test is also a similar one. He doesn't even know how ESET works. He expects every AV to be the same. ESET's HIPS is not a true behavior blocker in the first place and if real-time protection is turned off then the HIPS can't have enough data to do its thing. The real-time protection and HIPS are interconnected. But he didn't even know that. Norton is another product where if you turn off Auto protect then it also turns off their behavior blocker SONAR. Besides, no AV should be tested with any of its modules turned off. AV companies don't create multi-layer solutions for users to turn them off in the real world. So testing with one or more of those off is useless Also, one of the things that no KZfaq tester mentions is that the first line of defense is almost always in their malware tests. Malware doesn't magically appear on someone's PC. In most cases, AVs with good web protection like Bitdefender, Kaspersky, ESET, etc would stop the malware from getting into the system in the first place. So don't base your choice solely relying on KZfaq tests only. Kaspersky protection wise is better than ESET so, in the end, a very good choice but testers like TPSC should not be a reliable source.

kaspersky/bit defender is almost 4x better

ESET is certainly capable.. but not the best. I think BitDefender and kaspersky sit at the top

@@TheChillee I've been out of the loop since 2010 (now work helpdesk so little pc work), so you might be right. Regardless, I still say VMs (i.e., sandbox) is the only way to protect your system, but you still have to figure out a good way to mitigate key loggers. :)

Trend Micro is black listed for me. It’s the only Anti Virus I ever had that would interrupt your task by forcefully minimizing whatever you are doing be it a video editing, online gaming etc. To show you advertisements... on a fully paid license. And it wasn’t cheap, it was 60+ $/year at the time.

Check some of his recent videos. He just did Sophos less then 3 months ago. Confirming I will still buy it when my Malwarebytes subscription is up!!

@@wannabedal-adx458 I saw that one on Sophos and I can also reccomend them since I've used Sophos for over a year now. But he already did one for ESET 4 months ago and he just now tested ESET specifically for ransomware. So I would like to see this same test done for Sophos.

Checking it with modules disabled is to simulate new threats which are not in virus database yet

@@artorias550 he is trying to check zero-day malware cause he doesnt have one

Clever malware will attack one of these elements to disable it and then the whole sequence breaks down. I think the value of checking each system independently is useful. If the program is interdependent (vs multiple layering which is a superior form of protection due to NOT relying on interaction of modules), it will inherently score lower. The test is not flawed, though it can have a disclaimer about the limitation of such software designed in this fashion (interdependent vs layered). I’d not know how software vendors would feel about that, but the channel is not meant to appease them, its to provide data from most likely real world scenario vs just running a bunch of crap in a virtual sandbox

He turned realtime protection off because ESET stores signatures of the viruses that he is testing against, so ESET already knows about the viruses with realtime protection on, that is why the first test had 100% detection ratio. But turning realtime protection off means he's trying to see whether it can detect unknown malware with unknown signatures (i.e newer undetected malware), and block them. In tests after the first, it gets around 40% detection ratio and most malware is able to get through. TLDR: He is testing the other detection mechanisms ESET has to prevent infection aside from signature-based detection. And also signature-based detection doesn't need any AI, it is really just a list of signatures.

Yes! That would be a God-send, since I like Comodo.

Quarantine give you A LOT of free time! Learn something new! Watch something that you wanted to watch for the long time! :-)

David da Silva D. Malwarebytes Premium never use Windows defender

AVG MAN!! THAT IS A GOD!!

Kaspersky

Exactly.

ddabrahim super old anti ur pc will get infected probs

@@lineageduper I know the AV is not the best but the prevention system Defense+ that is included with the Free Antivirus should catch pretty much anything unknown and contain it in a sandbox. Since almost all AV fail this test wondering how well Comodo would do. Even if the AV fail which is very likely no doubt, Defense+ should protect the system and all our files. At least this is the promise. Would like to see it if that is the case. Note that there is 2 type of AV product. Comodo Cloud Antivirus that is not including Defense+ instead rely on Comodo Cloud infrastructure and Comodo Free Antivirus that is including Defense+ but not the cloud. I would like to see the Free AV with Defense+ to be tested.

Rindfleischettikierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz. Germany. xd

Kaspersky ransomware tool is suck it's just a system watcher renamed and causing bsod to it's user

@Hoàng Long Blue hey sorry u replied late, i already purchased a year subscription. But.... Bitdefender is working very smoothly on my computer. Smoothly than eset. I liked it.

What is btw?

@@user-ck8no5sj7c BTW is an abbreviation for "by the way".

Using its heuristics engine

which is disabled once you disable real time protection...@@od1sseas663

Bit Defender or Kaspersky will keep your data safe.

But that isn't what the test was about

real time works only against known stuff... when new ransomware appears, you are unprotected as if you had your real time protection off...

@@JaM-R2TR4 Obviously, if it is Novel/ZeroDay (just like the current Corona virus) then you can't protect your self, however, you could makes enough backup copies as you proceed or work on VM to restore to the previous unaffected state!

@@NeelNarayan Yes... but that's not the point of the test either, is it?

@@maxmustermann5331 what's the point then .. lol?

@Chez and others, I do believe that Kaspersky score perfect, six months ago! Correct me,please! if, I am wrong and/or miss something. On The PC Security Channel (TPSC). Could you possibility give more details on the differences. Between the two free versions, anybody. Also, I think Kaspersky is lacking phish-ling, where BitDefender is not on the free version? Thoughts and opinions are always welcome.... For example can you use Kaspersky and/or BitDefender with SandBoxie? And does either one turn the above turn Window Security off? Ect....I need details as much as possible. Also, which completely remove the ransomware from the system, not just blocking and quarantine. Additionally, are there any conflicts with other security software? Kind regards

​@@mooselexus Kaspersky uses way fewer resources than Bitdefender. I personally use Kaspersky due to the effort put in their free versions. They are very similar, and both terminate viruses really well. I tried Bitdefender and decided to test it with some small PUPs like web discoverer browser. And surprisingly, Bit did not detect it but Kaspersky did. Plus Bitdefender free version's UI is very basic. The front page only has a scan option. Overall, If you want the free versions, I recommend Kaspersky. For paid versions, I recommend both. Im not sure but I think you have to uninstall Malwarebytes inorder to install both of them.

@@@koiwaiyotsuba Truly appreciate your insight! Many thanks!

@@koiwaiyotsuba you can't use both kaspersky and malwarebytes. Bitdefender plays nice with mbam. I recommend bitdefender

Go for bitdefender imo ...

Cenk Begün he already did

The PC Security Channel is definitely not the best test that you can trust and no one should fully base their AV using decision on his tests alone. You will be surprised to know often how little research he does before testing a product. He has a test called something like Windows Defender Sandbox. That test is a nightmare. He didn't even know what Windows Sandbox is. That video is 100% filled with misinformation. Watch that if you haven't already then search what Windows Dender Sandbox actually is. That was the most stupid thing he did. As I said, he is often very ignorant and doesn't do his research before testing. The ESET test is also a similar one. He doesn't even know how ESET works. He expects every AV to be the same. ESET's HIPS is not a true behavior blocker in the first place and if real-time protection is turned off then the HIPS can't have enough data to do its thing. The real-time protection and HIPS are interconnected. But he didn't even know that. Norton is another product where if you turn off Auto protect then it also turns off their behavior blocker SONAR. Besides, no AV should be tested with any of its modules turned off. AV companies don't create multi-layer solutions for users to turn them off in the real world. So testing with one or more of those off is useless Also, one of the things that no KZfaq tester mentions is that the first line of defense is almost always in their malware tests. Malware doesn't magically appear on someone's PC. In most cases, AVs with good web protection like Bitdefender, Kaspersky, ESET, etc would stop the malware from getting into the system in the first place. So don't base your choice solely relying on KZfaq tests only. Kaspersky protection wise is better than ESET so, in the end, a very good choice but testers like TPSC should not be a reliable source.

Yes....Eset is best and cheap antivirus ....

Webroot secureanywhere

@@kulbhushankumar2368 webroot isn't very good

@@kulbhushankumar2368 Kaspersky mcafee and Avast are the best in my opinion

@@arrongamez1388 eset is also great

I can confirm you can password protect settings. I did that on my copy of ESET for an extra layer of protection - incase some malware manages to get control of the mouse and tries to toggle it off, which is a real attack that has been seen in the wild.

Your PC is safe! Unless you are trying really hard to download viruses and infect your computer hehe

@@moonflaked No that makes no sense to turn off anything and then test the product, why the need to turn it off maybe they would be blocked if it was turned on?

@@moonflaked Yet on some products, behavioral detection is part of "real time protection" modules....

The thing is with real-time protection disabled other HIPS-based protection modules (Ransomware shield, Deep Behavioral Inspection, ...) will not receive information about operations being performed on the file system level. For instance, they will not receive information that files are being modified by an application (e.g. ransomware) so they can't detect the suspicious behavior then.

Checking it with modules disabled is to simulate new threats which are not in virus database yet

Did you even watch entire video? I am guessing you skipped to middle of video 🤭

Thanku bro for replying