ESET Smart Security vs Kaspersky Internet Security

[virtu]

The firewall is "poor" because it doesn't have a HIPS module not cause they really tested it. Matousec is not really testing firewall capabilities. Eset suite is good but KIS is stronger...not cause Matousec did a stupid HIPS test.

[Dieselman]

Virtu even before Matousec started testing HIPS Smart Security did very poor and always had.

[virtu]

Their first firewall (v.3) was poor i know.The v.4 firewall is much better especially when comes to usage and network attacks detection.

[Dieselman]

Even so I wouldn't trust it anymore then I trust my ex wife. LOL.

[virtu]

..You could be right, their av is all you need from the suite, if you want to use something. Light and powerful.

[JoWa]

About HIPS in ESS: http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost ... stcount=46

[virtu]

Has been discussed but none has ever seen it blocking something. So you could say it's a myth.

[liljj2009]

It's a myth.

[Dieselman]

Exactly..............myth.

[hemingway60]

I vote for ESET because its fast, light and powerful in detection.KIS is becoming good but its a bit heavy on the system.And for web protection, I think that there is no comparison.When I tested some zero-day malware,ESET was detecting most of the links and blocked them before the save/run even appears.KIS detected around 5 or 6 less then ESET and in most, I had to run before KIS detected it.And about the firewall,who on earth said that 4% is correct.Matousec isn't testing the version(4.0.437.0) which improved the firewall.They are testing v4.0.417.0.Check out my thread on wilderssecurity:http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?p=1523926#post1523926 or just see the results below for ssomeone who tested v4.0.437.0 which had improved firewall.

[QUOTE=pinjoa]Hello again!

I spend some time to verify and run this test

I tested with ESS v4.0.437.0 version (virtual machine with windows XPP)

Here are the results:

==> Level 1
breakout2.exe = FAILED
coat.exe = passed
echotest.exe = passed
kill1.exe = passed
kill2.exe = passed
leaktest.exe = passed
tooleaky.exe = passed
wallbreaker1.exe = passed
yalta.exe = passed


==> Level 2
awft1.exe = FAILED
dnstest.exe = passed
ghost.exe = passed
jumper.exe = passed
kill3.exe = passed
kill3b.exe = passed
kill6.exe = passed
wallbreaker3.exe = passed
wallbreaker4.exe = passed


==> Level 3
awft3.exe = passed
awft4.exe = passed
dnstester.exe = passed
kernel1.exe = passed
kill3f.exe = passed
kill4.exe = passed
kill7.exe = passed
sss2.exe = passed
suspend1.exe = passed
thermite.exe = passed


==> Level 4
copycat.exe = passed
cpil.exe = passed
cpilsuite1.exe = passed
kernel1b.exe = passed
keylog1.exe = passed
kill3e.exe = passed
kill8.exe = passed
kill9.exe = passed
sss.exe = passed
suspend2.exe = passed


==> Level 5
breakout1.exe = passed
cpilsuite2.exe = passed
crash1.exe = passed
crash2.exe = passed
crash3.exe = passed
crash4.exe = passed
kernel2.exe = passed
kernel3.exe = passed
keylog2.exe = passed
kill3c.exe = passed
kill3d.exe = passed
vbstest.exe = passed


==> Level 6
cpilsuite3.exe = passed
crash5.exe = passed
crash6.exe = passed
ddetest.exe = passed
echotest2.exe = passed
firehole.exe = passed
flank.exe = passed
kernel4.exe = FAILED
keylog3.exe = passed
keylog4.exe = passed
kill10.exe = passed
kill11.exe = passed
runner.exe = passed


==> Level 7
bitstest.exe = FAILED
firehole2.exe = passed
keylog5.exe = passed
keylog6.exe = passed
kill12.exe = passed
osfwbypass.exe = passed
runner2.exe = passed
schedtest.exe = passed
sss3.exe = passed 50% (see website documentation)


==> Level 8
kernel4b.exe = FAILED
kernel5.exe = FAILED
keylog7.exe = passed
kill5.exe = passed
newclass.exe = passed
schedtest2.exe = passed
socksnif.exe = passed
sss4.exe = passed


==> Level 9
crash7.exe = passed
(Driver Verifier not included in downloaded file)


==> Level 10
(no tests file included in downloaded file)


conclusion:
ESET Smart Security v4.0.437.0, failed = 6

Approximately, this should be about 89-93%.Do you seriously call this a pathetic firewall

Thanks.