Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by trjam, Jan 30, 2008.
Here. Not a good day for zero threats, well unless you are Panda.
Errr... Back to the non zero day tests please, where you can choose your samples wisely and have more encouraging recults (like all fellas get 95+% and we can all be happy).
This test is bad! Bad i tell you!
The reality is, the zero-day threats are more likely than the "zoo" threats that most tests measure. To me, you are only as good as the next zero-day threat that your AV stops. If you look at the data, there is a high enough probability that we are going to get stung the longer we are online. Of course, the veracity of this test (and any other) is the key- and we may not have enough information to make a proper decision as to the validity of the testing matrix.
the test is nonsense, and also, how respected is the source?
This is strange test. Panda 99%( no AV can get it for zer day threats).
Most others at 69 %, all so close.
i refuse to believe that the stupid megadetection or whatsoever beat antivir, nod32, bitdefender. the top 3 in heuristics...
This was for ONE day only.
i bet you, if panda knew about this, it would be flying over their main page and they would go one about it for a year or so tricking people to buy their product!
are you saying Panda is a bad product in general?
but this was just ONE DAY, if you look at the last 12 months, Panda scores just 49.78% protection against Zero day.
Agreed-one of the worst for 12 months. Dr. Web in 3rd place on a yearly basis (96.37%).
i didnt want to mention it
yes, i am saying panda is a bad product in general, this is one day, i know panda generally scores lower, but this is the whole point of marketing, some site promotes them, and its on their front page saying its best and all the others are rubbish. thats what i'm worried about, people don't really get a chance to think.
well, i actually like Panda so i cant agree fully
Ya I know, but I ain't as tainted as you.
different opinions made the world!
Perhaps Panda is worth a look. Somewhere I read they are using behavior based detection. Perhaps that is where the difference is.
Yup, Panda has a behav. blocker/analyzer. The problem with these numbers is that this test (AFAIK) is done on flat file scanning and I have a hard time believing a >95 % detection rate of fresh samples with a signature-based product. OTOH, Panda is a somewhat agressive scanner, so maybe a good amount of detections are of the "suspicious" kind.
Hi just a little info from my experience.I don't use panda never did,i don't belive in any test even if it's done by the most trusted sources(av-comparatives,virus bulletin etc)i always used avira premium as my main protection.I use p2p quite often mainly to check for malware and warn the others,and when i scan the files that i know are infected using virus total ,panda and prevx are the ones that more often flag 0 day malware.I know that the files are infected (i use sandboxie and process explorer so i'm aware even if avira miss something),i only scan at virus total for my curiosity.You don't have to belive this are just my findings during the last 2-3 months.So even if i don't trust the test i belive it is not far from the truth.
F-secure is pretty solid on zero day threats...
Hmm... interesting. So, just what is this thing that Panda is reporting as "Adware/AccesMembre", I wonder.
Yeps have a look at http://www.shadowserver.org/wiki/pmwiki.php?n=Stats.VirusYearlyStats
The daily results fluctuate a fair bit. The yearly ones should be better.
This mont i've found 4 zero day threats that ware only detected by Panda and they ware all flaged as "suspicious".I don't know what system Panda uses for detection but indeed the files ware flagged as "suspicious"
12 months = 1 year
but thank you
eh, that's just a test showing nothing.
Today Panda may be at the top, then Avira, then Kaspersky. It really matters what kind of threats YOU encounter not those honeypots.
Separate names with a comma.