AV-Comparatives Real World Protection Test - August 2018

If you're going to comment on my post, at least give some indication that you read it. I made it clear that, apart from HMP, AVs are not key in my computer security, which is primarily based on detect/restore versus protect/clean.

Fact is, Panda did well on the tests I linked above, and I trust IBK's tests. It is true -- to an extent -- that AVs in general are not the be-all & end-all of computer security. That fact is no more true for Panda than it is for any other AV. That point has been made jillions of times by many folks here at Wilders. So... why do some folks feel it necessary to keep saying the same old anti-AV comments, over & over again? Yada yada yada. They need to learn the words to a different song.. and maybe stop singing opera in this here country & western bar. Yaaaa-hoo!

Me, I find this computer security forum is interesting, friendly, helpful, and fun -- not the center of a Greek tragedy, or an arena where gladiators meet to fight off lions.

Grace & peace to all,
Bell in Hawaii

 

@bellgamin You asked about Panda, we gave you an answer. If you had mentioned another AV, say ESET for example, the answer would be different.
It is not because i dislike AVs in general than i don't know how some perform.
Now if you only want to hear positive opinions about those you like, it is another story, so dont ask and keep trusting test labs, for them all AV are excellent, none score under 90% lol.

Have a good day

 

Been down that road with many of these commercial AV's-oddly though Panda wasn't one of them with the exception of customer service being AWOL.

 

I asked a question? Hmmm... show me any of my posts in this thread where there's a question mark. There aren't any. As for having a good day... thank you! I am having a lovely day & I hope you are, too.

Based on recent tests, Panda is among the better AVs. I don't decide whether or not to buy a product based on how they were doing several years ago, but based on how they are doing NOW. I do not see the justification for so many negative 5 or 6 word comments in this thread -- where 1 poster implies Panda is no good, & provides zero objective information to support that statement. Then another person just posts "+1". How helpful is that? Zero point zero, carried to 500 significant places -- that's how helpful!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I sometimes forget what I posted, or where, so I will sum up what I wrote *somewhere or other* in the past few days. NAMELY:

• I like to run patrolling AVs so as to learn more about them, & also to support the white hat guys who earn their livings by trying to counter black hat guys.
• I switch from first 1 AV to another then to another, every so often. At times I run no patrolling AV at all.
• The security of my 2 computers is not based on patrolling AVs. Not at all. It's based on HMP, ERP, OSA, MBAE, AdInf, & R-DI.

Bottom Line: Panda runs great. Light as a feather. Scores well in objective tests: Blocked 100%, User dependent 0, Compromised 0, FP 3. How 'bout them Panda bears!!!

 

if you rely on test labs, compare the results of all of them for a long period, if they look similar, maybe it is true, if not...
personally, i don't trust labs aka marketing proxies for vendors.

 

Oh, yeah...

 

Is it a court here and we have to provide information in order to support our comments?
As far as I'm involved, just I said that agree [+1] with guest's opinion. Simple as that.
You think that is not helpful? Ok, ignore it and pass to the next comment.

Spoiler

There is no need to be so aggressive, calm down.....

.

 

look, you seem to be a reasonable lad, so i will put this as simple as possible
people like me or @guest usually talks out of experience, and we're the furthest from fanboys or haters of any products.
Panda is one of those products that aren't recommended by us, simply, because there are more better alternatives.
also this should help with your case :

Code:

https://malwaretips.com/threads/panda-dome-premium-september-2018-report.86810/

the lack of green at the final status column should say it all.

 

"You must be logged in to perform this action."

 

Code:

http://any.ac/6cCXNR.png

mfg MT...

 

I would also like to add that many of those tests were performed about 12~16 hours after malware pack was published...

Anyway I'm not against using Panda, I think They still have margin to improve their product, so for now pairing it with OSA and/or SysHardened (as I already said before), it may give a decent/reasonable protection...

 

Panda was tested ... odd, are they new to av-comparatives ? I don't recall them having a track record. But apparently, they do since 2017.
What I do rememeber about the product was that it was horrible, and possibly the hardest AV to get rid of. Inclined to agree with @Peter2150 . Eset not doing so well, but that varies. Hopefully the new version will beef it up a little. IMO, Kaspersky, Bitdefender and Eset are the favorites depending on what you are looking for.

 

Of course not, but it would be more helpful if you did. I always supposed Wilders forums had the purpose of evaluating, explaining, discussing, & learning about computer security and related matters. After all, we are posting in a thread that deals with objective tests, using actual malware, to express how various AVs actually performed. Since Panda performed well, how does a unelaborated comment that Panda (in effect) is no good, followed by a +1, add anything meaningful whatsoever for someone who is reading this thread so as to learn something or maybe even actually select an AV for their personal use?

I just uninstalled Panda using Soft Organizer, an uninstaller app. No problem at all, so I re-installed.

Some security apps are notoriously difficult to uninstall. I usually try them out short-term using ShadowDefender. If I do a long-term install of a security app, I always monitor the install with Soft Organizer. Between Soft Organizer & Kerish Doctor, I haven't yet run into a problem uninstalling security apps.

 

A list of AV software uninstallers can be found here: https://support.eset.com/kb146/

 

The Webroot one is wrong as it's for the 2011 and earlier Legacy versions. So how many others are wrong?

 

This site might be a better reference for AV uninstallers. It actual links to the vendor's web site and accesses the section on uninstalling the software:

https://www.computerhope.com/issues/ch001402.htm

 

yes but you know some people won't trust the result because it is not stamped as "official labs" even if the samples used are more recent than those used by these so-called "reputed" labs...LOL
Anyway you know users discoverer a new AV , they are all excited , like kids with a new toy...
1-3 days: "it is awesome"
1 weeks later: "it is a good software"
2 weeks later: "i uninstalled it, it is too buggy and i found better alternative"

LOL

 

@guest
Have you been spying on me?
Hey, we all love shiny objects

 

Damn, you caught me !!!
call me mad or abnormal or paranoid, but every new things i test are assumed "suspicious and potentially sucking" until it prove itself valuable over time

 

Yes, but this is not really Eset's but Webroot's fault. The page is still up on their website, there is no indication that it is out of date and applies only to legacy products, and it even has a Copyright 2018 Webroot Inc. imprimatur at the bottom.

 

you're so on point with this, started with Forticlient, then Sophos, then Norton, then Cylance
and initiated by one specific shill, every damn time

 

I'm not a fan of malware testing (stopped it long ago), but it appears for me amateur testers & labs see somewhat different things. I haven't seen any Youtube test which correctly confirmed drive-by-dl running on no protection and it's blocked once AV was active. Maybe it's just me, admittedly I haven't watched very many videos. But anyone who actually did the process would know how it is tedious. Even after you correctly set vulnerable programs up, the exploit do not always spawn the malicious process. Then next time you connected to the URL, you're blocked - you have to change IP or record the traffic by Fiddler from the beginning to later replay it. I chose the latter as my purpose was testing NIPS (one of the most forgotten feature by many of amateur testers), not whole product. Metasploit makes things easier, but then it's not in-the-wild.

I don't think amateur tests are inferior nor untrustable (tho there're many such tests, at least some have much better knowledge than me). But probably they're implicitly assume different threat models. AVC uses vulnerable programs so they test many exploits as well as manual DL (don't know the ratio tho), while many amateur tests rely on manual DL only. I wonder how much current method of AVC reflects threats to common user, for whom major browser, media player, & PDF reader now have auto-update enabled by default, nobody except for programmer uses Java, Flash is set to click-to-play and under sandbox, and still 0-day exploit for home user is rare while social engineering is rising more.

The diff btwn manual and drive-by is not only NIPS or anti-exploit, but it also affects AV's reputation system and thus BB too, so a sample getting through drive-by may be blocked while not blocked in manual DL if its reputation by other elements is close to border.

Another thing I care about amateur test is if they confirm these malware doesn't do any harm to others. Tester should monitor destination of all the traffic to make sure it doesn't send any DoS packet or spam mail. Preferably they should use virtual network. Just my 2 cent tho.

 

Very interesting post! Thank you -- worth waaaay more than 2 cents.