AV-Comparatives ~ Real-World Protection Test October 2013

Yeah they are working on it last I heard

 

The sample size seems a bit small to be able to draw any major conclusions.

Eset did well, but that's against a small number of attacks.

 

for some strange reason, never got the popularity it deserved.

 

It's very popular in Japan and some other east Asian countries.

 

So Panda is free and detects 100%
Hows pc slowdown with it? Is it light like WSA?

 

maybe it's because it's a japanese corp.

 

I have used them both over the past 4 months and found WSA to be considerably lighter than Panda (especially on the CPU). However, I have had startup issues with WSA, but not with Panda. All in all, I found Panda Cloud Free to be very good but it's campaign to get you to upgrade to the Pro version is always in your face!

Cruise

 

according to av-comparatives.org tests in the earlier links, Panda is on the lower-medium end in performance impact, similar to MSE, but false positives were in the upper-medium range. based on these tests alone I'd probably go with avast of the free AV's (99% detection rate but better on performance impact and false positives than Panda).

 

Agreed. It was founded in USA, then headquartered to Taipei, then moved to Tokyo.
I't actually a global company now, with the 3rd largest market share after Symantec and McAfee. Pretty impressive.

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2013/053013-gartner-security-survey-270297.html

 

that link you gave was a good read. and it led me to this link i found via google while searching for av market share. $19.1 billion? wow!

http://www.opswat.com/about/media/reports/antivirus-october-2013

 

if it didnt slow things down so much imo might be worth a look..

 

if what didn't? panda or tm?

 

Doesn't look like it. I don't know why but its definitely 0.0% when I zoomed in.

 

Consistency of kaspersky is amazing and avira seems back in business

 

It's a pity there's no Immunet.

 

It’s reassuring to see Avira’s performance finally improving even though Kaspersky and Trend Micro have set new standards - nothing but 100% detection is acceptable...

 

OT:

Re OPSWAT:
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=2302194&postcount=5
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=2282486&postcount=765

 

I am depressed with avast results.It allowed 0.9% without a peep.I would still say user dependency over there would be better rather than allowing it through

Great job avira!

 

Interesting developments in AV-world. In the past all the innovations would be for paying customers only. It seems that innovations are passed much earlier to the free versions when they increase overal protection and reliability (no FP).

Panda sequence
a) block known bad with URL
b) block known bad with AV-engine (will problably also have code emulation, heuristics and generic rules like most other AV's)
c) behavioral analysis unknown
d) block binaries with recognised exploit behaviour pattern
e) send new binary footprint & analysis to central server (to adopt AV-fingerprints or Anti-Exploit-rules)


Avast sequence
a) same
b) same
c) check reputation
d) allow depending on settings of Hardened mode (whitelist)
e) deepscreen unknown with questionanle reputation (is code emulation/heuristics/virtualisation/behavioral analysis)
f) apply EVO-GEN rules
g) ask user
h) send new binary footprint & analysis to central server (to Adopt AV-fingerprints en EVO-GEN rules)

Avast also reduced pop-ups (user dependant) to zero, so EVO-GEN is also clearly optimised (explained as generic rules based from the day it was launched).

Competitive edge
For now Panda seems to be ahead, but Avast seems to have more (visible)technology in place. Deliberately added "visible", because with cloud technology there could be some 'behind the scene' technology using central/cloud servers which we don't see.

Immunet for instance has an option to specify maximum wait time until answer is received from cloud servers. Immunet also offers an option to block installaton until a GO is received from central servers. With this block installation the executable could be uploaded and analysed first in a on-line sandbox (like Comodo's Instant Malware Analysis). Immunet does not have it, but Panda could implement such a feature behind the scene.

Google has taken the route to analyse on central servers, in stead on client PC's. Avast first started with local (persistant) sandbox like Comodo, now it is using this technology (deepscreen) more like an advanced form of code emulation and behavioral analysis. Comodo is also announicing a successor for Behavioral Blocker and Sandboxing. Comodo allready offers cloud check-up, and has both desktop virtualisation and cloud analysis, are they going to combine this with their new behavioral blocker? The debate on client-side or (cloud) server side virtualisation/sandbox analysis is not clear yet.

It is not about geek-technology but average Joe technology what makes an AV obtain large marketshare. To be honest, when Panda is able to obtain 100% wildlist protection with the next level of behavioral technology, who cares that a stand alone behavioral blocker like ThreatFire has gone to meet his makers. Same can be said of seperate sandbox functionality, when reputation rating and deepscreen of Avast are able to minimalise user intervention and provide high levels of protection against unknown, who cares that a geek can't play with a sandbox? Interesting to see to where this all leads to.

 

They still need to redo the product from scratch so it is not so resource heavy.
I can get mcafee free from two different sources and I did give it a go on my laptop but soon removed it due to it slowing down the machine to much.

 

I have recently tested Panda Cloud against malc0de links and noticed it is weak against adware.

 

TM I believe

 

Any tests of Bitdefender Free anywhere?

 

hmm, thanks for the info.

 

well both to be honest. i find both very much heavy on the system. im not reff to panda cloud but the full av