I am considering the paid version of Panda Dome, but there are a couple of things about it that I haven't been able to determine by visiting their product website or browsing their forum. Specifically, does anybody know if Panda Dome (paid) offers anti-spam and anti-phishing protection for e-mail clients such as Outlook? Does it scan e-mails and attachments as they come in? I'm moving from Norton 360, so maybe I'm a little spoiled when it comes to product features. Thanks for any info/insights.
I don’t believe it has any anti spam modules, and don’t believe it scans your emails whatsoever. Only a scant few have a right click to scan in Outlook. The “big players” do, but I believe that most have gotten away from email protection. Personally, I use Spamfighter, for spam, and ESET for stand by scanning on demand.
I would highly recommend not using Panda. It's extremely light, but has subpar detection rates. Norton will typically not be much heavier and provides much better protection.
some forum users reported high detection rates, how is it subpar even on their website they report top scores in av comparative I am not questioning what you say, just curious
It has great detection rates according to AV Comparatives but also one of the highest false positive rates. Just look at the test data and make a decision. I don't use it except on my android phone and it works great.
I use it sometimes, sometimes NOD32. It is the lightest. I only use the free version although I have a 3 year license for the paid version. The only difference the paid version offers is it has a Firewall but I don't like dealing with allowing apps here and there and I find third party firewalls a nuisance so I just stick to the free version but to answer your question, no, uit has none of the modules you asked about. In my experience it has an excellent detection rate and I never got any false positives with it. Just my 2 cents.
It often does well when tested AV-Comparatives and AV-Test. However when tested against 0-day malware at MalwareTips, it typically does badly.
Tests at MalwareTips are interesting but aren't their sample sizes too small to be statistically significant?
Just about all big name antiviruses do better than Panda. This is due to them adding signatures for new threats more quickly, or having decent behavioural protection, or both. If you aren't the type of person who download and opens random files, or opens random email attachments and want an extremely light antivirus, then Panda will be fine. If you want very good protection, look elsewhere. I think they give a decent indication of how good antiviruses are at protecting against very new threats. For example, if an antivirus is consistently doing badly at protecting against new threats and others aren't, it shows that perhaps that antivirus is not a good choice if you value having very good protection.
HERE are test results by AV-Comparatives covering the Heuristics/Behavioral effectiveness of several AVs. Heuristics/Behavioral analyses are an important way whereby AVs can protect against 0-day schtuffsky. Unfortunately, the report is 7 years old -- I wish they would do that test again. Back then, BitDefender out-performed all other tested AVs -- by quite a bit. However Emsisoft did very well IF it was in use by a reasonably savvy user.
I use Defender but for me, the ultimate AV is a system image created daily as I have said in this forum for years. Yes, I am cautious since I have used computers before there were PCs and have never had any kind of malware issue.
Also, your favorite AV might detect malware behavior by signature or it's behavior blocker component. Some AVs detect this too late. The damage is already done more or less. They might stop the offendin "process" but parent(children) processes are already started and damage is done more or less. Some advanced AVs does have a "rollback" feature, which can roll back changes made by a malware. But still, the best protection is to make full backup(incremental or diffrential) and "rollback" the system back that way. Many AVs offers to protect basic windows folders, for example "Documents" "Pictures" by default. Since a lot of malwares targets on those folders, i recommend to make your "own" folders somethin like "mypics" etc. Then use third party (there are some free ones than can do, paid ones are a lot better) to protect those custom folder you made. Funny thing, even my defragger can "touch" my protected folders
I think it is wise to use "layered approach". Because many malwares, more or less, targets most used AV solutions and disabling them(or part of their protection). So what im using is to use third party program(s) to protect my specific folders. It protects them early in the boot stage. It's like windows firewall, never ever trust it. Use third party firewall, i can recommend Symantec Endpoint Firewall(you can install firewall component only). Many, many malwares abuses(targets) windows own firewall. Because those malwares does not target to Symantec Endpoint firewall specifically, i feel more secure. Here's what Symantec Firewall blocked recently: Active Response that started at 4/11/2022 7:35:00 PM is disengaged. The traffic from IP address 176.31.225.118 was blocked for 600 second(s). [SID: 29565] Web Attack: Webpulse Bad Reputation Domain Request attack blocked
