Yes, it is pretty much another company, Pedro Bustamente (ex Senior Research Advisor & VP Product Management) left the company many years ago and it is going downhill since then.
https://www.av-comparatives.org/com...=2022&chart_month=3&chart_sort=1&chart_zoom=3 https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/malware-protection-test-march-2022/
weird how it seems like I'm the only one who has never EVER gotten a false positive with Panda I care more about real world results not these artificial results that don't represent every day real-world scenarios.
You're lucky. We use it at work and I get FP detection almost every time I update applications. Since we use Endpoint protection it's real PITA to whitelist installer. And sometimes it wouldn't even show blocked event on portal even after syncing, so you have to wait for a day or two until Panda decides that installer is OK. This FP result is exactly in line with my experience.
Both camps cannot be right since they are contradictory. So there must be a variable to explain it. I have Panda, but it slowed down my machine even though AV Comparatives claimed it had minimal impact. I don't use it as a result.
Weird, I've tested it on several laptops and it was the lightest of them all, next was NOD32 in terms of lightness.
Well regarding system slowness it's the lightest AV that I've used. At least on my system. IMO Panda had FP issues with software that is not used by many users.
While I haven't used it for some time, when I was using Panda I have very few false positives. I'm someone who is regularly downloading new and little known software.
IDK why I've had problems while updating software. Maybe we use some non-default settings, that create so much problems. On my system updates that were blocked in last few months were installers for Notepad++, WinMerge and LinPhone. They were usually whitelisted a day or two latter but it was still PITA to have installation process blocked.
Yes it's always a hassle when something is blocked that shouldn't be. Maybe Panda has more false positives now than when I used it. But even when I was using it, it wasn't faring well for false positives when tested.
Some AV solutions block the offending process, but not the parent/children process of it. Especially if you set up your AV to "Ask" mode. It waits for your input, while offending parent/children processes are damaging your system in the background. So "auto-block" is recommended. And a solution that can "roll-back". The best i've used was McAfee Endpoint and its Dynamic Application Containment (DAC, kind of a sandbox) and it's roll-back feature(basic or advanced roll-back). Took about two weeks to configure McAfee ENS for my liking. Default settings of McAfee ENS is really bad, really bad. Anyway, it's the best security product i've ever used, protection wise(when properly configured). Too bad it is heavy on resources.
I think it's important to consider what the AV does AFTER it auto-blocks. Does it quarantine the supposedly nasty file, or does it delete it? AVs can sometimes FP a vital file, delete it, & thereby cause a troublesome computer problem. If the AV quarantines the FP file (instead of deleting it), it's usually pretty easy to fix things. HOWEVER, if one faithfully images her/his system drive, then auto-block is A-OK under any circumstances (IMO).
Images are they key to everything and are actually the best AV there is. Something went haywire a few weeks ago and my main computer slowed to a crawl. I needed to get back up to speed fast and I simply restored from a Windows image file created by windows. I restored 350GB in about 20 minutes good as before.
