Panda added almost a million defs

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by bossoq, Oct 4, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. bossoq

    bossoq Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Posts:
    13
    Hi,friends.
    I'm a new member and i'm using Panda Antivirus+Firewall 2008.
    I bought it two weeks ago and as for now it runs pretty well on a Celeron 2,4.
    Have no problems until now.The day before yesterday i did a manual update
    and at the end of it , i had a message that Panda added 930474 malware descriptions, reaching
    1500801 malware descriptions.Yesterday it also added about 78 thousand malware descriptions.
    Why is this?
    I mean,until 2nd of october Panda was able to detect about 500000 malware archives,and suddenly in two days it can detect over a million and a half,mallware..
    Has anyone a clue or an idea about it?
    Thanks.
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2007
  2. dan_maran

    dan_maran Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2004
    Posts:
    1,053
    Location:
    Stamford, CT
    Sounds like another one of Panda's extreme marketing campaigns.
    :rolleyes:
     
  3. MalwareDie

    MalwareDie Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Posts:
    500
    I wouldn't be too surprised if each sig detects one piece of malware.
     
  4. bossoq

    bossoq Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Posts:
    13
    Is it possible that Panda adds to its 2008 products the ''megadetection'' engine,
    that we know from nanoscan or totalscan?
    In their homepage they are saying that their products are capable to recognize
    over 2 million malware..
     
  5. midway40

    midway40 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Posts:
    1,257
    Location:
    SW MS, USA
    Panda must not believe in generic sigs, lol.
     
  6. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    2008 does include the totalscan technology (megadetection)

    but nobody really knows how good it is ...yet!

    but even without that, panda is a good antivirus, its nice and light and does the job, some people can be too harsh on here, if something is not 99.97543% or whatever, it gets slated, this is the life of a forum bossoq. ;)

    megadetection will definately add detection, so this is only a good thing ;)

    and im glad its running well for ya, beware they dont give free upgrades though. (unless they have changed this policy)
     
  7. larryb52

    larryb52 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    Posts:
    1,126
    I really don't but I know that I wouldn't trust it on my machine, the biggest stumbling block is the little bear icon in the sys tray ;-)
     
  8. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    i like the icon, its be revised for the 2008 version and looks much better than previous versions :)

    as good as a panda can look :)
     
  9. bossoq

    bossoq Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Posts:
    13
    Do you mean that megadetection is totalscan?
    I thought that it would be included,like TruPrevent.
    That was my first thought ,when i made my second post.
     
  10. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    there ya go ;)

    just make sure you turn everything on, panda's defaults aint good enough :D
     
  11. bossoq

    bossoq Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Posts:
    13
    I've already had all of its options enabled.
    Thanks for the advise and for your answers,too.
     
  12. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    not a problem,

    welcome to the forum ;)
     
  13. Mrkvonic

    Mrkvonic Linux Systems Expert

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Posts:
    8,698
    Hello,
    It doesn't matter how many bad ones it catches.
    What matters is how many bad ones it misses!
    A-ha!
    Mrk
     
  14. pykko

    pykko Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Posts:
    2,236
    Location:
    Romania...and walking to heaven
    right. ;)
     
  15. Mongol

    Mongol Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2004
    Posts:
    1,581
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    The bear has also become more functional...:D
     
  16. Mongol

    Mongol Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2004
    Posts:
    1,581
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    The new Panda has been running smoothly on my other box. As far yearly upgrades I've learned my lesson. I keep my eye on softwareoutlet.com, the prices just can't be beat.
     
  17. Arin

    Arin Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2004
    Posts:
    997
    Location:
    India
    AFAIK Panda detects some cookies as malwares. This time they are probably trying to score good in the comparisons. I bet they added loads of junks.

    But I think it offers decent protection for decent users.
     
  18. Zombini

    Zombini Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Posts:
    469
    I know what must be happening.. there must be a new Andreas Marx or Andreas Clementi test coming up.
     
  19. MalwareDie

    MalwareDie Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Posts:
    500
    Well Panda will not participate in Clementi's test until 2008 and unless I am mistaken, Marx does his tests at random. It is probably a scheme just to make them Panda look better, not a prep for anything.
     
  20. bossoq

    bossoq Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Posts:
    13
    But could it be a half and a million threats over the internet?
    Other major security vendors like Kaspersky Labs have almost
    400.000 signatures or less (symantec)..
     
  21. tiagozt

    tiagozt Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2004
    Posts:
    331
    I received a e-mail talking about MEGADETECTION... Downloaded and tried... Decepction... The same low detection... (with less resource usage).
    Only marketing...
     
  22. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    i doubt it will be the same detection
     
  23. Long View

    Long View Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2004
    Posts:
    2,295
    Location:
    Cromwell Country
    They may have added a million defs but it still seems pretty useless to me.
    I used their on line scan as a test and all it showed was one false positive.
    why anyone relies on AV/AS programs like this I don't know. You could spend years getting nothing but false reports and then if eventually something nasty
    does get thru it will probably too new for the program to stop.
     
  24. Diver

    Diver Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Posts:
    1,444
    Location:
    Deep Underwater
    A million, how do you know, did you count them?
     
  25. midway40

    midway40 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Posts:
    1,257
    Location:
    SW MS, USA
    The number of definitions does not an AV make. Symantec received it's high detection rate using only 73,620 defs (as of August).
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.