Panda Cloud Antivirus - Version 1.0 Final Released

Before we get into the discussion if the test is relevant or not please remember no antivirus detects everything.

Chinese AV's are good at detecting Chinese malware, Russian AV's are good at detecting Russian malware. Panda Lab's tries their best to detect as much malware as possible but they can't detect every bit of it.

The test may be made out of all China links, how often does an english person try to go to a Chinese site? Sure they may get sent to to China site by a redirect but they have to click lauch to start the .exe file.

This is why a layered setup is important, what one misses another layer catches.

 

I think you're taking my words out of context.

a) No AV will provide you 100% protection against all malware. Period.

b) When a customer of ours gets infected of course we are not going to say "it's irrelevant". When they become infected, we stand behind our product and company and will do whatever necessary via Tech Support to clean the infection.

It's not a matter of "if" someone will become infected with XYZ antivirus. It's a matter of "when" (exluding of course advanced users with UAC, lockdown security policies, classical HIPS, common sense, etc.). Or do you know any AV vendor that doesn't have a tech support department that deals with customer infections and lab submissions by customers who get infected?

 

Well they are your words. If you say I took them out of context, so be it. You know what you meant, I only know what I read. You used the terms "not really statistically significant" and "simply irrelevant" in reference to Panda missing 15 out of 15 samples. I wished to remind you that, just like the car dealer who told me how infrequently this problem occurred, it doesn't feel infrequent to the person who is part of the statistically insignificant group.

 

It became, simply irrelevant, to me, when Avast got 15 out of 15, twice. It wasnt about what any other vendors got, or did not get, but that one tale telling sign, said it all. So as I said earlier, lets see what some who use quite a bit more then 30 samples say. And I am not knocking the member who did the testing, because we all just about do it now, but I personally would not post here on that small a sample.

 

I'm saying you're taking it out of context because your example has nothing to do with AV or AV testing.

In your case, if you get a car with a bad engine I would expect, just as you, for it to be replaced or repaired.

In the case of AV, the fact that it will miss some malware it's not because it is faulty, but because of how AV operates (it's reactive in nature and therefore cannot detect 100% of the malware). When it happens we will of course fix the customers machine.

 

Regarding the malware link sites, they are a valuable source of testing malware and seeing what it does. But it would be better to know how many users have been affected by each download. There's probably no-way of getting that data than to ask the malware author him/herself.

But if a company sees a file that isn't in their database, checks that it hasn't affected any users, should the file be added? If the file isn't added, and the site where the file is hosted isn't being pushed/marketed anywhere, users are still protected.

But by not adding the file, the security program risks being labelled a 'dud program' by individual testers and viewers of the youtube video, even though the files aren't a risk to users.

Just an extreme example. A company that adds all these files from several link pages, work their way down each list regardless if they affect users or not, they can score perfect results on tests which means positive viewer comments and more business.

But in doing so (adding these files from the malicious link sites), does that detract away from looking after users who are being targeted by malware from current sites actually exploiting users?

I don't have the answer. Would depend on how much time it would take to test each file/link. I might be talking absolute garbage, but 'I'm guessing' it require another staff member, to work several hours a day, paid at $40K a year to add/analyse these links. Then you'd have to weigh up, would that $40K be well spent, and better than other marketing and support services, as youtube and other videos are 'powerful' in demonstrating a product? ... and would that 'youtube' success bring about more than $40K in business, to justify the extra costs?

eg. could you convert 1000 viewers to pay for the premium $40 product = $40 000.

but you'd also have to weigh-up, if every vendor started adding these links, then all AVs would likely score 10/10 on youtube tests, making the user think, well 'quickheal' is as good as 'norton' now !

 

@pbust - In the interest of not disrupting this thread further, I will take this to PM.

 

Your guess is not that bad

 

I'd say converting 1000 users is 'do-able'.

In marketing, 'reputation' and 'perception' is key in driving sales. One viewer says, 'I've seen product xyz, kicked @ss in tests, take a look'.

And just another thought for my brain to think about. Does the security product have an obligation to protect against these URL links, even though they aren't affecting your average mum and pa users, but in-case a user who has no common sense, either runs one of these files from the malware link site, or say runs the file from their desktop (as a friend thought they'd be cool to load the files and watch what happens to the friend's pc).

Hmm.

Given that more youtube testers are appearing everyday, and older videos don't delete themselves and can be viewed anytime, that is, a bad video stays online for an infinite amount of time, definitely something to think about.

Edit - but on the other hand, as youtube is getting so congested with videos, some pure and utter junk, will it be harder for someone to find a testing video in the near future? Example when a user here asked recently about the pro version of a security product, it took me awhile to scroll through pages of irrelevant videos to find the actual testing video.

 

Thanks Page42, much appreciated.

 

Is it just me or it the Panda forum buggy some times. It was letting me post without being logged it, I would have never noticed unless I was trying to find my PM button. Plus I keep getting forums called Nule_6, is it just my machine or are you guys getting it also?

 

Must be teenagers

 

It's just you, you're being promoted to external moderator
In addition our IT folks are fixing some forum backend stuff as we speak.

 

Awersome, I was wondering why my post's kept going away..........

 

Well, then you are ignoring facts. Avast got 30 out of 30. The test is what the test is. All software, including Panda Cloud was treated EXACTLY the same way. Avast is a free product. I don't own any stock in the product nor do I have any vested interest in the company. Kaspersky was perfect as well.

While 15 links may be a small sample, it was somewhat concerning to me as just another computer user out there who saw a product do NOTHING, while every other product in the test at least dealt with some of the malware.

I presented the test as is with the data I had. There is no need for me to say one product is better than the other. I simply don't care which product does better.

If I still had the links pbust, I would send them to you, but I did not keep them as they were simply used that day for that test because they had been posted and or found that day. All I know is a hard boot on the system was required because it was so badly infected by REAL malware that exists out there that Panda did not detect, stop or clean.

 

I installed Panda Cloud Antivirus on my machine and then could not remove it later.
The uninstaller gave me an error (in Spanish no less).
Also, the dedicated Cloud Antivirus removal tool would not launch.
It may be a free product but it's one I won't be using again.

 

What error code did you get?

 

I honestly didn't pay attention or grab a screenshot, though I should've.
The window that popped up was in Spanish and from my days of Spanish in High School I could only ascertain it was some sort of critical error.

 

That's right - then we will see the "true" results

... like here: http://blog.cloudantivirus.com/2009/08/31/cloud-antivirus-1-in-pc-world-comparative/

 

Oki I paste below what vlk (Avast developer) said about this list

BTW, I really enjoy reading test like TheIgster made and have nothing against it. IMHO this test are quite ok, because the're showing weak points of every av (like poor selfdefence, problem with to many hips popups, etc, to much faith in heuristics and so on...)

 

Looks like Vlk and Pedro are on the same page then.

 

I do not go by these tests i have installed panda cloud on over 100 machines and have it running on my windows 7 64 bit with no problems or viruses. I can honestly say i have good habits and thats why my machine is clean, but for the other 100 machines i doubt that highly and they are doing great with panda cloud. These tests being done on youtube and elsewhere mean little to me, i am just running panda cloud with a router and windows firewall since it was in beta and have not had 1 infection yet. ( yes i do other scans just to check)

 

when will beta testing start for 1.1? any clues?

 

The goal is the first half of this year.

 

But my machine is already connected to the internet - what's wrong Panda?