Panda are you kidding?

[Jaspion]

Wow.

First I thought it was absurd already because of the fact they're advertising their technology has "100% detection", just like that, as a vague and bold statement that can lead users to believe it, users that don't know, as anyone browsing here does, that there simply is no such thing as 100% detection.

So I followed the link, to check again the AV-Comparatives results and see the 100% Panda must have got in the latest test (although I have seen the results before, and don't remember any 100%s... well, let's see).

Yeah... that's the latest test that they show as proof they give you "100% protection".

 

[Jaspion]

Not to mention this hype is to offer a run-of-the-mill 1-month trial!

 

[Nico@FMA]

Nope Panda is not kidding they always did have great detection (However out of the box it was average) you needed to tweak the settings. Keep in mind they use to pioneer the antivirus market with their polymorphic detection modules.
So Panda is a big name, en they have seen very good days and very bad ones. On top of that their removal and blocking features have always been mediocre or average at best.
In regards to their cloud community, it is pretty much as good as any other cloud like Symantec or Immunet.
And given the fact that Panda always did have trouble removing and blocking malware, having a great cloud community is deffo a step in the right direction. Because as i said they use to be a big name and use to pioneer malware detection.
I personally would never use it as a first line protection, but given their detection rates and great community, it would suit most users to have it running on the background. On top of that its my firm believe that cloud technology will eventually replace local software anyway.
Because time already has shown us that the effectiveness of cloud based AV is in some cases already outperforming major brands even tho they might have better detection rates.
And lets face it 99.8% might not be a 100% but really? 0.2% come on.
There are so many vendors out there that do not even come close to that.

Not to mention this hype is to offer a run-of-the-mill 1-month trial!

Panda cloud is no hype, and neither is Panda. Also worth mentioning is that their AV programs might be having issues, but their specialized tools to remove specific malware are regarded to be extremely effective and very well respected. They have come a LONG way.

 

[MrXidus]

Paid 'independent' testing reviews websites, fanboys - no matter how great they say one product is, the fact is no product can guarantee 100% protection.

Putting on a false sense of immunity by advertising 100% protection should never be done.

A novice user that installs it will perform all types of risky operations now thinking they are UGM-133 Trident D-5 proof. (when they're not)

Those type of people will eventually get infected and the company who took their money for this "100% protection" wins in the end.

As for AV-C, I always take their reviews with a grain of salt.

Thanks.

 

[Exterminator]

Well I got to read the email I received here that I deleted earlier without reading.

I'm with MrX on this one

 

[Gnosis]

(However out of the box it was average) you needed to tweak the settings

Sounds like Comodo. People expect that thing to perform without touching it. It just ain't gonna happen. But like you say, tweak some of these types of products and become familiar with them, and they just might kick some arse.

Keep in mind they use to pioneer the antivirus market with their polymorphic detection modules.

Fascinating. I had no clue. Keep the info coming.

its my firm believe that cloud technology will eventually replace local software anyway.

Sci-fi movie deal in the works. Book deal too.

And lets face it 99.8% might not be a 100% but really? 0.2% come on.
There are so many vendors out there that do not even come close to that.

Right on.

 

[Nico@FMA]

Paid 'independent' testing reviews websites, fanboys - no matter how great they say one product is, the fact is no product can guarantee 100% protection.

Putting on a false sense of immunity by advertising 100% protection should never be done.

A novice user that installs it will perform all types of risky operations now thinking they are UGM-133 Trident D-5 proof. (when they're not)

Those type of people will eventually get infected and the company who took their money for this "100% protection" wins in the end.

As for AV-C, I always take their reviews with a grain of salt.

Thanks.

Ohhh absolutely, i agree with you a 100% and i share exactly the same view.
But that was not the point of my reply earlier.
Fact is Panda is a great name (Or at least they did have a great name) and its good to see them coming back up.
Truth to be said paid testing does often show wrong figures, i realize that.
On the flip side independent organizations AV-Test did show it does have some reasonable detection compared to other vendors.
Obviously they are not the best, but they are no slough either.
http://www.av-test.org/en/tests/home-user/windows-8/janfeb-2013/

http://www.av-test.org/no_cache/en/tests/test-reports/?tx_avtestreports_pi1[report_no]=130582

Did not take the trouble to find a more recent one.
But yeah false claims are never good.

 

[Nico@FMA]

Sounds like Comodo. People expect that thing to perform without touching it. It just ain't gonna happen. But like you say, tweak some of these types of products and become familiar with them, and they just might kick some arse.



Fascinating. I had no clue. Keep the info coming.

So true, But granted even with tweaking some products never become "good"

 

[Gnosis]

no product can guarantee 100% protection.

Sandboxie is around 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% sound. Round it up and you get "100".
That was for all you cheeky buggers out there. (Mr. X included)

 

[Gnosis]

So true, But granted even with tweaking some products never become "good"

No doubt about that.

 

[woomera]

all these talks just cause of something some company claimed in an AD? isnt that how the AD's work?

 

[MrXidus]

ZOU, As great as it is - Not even Sandboxie is flawless and impenetrable.

All delicate software will have continue to have bugs and holes in them, it just takes time for either a black hat / grey / white hat to find them, In our case we hope the developer fixes all exploits/bugs/holes ASAP especially in an application like Sandboxie.

Google : "sandboxie bypassed"

Sandboxie is 99.9% many would agree and has come a long way now so the chance of an exploit now is very small I'd imagine, but life is full of surprises and malware technology is advancing so even a .1% offset is not something I'd get careless about and turn my back to.
The odds of getting hit by lightning is extremely rare but it does happen.

Thanks.

 

[Nico@FMA]

ZOU, As great as it is - Not even Sandboxie is flawless and impenetrable.

All delicate software will have continue to have bugs and holes in them, it just takes time for either a black hat / grey / white hat to find them, In our case we hope the developer fixes all exploits/bugs/holes ASAP especially in an application like Sandboxie.

Google : "sandboxie bypassed"

Sandboxie is 99.9% many would agree and has come a long way now so the chance of an exploit now is very small I'd imagine, but life is full of surprises and malware technology is advancing so even a .1% offset is not something I'd get careless about and turn my back to.
The odds of getting hit by lightning is extremely rare but it does happen.

Thanks.

So correct.
Also what people forget is that this so called 0.1% margin represent a huge amount of malware.
taking into account that every hour there are 200k new malware's being created in EU alone.
So lets say that 10% of that aka 20k is truly dangerous then 0.1% of that is a BIG amount at the end of the day.

 

[Jaspion]

I think the point here is not how big the name of the company is, or what technologies it employs. The point is Panda is using false advertisement. If the ad said "We got 100% detection in an important test", that would be ok, assuming they did get the 100%. No, they only give give a link to the source, and we know that stuff is over the head of most users, who will just take the original statement for granted. Panda didn't even get 100% in the test! And the first defendant of Panda in this thread has also been the first to note that 0.1% is a lot of malware!

They claim 100% detection, and this stuff simply does not exist, Panda does not offer that. That is false advertising. That's the kind of stuff that causes people to come to places like this and complain. I (we, in fact) could be discussing technical aspects of Panda's products, which are good; instead we are discussing these shameless marketing tactics that they don't even need – I mean, it's not like they're an unknown party starting out with a big (false) statement just to get attention, which would be just as wrong by the way.

Plus if you have Panda Cloud protecting your computer while offline, you're largely unprotected because the detection rates drop dramatically. Of course most infections come online, but sometimes you download a password-protected file to open later while offline, then what? What will Panda's 100% detection have to say about it?

 

[Ink]

Not 100% idiot-proof.

 

[Deleted member 178]

You missed one point : they dont say all threats, so technically they are right. Now in the spirit they lie.

 

[BoraMurdar]

Commercials on TV does the same everyday and...

 

[Littlebits]

Panda Cloud does offer great protection, but I don't recommend because of the high false positives.
Just with most cloud-based AV's their have higher false positives than AV's without cloud features.
May offer better detection but at a price of deleting safe and sometime important files.

Most users who are not reckless and don't go downloading files from unknown and suspicious sources, don't need powerful protection.
There is no hope for reckless users since no product will be able protect them from every threat.

Thanks.

 

[Ink]

Panda aren't the only ones, I'm sure I've heard other vendor claiming the same thing in the past (and future).

Isn't it the same thing as calling a product "The best on the market", "Top leading AV" and the "Most recommended by our users"?

 

[Jaspion]

I find it hard to believe nobody cares, since we're all here discussing this.

And for those that condone these tactics because others do it too, well I must assume you are either ok with purchasing 10,000 of something and getting only 9,980, or that you are ok with selling 9,980 advertised and priced as 10,000. I'm ok with neither.

This specific issue goes beyond these natural number equations, for it refers specifically to the advertisement of something that does not exist even in concept, this idea of an AV that offers 100% detection. What is Panda's 100% detection? You take 2 viruses, one is detected as a virus, the other is still unknown, and it's detected as being safe; so both were detected, you see? You get 100% detection guaranteed!... wink-wink.

We could be praising Panda's performance in the tests, in fact I was doing that the other day, referring to these tests specifically. But they did false advertising. That's as bad as scareware tactics, which I think we all condemn, so why condone false advertising?