Mariihh

Level 3
It is very sad to see Panda on MH, it will be the biggest beating that an AV one will take in tests, it will beat the record of 100% infected in all the tests, soon the protection against the animals will appear here :ROFLMAO: It's no use adjusting there and here, Panda is weak and full stop. :giggle:
 

Azure

Level 26
Verified
Content Creator
It is very sad to see Panda on MH, it will be the biggest beating that an AV one will take in tests, it will beat the record of 100% infected in all the tests, soon the protection against the animals will appear here :ROFLMAO: It's no use adjusting there and here, Panda is weak and full stop. :giggle:
But it appears to have done well in this test.

Q&A - Panda Dome Advanced w/SG Settings.
 

uninfected1

Level 10
Verified
It is very sad to see Panda on MH, it will be the biggest beating that an AV one will take in tests, it will beat the record of 100% infected in all the tests, soon the protection against the animals will appear here :ROFLMAO: It's no use adjusting there and here, Panda is weak and full stop. :giggle:
No. Can't make any sense of this post at all, either factually or in terms of its English.
 
D

Deleted Member 3a5v73x

Wanna see Panda Dome's true potential? Test only with PE malware, just like with Cylance. You can even disable Data Shield and Application Control, doesn't matter. I spent countless hours in Hybrid Analysis to even find something that would get through Panda. It's completely normal results in Malware Hub, some react like you've never seen your favourite AV product in MH fail, what is this hypocrisity? Damn. Better give some credit to AV testers who do dirty job for you. Panda is not weak, your opinion is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Slyguy

Level 43
Wanna see Panda Dome's true potential? Test only with PE malware, just like with Cylance. You can even disable Data Shield and Application Control, doesn't matter. I spent countless hours in Hybrid Analysis to even find something that would get through Panda. It's completely normal results in Malware Hub, some react like you've never seen your favourite AV product in MH fail, what is this hypocrisity? Damn. Better give some credit to AV testers who do dirty job for you. Panda is not weak, it's your opinion.
Not to mention it's a lightweight offering. Has one of the best software firewalls - and specifically - one that can handle near 1000Mbps speeds when most choke past 400Mbps. Also it's cheap, legitimate licenses for unlimited devices are as low as $20 on Ebay. I purchased one to put family/friends all on the same account and opened a ticket with Panda support who verified it was a legitimate license. Also their mobile offering is really nice IMO.

So far (with SG settings), family and friends are totally protected. Not a single complaint.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Slyguy

Level 43
Damn for $20 for unlimited devices i can't say there is a better deal even if protection, especially with signatures, is not the best of the best.
This dude;
Panda Dome Advanced 2018 Unlimited Devices/PC 12 Months Internet Security US | eBay

I had Panda support check him out and they confirmed he is a legitimate wholesale vendor of their products. That's where I got my license and decided to check after purchasing it to be sure it wouldn't be shut off randomly. That's one of the best deals I can find (and verify they are legit) for unlimited devices on a security product.
 

Mariihh

Level 3
Funny, formerly here was everyone speaking well of Emsisoft,who had one of the best protections and etc, today criticizeher, and now appeared the new trend, Panda :ROFLMAO:, an AV that isweak, has been tested by several Members here, and alwaysthe system gets infected, I don't know who you want to trick :unsure:
 
D

Deleted Member 3a5v73x

Nice suppression, I've seen this before. What "trend" lol? :X3: Whenever some new products appears on the list, and they fail on MH wich is completely normal, I am not arguing about that, but instead conversations go bananas and when something positive about product X is said, then argument that "many AV testers proves system gets infected, wtf you are trying to prove?" comes into play, feels like those who arent "official" testers here who says opposite gets treated like monkeys who know nothing. "Trick" is that security products shouldn't be generalized on all user system equally, since every is unique for specific needs. Everyone should use what they prefer and deem more worthy to throw money at, but saying product X is garbage because it fails MH tests is just bs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SHvFl

Level 35
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
Funny, formerly here was everyone speaking well of Emsisoft,who had one of the best protections and etc, today criticizeher, and now appeared the new trend, Panda :ROFLMAO:, an AV that isweak, has been tested by several Members here, and alwaysthe system gets infected, I don't know who you want to trick :unsure:
How can we compare the 2 when 1 license of EAM costs more than this unlimited license. Find me a deal with 3 devices for EAM and on that price and i will say cool. Let alone Emsisoft removing more and more features on every release and making their product ideal for old blind ladies. I was using EAM but license is expiring this month and not getting renewed as i don't support bs.
Anw none is forcing you to use panda neither talk about it so what is your issue? From what i see from @harlan4096 test and from the limited test i did the product is terrible with anything that uses all the abused windows tools. Other than that it does pretty well dynamically and if you use something to limit those vulnerable processes it will do even better. I don't think anyone here said it's the mother of all antivirus and we are just discussing the product.
Hype is fine as long as it's not based on imaginary facts.
 
Last edited:

harlan4096

Moderator
Verified
Staff member
Malware Hunter
The truth is that PDP even with @Slyguy strong settings, is still weak against scripts... PDP Application Control only blocks unknown .exe files (is very good at this) but not other types of executables files as probably dll and script files etc... usually scripts are able to drop payloads/copies to \AppData\Local\* and/or \Users\* and set keys in Windows AutoRuns sections, sometimes its monitor is triggered but is not accurate to tag the security of the new keys added, so for a standard user will lead directly to an infection after the next reboot of the system...
 

Slyguy

Level 43
The truth is that PDP even with @Slyguy strong settings, is still weak against scripts... PDP Application Control only blocks unknown .exe files (is very good at this) but not other types of executables files as probably dll and script files etc... usually scripts are able to drop payloads/copies to \AppData\Local\* and/or \Users\* and set keys in Windows AutoRuns sections, sometimes its monitor is triggered but is not accurate to tag the security of the new keys added, so for a standard user will lead directly to an infection after the next reboot of the system...
Scripts seem to be the bane of most products. For someone that feels they may have a reason to run scripts it would be wise to use Syshardener or OSA w/Panda I would guess (But Harlan already warned of his earlier in this thread). Although in fairness, I haven't seen any script activity on friends/family systems with Panda Advanced but I might consider running Syshardener on their boxes in the future.
 

harlan4096

Moderator
Verified
Staff member
Malware Hunter
Agree, Panda (+ @Slyguy settings) + SysHardened (disabling scripts execution) and/or OSA, would be enough... also I forgot to mention the so bad/disaster signature detection... even testing the sample packs ~ 16 hours after been posted, the signature detection is still about 1/3 of the total sample packs...
 

MarkDpy1972

New Member
Look at The PC Security Channel on youtube and watch the video. It is pathetic!! The commentator usually runs two cycles in his testing. It did not even make it pass the first test!! The ransomware and virus multiplied too fast for even Hitman Pro to keep up. When it was all said and done, there were 126 worms present. It basically ruined the testing. His system was non-operational. Thank God he was in a visual network and could just delete it.
 
Top