Panda Dome Free 18 - December 2018 Report

[harlan4096]

Panda Dome Free 18 + NVT SYSHARDENED (Default) - December 2018 Report

Due to the small number of samples used in this tests, you should take results with a grain of salt. We encourage you to compare these results with others and take informed decisions on what security products to use.

Spoiler: FINAL STATISTICS OF THE MONTH:

Total Samples tested: 126 (100%)
Total Static Detections: 36 (28,57%)
Total Dynamic Detections: 6 (4,76%)
Total Not Detected/Missed: 80 (63,49%)
Total Detected/Blocked: 46 (36,50%)


Total samples pack been tested: 20
Total final status of the system (clean): 7
Total final status of the system (protected): 7
Total final status of the system (infected): 5
Total final status of the system (encrypted): 4

* Dynamic BB Bonus Test (PD resident AV module disabled)
* Partially Blocked
* BSR: Before System Reboot
* ASR: After System Reboot

December 2018	Samples Pack	Static Detection	Dynamic Detection	Total Detection	Bait Files Encrypted	2nd Opinion Scanners	System Final Status	Thread Link
01/12/2018​	1​	0 / 1​	1 / 1​	1 / 1​	No​	Clean​	Clean​	Post#3​
04/12/2018​	17​	3 / 17​	2 / 15​	5 / 17​	No​	BSR: Infected​ ASR: Not Clean​	BSR: Infected​ ASR: Prot. - NC​	Post#5​
07/12/2018​	20​	4 / 20​	1 / 16​	5 / 20​	No​	N/A​	Encrypted​ Twice​	Post#4​
08/12/2018​	1​	1 / 1​	1 / 1*​	1 / 1​	No​	BSR: Infected*​ ASR: Infected*​	Clean​ Infected*​	Post#6​
08/12/2018​	1​	1 / 1​	1 / 1*​	1 / 1​	No​	Clean​	Clean​	Post#5​
09/01/2018​	1​	1 / 1​	1 / 1*​	1/ 1​	No​	Clean​	Clean​	Post#6​
10/12/2018​	14​	2 / 14​	0 / 12​	2 / 14​	No​	N/A​	Infected​ & Encrypted​	Post#5​
13/12/2018​	13​	4 / 13​	0 / 9​	4 / 13​	No​	Infected​	Infected?​	Post#5​
14/12/2018​	1​	0 / 1​	0 / 1​	0 / 1​	No​	Clean​	Protected​	Post#5​
15/12/2018​	1​	0 / 1​	1 / 1​	1 / 1​	No​	BSR: Infected​ ASR: Not Clean​	BSR: Infected​ ASR: Prot. - NC​	Post#4​
15/12/2018​	1​	1 / 1​	0 / 1*​	1 / 1​	No​ No*​	-​ Encrypted*​	Clean​ Encrypted*​	Post#4​
15/12/2018​	1​	1 / 1​	1 / 1*​	1 / 1​	No​	Clean​	Clean​	Post#4​
16/12/2018​	1​	0 / 1​	0 / 1​	0 / 1​	No​	Clean​	Protected​	Post#3​
19/12/2018​	2​	2 / 2​	0 / 2*​	2 / 2​	No​	Clean​ Protected*​	Clean​ Protected*​	Post#4​
20/12/2018​	1​	0 / 1​	0 / 1​	0 / 1​	Yes​	N/A​	Infected​ Encrypted​	Post#5​
19/12/2018​	18​	3 / 18​	0 / 15​	3 / 18​	Yes​	Infected​ Encrypted​	Infected​ Encrypted​	Post#6​
19/12/2018​	19​	8 / 19​	0 / 11​	8 / 19​	No​	BSR: Infected​ ASR: Not Clean​	BSR: Infected​ ASR: Prot. - NC​	Post#4​
21/12/2018​	5​	3 / 5​	2 / 2*​	3 / 5​	No​	Clean​	Protected​	Post#3​
23/12/2018​	6​	2 / 5​	0 / 2​ 2 / 2*​	2 / 5​	No​	Clean​ Not Clean*​	PRotected​ Prot. - NC*​	Post#6​
24/12/2018​	2​	0 / 2​	1 / 2​	1 / 2​	No​	Clean​	Protected​	Post#4​
​	​	​	​	​	​	​	​	​

 

[stefanos]

Panda free is Very weak antivirus. Maybe have one of the worst static detection. Thanks for your tests. I think maby Panda free is better combo with OSArmor

 

[harlan4096]

Yes, PDF + NVT OSA is better...

 

[stefanos]

If I had Panda free for protection I would certainly use it with voodooshield and OSArmor.

 

[notabot]

What is your testing metrology ? Do you eg freeze signatures updates and try malware that was found post-freeze ?

 

[harlan4096]

I follow the methodology that probably is similar to all the others testers here (there are rules in the Hub to perform the tests).

We always run a signature updates before run on demand scans, that's why We must publish a screen-shot of the update report.

Also I enabled in PDF the setting to synchronize before scans... it seems Panda Dome does not has almost offline signatures, and its BB is also in cloud (or mostly based on)... so an offline testing would be probably even worse

 

[stefanos]

I follow the methodology that probably is similar to all the others testers here (there are rules in the Hub to perform the tests).

We always run a signature updates before run on demand scans, that's why We must publish a screen-shot of the update report.

Also I enabled in PDF the setting to synchronize before scans... it seems Panda Dome does not has almost offline signatures, and its BB is also in cloud (or mostly based on)... so an offline testing would be probably even worse

 

[ChemicalB]

Not exceptional results.
The problem is Panda (free), but also the malware itself, indeed if we consider the static analysis, often the obfuscation of the code may be sufficient to evade AV detection.
The dynamic analysis seeks what happens after the malware execution and then processes, active services and the execution of secondary code.
This method is useful but often inaccurate, especially if the malware injects its process in the process of a legit application.

Now I don't know if they use the best technologies for the paid version, but, according to this report, the free version is not advisable imo.

 

[Kuttz]

Just 2 years ago Panda Free was one among the best AVs that is also light on system, now its very weak. I wonder what happened to Panda.

 

[vertigo]

I've tested OSA and SysHardener a bit. I realize SH is lower resources because it's a tweaker (vaccine) vs always running like OSA, though OSA seems to be pretty light anyways. I prefer OSA because it's less involved and it's interactive, and SH is still fairly new and perhaps not quite ready for use by the "masses" as it may still break some stuff. So I'm curious why you guys choose one or the other, why SH was used here instead of OSA, if OSA would do better than SH (some comments seem to indicate it's better), and if a test could be done using it instead to see if Panda provides acceptable results, because there were an awful lot of infections in this one despite having it combined with SH.

 

[harlan4096]

I performed the tests with this specific combo because previously already tested OSA + Panda, and some users asked me to check how would perform PDF + SH

Also OSA seems stronger than SH in prevention, both in default settings...

 

[blueblackwow65]

Might be good performance but detection is 1 out of 5

 

[vertigo]

I performed the tests with this specific combo because previously already tested OSA + Panda, and some users asked me to check how would perform PDF + SH

Also OSA seems stronger than SH in prevention, both in default settings...

Thanks. I saw your previous test but didn't see that it was done with OSA. So basically even with OSA or SH Panda failed miserably, which is disappointing but not surprising.

 

[Brie]

i was advised to use syshardener instead of osarmor on this site because syshardener is easier for beginners, like me.

thank you for this test.

 

[imuade]

I'm using Panda Free with both SysHardener and Hard_Configurator.
Very light and effective combo

 

[amico81]

I'm using Panda Free with both SysHardener and Hard_Configurator.
Very light and effective combo

so called "double layer protection"

 

[imuade]

so called "double layer protection"
View attachment 207666

Yeah, I basically use Panda only to get the green mark on Windows Security Center tray icon

• K9 web protection helps in avoiding risky websites (from where you get 90% of problems)
• Panda covers old malware
• H_C takes care of zero-days
• SysHardener reduces the attack surface