Panda Dome Free Antivirus Review | Test vs Malware (TPSC)
- Thread starter Der.Reisende
- Start date
It is advised to take all reviews with a grain of salt. In extreme cases some reviews use dramatization for entertainment purposes.
- May 4, 2018
- 2,261
Panda looks sweet from the GUI, will watch the video and see how it does! Panda always surprises me.
~LDogg
~LDogg
- May 7, 2016
- 1,307
In my opinion windows defender is better than Panda(Free).
- Feb 13, 2017
- 737
Much better, if tweaked via Andy Ful's Configure Defender.
- May 7, 2016
- 1,307
Any Free Av is better than Panda.Like WD(Win 10),Bitdefender Free AV,Avast anyday.
Disliked, this testing method is just absurd. No Home user gonna execute files like that and looks like Panda just broke apart. I get very good results in vm with Panda Dome Complete and highly disagree that its dynamic detection and infection remediation is bad. It's still buggy because it's new product and that's understandable. Those comments tho.. 
Last edited by a moderator:
Disliked, this testing method is just absurd. No Home user gonna execute files like that and looks like Panda just broke apart. I get very good results in vm with Panda Dome Complete and highly disagree that its dynamic detection and infection remediation is bad. It's still buggy because it's new product and that's understandable. Those comments tho..
This is another one of those synthetic drag strip tests I dislike as a general rule. Where you use a program or script and execute as much malware was possible in the shortest time possible. So representative of real world.
Here's a tip - Voodooshield would score 100% everytime, so why use anything else if you feel like you might run into 400 pieces of malware every 4 minutes out there?
- Apr 13, 2013
- 3,224
The reason they do that is they don't understand the malware that is being used. Better would be to determine what class the malware is in, note the age, make sure there are no Sleep API calls.
However as much as it pains to me to say, there is indeed validity to this test. Although the tester was lazy, a Home user of Panda may have run into a single sample of the malware type that got through and become infected. The amount of malware run over whatever period of time is inconsequential. A Worm (or ransomware) that was undetected is a Worm that got through.
The one big issue that I do have with the video is considering HMP to be the apparent Word Of God with respect to existing infections. It actually amazed me that it caught one Worm at all, since it is total ##### against mine (Ophelia's)...
However as much as it pains to me to say, there is indeed validity to this test. Although the tester was lazy, a Home user of Panda may have run into a single sample of the malware type that got through and become infected. The amount of malware run over whatever period of time is inconsequential. A Worm (or ransomware) that was undetected is a Worm that got through.
The one big issue that I do have with the video is considering HMP to be the apparent Word Of God with respect to existing infections. It actually amazed me that it caught one Worm at all, since it is total ##### against mine (Ophelia's)...
This is much like testing seat belts in a vehicle by lining up several walls one after another and getting the vehicle to top speed to see how many walls it can go through before it crashes completely. The driver of course not surviving past the first wall.
These products are not designed to handle that kind of release on the system, because it is not realistic.
These products are not designed to handle that kind of release on the system, because it is not realistic.
The testing method might not represent the real user.Disliked, this testing method is just absurd. No Home user gonna execute files like that and looks like Panda just broke apart. I get very good results in vm with Panda Dome Complete and highly disagree that its dynamic detection and infection remediation is bad. It's still buggy because it's new product and that's understandable. Those comments tho..
However, if you have access to the Malware HUB, please feel free to test some of the packs within 24h after post.
With the weak signatures, the BB will have a big job to be done, it would be interesting to see.
Make sure to switch off Application control, in order to launch the samples. Of course you will get a clean sheet if you only launch trusted soft's and do not run something malicious accidently.
I gave Panda Dome Ess. only a quick spin, my laptop isn't equipped with a VM but with SD, and Panda is incompatible with it, at least was with v 18.05.00
Panda Security Forum - View topic - URGENT: Serious incompatibility of Panda Dome Essentials and Shadow Defender 1.4.0.680
The age of the samples used in this vid review is unfortunately unknown.
- Apr 13, 2013
- 3,224
Please note that I feel that running hundreds of malware (not knowing what they are or how old) at once is also not optimal.
But consider:
1). Just say you were working for a company like Endgame and wanted to discover a Windows Exploit in order to sell it to MSFT for a substantial payday. The most efficient way to accomplish this would be to know Windows inside and out, find a weak point and then code an Exploit that you happen to "discover".
2). Or, you can also not really know how Windows works, find as many different pre-existing exploits as you can on the darkWeb, and then run them. Find one and you will accomplish the same thing as in the previous example, but just in a much more inelegant way.
So it is with malware testing- some just will install a product, click on various options and run a whole lot of (hopefully) malware against it. Others will actually Know the product, know (or code the appropriate malware, and select these to demonstrate a point.
But in both of these cases a bypass is a bypass (Christ, I'm sticking up for Leo. Please KMN).
But consider:
1). Just say you were working for a company like Endgame and wanted to discover a Windows Exploit in order to sell it to MSFT for a substantial payday. The most efficient way to accomplish this would be to know Windows inside and out, find a weak point and then code an Exploit that you happen to "discover".
2). Or, you can also not really know how Windows works, find as many different pre-existing exploits as you can on the darkWeb, and then run them. Find one and you will accomplish the same thing as in the previous example, but just in a much more inelegant way.
So it is with malware testing- some just will install a product, click on various options and run a whole lot of (hopefully) malware against it. Others will actually Know the product, know (or code the appropriate malware, and select these to demonstrate a point.
But in both of these cases a bypass is a bypass (Christ, I'm sticking up for Leo. Please KMN).
- Aug 17, 2014
- 11,101
IMO, it would be better to stop posting AV-tests video reviews, every time the same discussion here...
If these video-tests are not realistic, why should you care about it ?
If these video-tests are not realistic, why should you care about it ?
Last edited:
- Mar 29, 2018
- 7,609
- Jul 28, 2014
- 1,990
The method of testing is more of a quick and dirty way of doing it but I think it proves a point that a ton of malware was allowed to execute, as compared to some of his other videos where he used Kaspersky or Bitdefender and executed malware in a similar way with 2nd opinion scanners showing little to no infection.
Of course with more time and understanding of the malware he could have executed the malware in a better fashion
Of course with more time and understanding of the malware he could have executed the malware in a better fashion
- Sep 3, 2017
- 825
rest in peace PANDA AMEN:emoji_pray:
AMEN:emoji_pray:
- Jun 22, 2018
- 137
Thats Right! The GUI looks very nice but the Detection Rate is so bad. I mean Panda Free: 86.81% Windows Defender: about 100% (Give this a Thread: Click me Source: Microsoft Forum, Question = Windows Defender Detection Rate
- May 4, 2018
- 2,261
After testing Panda out myself, the only good thing going for this product unfortunately are the URL capabilities, GUI & CPU usage. There are far better alternatives out there such as Bitdefender & Avast.
~LDogg
~LDogg
in the free version, URL filter for malware is almost non-existent although Panda Safe Web extension was installed.
I installed the default settings and tested it with 30 random malc0de/vxvault links (not zero-day, high VT detection ratios, 3-7 day old) => it blocked absolutely nothing, not even once
Then, I started to test with some phishing links on phishtank, which were quite new
- OMG, it started blocking something!!! but much fewer compared to other vendors
- Disabled panda safe web and restarted the browser -> yeah! It still blocked something but a few previously blocked links were missed this time => Panda safe web has more up-to-date database than the AV's URL filter
therefore, testing panda without downloading links is similar to a real-life test
this is a free version, not a paid version
people should understand the difference. Do not defend it blindlessly
panda free is an easily bypassed product. The pro version seems to do a bit better
I installed the default settings and tested it with 30 random malc0de/vxvault links (not zero-day, high VT detection ratios, 3-7 day old) => it blocked absolutely nothing, not even once
Then, I started to test with some phishing links on phishtank, which were quite new
- OMG, it started blocking something!!! but much fewer compared to other vendors
- Disabled panda safe web and restarted the browser -> yeah! It still blocked something but a few previously blocked links were missed this time => Panda safe web has more up-to-date database than the AV's URL filter
therefore, testing panda without downloading links is similar to a real-life test
this is a free version, not a paid version
people should understand the difference. Do not defend it blindlessly
panda free is an easily bypassed product. The pro version seems to do a bit better
Last edited:
- Jun 22, 2018
- 137
Windows Defender Detection Rate is about 98-100%.
Look at this: Comparison | AV-Comparatives
and this: Windows Defender Detection rate
But that's another topic .
Look at this: Comparison | AV-Comparatives
and this: Windows Defender Detection rate
Similar threads
