Panda Security detects and blocks 99.9% of threats!

[ifacedown]

March, April, May and June. During the last four months, Panda Security has obtained the best rate protection in the Real World Protection Test by Av-Comparatives.

It’s possible that you don’t know exactly what this means, so that’s where we come in! The test reflects real conditions in which the security solutions of different companies are analyzed and examined.

It is an independent laboratory, so the conclusions drawn from the tests are really important.

In these tests, Panda participated with our free antivirus, Panda Antivirus Free, and successfully detected and blocked 99% of the threats.

Source:

http://www.pandasecurity.com/mediacenter/panda-security/best-protection/

 

[starchild76]

Its all About the money once again! No product can detect at almost 100% except the product willing to Pay a handsome amount of dollars!

 

[Enju]

Even AV-Comparatives themselves said you should take the tests with a grain of salt and not trust them blindly since detection depends on age, class of malware and prevalence. Almost no other trustworthy vendor speaks about their testing results, because it doesn't matter if your AV detects 96,12 or 99,99% of malware. In reality malware stays undetected for months or even years if it takes the right approach and the vendors know that. Classic signature based software like Panda has never been of any use since they need patterns to work - for which they need samples - for which they need the sample to get prevalent. They got lucky the last months for AV-Comparatives to use already detected samples and now they are touting around like they detect everything. It's disgusting...

 

[FleischmannTV]

Its all About the money once again!

Then Symantec would win first place in all tests in all categories because in comparison to them all other companies are just earning peanuts. The other top tier players combined don't have as much annual revenue as Symantec alone.

No product can detect at almost 100%

Of course not. Regarding AV testing, in my opinion, it may just be a matter of resources. Both, AV companies and AV testing companies, need to employ people to hunt for malware. AV companies make hundreds of millions or in excess of a billion dollars every year. Most of them have better resources and more staff at their disposal. This means they are probably just quicker than the AV testing companies.

 

[Atlas147]

Are vendors really paying more for a better detection or has panda been lucky all the while as to be detecting a very high amount of samples from the tests? Until AV comparatives releases a transparency statement we may never know. A more accurate test is probably heading over to our malwarehub and hitting panda with malware samples collected by our members and seeing how it fairs.

Remember detection is not the only factor in a good AV, there are other modules like zero day and HIPS that make a good AV and I think panda should really improve on them because as of now they are highly reliant on signatures rather than heuristics

 

[Moose]

Salutations,Friends!



Kind regards,

 

[ifacedown]

Even AV-Comparatives themselves said you should take the tests with a grain of salt and not trust them blindly since detection depends on age, class of malware and prevalence. Almost no other trustworthy vendor speaks about their testing results, because it doesn't matter if your AV detects 96,12 or 99,99% of malware. In reality malware stays undetected for months or even years if it takes the right approach and the vendors know that. Classic signature based software like Panda has never been of any use since they need patterns to work - for which they need samples - for which they need the sample to get prevalent. They got lucky the last months for AV-Comparatives to use already detected samples and now they are touting around like they detect everything. It's disgusting...

Very good explanation

 

[nissimezra]

Are vendors really paying more for a better detection or has panda been lucky all the while as to be detecting a very high amount of samples from the tests? Until AV comparatives releases a transparency statement we may never know. A more accurate test is probably heading over to our malwarehub and hitting panda with malware samples collected by our members and seeing how it fairs.

Remember detection is not the only factor in a good AV, there are other modules like zero day and HIPS that make a good AV and I think panda should really improve on them because as of now they are highly reliant on signatures rather than heuristics

I did 4 tests with panda back when @Malware1 use to post new samples. I always ended up with dead operating system.
so no I do not trust them.

 

[Atlas147]

I did 4 tests with panda back when @Malware1 use to post new samples. I always ended up with dead operating system.
so no I do not trust them.

maybe you tested the system with the 0.1% of the malware panda doesn't detect

But yeah this is what I'm talking about, when new samples come in and they don't have detections for it they are practically dead.

 

[nissimezra]

maybe you tested the system with the 0.1% of the malware panda doesn't detect

But yeah this is what I'm talking about, when new samples come in and they don't have detections for it they are practically dead.

I received a phishing email 2 months ago and still most of the well known name like eset chrome still not blocking it. only traficlight blocked it. so yeh new virus with no signature is a big problem
What I like on qihoo that it has a good zero day protection, at least it is blocking unknows files from adding itself to stat up. tencent seems to work the same but hell it is sucking a lot of memory around 360 mb

 

[songoku316]

nothing is 100% perfect all is marketing

 

[Deleted member 178]

Its all About the money once again! No product can detect at almost 100% except the product willing to Pay a handsome amount of dollars!

well said

 

[jamescv7]

Same scheme, does not change compare to others AV advertise style. They reference the results very well but all are only just a temporary basis so you should consider to check the methodology of test always.

 

[Lord Ami]

I've seen Panda block files with behaviour detections (Suspicious files) so there's that.
Panda has other technologies in addition to just cloud/signatures (also some signatures are stored locally).

 

[Atlas147]

I received a phishing email 2 months ago and still most of the well known name like eset chrome still not blocking it. only traficlight blocked it. so yeh new virus with no signature is a big problem
What I like on qihoo that it has a good zero day protection, at least it is blocking unknows files from adding itself to stat up. tencent seems to work the same but hell it is sucking a lot of memory around 360 mb

Qihoo's cloud heuristics seems to be very strong as well, seeing the detection names of most of the samples being heuristics. However this is also one of the main issues on why it has such a large amount of FPs.

 

[Ink]

Neutral grounds.

AV-C provides the test results. Panda uses the results to promote the products. You would do the same, no?

 

[sonylxn]

regardless, panda free (and 360ts) will still be my choice for good free home protection

 

[nissimezra]

Neutral grounds.

AV-C provides the test results. Panda uses the results to promote the products. You would do the same, no?

sure.
The problem is how can it be that panda blocked 100% 6 months a go result but failed on all other tests\reviews
yes non of us is pro but when you test it and end up with no operating system it means 1 thing, the product failed.

thats why I no longer trust these tests

cheers

 

[Rod McCarthy]

Got the Panda 2016 IS for 15-20 bucks, so I thought I'd give it a try. It's pretty nice, very low mem usage. Plus I like how you can set it up to ask about programs running or not. It's called application control, and another one is Data Shield. It also monitors processes and wifi.

 

[Lord Ami]

sure.
The problem is how can it be that panda blocked 100% 6 months a go result but failed on all other tests\reviews
yes non of us is pro but when you test it and end up with no operating system it means 1 thing, the product failed.

thats why I no longer trust these tests

cheers

I guess it all comes down to real widespread malware that is used. You could copy links from open malware hubs but these files may just live for one hour and then be dead in their roots. This means that they do not spread much and hence don't have adequate protection from AV market. At least this is my theory.
But nevertheless, AV should protect against all forms of malware and your point is valid