having a ransomware module won't solve the issues i listed above, sure it helps when you got fed up with FPs and you allow a ransomware, but it won't help with actual malware.You just did in your previous post. You said it's a 'huge downgrade from Trend Micro'. It's the Advanced version that's has the free offer now. The Essential version free offer finished weeks ago.
recommended option? Panda gives you none."unknown application, allow or deny" makes Panda work like another Windows smartscreen
same for avast's hardened mode and KIS's TAM
so it will probably allow a previously blocked file to run after a few days when they complete the analysis of that file on their server
the problem is Panda may not have a large number of users so it would take longer and sometimes forever
it's good as a default-deny protection when we obey the recommended option but if we click allow, we may be in trouble because panda isn't the best at signatures and BB
the web filter and that "unknown application, allow or deny" make panda always scoring 100% but in exchange of FPs of new files
same problem with windows smartscreen but with less FPs
I think when they show that message, it means the file is not seen in their database so it's better to click deny "temporarily"recommended option? Panda gives you none.
it's a blue window, with no explanation other than "this is unknown"I think when they show that message, it means the file is not seen in their database so it's better to click deny "temporarily"
comeback after 2 days and run it again
Panda should make the Deny option as default
I agreeit's a blue window, with no explanation other than "this is unknown"
no signs of it being dangerous or making sure the user clicks deny.
TAM has a huge userbase and KSN to back it
a default deny option like this makes sense if you have a big userbase but looking at the signatures, Panda doesn't seem to have a big one.
I believe healthy and constructive criticism is always good when comparing different AV suites, just have to provide true facts so new users don't get misinformed, because reviews and opinions differ, but tech info about particular modules/protection mechanisms don't. The never ending question "which is the best av?" will still remain, until users will start to realise that 30day trials are there for a reason, for a user to chose in that period if particular AV fits hes needs or not.The problem is.. Some people always think their opinions overrule the opinions and experiences of others beyond levels of acceptable discourse which leads to an argumentative and disruptive atmosphere on forums. Intelligent, mature people always paraphrase with 'In my opinion' or 'in my experience' to avoid projecting the false conception they are working on a framework based on absolutes.
it could ^^Just out of interest Umbra, what would your recommendation be for the OP then? Would it by any chance begin with 'E' and end in 'T' (and I don't mean Eset)?
and the best when it come to false positives testsI always found ESET to be one of the lightest in terms of system responsiveness from my experience. Of course it will differ between environment and hardware resources though, and won't be the same necessarily for everyone else.
for me, I've always looked to the company's history breach and politics before considering buying their products, I think and its only a deduction that trend is good in web protection because they have a huge network of web threats analysis ,and dont forget that the web is n1 of threats sourceWhere's the dislike button when you need it LOL?
As I've said to you before, it wouldn't matter if it was the best security suite ever, you would still find fault with it. You call yourself a tester yet you freely admitted on a previous thread that you would be looking to find fault with it even before you'd tried it, hardly the open minded approach of any tester worth their salt. You also criticised Panda Dome Essential for not having ransomware protection.This advanced version has, but no doubt you will find other things to moan about, possibly the time it takes to decide whether or not something is malicious, or maybe the free trial conditions, as you have done in the past.
Just out of interest, what do you think of the Dome firewall? Those who have tested it here such as @Slyguy think it's outstanding and one of the best ever.
Avira heuristique mode , trend micro has "hypersensitive" and max security and avast it has the hardned mode but in the first topic of MHB they ask testers to use default settingsAvast is tested on the hub with Hardened mode on Aggressive
TM doesn't really have more options to turn up
I have tested with TM's hypersensitive mode, it didn't make much difference
Source? Do you have any evidence to back this statement up?and the best when it come to false positives tests
I agree, ESET has barely any FPs, their sigs are fast and accurate.Source? Do you have any evidence to back this statement up?
From my experience, I've rarely experienced false positives with ESET. Primarily because I don't go around downloading and installing random software packages, but stick to a few reputable ones only.
To me, as long as the security solution is not consistently flagging clean and reputable software as malicious (and is handling false positive submissions in a timely fashion), and the false positive detection ratio is not MASSIVE, I simply will not care about the false detection ratio. I'd rather the security solution flags new binaries which appear suspicious and stand out compared to those from a majority of clean and reputable software packages than simply ignore it just because there was not a specific reason to flag it as definitively "malicious" . Why? In my opinion, it keeps you more alert and if the detection really is false positive then you'd be able to investigate it.
You need to remember that if there was never a false positive, the detection ratio for malicious binaries would also be decreased. In my opinion, for a novice user who is likely not going to be genuinely looking for lesser-known software, it will be in their best interest for unknown, non-reputable or "suspicious-looking" binaries to be flagged, regardless of whether the product knows it is "definitely malicious" or not.
We can agree to disagree, it doesn't matter.