D

Deleted member 2913

Zemana, though seems good but does gives quite a few FPs. And if I am correct, it blocks files with low reputation too And this too adds to FPs.

A product with quite a few FPs %age have the chance of good detection.

Guess, FPs the reason Pandora is disabled by default in realtime protection.

Just my experience with Zemana & my opinion.
 

Noxx

Level 3
Zemana, though seems good but does gives quite a few FPs. And if I am correct, it blocks files with low reputation too And this too adds to FPs.

A product with quite a few FPs %age have the chance of good detection.

Guess, FPs the reason Pandora is disabled by default in realtime protection.

Just my experience with Zemana & my opinion.
Meh, the only problem with false positives is the people who just quarantine stuff without actually doing research. Otherwise, I don't care about FP's. I'm more inclined to like a product if it's more aggressive, regardless if it picks up FP's. But yeah, probably why pandora is disabled by default.
 
D

Deleted member 2913

Guess Pandora is in-house technology, right?
And they license third party engines, right?
Any other in-house protection?

Zemana did good in test.
If it did good mainly due to Pandora - Pandora is disabled by default (Guess due to FPs)
If it did good mainly due to 3rd party engines - Well "3rd party engines" not Zemana
 
H

hjlbx

Zemana, though seems good but does gives quite a few FPs. And if I am correct, it blocks files with low reputation too And this too adds to FPs.

A product with quite a few FPs %age have the chance of good detection.

Guess, FPs the reason Pandora is disabled by default in realtime protection.

Just my experience with Zemana & my opinion.
It is outlined in the MRG report.
 
D

Deleted member 2913

XhenEd

Level 27
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
Wilders post is a year & half old. Dont know what got added/removed?

I dont understand...they use few 3rd party engines...why dont they mention 3rd party engines And why dont they list 3rd party engines in the GUI for the users to select the AVs for detection?
That has been asked multiple times. Ordinary users, like us, don't understand. But it's a corporate decision. We might see it as illogical, but they see it as logical given the corporate reality they are in (e.g. deals with those 3rd party companies).
 

XhenEd

Level 27
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
If I remember correctly, one of the reasons why Zemana decided to hide the information about the 3rd party engines is the fact that ZAM might just become a tool of comparison. For instance, imagine a file detected by Kaspersky but not by Bitdefender, or vice versa, what could be a possible result? Debate. Word war. There would be comparison about which is the best.

Although, for me personally, I would like to know the participating 3rd party engines, too. :D