panda cloud antivirus free

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View
The latest AV Comparatives website Real World protection test (April
2014) shows Panda Antivirus with a 100% score and no false positives.
This places it ahead of Kaspersky and Bitdefender.

I'm considering installing the free Panda Cloud Antivirus
http://www.cloudantivirus.com/en/ instead of Avast.  Is there any
reason why a cloud AV is not a good choice over an installed AV
product?  How do these cloud versions work anyway?

Re: panda cloud antivirus free

badgolferman wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Consider that the report is about how *users* have used their computers
and what they did to cause an infection.  Users can always subvert any
security software.  It gives some helpful info about what is happening
out in the field but not really about how well a product protects.  A
car will never crash into anything until a human gets involved.  The car
that crashes the least just means a particular set of drivers were
better drivers, not that the car was better at driving.

Also look at the comparatives.  Which ones are freeware and which are
payware?  Unless the product is only available as freeware (e.g., MS
Defender), they are testing *payware* versions.  The freeware version of
Avira requires you to install their adware toolbar in the web browser to
interrogate web traffic but that also wastes screen space.  Avast's free
version includes web traffic includes web traffic interrogation, so
Avast's free include an infection vector that Avira doesn't (unless
you're willing to install adware and waste space).  As yet, that site
nor others test ONLY the freeware AV products to see how those compare.
So you're judgment is based on how payware products compare with some
freeware thrown in (because there is no payware version for them).

So are you really going to PAY for Panda Cloud AV to get the coverage
claimed in a test based on user experience rather than on actual
protection coverage of the product itself?  At last, check what
protection features are missing from the freeware version that were
included in the test results for the payware version.

By the way, the real-world graph is 100% for every product which had
experience/usage statistics.  Obviously they're showing what each sample
did for a product.  If there were 1000 sample cases for one AV product
and 10,000 for another, they'll both show 100%.  It's the percentage
within that sample to show the different measures.  If you go look at
the file detection report, Panda wasn't 100% but close at 99.3% (the
0.7% missed samples) but so were other AV products and some a tad had
less missed samples.  But then delete the payware products, including
your Panda choice, and the list gets so short as to be useless.  In
fact, that entire chart would go blank as none of those shown are for
freeware versions.  As yet, I have not found a reputable and well known
test center that is comparing ONLY freeware versions of AV products.

If you look at their proactive (heuristics) test results (how well an AV
product fares against malware it doesn't yet know about), Panda didn't
fare very well.  Neither did Avast and Avira which are popular free
choices (although, again, these tests are against the payware versions).
BitDefender (payware, of course) was best; however, I won't use the
freeware version because of the rude and potentially harmful behavior of
their quarantine action which doesn't prompt the user but just goes
ahead and locks up the file (and requires a reboot to de-quarantine;
i.e., you have to react to their action rather than get prompted in the
first place).  I don't recall a chart at that site to show how well an
AV product has fared over time across many versions regarding proactive
protection.  A single snapshot for one version doesn't really give a
good clue as how the product has performed overall.

Also, detecting the presence of malware doesn't mean the AV product can
do a good job of cleansing a host of the malware.  Often MS Defender
gets ranked high for cleansing but then its detection coverage is lower
so it has less robust and older pests to handle.  For their malware
samples (which doesn't mean those will be the only ones you encounter),
Kaspersky and BitDefender fared better than Panda at cleansing a host.

It also depends on which comparative or testing site you visit.  I can't
even see Panda mentioned at VirusBulletin in their RAP chart at
https://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/rap-index.xml (click on the chart for a
larger view).  You'll see the products align differently at VB100 than
at av-comparatives.org.  Different sets of samples, different testing
methodologies, different criteria.  The RAP chart shows reactive and
proactive protection levels.  It does not address false positives or
cleansing effectiveness.  The higher up the better the proactive
protection (heuristics to detect as-yet unknown malware) and the farther
to the right the better the reactive detection (known malware).  The
best are those closest to the upper right corner of the chart.  Of
course, again they are testing only on the payware versions unless there
are only freeware versions of a product.

AV-Test.org has their own testing methodologies and criteria, too.  Last
I checked, they liked BitDefender yet many of them were very very close.
Alas, again, these are test results on payware versions, not on
freeware.  At this site, their bullet ratings were (shown below as
protection/performance/usability):

BitDefender: 6   (protection), 5.5 (performance), 6 (usability)
Panda Cloud: 5.5 (protection), 4   (performance), 6 (usability)

If you know a test or comparative site that test ONLY on freeware
versions of AV products, let me know.  Trialware is not freeware.  

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Do you have an always-on Internet connection?  Does the AV product
afford a boot-time scan so the OS and any malware are quiescent during
the AV scan?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

No point in repeating what's already written.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=how work cloud antivirus
which finds articles like:
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/cloud-computing/cloud-antivirus.htm
http://blog.zeltser.com/post/1256199682/what-is-cloud-anti-virus
http://securitywatch.pcmag.com/malware/283725-what-is-cloud-antivirus-and-how-does-it-work

Re: panda cloud antivirus free

VanguardLH wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

http://www.hotforsecurity.com/blog/bitdefender-antivirus-free-adds-quarantine-ability-6213.html

Since that shows you can right-click on a quarantined file to restore
it, my original complaint about free BitDefender's quarantine behavior
is nullified.  My complaint about quarantining behavior was based on
user reviews that noted inability to restore a quarantined file except
through a reboot.

Since BitDefender Free doesn't mention "the cloud" for it to work, and
since BitDefender (payware) in testing ranks equal to Panda (also
payware) then "the cloud" doesn't guarantee better protection.  The
server-side (cloud) detection is only available when online so you had
better have an always-on Internet connection to get the latest updated
database up on the server.  

I'm currently using Avast Free.  One feature that I'd sorely miss if I
switched to another AV product is URL Blocking (aka Site Blocking).  In
Avast, I can add [sub]strings on which to search in URLs either that I
visit or are attached to web sites.  I can add specific sites that I
don't like their content or their behavior (and without using a 16
thousand entry 'hosts' file pre-compiled by someone else).  I can block
on *.doubleclick.com* and *.doubleclick.net* with just 2 entries instead
of the 50+ in the MVPS 'hosts' file.  When I find a site that uses that
damn Intellitext crap, I can block the source of the ads they popup when
your mouse hovers over their hotspot.  I only have around 84 blocked URL
strings (which aren't just on a hostname but can be on a domain or even
part of the path in the URL) instead of 16 thousand.  If I dropped Avast
Free and went with another freeware choice, I'd have to add more
security software, like a firewall, to get the URL blocking feature lost
by leaving Avast.  I'd hate to shove a heavy free firewall on my
computer just to make up for this lost feature.

Re: panda cloud antivirus free

VanguardLH wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

My router has site blocking.  Takes more than two clicks though.

Re: panda cloud antivirus free

badgolferman wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Mine doesn't.  I would have to spend money to buy a better/newer one.
Also, I find that sites that I want to block are wanted by other users
here.  Go figure but they want that fluff crap in the web sites.  They
don't like when a site misbehaves because some of their content was
blocked (any site can detect you didn't retrieve some content they want
to deliver and modify what they send you, like telling you to unblock
the content if you want to view the rest of their page).  I don't care
if a site wants to be an asshole since nothing they have cannot be found
elsewhere.  Blocking sites (or on URL substrings to block, say, ad
content at a site) in the router means it would affect everyone here,
not just me.  I already tried that by configuring the router to use a
specific DNS server (OpenDNS) where I entered some domains to block.
Didn't take long for the others to ask me what was wrong so I had to
either remove the blacklist from the OpenDNS account or remove OpenDNS
as the DNS server the router (since *I* still wanted to use the
blacklist afforded by an OpenDNS account for my hosts).

Previously I used a free OpenDNS account which allowed me to define
domains to block (but not URL substrings).  Since I assign static IP
address to my intranet hosts, I have to also assign a DNS server so
specifying the ones for OpenDNS was no big deal.  Alas, free accounts
would only let you add up to 50 domains to the blocklist.  Once my
personal blacklist got over 50 domains, I could add no more.  If the
router was only used by my hosts then I could configure the router
however I liked.  Not the case here.

OpenDNS interferes with failed DNS lookups by injecting their damn
"helper" search page (to disable it meant losing several features of an
OpenDNS account).  Instead of getting back a 'fail' from a DNS lookup,
OpenDNS sends back a 'success' but instead sends you their helper page.
I don't use any DNS provider that pretends a failed DNS lookup actually
succeeded buy pushing out some helper page.  That includes OpenDNS,
Comodo, and Norton.  Google doesn't so I'm using them.  An easy way to
determine if your DNS provider is screwing up DNS by returning a helper
page on what should've been a failed lookup is to use GRC's DNS
Benchmark utility (just run, doesn't need installation).  It'll tell you
which DNS servers employ redirection (and you can add more servers if
yours isn't in their list).  My own ISP did the same redirection crap
but offered an opt-out (so DNS worked as it was designed); however, it
wasn't an option you could go online into your account to configure but
instead a request that you had to send and then wait until some tech
modified your account.  Someone said they dropped this "helper"
silliness so they no longer interfere with failed DNS lookups; however,
I wouldn't know since opting out or them dropping this feature results
in DNS working the same way for me: failed DNS lookups get reported to
me as failed, not as a succeed but shoving a helper page at me.

To ensure your current IP address was recorded in your OpenDNS account
(so they knew which settings to apply against the IP address of the host
connecting to them for a DNS lookup), you had to run a DNS updater
client.  My router supports some DDNS providers; however, the free
accounts require you login before some maximum poll interval.  For
example, if you don't access your OpenDNS free account in a month then
your account expires.  Many routers don't issue an update to the DDNS
provider when the ISP changes the IP address assigned by their DHCP
server to the WAN-side of your router.  The DNS updater client made sure
my free account got updated before my free account expired but it was
more software to load on Windows login.

So the Site Blocking (aka URL string blocking) was an easy solution and
generated no additional load on my computer.  It was already a feature
in the AV program of my choice.  I don't need a DNS updater client
running on my host, don't have to throw a heftier software firewall on
my host just to get site blocking, and don't have to buy a more
expensive or newer router that includes some form of domain or URL
[sub]string blocking.

Note that Avast has dropped this Site Blocking feature in past versions.
I complained (probably others, too) and the feature returned.  However,
they could drop it at anytime, especially in a freeware version.  Until
the last major version, they didn't even export the Site Blocking list
so you had to manually reenter it all if you did a clean uninstall and
reinstall or Avast or did a fresh OS install and then for Avast.  So
I'll probably have to find another lightweight solution which means I'd
have no trepidations in leaving Avast.

Re: panda cloud antivirus free

VanguardLH wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

So how is this feature different than AdBlock, an add on that you
install in the browser?

https://getadblock.com/

Re: panda cloud antivirus free

And another review:
http://dottech.org/14151/windows-best-free-antivirus-antimalware-program-microsoft-security-essentials-vs-avira-vs-avast-vs-avg/
(looks like it "borrows" info from av-comparatives.org)

Another example of how some else's analysis comes up with different
rankings of AV products.  Geez, I sure wish these testers would stop
mixing freeware and payware AV products.

And now, from this article, I'm not sure about BitDefender's behavior
regarding quarantining of files and blocking sites as in the user gets
no prompt, no choice, and has to lump it with BitDefender's attitude of
"we are always right, our product never has false positives".  Uh huh.
I keep bringing this up but apparently the audience doesn't use
BitDefender Free to comment on its quarantining and blocking behaviors
(to deny or verify how it quarantines and blocks sites).

panda cloud antivirus free

+ User FidoNet address: 1:3634/12.71
On Sun, 25 May 2014, VanguardLH wrote to All:

 V> I'm currently using Avast Free.  One feature that I'd sorely miss if
 V> I switched to another AV product is URL Blocking (aka Site
 V> Blocking).  In Avast, I can add [sub]strings on which to search in
 V> URLs either that I visit or are attached to web sites.  I can add
 V> specific sites that I don't like their content or their behavior
 V> (and without using a 16 thousand entry 'hosts' file pre-compiled by
 V> someone else).  I can block on *.doubleclick.com* and
 V> *.doubleclick.net* with just 2 entries instead of the 50+ in the
 V> MVPS 'hosts' file.  When I find a site that uses that damn
 V> Intellitext crap, I can block the source of the ads they popup when
 V> your mouse hovers over their hotspot.  I only have around 84 blocked
 V> URL strings (which aren't just on a hostname but can be on a domain
 V> or even part of the path in the URL) instead of 16 thousand.  If I
 V> dropped Avast Free and went with another freeware choice, I'd have
 V> to add more security software, like a firewall, to get the URL
 V> blocking feature lost by leaving Avast.  I'd hate to shove a heavy
 V> free firewall on my computer just to make up for this lost feature.

it is much easier to use FireFox with the NoScript and AdBlockPro addons...
those are the only two addons i use and i never see ads being shoved in my face
or flashing and blinking on the pages i'm looking at for their content... much
much easier to deal with ;)

)\/(ark

One of the great tragedies of life is the murder of a beautiful theory by a
gang of brutal facts. --Benjamin Franklin
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ The FidoNet News Gate (Huntsville, AL - USA)        +
+ The views of this user are strictly his or her own. +
+ All data is scanned for malware by Avast! Antivirus +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Re: panda cloud antivirus free

+ User FidoNet address: 1:3634/12.71
On Mon, 26 May 2014, VanguardLH wrote to All:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

 V> AdBlock is unavailable in Internet Explorer.  Ghostery is flaky so I
 V> got rid of it.  In Firefox, AdBlock slows the load time for Firefox.
 V> The more lists you subscribe to in Adblock, the slow Firefox takes
 V> to load.

why does more than one list need to be subscribed to? i use one and only one...
the default one, IIRC... i've never seen any need to change it or use more than
one...

patient: doctor! doctor! it hurts when i do my arm like this.  
         what can i do about it?

doctor:  the first thing is don't do your arm like that and
         it won't hurt! ;)

)\/(ark

One of the great tragedies of life is the murder of a beautiful theory by a
gang of brutal facts. --Benjamin Franklin
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ The FidoNet News Gate (Huntsville, AL - USA)        +
+ The views of this user are strictly his or her own. +
+ All data is scanned for malware by Avast! Antivirus +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Site Timeline