Dynaverse.net
Off Topic => Engineering => Topic started by: Hexx on January 25, 2005, 06:30:36 am
-
Hey all
Anyone know how Panda AV stands up to the rest of them?
Better?Worse?
Does it really matter between AVG/PAnda/MccAfee/Norton?
GF's getting a system and I can get a deal on Panda- just wondering if it's any good?
-
Not personally, but a few friends like it. I use McAfee (no on-demand scanner running, only monthly scans of my network and careful browsing).
-
I've never used Panda personally. I've tried several different AV programs over the years, before I settled on McAfee Enterprise edition, which I vastly prefer over the standard retail version, as it comes with everything needed yet retains a lean efficient setup without the fancy interface or other stuff. I do use On Demand Scan, Buffer overflow protection, and port access monitoring with it in addition to the standard options.
I have heard Panda was fairly decent as an AV program from a few others, though. I did find this post, oddly enough: http://www.techimo.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-131080.html
-
I use Trend Micro Internet security... I find it ideal for my needs.
My GF uses McAFee which seems to be pretty good too.
-
Right now I'm using the free version of AVG and it seems to be doing
it's job. Then again I don't do anything really stoopid with my computer
so I don't worry about it too much.
-
The bestest?
Your brain.
Jerry
-
I use Panda Internet Securities Platinum 2005. Several months ago I tried McAfee and Norton and AVG.. my system got infected with a virus that non of the other AV's could find.. Panda picked it up right off the bat... My version includes a firewall, Intrusion alert, Email, etc.. about 5 separate programs combined into 1 program.. Panda is forefront on Anti-Virus and it detects some spyware and hijackers trying to get in.. McAfee and Norton uses Panda's definitions for scanning, however they edit out the Spyware files.. Panda also updates over 150 definitions on average per day, sometimes 2 times a day so that they can include any variation of a virus. Also, it detects Suspicious files and quarantines them so that you can email them into Panda for even deeper scanning.. Panda usually email a response back within 24 hours giving results of the file if it is infected or safe.. then you can use the interface for the quarantine to restore or delete the files..
overall, they have the best CS and scanning engine available as far as I can tell.
Anyhow, I hope that this gives you a better informed opinion..
Best suggestion is to DL the trial version of Panda and do a complete system scan with it, especially if you are using a different AV (it will require you to uninstall your previous AV before it can install.. Norton users will have to edit system registry as Norton is invasive into the system [technically described by PC Magazine as a virus in itself]).. Odds are that Panda will detect things that Norton, AVG or McAffee never thought about checking.
-
Not personally, but a few friends like it. I use McAfee (no on-demand scanner running, only monthly scans of my network and careful browsing).
I cannot suggest McAfee products for people who use Win2000. Found this out for myself the (very) hard way that McAfee will do some nasty things to your system. But my system would not even boot to desktop until I removed McAfee from my hard drive. I have been using Norton for a while now but I can't tell you how good it is since I haven't had any problems yet *knocks on wood*. I've heard some good things about AVG and Trend Micro but I haven't actually used them myself. Sorry I can't be of more help.
-
bestest? Macintosh :lol:
And yet, even Macs have virus software, but it's not for us. It's for you buggy lot running Windows. Mac's aren't vulnerable to viruses, but like mosquitoes, they transfer them between PC's
-
bestest? Mac's aren't vulnerable to viruses
Yeah, and the titanic was unsinkable.
LOL
Just because the Macintosh has never had quite the same attention from virus writers does not mean it is not vulnerable.
-
i use pc-cillin 2005 cause i can see it scanning my email and the hd, i think i have try avg but didn't like it, norton is suppose to be good but i have not try it with thunderbird, with Eudora its block all email when trying to scan them, so one day i will try norton but mccafee i hate it, too complicated to use, there no trial you must resisted it before.
-
Forgot to mention Panda will also auto scan email as your email client recieves it.. this includes 3rd party products like Yahoo and Eudora and first party products like Outlook and Outlook Express.. It scans attachments as well both upon reciept and again prior to opening.. If file is infected, it will notify you and ask if you want to delete, disinfect, quarantine, or to ignore the file....
-
bestest?? Mac's aren't vulnerable to viruses
Yeah, and the titanic was unsinkable.
LOL
Just because the Macintosh has never had quite the same attention from virus writers does not mean it is not vulnerable.
Old DM awakens briefly from his slumber at the sight of the word "Mac"...
Must reply.... cannot resist.....
The Monty-meister is correct. Nothing is invulnerable.
That said, the number of Mac OS X-specific viruses in the wild (excluding MS Office macro viruses) is:
.
.
.
Drum roll....
.
.
.wait for it....
.
.
ZERO!
Oh yea, no spyware either...? ;D
-
Got to love over confident Mac users.. talk about security holes in Macs...
posted 12:49pm EST Fri Jan 21 2005 - submitted by J. Eric Smith
NEWS
Apple Computer benefitted greatly from basing its OS X operating system on one of the most stable, secure operating systems availabe: BSD. However, copying large chunks of someone else's kernel means any deficiencies are copied right along with the advantages. Apple is just now finding this out after a security firm's audit of SD BSD turned up four kernel-level exploits, exploits also present in the latest iterations of OS X.
The flaws were discovered by security firm ImmunitySec during a regular audit of the BSD source code. The flaws were first discovered in June of 2004, but in an odd move ImmunitySec did not inform Apple of the flaws. Instead, the company chose to notify a private list of customers about the flaws, and just decided to publish the flaws publicly this past Monday.
The public unveiling caught Apple by surprise, as it hadn't heard of them prior. The flaws include a bug in OS X's file search function, several buffer overflows in kernel code, and a "logic bug" in the AT command used for scheduling system processes. Most of the flaws are remotely executable, but depend upon systems having multiple users. Since most Macs are rarely used as servers or multiuser machines, reasons ImmunitySec, the threat is somewhat small.
What viruses can affect Mac users?
=======================================
Not all variants are listed here. It was originally intended to
reference all the major variants at least by name eventually, but
since the information is of academic interest at best to most users
(and available elsewhere anyway), it's no longer considered a
priority. The main problem affecting Mac users nowadays is the
spread of macro viruses, and I can't possibly find time to
catalogue them individually, so they are only considered generally.
Native Mac viruses are rather rarely seen nowadays, and most people
don't need to know about them in detail -- in fact, what they need
most is to know that their favoured antivirus software will deal
with them. Note that neither of the co-maintainers are primarily in
the business of hands-on virus analysis, and cannot accept
responsibility for descriptive errors based on third-party
information. [DH]
The following varieties are listed below:
7.1 Mac-specific system and file infectors
7.2 HyperCard Infectors
7.3 Mac Trojans
7.4 Macro viruses, trojans, variants
7.5 Other Operating Systems, emulation on a Mac
7.6 AutoStart 9805 Worms
7.7 Esperanto 4733
http://www.icsa.net/html/communities/antivirus/macintosh/archives/macvirus/reference/macintosh-faq.txt
I can go on and on about Macs vulerabilities over the years and problems with macs including the inability to get software for them (at least current brand new just off the design shelf softwae) and the current lower than standard video graphics (unless running a PC video card)...
I'll stick with my PC where active development of safety protocals are being made where Mac's main company stopped in 1995 and has been relying on 3rd party companies for continued fixes.
-
Sad thing is that I found all that above only doing 1 MSN search on Mac Virus List....
now if I really want to dig, I am sure i can find tons more about the flaws in macs...
-
I agree, if its on the internet - it can be hacked...
It is however a benefit in reality for an OS to be based on an open source distribution... the code can be audited/validated by anyone... this will prove to be a huge benefit/advantage in the long run I'm sure.
Smartest thing Apple ever did, turn the MacOS into a windowing system for FreeBSD. Now if they'd just give up on that virus of theirs Quicktime...
-
Ahhh Pest buddy ;)
Over confidence is something I specifically tried to avoid...
Hence my line: "Nothing is invulnerable"
I didn't mean to imply MacOS was invulnerable. Not only are there flaws, but as with most flavors of unix, it's possible to attack with a rootkit. In fact, there was a bit of a stir in the Mac community a few months back. Someone reported a rootkit attack (nasty too: replaced binaries like cp with hacked versions, grabbed passwords, etc.) but it was not self-replicating. Someone sat down at this guy's Mac (on a college campus) logged in, and did it. Good luck protecting any machine from someone with physical access..
Still, to my knowledge, there is not a self-propagating rootkit or MacOS X-specific virus in the wild. That's not to say it's impossible or there won't be some day.... Just not today ;) Mac users and Apple must remain vigilant.
Perhaps you found an arrogant tone where none was intended?
I have a PC and a Mac. One I worry about more than the other. Sad, but true.
I don't revel in this. It suxs. And it shouldn't be this way.
Put a new Mac and a new PC online at the same time: then look which gets attacked and compromised first.
Microsoft MUST do better. The new spyware beta and the recent purchase on an anti-virus company are steps in the right direction.
Got to love over confident Mac users.. talk about security holes in Macs...
-
How large of a download would Panda be for the trial version?
-
Panda Trial and the Full Package are both the same size.. the internet Securities package was under 75 MB... the standard AV of theirs is about 30 MB or close to it.. it has been a while...
the only difference is one you have the username and password that you purchase for updates, the other you don't.. so the Trial Version is good for 30 days before it requires the registration to get updates.. However you can always download the definitions manually after the trial runs out..
I hope that this helps..
-
Personally I wasn't all that impressed with Panda, the best to me looked like Kaspersky but that software has problems of it's own. I am very interested in this topic as I am tired of Norton and process hogging program. I found a compairson of different antivirus programs (http://www.schadentech.com/Reviews/Antivirus/conclusion.htm), I'll let you all have a look so you can put your two cents worth in if you like. It looks to me like it is not a case of picking the best because they all have their down sides. But then I'm a little still too stressed to think clearly right now.
BTW on a personal note I think I am back... well at least part time. Things are still pretty messed up right now on my end, but things are slowly sorting themselves out.
Matt