Panda Active Scan Pro trial?

[Terry Pinnell]

I was frustrated that the free ActiveScan apparently found several
thousand Spyware entries (after a clean run from Spybot, Ad-Aware, and
ewido!) yet would not tell me what they were. Just a number (3,955).

So I clicked the TRY link on the Active Scan Pro page here:
http://www.pandasoftware.com/products/activescanpro_part.htm?sitepanda=particulares

But it demanded registration details. What sort of a trial is that?

 

[Terry Pinnell]

I was frustrated that the free ActiveScan apparently found several
thousand Spyware entries (after a clean run from Spybot, Ad-Aware, and
ewido!) yet would not tell me what they were. Just a number (3,955).

OK, that was my bad - down to my haste. There *is* a report on what
they are.

However, after reading the Report I find that all but 95 of those 3955
'Spyware' entries are in my Norton Recycle Bin (following past
deletions). And the 95 are all plain cookies. Not only harmless, but
many *essential* if I'm to avoid major log-on inconvenience in forums
and shopping sites etc. So that's zero TRUE Spyware hits.

So I clicked the TRY link on the Active Scan Pro page here:
http://www.pandasoftware.com/products/activescanpro_part.htm?sitepanda=particulares

But it demanded registration details. What sort of a trial is that?

Unless I've made a mistake there too, that criticism stands.

 

[Art]

I was frustrated that the free ActiveScan apparently found several
thousand Spyware entries (after a clean run from Spybot, Ad-Aware, and
ewido!) yet would not tell me what they were. Just a number (3,955).

So I clicked the TRY link on the Active Scan Pro page here:
http://www.pandasoftware.com/products/activescanpro_part.htm?sitepanda=particulares

But it demanded registration details. What sort of a trial is that?

Avoid Panda. It produces phoney alerts to sucker you in.

Art
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

 

[Rhonda Lea Kirk]

Unless I've made a mistake there too, that criticism stands.

Do not give Panda your email address or you will receive Panda spam
every day, sometimes twice a day.

Google for "Panda spam." Some people have been trying to get off Panda's
mailing list for a couple of years.

rl
--
Rhonda Lea Kirk

Insisting on perfect safety is for people
without the balls to live in the real world.
Mary Shafer Iliff

 

[Terry Pinnell]

Avoid Panda. It produces phoney alerts to sucker you in.

Art
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

Art, Rhonda: Thanks both.

 

[Frankster]

I was frustrated that the free ActiveScan apparently found several
thousand Spyware entries (after a clean run from Spybot, Ad-Aware, and
ewido!) yet would not tell me what they were. Just a number (3,955).

So I clicked the TRY link on the Active Scan Pro page here:
http://www.pandasoftware.com/products/activescanpro_part.htm?sitepanda=particulares

But it demanded registration details. What sort of a trial is that?

Don't know about Panda, but...

Just one note to add to the other replies that I believe should be voiced.

You often see folks declaring that this or that AV scanner "found" viruses
that your installed AV was not reporting. This happens a lot because your
installed AV has placed them in a "safe" (i.e. deleted, quarantined or some
such) directory and the new AV is not aware of their (already found) status
or location, so it reports them as newly found! Routine.

Just something to note.

-Frank

 

[edgewalker]

You often see folks declaring that this or that AV scanner "found" viruses
that your installed AV was not reporting. This happens a lot because your
installed AV has placed them in a "safe" (i.e. deleted, quarantined or some
such) directory and the new AV is not aware of their (already found) status
or location, so it reports them as newly found! Routine.

Just something to note.

Something else to note is that better scanners will encrypt quarantined malware
so that not only will it be no longer detectable - it will be no longer executable
unless and until it is decrypted by that AV program.

 

[Terry Pinnell]

Don't know about Panda, but...

Just one note to add to the other replies that I believe should be voiced.

You often see folks declaring that this or that AV scanner "found" viruses
that your installed AV was not reporting. This happens a lot because your
installed AV has placed them in a "safe" (i.e. deleted, quarantined or some
such) directory and the new AV is not aware of their (already found) status
or location, so it reports them as newly found! Routine.

Just something to note.

Thanks, interesting point - never considered that before. As you saw
from my follow-up, in this case under discussion the great bulk were
found by Panda in my Norton Recycle Bin, which is where Norton Unerase
Wizard puts deleted files (complementing the standard and rather weak
Windows Recycle Bin). FWIW, I'd have thought it would be smart enough
to recognise that, but it's academic now. (I won't be bothering to
look further at Panda stuff.)

But your point is, of course, a different one, and surprises me. Can I
be sure I have it straight please? Surely the Quarantine areas for the
files that my AV has already found and removed does not contain files
which represent any risk? So why would another spyware detection
program report them as such?

 

[Terry Pinnell]

Something else to note is that better scanners will encrypt quarantined malware
so that not only will it be no longer detectable - it will be no longer executable
unless and until it is decrypted by that AV program.

Thanks. I assume therefore that (free) AVG doesn't fall into this
'better' class? Can you give any examples that do please? Presumably,
*their* quarantined files would not later be reported by other spyware
programs?

 

[Frankster]

Thanks, interesting point - never considered that before. As you saw
from my follow-up, in this case under discussion the great bulk were
found by Panda in my Norton Recycle Bin, which is where Norton Unerase
Wizard puts deleted files (complementing the standard and rather weak
Windows Recycle Bin). FWIW, I'd have thought it would be smart enough
to recognise that, but it's academic now. (I won't be bothering to
look further at Panda stuff.)

But your point is, of course, a different one, and surprises me. Can I
be sure I have it straight please? Surely the Quarantine areas for the
files that my AV has already found and removed does not contain files
which represent any risk? So why would another spyware detection
program report them as such?

Be aware that amongst the various Anti Virus/SpyWare/Grayware vendors, there
is *still* much disagreement between what makes code a virus, spyware,
grayware, etc. There is much overlap. They are often classified differently
amongst the different vendors. As such, certain Anti V/SW/Grayware programs
will "miss" some because they don't come under that classification system
with that vendor. Or have a different detection priority due to their
classification. Also note that one of the ways this *uncooperativeness*
amongst vendors plays out is that (after all these years) there is *still*
no standardization on virus naming conventions. Just *know* what to expect
from Anti V/SW/GW solutions and you will be okay. You cannot always compare
them side by side, apples to apples.

Also, many folks get "carried away" with detection rate numbers. Well, yes,
they're important, but... just as important are other things like minimum
user interaction, configuration management, updates, performance, etc. Many
folks fail to consider that when you "buy into" any particular Anti V/SW/GW
solution, what you are *really* "buying" is the company's credibility.
Credibility to apply constant vigilance to identify new threats and get new
signatures out in a timely and automated fashion. You're also "buying into"
their position on identification of viruses/spyware/grayware and
categorization of such. Also thier *continuing support* (not just a flash in
the pan). Just something to think about. Most enterprise level admins have
figured this out a long time ago.

Not to hijack your thread. Just a convenient place to type I guess LOL.

-Frank

 

[Frankster]

Sorry, forgot to address your question...

But your point is, of course, a different one, and surprises me. Can I
be sure I have it straight please? Surely the Quarantine areas for the
files that my AV has already found and removed does not contain files
which represent any risk? So why would another spyware detection
program report them as such?

Each V/SW/GW program cannot know the "safe/temp" storage locations of every
other program. So they don't even try.

-Frank

 

[Terry Pinnell]

Sorry, forgot to address your question...


Each V/SW/GW program cannot know the "safe/temp" storage locations of every
other program. So they don't even try.

Thanks for both posts, Frank, very useful.

On the "safe/temp" storage issue, I had clearly been wrongly assuming
that the 'quarantine' process *did* something drastic to the culprit,
not merely placed it in a new folder. So that lead to my assumption
that any subsequent 'spyware detector' would not regard it as a risk.

 

[Frankster]

Thanks for both posts, Frank, very useful.

On the "safe/temp" storage issue, I had clearly been wrongly assuming
that the 'quarantine' process *did* something drastic to the culprit,
not merely placed it in a new folder. So that lead to my assumption
that any subsequent 'spyware detector' would not regard it as a risk.

Your are not really wrong. Many (most?) scanners will rename or otherwise
render virus files unexecutable. But... at the same time, some (most?)
scanners, due to their inspection methods, will *still* pick them up.
(probably a good thing).

-Frank