Panda Active Scan Pro trial?

Terry Pinnell · External Since: Feb 03, 2006 Posts: 17

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...rticula

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

--
Terry, West Sussex, UK

Terry Pinnell · External Since: Feb 03, 2006 Posts: 17

Terry Pinnell <terrypin DeleteThis @dial.pipex.com> wrote:

>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.

--
Terry, West Sussex, UK

Rhonda Lea Kirk · External Since: Aug 18, 2006 Posts: 85

Terry Pinnell wrote:

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

Frankster · External Since: Feb 17, 2006 Posts: 49

"Terry Pinnell" <terrypin.DeleteThis@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:aqvf82t1rvn67lt12fnalctien602bp77p@4ax.com...
>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...rticula
>
> But it demanded registration details. What sort of a trial is that?
>
> --
> Terry, West Sussex, UK

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 · External Since: Apr 07, 2006 Posts: 149

"Frankster" <Frank.TakeThisOut@SPAM2TRASH.com> wrote in message news:b56dndS2hM0I3RHZnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d@giganews.com...

> 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 · External Since: Feb 03, 2006 Posts: 17

"Frankster" <Frank.RemoveThis@SPAM2TRASH.com> wrote:

>
>"Terry Pinnell" <terrypin.RemoveThis@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
>news:aqvf82t1rvn67lt12fnalctien602bp77p@4ax.com...
>>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...rticula
>>
>> But it demanded registration details. What sort of a trial is that?
>>
>> --
>> Terry, West Sussex, UK
>
>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, West Sussex, UK

Frankster · External Since: Feb 17, 2006 Posts: 49

"Terry Pinnell" <terrypin.DeleteThis@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:3t2q82halcoq83mn8gsfjq2q8dm3vdd4lb@4ax.com...
> "Frankster" <Frank.DeleteThis@SPAM2TRASH.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Terry Pinnell" <terrypin.DeleteThis@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
>>news:aqvf82t1rvn67lt12fnalctien602bp77p@4ax.com...
>>>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...rticula
>>>
>>> But it demanded registration details. What sort of a trial is that?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Terry, West Sussex, UK
>>
>>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, West Sussex, UK

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 Smile

LOL.

-Frank

Frankster · External Since: Feb 17, 2006 Posts: 49

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?
>
> --
> Terry, West Sussex, UK

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 · External Since: Feb 03, 2006 Posts: 17

"edgewalker" <null RemoveThis @null.invalid> wrote:

>
>"Frankster" <Frank RemoveThis @SPAM2TRASH.com> wrote in message news:b56dndS2hM0I3RHZnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
>> 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.
>

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?

--
Terry, West Sussex, UK

Terry Pinnell · External Since: Feb 03, 2006 Posts: 17

"Frankster" <Frank RemoveThis @SPAM2TRASH.com> wrote:

>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?
>>
>> --
>> Terry, West Sussex, UK
>
>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.

--
Terry, West Sussex, UK

Frankster · External Since: Feb 17, 2006 Posts: 49

"Terry Pinnell" <terrypin.RemoveThis@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:a0ps82pat2spgci0ks60a3fa7adefjv9u4@4ax.com...
> "Frankster" <Frank.RemoveThis@SPAM2TRASH.com> wrote:
>
>>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?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Terry, West Sussex, UK
>>
>>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.
>
> --
> Terry, West Sussex, UK

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