Panda Adaptive Defense 360 Reviews

I work in a company that implements firewall solutions. I am a systems integrator, not a customer. In the simplest sense, my primary use of this solution is to have as an option for our clients.  

In our company, we try to use every product we sell and implement in order to know how it works and if it is any good. We cannot represent products well if we are not familiar with them.

Panda Security has improved my organization because it gives us another option to present to customers and potential customers to fit their needs and usage.  

In essence, Panda Security is a lot like every other antivirus product. It has protection from zero-day exploits which is the most important feature out of any of the solutions. It is similar to zero-day malware or ransomware protection in that it can protect you from anything that you need protection from that is yet unknown. 

Panda Security has a feature to block any unknown process and that is what is best about it.  

Another valuable feature is the ease-of-use. We have one big client — big for our country — that has 250 licenses. I think they are very satisfied with Panda Security because it is quite simple to use. Users just want to have something that is more easy-to-use and that is it. They don't care a lot about everything else.  

The product can improve in several ways. I think the most important improvement would be in the area of modification. They have add-ons that can be used to add functionality to the base package like encryption or patch management. But they could do much more to improve the catalog of modifications and offer more. My impression is that they only have a few options. I'm not sure if they have an iOS version. I know that they have an Android version. But they could be improving and expanding the product options much more to make it more universal and with more capability.  

I have been using Panda since coming to this organization but my previous company did work with the product as well. So in total, I have been using it for two years, more-or-less.  

It is quite a stable solution. I have never seen or experienced any issues with it.  

The scalability of the solution is very good. It can be expanded very easily. They just add your licenses on the portal since it is on the cloud. When they add your licenses to the portal you are ready to use it.  

In my company, we have about 30 users using the product. We have clients who have up to about 250 users.  

The initial setup is not complex. Once you go through the setup of one console, it is easy to use. But it always depends on the customer. How many applications they have to allow requires additional setup.  

The pricing for Panda is reasonable. It is cloud-only at a reasonable cost. It is set as price per seat.  

Advice that I would give to anyone deploying Panda Security is to tell them to block every process except the known ones. In this case, you will start in the best situation and with the safest approach. It is better to block every unknown or new process because these can be threats. You can then unblock those that you want to have running. For example, if you add new processes or discover processes that were blocked and should not be, you can just unblock or add them.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate this product as about an eight out of ten. They still need to improve a lot of features and they need to work on and add to the knowledge base that can be accessed by users and customers.  

If they add the features for expanding the add-ons and improve their mobile application support, that would give them a nine out of ten.  

We are a system integrator and this is one of the products that we implement for our clients.

We set up Panda Security Adaptive Defense for endpoint protection.

Since implementing this solution, we have not had any trouble with malware.

The most valuable feature is the web filter application control.

This solution is very easy to implement.

The granularity of security is very good because we can create different groups that are categorized, for example, by the department. There are policies in place to assist with this.

The reports are good and help us to better manage our system.

The Linux installation is performed on the command line and they need a package installer for that operating system.

We have been working with Panada Security for six months.

This solution is stable, at least for now. We haven't experienced any issues or received any reports that the endpoint has crashed or it is missing from the network. Overall, it seems to be performing well and is always functioning.

I think that Panda Security is scalable because you just need to install the package and it will adapt. You can perform cloud-based management. You can add as many subscriptions as you need to.

Our clients are in the banking industry and one of them has about 50 branches. They initially purchased about 500 licenses from us and they also have a corporate team that has another 300 licenses.

I have not contacted technical support by telephone or email. When I have run into problems, I just performed a Google search and used the knowledge base. That was enough to solve our problems.

I have also worked with Sophos. It is a better solution but Panada Security is more economical and the feature set is good.

It is hard to install and deploy on a Linux operating system.

We implement this solution for our clients and train them with the knowledge required to manage and use it.

The licensing is subscription-based and priced well compared to other endpoint security solutions. The price is good for the functionality that it provides.

In general, this product is performing to our expectations. Of course, the best thing to do if you're going to purchase any product is to do a proof of concept first. There are limitations with any software but based on our experience, we are happy with Panda Security Adaptive Defense. That said, it is not perfect.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

It's very easy to deploy, we don't have any problem or issues with it. It's almost full automatic. It basically makes the assumption that everything is supposed to be suspicious; files, processes, URL accesses, and so on. Everything is checked once in the cloud and it's assessed as malware or safe. You're free to use it. It's simple enough to be used by a non-specialist, by regular users. You don't need a large security team to manage it. 

The gap between the two final conclusions is a problem, whether or not a file is known to be malware or is known to be safe. There is a gap between this space which means that some time in which the attestation service works on the conclusion it might regenerate this gap through the communication process. For example, if an employee gets his laptop and goes somewhere where it doesn't have full access to Panda Cloud, meaning the attestation service in the Panda Cloud, it will lose the connection and it cannot promptly receive the attestation conclusion.

If you travel or something like that or there's a lapse in time in which the lack of the conclusion regarding a required item like a file or process or whatever, is lacking. Panda understood it might be a huge problem for the whole solution. They resolved it in a way that I don't like. They assumed that there is a knowledgeable person in the customer security team that will assume the conclusion and will either set that everything is supposed to be malware or everything is supposed to be safe, unless it's attested by the Panda Cloud. There are just these two options. You have a checkbox and you just check or uncheck the checkbox, meaning you assume that the non-attested item is assumed to be malware. If you put the checkmark, it is assumed to be safe. Either conclusion means we will have either false positives or false negatives. This is an issue they didn’t solve well.

They didn't solve this issue well first of all because it is only a single checkbox to do this. As a suggestion, they could use several similar checkboxes, for example, one for executable files, one for malware detections or suspicions, and so on. You either treat unattested items as malware or either as safe items, which is not good.

I have been using Panda Security Adaptive Defense for fourteen months.

I haven't had any crashes. I recall having some issues deploying agents on Linux distributions, but I don't recall which distributions. It is possible that they have some issues there. The way they distributed agents seems like they rebuilt some packages and then activated them into the OS, which is not a good way of distributing software. It requires a specific set of libraries and OS modules. If your distribution doesn't have it, it might end in an installment crash on that endpoint. 

Stability depends on the networking because getting network connectivity interruptions on the endpoints breaks the continuous state of the security.

It is good for small and medium-sized companies. 

They have a lot of support sites. I haven't need to contact them for support.

It is remarkably easy to deploy. 

The time it takes to deploy depends on the customer infrastructure of course. I think a medium 1000 endpoint infrastructure could take around one day. You can use the group policy if you integrate with a local domain or something. They provide several tools to deploy it. It's nice.

The amount of people required to deploy depends on the complexity of the infrastructure. If you have branch offices or sub-networks distributed regionally or geographically, you probably will need more than one person.

If you have Active Directory across multi-domain distribution and so on, your team should be more than one person. For smaller customers, I assume one well-trained security person could do the work in one day.

The attestation paradigm is specific to Panda. I haven't found it anywhere else as strongly enforced into the solution.

My advice would be to follow the general rules, do a trial, learn about it well. Test it in a test environment, change the settings according to your customer-specific needs, and then implement it if you find it has advantages.

In the next release, I would like for them to add DDR features, threat intelligence, and more analytics. It lacks in that area. It should be integrated better with CMS and other useful enterprise applications and tools.

Threat intel also needs improvement. If I was a security analyst, employed in a company and my boss asked me what I think about this solution, the first place I’d look is where the threat intel is. It just lacks this. It is well hidden in cloud attestation service.

I would rate it a seven out of ten.