Antimalware, firewall, and other security programs for Windows XP working in 2023 and hopefully beyond

[Dave-H]

I initially had assumed that the background images were downloaded so they could be changed all the time, but as I'm sure you're aware, they are actually stored locally, in my case in D:\Users\All Users\Application Data\Panda Security\Panda Security Protection\Res\4252\Images.
Whether they are replaced by new downloaded images every now and again, I don't know.

[AstroSkipper]

20 minutes ago, Dave-H said:

I initially had assumed that the background images were downloaded so they could be changed all the time, but as I'm sure you're aware, they are actually stored locally, in my case in D:\Users\All Users\Application Data\Panda Security\Panda Security Protection\Res\4252\Images.
Whether they are replaced by new downloaded images every now and again, I don't know.

At the beginning of my Odyssey, I investigated all folders and registry keys belonging to Panda Dome. Therefore, I also found the location of these background images. Additionally, I analyzed the registry accesses of Panda Dome, in particular with regard to the background images. But I have not yet identified the core of the problem.  Unfortunately, it is in my nature to solve problems.  The pictures are totally unimportant, but I still have to solve the problem. Especially if it works in my other partition. But in any case, thanks for your efforts!

[VistaLover]

11 hours ago, AstroSkipper said:

I got a reply from Adlice to the support ticket I filed in terms of RogueKiller:

Quote

Adlice Protect is compatible with Windows XP, but not its real time protection. 

You would only be able to run scans. 

... Not to toot my own trumpet , but...

On 1/11/2026 at 7:43 PM, VistaLover said:

... Well then, not wanting to "burst anyone's bubbles" , but, perhaps, Adlice's "idea" of WinXP support is just what has been confirmed so far by your (and AstroSkipper's) tests: on-demand manual scans, only  (i.e., you still need a Win7+ OS and a paid-for licence for real-time-protection to be effective);

Thanks to the one person that (positively) reacted to that post  ...

[AstroSkipper]

2 hours ago, VistaLover said:

... Not to toot my own trumpet , but...

that had to be said. And yes, you were absolutely right. At least, Adlice's support has replied quite quickly. In contrast to that I haven't heard from Panda's support for weeks. Seems to be non-existent.

[modnar]

I use Panda 22.03.01 and on a dual or quad core systems PSANHost upon boot up doesn't really waste any cycles, only swells to ~100MB and then goes down to ~15MB from what I observed in TaskManager. It's been a wonderful replacement for Avast and/or AVG and their treachery of the XP systems after all this data we've shared with them throughout the years.

[VistaLover]

17 hours ago, AstroSkipper said:

In contrast to that I haven't heard from Panda's support for weeks. Seems to be non-existent.

Panda Dome's support has to be also made aware that while they advertise Windows XP SP3 x86 support, some features of the application (e.g. activation, sign-in to a Panda account) on that OS require ProxHTTPSProxy (or equivalent), which is NOT part of a standard installation of that OS; perhaps they need to "relax" some of the cipher suites needed to establish those secure connections, when XP SP3 is being detected as the host OS; but given their response record so far , I'm not betting any money in them addressing the mentioned issue(s)  ... 

[NotHereToPlayGames]

I'd be more inclined towards "betting any money" that if we keep pinging "support" that the end result will end up being the REMOVAL of said advertised XP support.

[Dave-H]

Well I've just updated my Panda Dome to the supposedly latest version, and it seems to be working fine, with no detrimental effects on system startup or anything else so far, which is good. Fingers crossed!
I was a bit surprised to find that it's version 22.03.5 though, I thought there was a version 23?

I tried with the supposedly latest offline installer, and that gave version 22.
I then uninstalled that and tried with the public online installer from Panda's website, and that gave version 22 as well.
Is there actually a version 23, and if so, where? 

It all installed fine, and works fine, the only strange thing was that it wouldn't log in to my Panda account.
I immediately thought about HTTPSProxy, so I set Panda Dome up with the proxy address and port, and it came good.
Not unexpected of course, but the strange thing is that the first version I had installed, version 21, did not need me to do this, it logged in fine immediately with the default settings.
I can't explain that, but it's working anyway.

 

[VistaLover]

1 hour ago, Dave-H said:

Is there actually a version 23, and if so, where? 

Below link, 

http://acs.pandasoftware.com/Panda/FREEAV/Promo_pd/FREEAV.exe

will afford a relatively big offline installer, sized ca. 162 MiB, with file version 15.14.5.0 and a digital file signature (SHA2 only) of Jan 11th, 2026; I wouldn't install it, but when opening that EXE with 7-zip, file

FREEAV.exe\Program Files\Panda Security\Panda Cloud Antivirus\VERSION.INI

reads: 

[VERSION]
VERSION=23.00.00.0000
LINE=4.0
TYPE=Release
NINST=20251127_PandaZone
BRANCH=PandaZone
REV=1
BUILD_DATE=08/01/2026 23:11:41
CID=BE719E91-B06D-4263-8AB5-BF70044CC02B

[MODULES]
INSTALLER=7.10.00.2104
NNS=7.0.0.638
PSBOOT=1.0.34.0
RKPAVPROC=2.0.11.0

so I assume it to be of version 23  ...

[Dave-H]

Well, that's puzzling, because that file is exactly the same as the one I used earlier on to install Panda Dome.
I've checked its internal version.ini information, and it's exactly the same as you found.
However, the version.ini in my installation contains this -

[VERSION]
VERSION=22.03.05.0000
LINE=4.0
TYPE=Release
NINST=20250812_PandaZone
BRANCH=PandaZone
REV=1
BUILD_DATE=12/08/2025 17:26:32
CID=C9BE6BCA-FB59-4987-9875-D4087D53F0E6

[MODULES]
INSTALLER=7.10.00.1004.b
NNS=4.7.0.602
PSBOOT=1.0.34.0
RKPAVPROC=2.0.11.0

I can try installing using that file again, but I would wager good money that the end result would be exactly the same!
The fact that the official download from Panda's website, albeit an online installer, produces the same result, I cannot explain either.
Has anyone here actually managed to get an installation of version 23 installed?

 

 

[NotHereToPlayGames]

I can try tomorrow.

Typically, my Modus Operandi is OFFLINE INSTALLER with internet DISCONNECTED during install.

My XP rebuild machine is not ready yet.  All I can offer is a VM install (generally 90+ percent accurate, but only "real" machine can fully state 100%).

[NotHereToPlayGames]

11 hours ago, VistaLover said:

Below link, 

http://acs.pandasoftware.com/Panda/FREEAV/Promo_pd/FREEAV.exe

As a general rule of thumb, I historically REFUSE to download "trusted" content from http, especially "security" software!

The version.ini does report v23.  I will install into an XP *VM* later this morning.

Several extracted-retain-timestamp files are dated from only FIVE DAYS ago.

[NotHereToPlayGames]

According to Major Geeks, v23 should be dated mid-December of last year.  (Major Geeks does not offer the OFFLINE installer.)

Softpedia also indicates v23 should be dated mid-December of last year.

I personally would not "trust" the files from FIVE DAYS AGO.  If they came from an httpS source, I wouldn't be so skeptic.

No offense, but I will **NOT** be installing that http-sourced file!  It is just not the way I historically do things, don't see the need to change now.

Edited 4 hours ago by NotHereToPlayGames

[NotHereToPlayGames]

Everything within the SOFTPEDIA download appears to be MUCH more TRUSTED as **REAL** v23.

 

[NotHereToPlayGames]

16 hours ago, Dave-H said:

I was a bit surprised to find that it's version 22.03.5 though, I thought there was a version 23?

Same here.

The "original" v23 offline installer (from Softpedia) is denied installation due to you canNOT install ANY of these **OFFLINE**.

You MUST be connected and those "communications" will not allow archived installers to install OFFLINE.

So basically even OFFLINE installers are being used as "stubs" to download installation files.  Pretty clever, actually.

The 120MB install .exe is placed in your TEMP folder and THAT is what you are really installing, NOT the .exe that pulled in that TEMP .exe.

Also, if you MONITOR your proxy traffic, the PNG files are being used as some sort of method to detect what installer is being executed.  Again, pretty clever.