Drweb Version 4.44

[Badcompany]

Hello Forum,
Any news when drweb is going to release version 4.44.
Badcompany.

[C.S.J]

were you expecting an answer? lol

sorry badcompany, but drweb themselfs dont know....

ive heard 'very soon' or 'very very soon' since July, i also heard this in August, and again in September.

but, Drweb are attending that infosecurity international convention thing, maybe a perfect event to release the product? (26-28 Sept)

[n8chavez]

{QUOTE->
but, Drweb are attending that infosecurity international convention thing, maybe a perfect event to release the product? (26-28 Sept) <-QUOTE}

That is when Dr Web support told me they were going to release version 4.44. But, I don't care as I'm on to better things.

[Mongol]

{QUOTE-> That is when Dr Web support told me they were going to release version 4.44. But, I don't care as I'm on to better things. <-QUOTE}

Me too, like a Doctor with a bad reputation my patients/patience left me...::) :dry: :)

[Badcompany]

I like drweb very much never a problem and very light on my Pc, but there attitude is unacceptable.I have been using OA Personal Firewall for the last 6 weeks, and the differance in attitude between the two companies is miles apart. Mike Nash from OA keeps you very informed about what is happening, and will always answer your questions about OA. I e-mailed drweb support informing them about OA forum, and how well they keep there customs informed.They asked me for the link for OA forum so they could study it.I received a e-mail the next day saying, OA have there policys and we have are policys.What an attitude.:thumbd:
Badcompany.

Ps. Going to look at Bitdefender & Kaspersky.

[C.S.J]

its a sad day to see everyone leaving the doctor, oh well

have any of you not been protected by the doctor, i understand the slowness of product updates and 'sometimes' their harsh words towards news for the customers, but this should not change that its a great product.

[Badcompany]

{QUOTE-> its a sad day to see everyone leaving the doctor, oh well, maybe they will give me some years free licences if you all go, knowing im the loyal one :D <-QUOTE}

If only the Dr had your sence of humour, we would all be happy.

Ps. I've not gone yet. ;)

[Delgado]

Whilst I do not use Dr Web, I feel I must defend what is sometimes called rudeness in the reply given by Tech Guys.

The first thing to remember is that the English Language is not the first language of these guys, who are Russian, and sometimes the translation of what they are trying to say does not compute into what we call a polite reply. I get the same problem with my lady Doctor, who is Indian, and sometimes appears very abrupt. However, as i have got to know her more, she is a person who is devoted to her job and with a great sense of humour!

I have also seen people say that the techies at Antivir are rude; the same thing applies here, they are German!

Give these guys a break, they are doing their best.

;D

[C.S.J]

{QUOTE-> they are German!

;D <-QUOTE}
nobodys perfect ;)

friendly banter :D

[Badcompany]

{QUOTE-> Whilst I do not use Dr Web, I feel I must defend what is sometimes called rudeness in the reply given by Tech Guys.

The first thing to remember is that the English Language is not the first language of these guys, who are Russian, and sometimes the translation of what they are trying to say does not compute into what we call a polite reply. I get the same problem with my lady Doctor, who is Indian, and sometimes appears very abrupt. However, as i have got to know her more, she is a person who is devoted to her job and with a great sense of humour!

I have also seen people say that the techies at Antivir are rude; the same thing applies here, they are German!

Give these guys a break, they are doing their best.

;D <-QUOTE}

Hi Delgado,
I understand what you are saying but, drweb as been in business long enough to know what paying customers expected, If they did ther home work they would know that a lot of vendors keep there paying customers informed about there programs,some better than others i admit. But just because they are Russian, this is not an excuse IMHO. Without paying customers there would be no drweb.
Badcompany.

[bellgamin]

{QUOTE-> I like drweb very much never a problem and very light on my Pc, but there attitude is unacceptable. <-QUOTE}When being circumcised, no one wants to hear the doctor say, "Whoops!" --- not even if the doctor is a really really nice guy.

DrWeb AV never say "Whoops!" to me. :thumb:

BOTTOM LINE- I will take a doctor with a steady hand on the scalpel, VERSUS a gallumper with an affable bedside manner --- any day!

Of course it's would be great to find a friendly doctor (or an antivirus tech support) who never has to say "Whoops!" I have heard vague rumors that such do exist.

As to version 4.44 -- that's an interesting solution! BUT ..... what's the problem?

bellgamin ;) <==never been infected

[C.S.J]

at least there problems are not software-based, or at least, for most people they aint, so i dont understand the problem really.

support is great if you need any technical help, it only gets some-what harsh if you require addition information about upcoming releases/betas etc.

most russians seem to speak english, and quite well.

of course it would be better if the forum was all in english, as more help would probably be available, but this is a hard request to ask for as they are indeed a russian company, and probably something i would never request for myself as it seems borderline rude. :)

Ive had no problem with drweb inc their support which ive always found 2nd to nobody, their ticket system is fast.

so what, exactly... is the problem?

[Badcompany]

I just don't understand why they can't inform us all about program versions, it's totally a no go area for them.Even if they said version 4.44 will be released within the next 3 months that would be something. They must have some idea when a program is going to be released.But saying nothing all the time I think is bad business. Everything else is good, never been infected, And there tech support is first class, no one better.So why can't they get informing us about new releases and versions right.I just don't understand.
Badcompany.

[C.S.J]

{QUOTE-> So why can't they get informing us about new releases and versions right.I just don't understand. <-QUOTE}

i dont know, i aswell think they should, but i also think its a lame excuse to drop the AV.

I know its frustrating when you see other companys saying "this will be released in a few months" (no exact date needs to be given), and also about upcoming features that will be included, either by updates or upgrades. etc

Drweb will just locate you to the news page, but its pretty blank to be honest.

I understand what people mean by wanting to know whats going on, especially if you have 1/2/3year left on a licence, you want to know where the software is heading, if anywhere.

Maybe they will change this, i dont know, but its still no good reason to leave the company. ;)

[Badcompany]

Maybe they will change this, i dont know, but its still no good reason to leave the company.



You are right, this is no reason to leave the drweb.I just get pi**** off with there attitude.I still have 7 months on my licence.Let s see what happens after the info show.
Badcompany.

[likuidkewl]

What's funny is I never have had any issues with support being rude. They always seem borderline friendly, but as I work in the IT field in a support/development area I know what it is like to be asked the same questions over and over again and then trying to explain why it is the way it is. It is no reason to be rude, but the answer becomes shorter and to the point each time you reply, thus making it seem "rude". And I only reply to the same questions 2-3 times a day imagine these gents!

Release of 4.44 is not a big deal to me as I am still awaiting 5, LOL see it when it gets here. I did the trade in when my eTrust expired and got the 50% off deal and have still not activated my key code, according to support this is completely ok. ;)

I do wish Dr. Web the best, but my support for VBA32 is never waining (BTW there is a beta for Vista from them)

[C.S.J]

{QUOTE-> What's funny is I never have had any issues with support being rude. They always seem borderline friendly, but as I work in the IT field in a support/development area I know what it is like to be asked the same questions over and over again and then trying to explain why it is the way it is. It is no reason to be rude, but the answer becomes shorter and to the point each time you reply, thus making it seem "rude". And I only reply to the same questions 2-3 times a day imagine these gents!

Release of 4.44 is not a big deal to me as I am still awaiting 5, LOL see it when it gets here. I did the trade in when my eTrust expired and got the 50% off deal and have still not activated my key code, according to support this is completely ok. ;)

I do wish Dr. Web the best, but my support for VBA32 is never waining (BTW there is a beta for Vista from them) <-QUOTE}
yep, exactly. :)

i also aint too fussed about 4.44, although i do still want to see it released.

ive always thought 4.44 is just a stepping stone towards 5.

[solcroft]

By informing you of the delevopment progress and giving release dates, they are basically committing themselves. And, as Eset learned the hard way with ESS, that is something wise companies do not do.

[C.S.J]

we are not talking about 'exact' release dates.

we are talking about information about future technologys, future versions, what they will have, how they will improve on current versions, i think its vital to compare the new stuff with the current version, they should tell users this.

i know, a release date could hardly be predicted, but a timeframe could easily be predicted.

maybe, 'in september' ... or, within the next 2 months. etc etc

[n8chavez]

For me I knew it was time to leave when they couldn't help me with my gui issue. That issue had not existed in version 4.33, therefor it was their choices that created that issue. And, even here, eveyone acts like I chose interface over security. That is not true. If anything, they forced my hand. I think that, along with their attitude, slow developement, and continious bad performances, even with 4.44 beta, are all good reasons to leave the doctor behind.

[randomness]

{QUOTE-> What's funny is I never have had any issues with support being rude. They always seem borderline friendly <-QUOTE}
I guess you don't understand Russian, then, or you've never read their official (Russian section) forums located at forum.drweb.com ;) If you would, I doubt that you'd say the same thing about their support after reading certain threads on their forums (for the people who understand Russian, here's a sample link (http://forum.drweb.com/index.php?method=range&list=message&rollid=5929&fromlist=message&frommethod=showhtmllist&fromid=5929)) :P

[C.S.J]

{QUOTE-> eveyone acts like I chose interface over security. That is not true. <-QUOTE}
that is exactly what you did, you cared more about your interface program than your antivirus, drweb replied to you twice that i know saying the problem could not be fixed with drweb, this was the time when you should have contacted your interface program support, to find a solution to the problem.

{QUOTE-> and continious bad performances <-QUOTE}

says who?

[likuidkewl]

{QUOTE-> I guess you don't understand Russian, then, or you've never read their official (Russian section) forums located at forum.drweb.com ;) If you would, I doubt that you'd say the same thing about their support after reading certain threads on their forums (for the people who understand Russian, here's a sample link (http://forum.drweb.com/index.php?method=range&list=message&rollid=5929&fromlist=message&frommethod=showhtmllist&fromid=5929)) :P <-QUOTE}

Since I can't read Russian, I don't really understand it that well but I from I can gather someone blamed DrWeb for an infection and they person was not happy with the response he got. Apparently using a beta while this happened.
If this was the case with our "software" and someone blamed us for something that I might take offense also.

BUT as I said I cannot grasp the whole thread, and IME DrWeb has always been professional, then again I have not pestered them with Q's or berated their work. ;)

BTW - Let's try to keep this from getting locked by responding with relevant posts. I am guilty too :)

[n8chavez]

{QUOTE-> that is exactly what you did, you cared more about your interface program than your antivirus, drweb replied to you twice that i know saying the problem could not be fixed with drweb, this was the time when you should have contacted your interface program support, to find a solution to the problem. <-QUOTE}

That problems was theirs. It is because of their own design, as it has not existed in prior versions. If I'm going to be made to chose, as I was here. U'll pick another prodict over Dr Web not an interface. Had they not forced me to chose, again by a bug of their design, I would not have, but they did. There are plenty of products that do not have such issues. I'm saying this for the last time, it's the way Dr Web coded 4.44 that created the problem, as it did not exist in prior versions. This time it's an interface problem. But who knows what kind of incompatability issues will arise out of their mindlessly sloppy coding. We all waited a very long time for Dr Web to finish 4.44 and this is what we get? That's crap.




{QUOTE-> says who? <-QUOTE}

Oh, I don't know. Try the AV-comparatives tests for May 2004, August 2004, May 2005 (Standard), August 2005 (Standard), Febuary 2006 (Standard), August 2006 (Standard), November 2006 (Standard), Febuary 2007 (Standard), May 2007 (Standard), and let's not forget August 2007 when the 4.44 was tested and it received a Standard. There is a history here is mediocre protection.

[C.S.J]

{QUOTE-> That problems was theirs. It is because of their own design, as it has not existed in prior versions. If I'm going to be made to chose, as I was here. U'll pick another prodict over Dr Web not an interface. Had they not forced me to chose, again by a bug of their design, I would not have, but they did. There are plenty of products that do not have such issues. I'm saying this for the last time, it's the way Dr Web coded 4.44 that created the problem, as it did not exist in prior versions. This time it's an interface problem. But who knows what kind of incompatability issues will arise out of their mindlessly sloppy coding. We all waited a very long time for Dr Web to finish 4.44 and this is what we get? That's crap. <-QUOTE}

dont worry, im sure drweb wont miss you, you do nothing but complain about the software anyway, i for one am certainly sick and tired of replying to the countless querys you have had with drweb in one way or another, i certainly have no problem giving help to drweb users or people wondering about the software etc, but for a while now, even before this issue of the GUI, its been borderline bashing from you.

{QUOTE->
Oh, I don't know. Try the AV-comparatives tests for May 2004, August 2004, May 2005 (Standard), August 2005 (Standard), Febuary 2006 (Standard), August 2006 (Standard), November 2006 (Standard), Febuary 2007 (Standard), May 2007 (Standard), and let's not forget August 2007 when the 4.44 was tested and it received a Standard. There is a history here is mediocre protection. <-QUOTE}

another person to rely on these tests, there is alot of information not given by both the testers and the developers, i honestly find them very misleading, but im sure you know better right?

Has drweb not kept you protected?

[n8chavez]

{QUOTE-> dont worry, im sure drweb wont miss you, you do nothing but complain about the software anyway, i for one am certainly sick and tired of replying to the countless querys you have had with drweb in one way or another, i certainly have no problem giving help to drweb users or people wondering about the software etc, but for a while now, even before this issue of the GUI, its been borderline bashing from you. <-QUOTE}

I've had Dr Web on my main system for years. But there have been too many problems. If you think I'm bashing tthen I'm sorry, that is not my intent. I love Dr Web but I have given them too many chances to live up to their potential.

{QUOTE-> another person to rely on these tests, there is alot of information not given by both the testers and the developers, i honestly find them very misleading, but im sure you know better right? <-QUOTE}

What would you suggest I use? This is all I have to go off of. Are you saying that the numbers, for years now, have been lying?

{QUOTE-> Has drweb not kept you protected? <-QUOTE}
In fact it has not. There have been two cases when Dr Web's lack of a quarantine feature has caused me to reinstall everything. There were FPs detected that were actaually files I needed to login to windows. Those files were moved amd I couldn't login, even in safe mode.

[lucas1985]

{QUOTE-> it's the way Dr Web coded 4.44 that created the problem, as it did not exist in prior versions. <-QUOTE}
This doesn't prove that DrWeb is the culprit ;)
Version 4.44 may be adding new functions that are revealing buggy code in the other application.

[C.S.J]

{QUOTE->

What would you suggest I use? This is all I have to go off of. Are you saying that the numbers, for years now, have been lying? <-QUOTE}
so you think that all these samples in these tests are actual threats/malware?

tests are nothing but guidelines, interesting results to read and wonder, i would have thought better from someone who has used drweb for years to dismiss the software as such.

i think if you take out the files that aint actually malware, and also the ones that cant execute and aint a threat, drweb would score very highly.

i think the 99.% av's just have a greater detection of false positives.

also, the beta tested is an old build, yes ... of 5th august, the latest builds of the beta aint even available for public download. ::)

[C.S.J]

Av-test.org's results

http://blog.chip.de/0-security-blog/microsoft-verbessert-seinen-virenscanner-20070821

yeah, they dont match... as i said, guildlines.

drweb have a great VB record, and are also ICSA certified.

also, with trustport also adding the drweb engine of late, surely all these people are seeing a poor product right?

{QUOTE-> Doctor Web, Ltd., a leading Russian developer of Dr.Web anti-virus programs, announces the certification of its products by the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation. Military compatibility certificates have been issued for the following Dr.Web products (version 4.33):

* Dr.Web for MSVS 3.0 (a specially designed Lunix-based operating system)
* Dr.Web for Windows 9x-XP workstations
* Dr.Web for Windows servers
* Dr.Web for Novell NetWare files servers
* Dr.Web Enterprise Suite

Previous certificates of the Russian Ministry of Defense have been issued for version 4.32.2. Doctor Web, Ltd. was licensed in 2005 by the Defense Ministry to conduct various research and development works in the environments processing sensitive and classified information, including state secrets. The certification works have been conducted during the next 6 months and included thourough studies of the program code and the development processes of Doctor Web's development&anti-virus research department.

Anti-virus products of Dr.Web family have been protecting computers and networks of the Russian Defence Ministry for several years. Compactness, quality, reliability and outstanding detection rates are the main features that assure Dr.Web's success in the military certification. Designed with the utmost security requirements, Dr.Web anti-virus products keeps protecting the most sensitive information resources of the Russian army. <-QUOTE}

russian military defense aswell, damn ... you must know something that all these people dont, right?

[Firecat]

{QUOTE-> i think if you take out the files that aint actually malware, and also the ones that cant execute and aint a threat, drweb would score very highly. <-QUOTE}

Actually, malware that doesn't execute is not (really) malware. At least as far as execution is concerned, most competent AV testers are able to filter out non-executable files from their test sets. There are very few, if any at all, un-executable malicious files in AV-test or AV-comparatives' test sets.

{QUOTE-> i think the 99.% av's just have a greater detection of false positives. <-QUOTE}

I don't particularly think that is the case. Yes, to some extent some vendors may in fact be detecting crud (and that is a big MAY), but this is unlikely to really cause any more than a placebo effect. As far as AV-comparatives and AV-test are concerned, the margin of error is usually quite low (less than 1%).

Dr.Web's performance is indeed a bit strange, however, I do not think the results are false because I trust the testers enough, plus I also have my personal experiences to talk of where I sometimes see ArcaVir detecting stuff Dr.Web would not (trojans/backdoors category). IMO Dr.Web has become a bit "weak" for trojans and/or backdoors (haven't really researched much into this, so think of this as a wild guess for now).

Regardless, I still consider Dr.Web as a pretty good product. Its real-life protection rate is good enough - I really haven't seen any cases where it has missed any rapidly spreading, in the wild malware, be it trojan, worm, backdoor, exploit or whatever. No issues with their support here. But the relative stagnancy in the development of their product is not going to do their sales team any good, given that their current interface is not so good after all. This, combined with the "average" detection numbers, do not bode well for a new customer looking for a decent AV product.

Given Dr.Web's history, I must say I am a bit impressed at their product, their technology and how they have made it this far. But given the current situation, I cannot help but worry about how long Dr.Web will survive, because currently the company's popularity is going down due to various reasons, justified or not. Even here on this forum, where Dr.Web used to have a great fan following just a few years ago, I can clearly see there has been some decline in the popularity of this product.

They need to release version 5 FAST - A decent interface alone can do wonders for the popularity of the product and a resultant increase in sales and company growth.

[lucas1985]

{QUOTE->
tests are nothing but guidelines, interesting results to read and wonder <-QUOTE}
Completely agree here. It's interesting to see the development of a product in a period of time.
{QUOTE-> i think if you take out the files that aint actually malware, and also the ones that cant execute and aint a threat
<-QUOTE}
I don't agree here. Garbage surely exists in IBK's collection and Marx's test bed, but I think that the amount of it is statistically insignificant.

[C.S.J]

{QUOTE-> Actually, malware that doesn't execute is not (really) malware. <-QUOTE}

exactly.

{QUOTE-> There are very few, if any at all, un-executable malicious files in AV-test or AV-comparatives' test sets. <-QUOTE}

your sure of this?

im certainly not, these tests, on such a massive test set will contain junk, its almost inevitable, so when i see the 99.%, they must just flag everything as a virus.

anyway, enough is enough... i dont need to explain drwebs detection rates, thats for sure.

[Firecat]

{QUOTE-> exactly.



your sure of this?

im certainly not, these tests, on such a massive test set will contain junk, its almost inevitable, so when i see the 99.%, they must just flag everything as a virus.

anyway, enough is enough... i dont need to explain drwebs detection rates, thats for sure. <-QUOTE}
Yes, they contain some junk. All test-sets do, but not in any significant extents. The cleaning of the test sets from crud is always a continuous task, and always performed by professionals with enough experience for this kind of task. :)

Of course, if the test sets were significantly flawed then we would not see many products tested (since vendors would not offer permission), and we would see massive "anti-tester" campaigns going on to the public by the AV companies (the marketing teams are there for a reason you know....the PR machine :D).

[C.S.J]

{QUOTE-> The cleaning of the test sets from crud is always a continuous task, and always performed by professionals <-QUOTE}
incorrect, but how do you know just how much crud is in the tests of av-test and av-comp?

im sure it doesnt state it anywhere.

these tests should only be used as guildlines, for this... they are great.

drwebs methods are different to those of the others, so these results (for drweb anyway) are misleading, or at least i think so.

[Firecat]

{QUOTE-> incorrect, but how do you know just how much crud is in the tests of av-test and av-comp?

im sure it doesnt state it anywhere.

these tests should only be used as guildlines, for this... they are great.

drwebs methods are different to those of the others, so these results (for drweb anyway) are misleading, or at least i think so. <-QUOTE}
Not incorrect, if you really think AV-comparatives and AV-test doesn't have a single guy who is not experienced in ASM, C/C++ and other such programming languages, who can't go ahead and look at every file and classify them into every category of malware, then you are mistaken. ;)

No, I do not know just HOW much crud is in the tests of AV-test and AV-comparatives. But I do know it is not in significant quantities for the reasons I mentioned in my edit of my previous post. :)

[C.S.J]

{QUOTE-> Not incorrect, if you really think AV-comparatives and AV-test doesn't have a single guy who is not experienced in ASM, C/C++ and other such programming languages, who can't go ahead and look at every file and classify them into every category of malware, then you are mistaken. ;) <-QUOTE}
im not denying their qualifications or what they know, they are certainly very talented at what they do.

im talking about the test sets, what you say are tested by professionals for their execution and threats, i dont believe this to be true. (or at least... not as much as you think)

drweb certainly found loads of junk in their missed samples from the last dvds they recieved, and still not sure if they have recieved the latest ones.

i mean, the other week ... i certainly had to put across my detection arguments to someone using clamav, could not believe it.

sometimes drweb do monitor wilders themselfs, i dont think they are too worried or im sure they would say something.

i think POST #29 says it all really for what i mean.

[solcroft]

{QUOTE-> im talking about the test sets, what you say are tested by professionals for their execution and threats, i dont believe this to be true. (or at least... not as much as you think) <-QUOTE}
You don't believe this, but have no problems with claiming that Dr Web would "certainly" score in the high 90% if all "junk" was removed?

I'm sure it's hurtful to have a product you hold close to heart criticized in a manner that an earlier poster did. But let's not lose all rational thought here.

[C.S.J]

{QUOTE-> You don't believe this, but have no problems with claiming that Dr Web would "certainly" score in the high 90% if all "junk" was removed?

I'm sure it's hurtful to have a product you hold close to heart criticized in a manner that an earlier poster did. But let's not lose all rational thought here. <-QUOTE}
you think it is I who is misleaded, lol...... :wacko:

i never said drweb would be one of, if not the highest detection, i just said it would be better.

im sure IBK has been following this thread, but i think drwebs methods are different to those of the other products, people forget this when looking at a test result.

[lucas1985]

{QUOTE-> drweb certainly found loads of junk in their missed samples from the last dvds they recieved, and still not sure if they have recieved the latest ones. <-QUOTE}
Just a guess,
By junk, they might have meant "not significant threats" or "threats which don't affect DrWeb customer base".
Just a laguage ambiguity.
{QUOTE-> but i think drwebs methods are different to those of the other products, people forget this when looking at a test result. <-QUOTE}
ESET is another company known to scrupulously analyze each and every file to avoid garbage going to their database. Yet, they score a little better in controlled tests.

[C.S.J]

they dont all have poor english lucas,

i mean corrupted samples, memory dumps etc.

but i am sure there were also samples that were not signifcant to drwebs customer base too, and also loads of real threats too.

nobodys perfect, i just think drwebs methods are different to others, and the tests lower drwebs value because of it, for reasons ive mentioned above.

i am more concerned for the decompression and read errors that drweb produced for 4.44 that IBK mentioned, but i have been told most have these have been fixed in the latest builds which are not available for the public, but we shall see.

:)

[bellgamin]

I have no patience with those who prefer eye-candy over protection. Even so, the personalities are getting a bit much (even though entertaining at times) so I am concerned that they will get this interesting thread closed by a Mod. My humble suggestion is - please desist. Shalom

As to DrWeb's protection rates as measured at AV-Comp, all of the categories look just fine to me except for 3. One of those 3 is worrisome to me. The other 2 are mostly curiosities, simply because I'm not quite certain what they mean (maybe someone here can give clarification). To wit...

#1- Trojan detection 64.04% - long ago I dropped using stand-alone anti-trojan monitors because the trojan detection rates of antivirus programs had the bases covered. So I find DrWeb's relatively low rate with trojans to be worrisome. For this reason alone I have temporarily relegated DrWeb to on-demand and am now using BitDefender as my real-time monitor.

#2 - "Other OS viruses/malware 47.45%" -- what is this category? I use Windows, so why should I be concerned about being protected against bad stuff that affects OTHER operating systems?

#3 - "Other malware 64.04%" -- I suppose the word "other" means that this category covers "OTHER THAN" Windows viruses, macro viruses, Script viruses/malware, worms, backdoors, trojans, & other OS viruses/malware.

With all that stuff omitted from the "other" category, plus the fact that I recall IBK saying that spyware is NOT in the test bed, what the heck does that leave in the "other" category? Protection against electrical outages? Protection from elephant stampedes & the heartbreak of psoriasis? What?

All kidding aside, can anyone hazard a guess as to what IS included as "other", I wonder?

[IBK]

To reach Advanced, Dr.Web would need to discover at least 22.000 real garbage files in the misses of August, which is highly unprobably.
In January there will be a report on the garbage contained in the August 2007 test set and its impact on the results. All the rest is just speculation.

@bellgamin: from the FAQ: Rootkits, Exploits, Flooders, Nukers, DDoS, ActiveX malware, IRC malware, some droppers, etc.

[C.S.J]

{QUOTE-> To reach Advanced, Dr.Web would need to discover at least 22.000 real garbage files in the misses of August, which is highly unprobably.
In January there will be a report on the garbage contained in the August 2007 test set and its impact on the results. All the rest is just speculation.

@bellgamin: from the FAQ: Rootkits, Exploits, Flooders, Nukers, DDoS, ActiveX malware, IRC malware, some droppers, etc. <-QUOTE}
i doubt it would get closed as it is all about 4.44 version still,

i dont say its a top-detector, i just think the tests are set up for drweb to fail, or at least... more than it would.

i certainly do think 4.44 will be a step forward still, and v5 even more so.

there are still many people that would choose drweb over anyone else, but i bet if it had a fancy GUI like norton or trend micro, there would be many more people using it, i do find this funny in itself too, even firecat believes the simple addition of a fancy GUI would help dramatically, sounds stupid right, but i agree too, as this is how people think in general, having a nice looking AV like norton etc is just pleasing on the eye and even though some people wont admit it, its one of the top prioritys for most people using an AV.

I think some people think Drweb dont know what they are doing, we are talking about highly qualified professionals here, and they have schedules and implementations of features like anyone else.

i would like to know, why av-test and av-comp differ soooo much this time around,?

[IBK]

{QUOTE->
i would like to know, why av-test and av-comp differ soooo much this time around,? <-QUOTE}
just read what was tested and which samples were used.

If peoples see in a Standard rating a "fail", it means they did not read/understand the test. Would you feel better if I say e.g. Dr.Web is on place 17 of 100 AV products?

[lucas1985]

{QUOTE-> they dont all have poor english lucas <-QUOTE}
I didn't want to suggest that :( I should improve my own English ;D (which is not very bad, but it could be a lot better)
{QUOTE-> i just think drwebs methods are different to others <-QUOTE}
Why? A trojan is a trojan in London, Moscow, Lhasa or Tahiti.
{QUOTE-> the tests lower drwebs value because of it, for reasons ive mentioned above. <-QUOTE}
I think you're right. People bash AVs which don't get A+ checkmark.
{QUOTE-> #2 - "Other OS viruses/malware 47.45%" -- what is this category? <-QUOTE}
PalmOS malware, Unix/Linux/Solaris malware, SymbianOS malware, etc.
{QUOTE-> I use Windows, so why should I be concerned about being protected against bad stuff that affects OTHER operating systems? <-QUOTE}
For the most part, you shouldn't be concerned.

[bellgamin]

{QUOTE-> Why? A trojan is a trojan in London, Moscow, Lhasa or Tahiti. <-QUOTE}:D

{QUOTE-> For the most part, you shouldn't be concerned. <-QUOTE}Clear & to the point. Thank you, Lucas -- bon ami

[lucas1985]

{QUOTE-> Clear & to the point. Thank you, Lucas -- bon ami <-QUOTE}
You're welcome :)
I think that I should delete the French part of my signature; it clearly leads to confusions :D ;)

[Banshee]

{QUOTE-> i doubt it would get closed as it is all about 4.44 version still,

i dont say its a top-detector, i just think the tests are set up for drweb to fail, or at least... more than it would. <-QUOTE}Could you please elaborate on this ? Do you really think they want dr web to fail ?


I do hope you are kidding C.S.J

[n8chavez]

{QUOTE-> i doubt it would get closed as it is all about 4.44 version still,

i dont say its a top-detector, i just think the tests are set up for drweb to fail, or at least... more than it would. <-QUOTE}{QUOTE-> Could you please elaborate on this ? Do you really think they want dr web to fail ?


I do hope you are kidding C.S.J <-QUOTE}

This is just a case of someone livign in denial and wanting to believe so badly in Dr Web, even if there is no reason to.

[C.S.J]

{QUOTE-> This is just a case of someone livign in denial and wanting to believe so badly in Dr Web, even if there is no reason to. <-QUOTE}
yeah sure it is,

automated tools are used to determine if malware infact IS malware.

I also highly doubt that IBK, or any other tester (im not just having a go at IBK's. but these tests in general) checks each malware for its execution and threat on ones computer.

nothing is full proof on a test soooo large.

the ceo of drweb himself, told me just how its filled full of crap (just how much, i dont know), it is YOU who is in denial, who believes a test result, and jumps ship.

im sure drweb does miss loads, as do the others, but im sure IBK doesnt come clean about everything, nor do the developers.

oh no, my windows GUI changer does not work, better ditch my AV...pathetic!

ever played chess n7chavez?..... well, your the pawn to these people.

KMFO.

[n8chavez]

{QUOTE-> yeah sure it is,

automated tools are used to determine if malware infact IS malware.

I also highly doubt that IBK, or any other tester (im not just having a go at IBK's. but these tests in general) checks each malware for its execution and threat on ones computer.

nothing is full proof on a test soooo large.

the ceo of drweb himself, told me just how its filled full of crap (just how much, i dont know), it is YOU who is in denial, who believes a test result, and jumps ship.

im sure drweb does miss loads, as do the others, but im sure IBK doesnt come clean about everything, nor do the developers.

oh no, my windows GUI changer does not work, better ditch my AV...pathetic!

ever played chess n7chavez?..... well, your the pawn to these people.

KMFO. <-QUOTE}

You got my name wrong. Nice one. You call me a pawn and yet you believe what the CEO says when he explains why his product performs badly? That sound like you are the pawn. I do not wish to attack you as a person, and I would appreciate the same from you. That is in no way productive and indeed pointless. I mean simply to say that Dr Web, based on the only thing I have to judge AVs on, is not too good. I hope they prove me wrong but I have given them years to do so and they have not.

[IBK]

{QUOTE->
the ceo of drweb himself, told me just how its filled full of crap (just how much, i dont know) <-QUOTE}
exactly. as long as they do not tell me which files they consider to be garbage (btw, Dr.Web will get the actual misses on Wednesday if they still did not get the DVD's so far), its like I would say Dr.Web detects only 10% and do not give to Dr.Web the possibility to verify this (and improve their product). The difference is that I (and other testers) have no interest in making a product look good or bad to defend tests. You seem to say that the products which score "higher" than Dr.Web in some tests are "worse" than Dr.Web, because Dr.Web does not consider some files to be malware while others do.
Like I said, there will be a report in January showing how much and what impact questionable files had in the test of August. Until that time, its just speculation.

[C.S.J]

{QUOTE-> You got my name wrong. Nice one. You call me a pawn and yet you believe what the CEO says when he explains why his product performs badly? That sound like you are the pawn. I do not wish to attack you as a person, and I would appreciate the same from you. That is in no way productive and indeed pointless. I mean simply to say that Dr Web, based on the only thing I have to judge AVs on, is not too good. I hope they prove me wrong but I have given them years to do so and they have not. <-QUOTE}
My points are valid, whether you accept this or not... it doesnt bother me.

on what scale are they valid, we dont know, but ive told no lies.

big deal, i mis-typed your name, rather me insert another word to replace it?

@IBK, we'll see, but i still think your withholding information.

[BlueZannetti]

To all,

Let's keep the discussion centered on Dr Web, and not users or user product preferences.

One thing to do is computationally work through case scenarios if you're concerned about detection issues. For example, if you assume that half of the Dr. Web misses are junk (that would be ~ 41,000 samples) and that they are really false positives for every other AV, does it really change things?

Well, not really. Do the calculations. Dr Web would weigh in at 94.7% detection. The following AV's would all yield 97+% detection (Avira, AVK, AVG, Bitdefender, eScan, F-Secure, KAV, NOD32, NAV, TrustPort). MS and Forticlient are at just under 90%, while Avast/F-Prot/McAfee/Norman fill out the set in the range of 90-95%. Personally, I don't see seismic shifts in the final tally.

OK, now ask yourself the obvious follow-up question, should you be overly concerned? Personally, I don't think so, even if a single AV is the only security measure that you've implemented. Just to reinforce that I'm not talking purely academic hypotheticals - that's precisely the configuration of the machine I'm typing from now (my main machine) and the AV just happens to be Dr Web V4.44 (sans Spider Mail) owing to some issues that I've been experiencing of late with both ESS beta and KAV V7 on this machine while trying out some other software. Dr Web is not perfect (in the past Spider Mail and Outlook do not seem to agree on my system), but it maintains a level of functionality and compatibility that I find useful.

If you take any measures beyond a single AV, you have even less reason to be concerned.

Blue

[Firecat]

{QUOTE->
@IBK, we'll see, but i still think your withholding information. <-QUOTE}

What do you mean by this? ???

[randomness]

{QUOTE-> from I can gather someone blamed DrWeb for an infection and they person was not happy with the response he got. Apparently using a beta while this happened.
If this was the case with our "software" and someone blamed us for something that I might take offense also <-QUOTE}
Not really, no - the thread I've linked to has a Dr.Web's employee (Eugeny Gladkih) telling negative things about Kaspersky compnay (something like "it is normal for this company to suppress or remove all of the unhappy users of their product on their forums"), telling the random posters to leave the thread and "go to kindergarden and throw poop at each other there" ;D , directly questioning the sanity of certain posters, blaming the Kaspersky fans (from Kaspersky's fan forums) for DDoS attack on certain Dr.Web's site and generally answering in a rather rude, unprofessional manner ;D . Pretty amusing thread to read for everyone who understands Russian (I don't recommend using any automatic translators for it since you'll lose all of the amusement in the translation) ;D B.t.w, it's not the first time I've read such rude/amusing replies from Dr.Web's employees, although it only happens in the Russian section of their forums. Anyway, sorry for the somewhat offtopic information.

[BlueZannetti]

{QUOTE-> Anyway, sorry for the somewhat offtopic information. <-QUOTE}It's not a unique occurrence in this industry, unfortunately. I've seen it happen in just about every AV forum I've ever visited, and occasionally I've been on the receiving end of it as well - from vendor and fellow user. Actually, I really don't quite understand it. Now, let's get back on topic....

Blue

[AndreyKa]

{QUOTE->
the thread I've linked to has a Dr.Web's employee (Eugeny Gladkih) telling negative things about Kaspersky compnay (something like "it is normal for this company to suppress or remove all of the unhappy users of their product on their forums"), telling the random posters to leave the thread and "go to kindergarden and throw poop at each other there" , directly questioning the sanity of certain posters, blaming the Kaspersky fans (from Kaspersky's fan forums) for DDoS attack on certain Dr.Web's site and generally answering in a rather rude, unprofessional manner. <-QUOTE}
You are had linked to tread started by troll. And you can’t to understand Russians language or trying to mislead us.

[Banshee]

Csj,


Would u mind explaining why you think "they" set up the tests so that dr web fails ? Why would anyone try to do that ?

Some people maybe support cavs, clamav and other so so antiviruses but I never seen anyone come up with a bold statement like yours.


Maybe drweb "failed" because it is not as good as you think it is ?

[Bubba]

numerous ot posts removed.

As requested above....let's do keep on topic Please which is the discussion of Drweb Version 4.44....not about religious\satanic non-sense.

Thanks,
Bubba

[C.S.J]

{QUOTE-> Csj,


Would u mind explaining why you think "they" set up the tests so that dr web fails ? Why would anyone try to do that ?

Some people maybe support cavs, clamav and other so so antiviruses but I never seen anyone come up with a bold statement like yours.


Maybe drweb "failed" because it is not as good as you think it is ? <-QUOTE}
i think you mis-read what i wrote, or meant.

ok, i;ll try and explain what i meant, i certainly was having a bad day yesterday and i might just have blurted it out, although today is not much better, but i'll have a go at explaining myself a little more. :D

i mean there are many threats in the test set that others would add to their database and drweb 'choose not to' on these particular threats, drwebs methods are different to those of others, and so the results dont reflect the true percentages/differences for drweb at least, sure you know what i mean here, and im sure IBK does too.

[Banshee]

Oh, I thought you said that they set up the test so that drweb fails the tests.Like on purpose.

Got it now thanks.

[IBK]

{QUOTE-> there are many threats in the test set that others would add to their database and drweb 'choose not to' on these particular threats, drwebs methods are different to those of others, and so the results dont reflect the true percentages/differences for drweb at least, sure you know what i mean here, and im sure IBK does too. <-QUOTE}
yes, and i think its nonsense.

[C.S.J]

{QUOTE-> yes, and i think its nonsense. <-QUOTE}
threats to some, are junk to others... surely you know this.

[fax]

{QUOTE-> threats to some, are junk to others... surely you know this. <-QUOTE}

May be a concrete example would help... :-\

Fax

[C.S.J]

{QUOTE-> May be a concrete example would help... :-\

Fax <-QUOTE}
im not a tester, ask IBK, even kaspersky have lots of junk in their databases, and by junk... i mean, 'threats' that drweb have checked and not added, by choice.

anyway, im gonna end this rant.. people can take from it what they like ;)

:-*

[solcroft]

{QUOTE-> im not a tester, ask IBK, even kaspersky have lots of junk in their databases, and by junk... i mean, 'threats' that drweb have checked and not added, by choice. <-QUOTE}
So how does it all translate to protection for the user?

I can imagine a customer calling tech support now. "Oh don't worry sir, we've decided to not detect the virus that just infected your PC, because it's junk." 8)

[IBK]

{QUOTE-> threats to some, are junk to others... surely you know this. <-QUOTE}
sure, and guess what: there are also threats that are threats in the 80.000 misses. did they decide to do not add them because they have different methods? There are also clean innocent files that DrWeb detects more often than most others. "So the results dont reflect the true percentages/differences for" other AV's at least, which do not have such heuristics with lot of false alarms but detect more malware.
i feel that i start to get angry about all this hype about drweb's results - I could understand it if DrWeb would have failed badly, but a) it got Standard and b) it got nearly same percentage also in AV-test.org tests.

[fax]

{QUOTE-> im not a tester, ask IBK, even kaspersky have lots of junk in their databases, and by junk... i mean, 'threats' that drweb have checked and not added, by choice.

anyway, im gonna end this rant.. people can take from it what they like ;)

:-* <-QUOTE}

Ah.. OK! Thanks for explaining...

I think this is taken care by the tester. I guess there is a constant work to check for the integrity and junk out not valid or not malware samples.
This is the golden rule for serious testers and what makes a test reliable as compared to many virus collector test sites....

Cheers,
Fax

[C.S.J]

{QUOTE-> sure, and guess what: there are also threats that are threats in the 80.000 misses. <-QUOTE}

i never said anything about this, and i am sure there are loads and loads of threats in these missed samples.

[IBK]

I know ;) That's what I call one-side reporting. Its like if someone makes a heuristic test and praises a product for detecting 100% and does not tell that the product also flags many clean files.
for being in e.g. advanced+, drweb could even consider 20000 files to be junk and decide to do not add them. they just need to detect the other 60000.

[C.S.J]

{QUOTE-> I know ;) That's what I call one-side reporting. Its like if someone makes a heuristic test and praises a product for detecting 100% and does not tell that the product also flags many clean files. <-QUOTE}
i dont think you understand what im trying to say IBK, maybe you should before you post. ::)

to come in mentioning missed samples and false postives, it has nothing to do with what im saying.

my points are valid, yet you change the subject.

edit: it does not bother me that drweb keeps a standard or whatever, if it did, i wouldnt be using drweb right? just acknowledge what im saying for a change, maybe

[solcroft]

{QUOTE-> i feel that i start to get angry about all this hype about drweb's results <-QUOTE}
I think it's fairly obvious by now what is going on. A dedicated fan of a particular antivirus product is doing his best to cast doubt on the tester when his pet product doesn't live up to expectations. There isn't even any attempt to propose evidence or sound arguments, just baseless appeals - no need to get angry over that.

[C.S.J]

{QUOTE-> I think it's fairly obvious by now what is going on. A dedicated fan of a particular antivirus product is doing his best to cast doubt on the tester when his pet product doesn't live up to expectations. There isn't even any attempt to propose evidence or sound arguments, just baseless appeals - no need to get angry over that. <-QUOTE}
seriously, your butting in with your brown nose and your comments are un-called for.

[IBK]

hm, maybe i am missing your point then. sorry if i changed the subject, i am currently in a hurry.

[solcroft]

{QUOTE-> seriously, your butting in and your comments are un-called for. <-QUOTE}
Unfortunately, it's not my problem if you decide to take offence at my pointing out a simple fact. Not that I was even addressing you, so if you feel offended at my "butting in" (which I haven't done), then please apply the same advice to yourself.

[IBK]

{QUOTE-> Hello Forum,
Any news when drweb is going to release version 4.44.
Badcompany. <-QUOTE}
I think the thread has going a little bit off-topic.
No, there are no news about when Dr.Web is going to release version 4.44, just some unconfirmed rumors that it could maybe be within 1 month.

[Badcompany]

{QUOTE-> I think the thread has going a little bit off-topic.
No, there are no news about when Dr.Web is going to release version 4.44, just some unconfirmed rumors that it could maybe be within 1 month. <-QUOTE}

Thank you IBK,
Thats all I wanted to know.
Badcompany.

[randomness]

{QUOTE-> And you can’t to understand Russians language or trying to mislead us. <-QUOTE}
LOLz, I have lived in USSR (back when this country used to exist) for 18 years and I have finished all of the 11 classes/grades of a standard school there, with a "Gold Medal" (or whatever that award was called), I can speak (and write, without the need of spelling dictionary of any sorts) perfect Russian, so please keep your baseless accusations to yourself :P
P.S: Looking at your post history, I can see now why you made such incoherent and overly defensive post ;D
P.P.S: Once again, I apologize to teh mods for yet another offtopic post, I promise to contain myself next time I'll open these forums in my browser ;D

[Bubba]

{QUOTE-> Thank you IBK,
Thats all I wanted to know.
Badcompany. <-QUOTE}and with that we'll bring this thread to a close.

Bubba