Dr. Web Statement Regarding Virus Bulletin

[cdr]

In case those who might have an interest have not yet seen this... :D
http://info.drweb.com/show/3489/en

[ink]

It is a test which dropped is of no pity, leave as it is ok.

[Fajo]

-{ Quote: "In case those who might have an interest have not yet seen this... :D
http://info.drweb.com/show/3489/en" }-


ROFL we cant pass it so we drop out. :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh:

[ambient_88]

It's bad for the company's publicity when they frequently fail. I believe Trend Micro is also pulling out of Virus Bulletin's test.

[The Hammer]

-{ Quote: "It's bad for the company's publicity when they frequently fail. I believe Trend Micro is also pulling out of Virus Bulletin's test." }-Did Trend issue a statement also?

[LoneWolf]

-{ Quote: "ROFL we cant pass it so we drop out. :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh:" }-

Ahhhh........And the DrWeb bashing begins.
It's a test, only a test, nothing more.

[The Hammer]

Actually I can't see anything in Dr.Web's official statement that I could take issue with, besides they are leaving the door open to a return in the future.

[Fajo]

-{ Quote: "Ahhhh........And the DrWeb bashing begins.
It's a test, only a test, nothing more." }-


kind of like High School..... saying SAT's mean nothing but they should let you into collage anyways ?

[LoneWolf]

-{ Quote: "kind of like High School..... saying SAT's mean nothing but they should let you into collage anyways ?" }-

Compairing a HS test to an AV test ???

[Fajo]

-{ Quote: "Compairing a HS test to an AV test ???" }-

lol you said a Test is just a test. I was pointing out its not.

tests are there to help. there also a hell of a marketing tool but as stated above if you cant pass it. its bad for your company and your visibility. I just find it funny is all

Edit.
I also find it funny how most company's have no problem passing it Eset I think has done it now 50 times in a row. instead of trying to fix the problem or maybe look into other means they simply just cry and drop out.

kind of sounds like high school to me :o

[saberfox]

-{ Quote: "tests are there to help. there also a hell of a marketing tool but as stated above if you cant pass it. its bad for your company and your visibility. I just find it funny is all

Edit.
I also find it funny how most company's have no problem passing it Eset I think has done it now 50 times in a row. instead of trying to fix the problem or maybe look into other means they simply just cry and drop out." }-
Sure, they could spend their time and effort on passing the test, but it's still a question of whether doing so will make their product provide better protection for their customers. And the answer to this is: not necessarily.

VB100% tests are only a legacy; nothing but a dinosaur left over from the 90s era when the certification was actually a legitimate and authoritative endorsement for the product's quality. Unfortunately the malware scape has changed radically while VB100% has not, and the end result is that today the VB100% certificate is nothing but a cheap and meaningless promotional ad for some vendors who still try their best to milk it for all it's worth.

[Fajo]

-{ Quote: "Sure, they could spend their time and effort on passing the test, but it's still a question of whether doing so will make their product provide better protection for their customers. And the answer to this is: not necessarily.

VB100% tests are only a legacy; nothing but a dinosaur left over from the 90s era when the certification was actually a legitimate and authoritative endorsement for the product's quality. Unfortunately the malware scape has changed radically while VB100% has not, and the end result is that today the VB100% certificate is nothing but a cheap and meaningless promotional ad for some vendors who still try their best to milk it for all it's worth." }-

I highly doubt many of the company's that pass the test spend a good portion of there time trying to. that would just be stupid and the Detection rates on other tests would go down. having a scanner that can pick up new old is always good, esp if the computer gets infected with a said variant of one of those test samples. tho the av could not pass the test the computer wanders aimlessly in the wind. last VB I seen on Dweb it missed 44 samples. they used the excuse that they were unprepared. that's all this seems to be is nothing but a excuses to failing a test that if it is so old should be a breeze to pass.

[saberfox]

-{ Quote: "I highly doubt many of the company's that pass the test spend a good portion of there time trying to. that would just be stupid and the Detection rates on other tests would go down. having a scanner that can pick up new old is always good, esp if the computer gets infected with a said variant of one of those test samples. tho the av could not pass the test the computer wanders aimlessly in the wind. last VB I seen on Dweb it missed 44 samples. they used the excuse that they were unprepared. that's all this seems to be is nothing but a excuses to failing a test that if it is so old should be a breeze to pass." }-
Antivirus companies periodically remove old samples that don't warrant detecting anymore from the databases. Engine and heuristics algorithms are constantly tweaked as well to stay efficient against new malware as their programming routines and anti-AV obfuscation techniques continue to evolve. If I remember correctly (I don't really bother keeping up with such antiques), the WildList still includes macro virii that infect Word 95/97 documents; detecting these would make no sense. Just because something is old, doesn't mean it should be detected, or generic signature/heuristics algorithms preserved to detect them at the expense of newer, far more widespread malware. Of course, not being a DrWeb user, I don't know if this is what happened to them, but it doesn't change the fact that the sample set used by the WildList is hopeless irrelevant – both statistically, in terms of sample size, and realistically, in terms of the malware types and variants they choose to (not) include in testing.

At any rate you seem to have fallen into the same old trap of many people who have argued about VB100%. Ultimately the test is about appearances. If you pass this technically irrelevant test, your product appears to still fulfill some minimum passing grade. If you withdraw from it, you appear to be chickening out, so to speak. Facts have long since given way to rhetoric and popular perception.

[Fajo]

-{ Quote: "Antivirus companies periodically remove old samples that don't warrant detecting anymore from the databases. Engine and heuristics algorithms are constantly tweaked as well to stay efficient against new malware as their programming routines and anti-AV obfuscation techniques continue to evolve. If I remember correctly (I don't really bother keeping up with such antiques), the WildList still includes macro virii that infect Word 95/97 documents; detecting these would make no sense. Just because something is old, doesn't mean it should be detected, or generic signature/heuristics algorithms preserved to detect them at the expense of newer, far more widespread malware. Of course, not being a DrWeb user, I don't know if this is what happened to them, but it doesn't change the fact that the sample set used by the WildList is hopeless irrelevant – both statistically, in terms of sample size, and realistically, in terms of the malware types and variants they choose to (not) include in testing.

At any rate you seem to have fallen into the same old trap of many people who have argued about VB100%. Ultimately the test is about appearances. If you pass this technically irrelevant test, your product appears to still fulfill some minimum passing grade. If you withdraw from it, you appear to be chickening out, so to speak. Facts have long since given way to rhetoric and popular perception." }-


Personally I don't care about VB100 or the tests. what I do care about is a virus that was the worst thing to hit Computers 3 years ago could repeat it self if people keep with the Attitude its old who cares... remember the Iloveyou bug that thing destroyed many peoples MP3's and photo's lets take it out of the deff because its old and watch someones 12gig library meet its doom.

you could go round and round this all day long but the fact still stands if you cant detect it then your user's are still vulnerable to it.

edit.
also from a corporations standpoint, some corps do not upgrade there computers but once every 5-8 years. not because they cant but because they would be running the same crappy software on just new systems. it all depends on the point of view and where the person stands so in some respects tests are all point of views I guess.

I don't see them as "Chickening out" I see them as making up more excuses for why something is the way it is. when the TOP contenders in detection have no problem passing it ether. why still detecting more virus's then any other.

[saberfox]

-{ Quote: "Personally I don't care about VB100 or the tests. what I do care about is a virus that was the worst thing to hit Computers 3 years ago could repeat it self if people keep with the Attitude its old who cares... remember the Iloveyou bug that thing destroyed many peoples MP3's and photo's lets take it out of the deff because its old and watch someones 12gig library meet its doom.

you could go round and round this all day long but the fact still stands if you cant detect it then your user's are still vulnerable to it." }-
Scare stories that are irrelevant to reality. I can tell you that the antivirus product you have in your signature does not detect all variants of the CIH virus that destroys the (hardware) BIOS and essentially renders the entire computer unusable, not just your data. Would you be concerned by this? I didn't think so.

No, just because an antivirus product does not detect virus X doesn't mean its users are vulnerable to it. Things aren't as simple as that. But that's for another post entirely.

As for what you see them as, you're only proving my point. The VB100% test is more about appearances than facts. Never mind that VB100% ceased to be relevant a long time ago, the companies who realize this and choose to not endorse and participate in a meaningless test are perceived as only making excuses.

[Fajo]

-{ Quote: "Scare stories that are irrelevant to reality. I can tell you that the antivirus product you have in your signature does not detect all variants of the CIH virus that destroys the (hardware) BIOS and essentially renders the entire computer unusable, not just your data. Would you be concerned by this? I didn't think so.

No, just because an antivirus product does not detect virus X doesn't mean its users are vulnerable to it. Things aren't as simple as that. But that's for another post entirely.

As for what you see them as, you're only proving my point. The VB100% test is more about appearances than facts. Never mind that VB100% ceased to be relevant a long time ago, the companies who realize this and choose to not endorse and participate in a meaningless test are perceived as only making excuses." }-


:dry: around and around all day. here we go. good night ;)

[waters]

It will do them harm,that is why they gave a statement.If they could pass it they would stay in it .As they said,
Virus Bulletin is one of the most respected titles devoted to prevention, detection and removal of malware and spam.

[Firecat]

I am holding my comments on this one; but it appears Dr.Web has been "frustrated" in recent days from its not so good performances in the test.....:P :)

[trjam]

and is that surprising. I realy cant fathom how people still buy their garbage and think they are getting a premeir product. They are so far behind in this game and this statement is a pitiful attepmt to save face.

[saffron]

-{ Quote: "and is that surprising. I realy cant fathom how people still buy their garbage and think they are getting a premeir product. They are so far behind in this game and this statement is a pitiful attepmt to save face." }-

It's turning into an "If I can't win, I won't enter" world. Many other AVs are far more deserving of the "garbage" tag than Dr. Web, but it's a fact that every AV that has opted out of VB tests is an AV that couldn't cut the mustard in the test.

edit:
I often read "VB100 is easy to pass because they test only against wildlisted viruses." If it's so easy to pass, why do so many AVs fail so often ?

[risl]

Dr.Web is the best piece of security software I've ever bought and I still don't have any reason to switch for another. When I'm buying their software, I'm getting:

-A product that doesn't produce errors and is extremely stable
-A product that doesn't have conflicts with other software I have
- .. has been developed for over a decade
- .. updates definitions many times per day, or even hour
- .. engine/etc. updates have never been problematic
- .. is light and doesn't slow down anything
- .. can be tweaked exactly the way I want it
- .. is very cheap
- .. plus, fast replies to support requests and it usually takes only a few hours to add new virus record if I send them a sample.

I don't understand people who buy lots of different software and don't have any product loyality, is it because those premium products don't satisfy? Probably same people that have CureIt for backup or somehow end up dowloading it.

Fajo, IF Avira would fail a VB test or would do bad in some other test, would you still think these tests are worthy or would you switch software? When was the last time you've seen a Dr.Web user asking for help with his/her malware infected computer?

..And of course, if dr.web would do good in some other test, it must be suddenly meaningless and no good, or would it?. :)

[risl]

-{ Quote: "It's turning into an "If I can't win, I won't enter" world. Many other AVs are far more deserving of the "garbage" tag than Dr. Web, but it's a fact that every AV that has opted out of VB tests is an AV that couldn't cut the mustard in the test.

edit:
I often read "VB100 is easy to pass because they test only against wildlisted viruses." If it's so easy to pass, why do so many AVs fail so often ?" }-

Probably because not every AV have representative in WildList.org and get access to the "test set" before the actual test.

[C.S.J]

-{ Quote: "Probably because not every AV have representative in WildList.org and get access to the "test set" before the actual test." }-
not only that, have you seen the wildlist, its certainly not malware that is in the wild infecting their customers....

drweb see this more and more with their latest technology AV-DESK (yes, drweb not only thinks of new technologys, but creates them too) , the service shows real malware on infected machines not this crappy wildlist that some avs use to claim a nice little logo for their website.

brilliant minds and fantastic coders are no substitute for a mediocre-propaganda product that hoodwinks its customers.

[Firecat]

-{ Quote: "Probably because not every AV have representative in WildList.org and get access to the "test set" before the actual test." }-
It is irrelevant because for example even AV-comparatives does not have access to the WildList; but they get all the samples in it regardless....

[Firecat]

-{ Quote: "Fajo, IF Avira would fail a VB test or would do bad in some other test, would you still think these tests are worthy or would you switch software?" }-

It does depend doesn't it......Dr.Web has not had a consistent good performance in VB100 for a long while now. If a product has one failure and passes the next three again; then I wouldn't really care because occasional problems do happen. On the other hand, consistent bad performances do not speak well at all about any product.

Thing is; we have seen Dr.Web comment on AV-comparatives and now even Virus Bulletin. It strikes me as odd that suddenly Dr.Web performs not so good on both these tests and they immediately pull out and start throwing some PR statement. I might have understood about AV-comparatives but given that this is the second test they have "slammed", I am beginning to suspect something.

-{ Quote: "-A product that doesn't produce errors and is extremely stable" }-

Malware-test lab (which appears to be now defunct) and AV-comparatives have had problems with the stability of Dr.Web, as noted in AV-comparatives' PDF file of August 2007 where it was noted that in all on-demand tests so far, Dr.Web has been found to crash on several (in that case 10) infected samples.

While personally I have never experienced such problems; this is indeed something to note.

-{ Quote: "is light and doesn't slow down anything" }-

Only if you use the Smart Scan for the real-time monitor - I remember that if I enabled both Create and Write and Run and Open mode at the same time then I would have a significant slowdown.

-{ Quote: "- .. plus, fast replies to support requests and it usually takes only a few hours to add new virus record if I send them a sample." }-

That used to be so once upon a time; the last 2 or 3 times I sent them samples; they added very few....

I'm not trying to put down Dr.Web - the product has excellent malware removal capability. The point is that with this news it appears that Dr.Web is just frustrated with their failures. For their good I hope they come out with version 5 fast.....

[risl]

I believe it was fixed some time ago, that when trying to delete lots of files it would crash. I'm not sure though, but I remember it was some release that contained a lot of bug fixes.

Could it be possible that it's their corporate clients and so on, who demand explanation why they don't participate in testing anymore? But it is of course true that failing tests isn't good publicity.

I just don't understand people who state some products are garbage or crap and they've never even tried the software(or used it longer than few days before switching to some another, to switch for another.)

The thing for me is: scanning some collection of malware and detecting files x, y, z, q isn't "performing", but using some security software without problems and staying malware free for years .. is "performing."

Smart scan has changed, it will scan a file if it gets written and if a file is executed. For example, if I download some trojan .. it will popup detection just after the browser/p2p program/etc says it's 100%. Will get detected also when I copy the trojan from one folder/drive to another. I remember it used to detect only when I tried to run the malware.

Well, anyway afterall.. my point was that Dr.Web shouldn't be called garbage because it's a reputable AV and some people bashing it have zero experience of it or know only little about it. But I don't argue with the fact that failing tests is bad publicity.

[kjempen]

Are there any tests that DrWeb still partakes in? If so, which? Or are they too good to be part of any test?

[ola nordmann]

Perhaps they got too busy working on their famous Win32.Ntldrbot (aka Rustock.C) that they forgot there were other viruses out there? ;D

Their front-page still claims their the only one to get rid of this rootkit. That's a bit out-dated isn't it?

[risl]

They are listed in shadowserver.org and anti-malware-test.com .. don't know about others

[C.S.J]

-{ Quote: "Perhaps they got too busy working on their famous Win32.Ntldrbot (aka Rustock.C) that they forgot there were other viruses out there? ;D

Their front-page still claims their the only one to get rid of this rootkit. That's a bit out-dated isn't it?" }-
of course it is,

its on the news..... it is dated if you look closely, 6th May.

[ola nordmann]

-{ Quote: "of course it is,

its on the news..... it is dated if you look closely, 6th May." }-
My point is that the "news" is still right there on the front page, and I can't see no date. That is unless you click to read more.

I just think Dr.Web is making too much fuzz about this single rootkit, and how proud they are of being the first to remove it.

But what about other malware that they fail to detect? From my own experience from both work and helping others fixing their computers, I have encounter lots of malware that Dr.Web misses. Whenever I come across a new malware (often a trojan or rough antispyware) I always upload to VirusTotal. And very often the malware is detected by almost every AV except some of the smaller vendors like Dr.Web, AhnLab, VBA32... What can I say, it's just my experience, but I base it on working with LOTS of computers running different setups.

I think some of the Dr.Web "fans" here believe it's some sort of über-AV that never fails, and they argue with the fact that few people need help with infections when they use Dr.Web. But on the other hand, Dr.Web is a relatively small vendor, so it's not at all strange that more people get infected with Norton, McAfee, Trend or whatever...

Fewer customers means fewer users with problems - it's simple mathematics ;)

[C.S.J]

-{ Quote: "My point is that the "news" is still right there on the front page, and I can't see no date. That is unless you click to read more.

I just think Dr.Web is making too much fuzz about this single rootkit, and how proud they are of being the first to remove it.

But what about other malware that they fail to detect? From my own experience from both work and helping others fixing their computers, I have encounter lots of malware that Dr.Web misses. Whenever I come across a new malware (often a trojan or rough antispyware) I always upload to VirusTotal. And very often the malware is detected by almost every AV except some of the smaller vendors like Dr.Web, AhnLab, VBA32... What can I say, it's just my experience, but I base it on working with LOTS of computers running different setups.

I think some of the Dr.Web "fans" here believe it's some sort of über-AV that never fails, and they argue with the fact that few people need help with infections when they use Dr.Web. But on the other hand, Dr.Web is a relatively small vendor, so it's not at all strange that more people get infected with Norton, McAfee, Trend or whatever..." }-
yes, because the front page is made using the news section,

i dont think its the actual rootkit they are proud of, its the fact their lab found it and cured it with great work, its their lab/staff that they are showing, same thing happened with the Stealth MBR rootkit aswell this year, again the news was to show drwebs lab abilities and to show their staff can not only detect it (or to detect an .exe either) but to cure a customers computer of the threat, this is and always will be Drwebs way of business.

all av's miss things, this is the story of all, according to prevx's daily chart - the lovely Avira miss over 1000 'real' samples on 'real' machines PER DAY, but they have no removal for when the signature does arrive, so whats the point? - deleting the .exe is not a clean

but you shouldnt put too much faith in VirusTotal either, i have seen, and actually have 'hundreds' of samples that while VT says "nothing detected", on my machine.... it is detected.

fact is though, the removal is there ready for the signature to be added, and drweb offer many updates per day, including weekends if something should becoming a higher risk, i know i will be protected throughout the week, unlike alot of others who would have to simply back your stuff up and return once again to a full restore/format.

drweb add signatures for threats 'they believe' to be threats to customers
drweb add signatures only when a removal procedure has been included

Drwebs latest technology, AV-DESK is a big success so far and is helping drweb for sure, on more 'real threats' rather than a crappy wildlist, or a 1 million sample set that nobody but virus collectors will ever see, once again drweb are showing their business includes developing new technologys that 'they' have thought of themselves and creating it, again... alot of companys do NOT do this, from online file scanning right through to the latest shield technology and av-desk service for ISP's, i only wonder what drweb will create to improve next. :thumb:

if not, and everything else fails, drweb offers fantastic support, 2nd to none, again unlike 'some others' if all else fails to remove such a threat, they offer clear instructions in a speedy manner.

can i ask, have you tried Drweb Antivirus?

thats my thoughts anyway, and i think some of these 'bashing' comments from 'those lot' are expected for this place.

[emperordarius]

Just a question, will Dr.Web be included in the August Av-Comparative test???

[ola nordmann]

C.S.J.,

I'm definitely not here to bash any product. I have nothing against Dr.Web, and I also like supporting smaller companies in competition with multinational giants. Often small companies make equally good or better products than their larger counterparts.

I have also used Dr.Web (otherwise I wouldn't comment on it :thumb: ), but it has never been my primary AV. I have mostly only used Dr.Web Cure-It, but I have also used a trial version of the full Dr.Web, and done a little bit of beta-testing. Being an "oldschool" kind of guy, I like the oldschool style of Dr.Web's GUI without all the unnecessary animations and shiny buttons you find in some competitors.

But my biggest problem was the fact that on-demand scanning is slooooow :( Some people say it's more thorough than other scanners, but sounds a bit fuzzy without documentation to back it up. Actually last time I tried Cure-It with default settings it was less thorough than most other on-demand scanners, because it excluded a lot of files by default (incl. *.zip and other archives). But it was still slow...

Another thing; you emphasize the importance of proper cleaning. Yes, in many cases it's important. If your work consists of helping people with cleaning infected computers you would naturally choose an AV with exceptional cleaning abilities. But in other scenarios cleaning is less important, or maybe not needed at all. For instance I run AV on servers, and here I only need detection. The simple reason is that no software is ever run on the server, they are only inactive files stored on file-server, mailserver etc. So what is important is the best detection (incl. proactive detection of unknown threats). Cleaning is never an issue because the server itself is never compromised. BTW, the servers also run linux and are therefor unaffected by windows-malware. Not that it matters much though...

And it's not true that Avira doesn't remove any malware. But I think it's recommended to use safe mode (or even the bootable linux-based scanner) to fully remove active malware. Yes, Dr.Web may be better at removal than Avira, but Avira isn't useless like you seem to imply. Why does discussions like this always end up with Dr.Web vs. Avira? I never mentioned Avira... I am far from no fanboy, and I use multiple AVs on different computers (F-Prot, Kaspersky, NOD32, Avira)

And why should an AV-vendor hold back signatures because a perfect cure isn't yet available? Isn't an "imperfect" fix better than nothing at all? ??? After all it can prevent futher spreading of new malware...

[Arup]

Unlike other fanboyz who keep interjecting on Avira threads with their rants I wouldn't come and add salt to the injury here but since Avira has been mentioned let me clarify, Avira's superior detection rate keeps you cleaner than most and when you do get infected, Avira will inform you before anyone else and will even do a fairly good job of removing most of them as indicated by tests done but then now that the tests show the various fanboyz favorites in poor light, I guess they have no relevance for them.

[C.S.J]

-{ Quote: "C.S.J.,

I'm definitely not here to bash any product. I have nothing against Dr.Web, and I also like supporting smaller companies in compatition with multinational giants.

I have also used Dr.Web (otherwise I wouldn't comment on it :thumb: ), but it has never been my primary AV. I have mostly only used Dr.Web Cure-It, but I have also used a trial version of the full Dr.Web. Being an "oldschool" kind of guy, I like the oldschool style of Dr.Web's GUI without all the unnecessary animations and shiny buttons you find in some competitors.

But my biggest problem was the fact that on-demand scanning is slooooow :( Some people say it's more thorough than other scanners, but sounds a bit fuzzy without more information to back it up. Actually last time I tried Cure-It with default settings it was less thorough than most other on-demand scanners, because it excluded a lot of files by default (incl. *.zip and other archives). But it was still slow...

Another thing; you emphasize the importance of proper cleaning. Yes, in many cases it's important. If your work consists of helping people with cleaning infected computers you would naturally choose an AV with exceptional cleaning abilities. But in other scenarios cleaning is less important, or maybe not needed at all. For instance I run AV on servers, and here I only need detection. The simple reason is that no software is ever run on the server, they are only inactive files stored on file-server, mailserver etc. So what is important is the best detection (incl. proactive detection of unknown threats). Cleaning is never an issue because the server itself is never compromised. BTW, the servers also run linux and are therefor unaffected by windows-malware. Not that it matters much though...

And it's not true that Avira doesn't remove any malware. But I think it's recommended to use safe mode (or even the bootable linux-based scanner) to fully remove active malware. Yes, Dr.Web may be better at removal than Avira, but Avira isn't useless like you seem to imply. Why does discussions like this always end up with Dr.Web vs. Avira? I never mentioned Avira...

And why should an AV-vendor hold back signatures because a perfect cure isn't yet available? Isn't an "imperfect" fix better than nothing at all? ???" }-
no, i didnt say you were bashing but there are some on here are do, they feel the need to enter a drweb thread just to say so.

yes, we would all like a faster scanner, me included and v5 will increase it by 10-30%, but drweb like to scan deeply with massive unpacking abilities, some may say this is useless, but if by doing this it finds just 1 infected file on a customers computer, to me its worthwhile.

i dont agree with the imperfect fix, because while it may say 'deleted', most likely it has not, and yet you would use your computer believing so, because people do trust (on the worldwide majority) what they AV says.

but to swing this back on topic, VB tests are completely useless, drweb have not had access to the wildlist files as others have or a while now (dont know if this is still the case) or maybe i mis-translated, but they still didnt have access to something that the others did, i found this to be unfair, but a big problem that drweb has with VB is the files 'they say' are in the wild and an actual threat to users, drwebs lab does not see the same results.

wont mention any names, but some AV's get the list, detect those threats just to claim this little logo on their website, even if it offers no relevance to real protection, because people do believe those to be superior, yet a few p2p downloads and that AV fails quite impressively.

AV-Desk gives drweb a very good option to see what malware actually is attacking the joe-public, and offers protection (aswell as their usual methods) for these files.

alot of the 99% avs receive the missed samples from Av-test or whatever, dont manually check them and simply just add them to their database, this doesnt seem right to me and offers no real protection. ANY av could add all those missed samples in less than 20 minutes and move on, but drweb have their methods, as do others have theirs.

[ronjor]

Let's keep other antivirus program discussions out of this thread. If it can't be done, the thread will be closed.

[BlueZannetti]

Folks,

Read and understand ronjor's post. Using quotes to try to finesse the admonishment will not be tolerated. Stay on topic.

Blue

[risl]

Well, I'm not a Dr.Web "fan", but just an ordinary user who is not that intrested in how much in percentages it detects here, there, or somewhere in sites like x, y, q, or z that have been testing scanners on a collections of viruses since homo erectus invented the fire.

But I do care about software that suites my needs, works well with my setup and doesn't annoy me in any way. Dr.Web does that for me.