Doctor Web, Ltd. launches beta-testing of a new generation anti-virus

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Honyak, Dec 30, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Badcompany

    Badcompany Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    Posts:
    757
    Location:
    RUNCORN UK.
    Hello Forum,
    Are there any screen-shots of Drweb version 5 or beta, I would like to see how it is looking.
    Badcompany.
     
  2. Blackcat

    Blackcat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    4,024
    Location:
    Christchurch, UK
    Version 5 is not even in an alpha stage yet and the new beta shows no marked change from the official release. Main changes in the new beta have been to the engine and therefore GUI etc remains the same.
     
  3. dan_maran

    dan_maran Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2004
    Posts:
    1,053
    Location:
    98031
    And is stated to be a little farther off than once expected as other aspects have taken priority. :)
     
  4. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    i think there is another 4.xx release before 5, but aspects of version 5 will be implemented through updates as time goes on, instead of one big new release.

    the timeframe suggests Q2 2007, as heard.. the GUI is there, but they aint completly satisifed with it so i was told.
     
  5. Blackcat

    Blackcat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    4,024
    Location:
    Christchurch, UK
    Very optimistic. Compared to other vendors, Dr Web has a very small team and so new versions will take them a lot longer to code, test and then release. Look how long it has taken Frisk, another small vendor, to push out their new version.
     
  6. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2007
  7. Londonbeat

    Londonbeat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2006
    Posts:
    350
    The beta found two more suspicious files than the released version, the total files scanned for the beta was also two more than the released version, any link?

    Londonbeat
     
  8. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    there is no link, the test was done by yours truly.

    yes the same files were scanned and i too noticed the beta scanned 2 more files, but i dont make the software, so i dont know what it means, highest settings were used on both.

    summary
    beta found 73 infections more,
    2 more suspicious files,
    1 joke program more,
    1 more riskwares too

    so the beta do has some good strengths over the released version, although there is an FP issue but we all know that with how they have put the beta together, as thats the point of it, to get the fp's out for when its released.

    but the test-set are all 'dodgy' files, non corrupted and all are packed, so it is nice to see the difference between the two.

    hope you likes,
    would be nice to get your views or maybe your experiences between the two.

    chris


    -------------
    if you work out percentages on files scanned, here are the results, i know these aint conclusive, but thought id say it anyway.

    on my 'dodgy file pack' detection were as follows:

    dr.web Released version - 74.4% detected malware in the pack
    dr.web BETA version - 75.8% detected malware in the pack

    and for curiously, i tried:

    Antivir Classic edition - 83.8% detected malware in the pack
    Nod32 2.7 - 59.2% detected malware in the pack *shocking*
    F-secure 2007 - 74.0% detected malware in the pack

    dr.web seems to be similar to f-secure on my pack of dodgys, while antivir surpasses as expected, but only by 8% on dr.web beta, so this isnt too bad, nod was shocking and yes i did use all highest settings including blackspears suggestions.

    as i said, its not conclusive, but on the tests i did ... these were the results achieved,i hope people find it an interesting read. :)

    Click here for the test-list of viruses scanned for, i know there are listed more on the count of viruses, but each vendor counts them differently, so dont go off that.
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2007
  9. Serge Popov

    Serge Popov AV Expert

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2006
    Posts:
    41
    I believe these configuration parameters are documented:

    [SpIDerGuardNT]
    MaxFileSizeToExtract=int
    CompressionCheckThreshold=int

    So you can fine tune archive scanning. But most of the time its ok not to scan archives on-access at all because a file must be unpacked before it can make any harm.
     
  10. dan_maran

    dan_maran Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2004
    Posts:
    1,053
    Location:
    98031
    I take all tests at face value (even the ones I do). So I would like to point out to those who aren't going to take the time to read the files list, there are > 20,000 files that need not be included this test. These files include DOS viruses, Nukers, Flooders, VirTools, etc. These files could greatly influence the results of this test, as that is roughly 33% of the files.
    Need to do some pruning :)

    Back to the topic at hand.

    The Dr is simply cruising on my notebook leaving only small foot print and no afore mentioned virtual memory issues. Origin detectins have been on par thus far.
     
  11. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    yep the test i did did include those you mentioned, but thats how i wanted it, it wasnt a mistake to keep them in, and the results were interesting.
     
  12. pipester

    pipester Guest

    Post removed by me.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 11, 2007
  13. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,102
    Location:
    North Carolina USA
    yep Chris, I am impressed with the beta to. It really looks promising. Serge, you guys have done a great job.
     
  14. ASpace

    ASpace Guest


    AV-Comparatives show they do produce lots of false-positivies
    www.av-comparatives.org
     
  15. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,102
    Location:
    North Carolina USA
    well, so did Antivir last year for a period.
     
  16. Banshee

    Banshee Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Posts:
    550
    trjam, did you get rid of avira ?
     
  17. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,102
    Location:
    North Carolina USA
    Never. I have it on my main. But I like Dr Web and the beta so I thought I would help and discuss it to. It is on my laptop and it gets as much work on it as the other. Remember, dont just change because it is the latest fad here. All are good, but I want to help with this beta.
     
  18. tsilo

    tsilo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Posts:
    376
    I found Dr.Web ver. 4.33.3.01092

    It's real?
     
  19. Banshee

    Banshee Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Posts:
    550


    I see :). Yesterday I installed the latest kaspersky beta but it was crashing my jetico1 so i removed it.

    Today I installed DrWeb out of curiosity but it does slow my system down.
    I installed the whole thing (spidermail etc etc).

    I'll keep DrWeb for another few days and see how it does..
     
  20. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    yep according to that, thats true. but it did still score 34% on the test you mentioned.

    but, it really wouldnt get ICSA labs testing certificate if it was bad at false positives, as zero FP's are needed for that, heuristics are finding fps but as serge said, that is the case with all of them ... although some are producing more than others, which will be worked on im sure on drwebs behalf.
     
  21. theshadow247

    theshadow247 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Posts:
    323
    Location:
    ontario.canada
    hi.tsilo.where did you find.Dr.Web ver. 4.33.3.01092 ?and is it beta or a full version...
     
  22. Technodrome

    Technodrome Security Expert

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Posts:
    2,140
    Location:
    New York

    Ahem…”A lot” or “many” are harsh words here. Sure, it produces false positives but so does everyone else. If you want to go by AV-Comparatives fine but to me my real life experience with DrWeb is the only test I will ever need. When it comes to that it passes with flying colors.

    But just in case your are a hardcore av test believer :D check DrWeb status at Virus Bulletin site and see how they pass it very frequently.


    tD
     
  23. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,102
    Location:
    North Carolina USA
    My first chance to do a full scan with the beta and no FPs and everything clean, as I knew it would be. Man it is light.:)
     
  24. Miyagi

    Miyagi Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2005
    Posts:
    426
    Location:
    None
    Light, quick, bothersome... just the on-demand scanner needs tweeking. :)
     
  25. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    agree :thumb:

    ive noticed a few new faces joining the doctor on here lately or at the very least enquiring about it, this is good news :) yeaaah.

    my only disappointment with drweb is its scan speed, so not too much to worry about here from my point of view, and still a happy customer, still using the beta and all is fine, no errors as of yet.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.