Dr.Web Experiences?

I agree on the part where an AV is useless if it fails post-infection detection. Also cleaning because a common user won't even know how to kill processes and clean registry.

IMO any AV without a r/t protector and file system monitor is pretty much out of the game right now in terms of a primary AV; sandboxes should also be a standard over static heuristics too. CureIt does what it's marketed to, a lightweight and portable AV. Their premium solutions have enough r/t functionality to contend.

 

My times using Dr Web found it to be very good. I would still use it now if you want to know the truth except its pricing structure on multiple computers, but dont ever think it cant compete with the rest here because it is very good. It stays under the radar so malware writers dont really go after it, and for a consumer that is a good thang.

 

ROFL. You cant use free trials on corporate computers in the sense your talking about. I also have 7 computers in my home. And all of them have current AV software that is licensed and up to date. If you believe something is of value you pay for it, Not loaf off free trials for months on end.

Next time don't assume something you could not possibly know in the first place.

 

"Loafing off free trials", has been my experience with DrWeb antivirus,but if I were going to run a real time,it would be in the top of my list.

I LIKE the GUI,say whatever you want about old school GUI's, like SuperAntiSpyWare and DrWeb,they are clear,and easy to navigate. (intuitive)

I do use Cureit,at least twice a month,as on-demand,and it is great.
At one point I had a bug,where a pop-up message told me malware had been detected,after the scan completed,and the GUI said no detection.

I registered on the DrWeb forum,and was referred to their customer service,where I received treatment one normally gets, only as a paying customer. (If then!!)
The bug was acknowledged,after a trouble shooting session,and fixed.

DrWeb, on the whole, seems eminently honorable,and pretty much a class act.

Ps#despite a pretty good user base,you do not see a lot of "walking infected" check into the Dr.Web forums.
That tells me something.

 

is the interface REALLY that slow to load? please dont exagerate something to prove ur point. and remember right clicking on Local Disk and pressing "scan C:\"? apparently thats a lot of clicks...

thats all the input i wanted to add.

 

Languy99 has just uploaded a test of DrWeb 5. Not very impressive results. But also of interest was the programs used to clean up the mess left and their relative utility.

 

ive seen the video and when he uses HMP, i notice all the files in /temp, but doesnt drwebs real-time screens show they were blocked, not deleted so kinda obvious they remain in /temp and exactly the same from the MBAM result?

didnt watch it all, but isnt that what happened?

also, he shows the task manager and says all these things got through, but i only see the kill1.exe or whatever it was called, and no pop ups, redirects or anything on the machine.

also, i found it rather funny to see which AV's detected the temp files and which ones did not. *ROFLMAO*

 

I believe it was in quantitative research that over 100 units/variables is the minimum to get atleast somewhat meaningful statistics. Otherwise the research is unreliable and doesn't tell anything. The "whole picture" is not displayed with a test of 5-7 samples as the accuracy of the test is determined by how the samples are selected, which type of samples are selected, which program settings are used and how many samples are used.

This applies to any antivirus testing, otherwise it's just random incidents that don't lead to any valid conclusions. Stating "not recommended" because of five samples shows unprofessionalism.

To test with maximum reliability and validity, I see it should be done with following requirements:

1. Hundreds or thousands of samples used
2. Samples are from different malware categories, if not then limited to only one category. If every category is used then amounts of samples should be in balance.
3. Samples are significant, meaning ITW-malware. Malware for systems like win95 should not be tested anymore.
4. Samples are collected from all over the world with regional balance
5. Every sample is verified to be capable of infecting a computer and perform malicious actions
6. Scanning results are interpreted correctly, as some scanners might show 57090 total files scanned and some scanner will say 57200 but same amount of data is tested. Droppers for example might cause this.

 

It goes without saying that a sample size of 10 pales when compared to a testbed in the thousands- but on the other hand if product Z fails to detect 5 out of 10 conclusions can be drawn (generally speaking- no comment on the merits of DrWeb).

 

What conclusions?

Conclusion that it will detect around half of every sample there is? Or it detected half of the samples but this could be a coincidence and it might detect the next 10 samples?

.. or just a conclusion that every av has the same weakness? .. or the same old that antiviruses don't give you 100%

Just trying to prove why conclusions made according to these "youtube testers" are worth nothing.

 

So what you are saying is that if you received let us say 4 emails with a malware file in it and your current AM system allowed your computer to be infected by 2 of them you would stay with it?

 

Its not matter of fact that one stay with an AV or not one should concentrate on cleaning the infected computer

Coz no AV can detect 100% so solution is to use layered setup or atleast use brains while clicking the mouse

 

For those interested you might want to check out Raymonds Blog today. And that is all I will say on that today.

 

Anyways i have no special comments for Dr. Web AV, because you guys are already know about it.

As far as my testing is concerned i have found it bit heavy with mediocre detection rate. On-Access Scanner is really good, but when system is heavily infected then Dr. Web starts to crawl like spider...

 

I like the new Web, but from a pricing stand point with 4 computers, it would be ridiculous in price. Even I have a few ethics.

 

Amen.

rat

 

Installed today working smooth and light
But the scanner still has to be looked properly

 

Last night I updated and ran DrWeb Cureit; first the quick scan, detected nothing, then the deep scan. My monitor screen turned dark purple with blue gibberish. The Ctrl, Alt, Delete keys did nothing; I ended up pressing restart on my computer. Everything returned to normal so no damage was done. However, this is not the first time DrWeb Cureit has failed to function properly for me. Has anyone else experienced anything like this? When it has worked as it should I believe it to be a very good program.

But now I am thinking of discontinuing using it. Any suggestions for a good free antivirus software that I can use as an on demand scanner. I have Symantec Corporate Edition as my real time antivirus software.

All replies will be appreciated and I would thank you in advance.

John

 

im really unforgiving when paid for software hoses my pc! i was loving dr web until a component update caused havok! i have given up on traditional av and am just using prevx with safe online and winpatrol plus and a router.
i have 3 paid for licenses i probably wont be using again.

 

The memory usage of Dr Web is always high(~90Mb) even when Idle and during any file access it shoots to 110Mb and my computer becomes unresponsive for sometime before regaining the steady state