Drweb Version 4.44

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

What do you mean by this?

 

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" , 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 . 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) 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.

 

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

 

You are had linked to tread started by troll. And you can’t to understand Russians language or trying to mislead us.

 

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 ?

 

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

 

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.

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.

 

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

Got it now thanks.

 

yes, and i think its nonsense.

 

threats to some, are junk to others... surely you know this.

 

May be a concrete example would help...

Fax

 

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

 

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."

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

seriously, your butting in with your brown nose and your comments are un-called for.

 

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