New german PC-Welt Test by av-test.org

By the way, people should take the accuracy of the scan result into account. Theoretically an antivirus which tries to flag everything as malicious can score 100% in the test, but this antivirus is totally useless in reality. Thus products with high number of false-positive should be used with care (to avoid deleting innocent files). Here are the products with considerably more false positives than the averages ones:
- Dr.Web
- Fortinet
- VBA32
[Source: av-comparatives.org, research in VirusTotal and Jotti VirusScan]

Note: For some products, you may lower their number of false positives considerably by setting their heuristics to low, or switch it off. But you may miss more malware. That's the trade-off you have to consider.

 

Hello,
I have seen Symantec products in action several times, both in home and corporate environment. It's a bloated product hardly worth its price.
Mrk

 

Question Number 1: If Dr.Web should be avoided by all means, how do they manage to get VirusBulletin Awards? (Reference: Oct 2006 VB 100%) You fail there if you have serious fp's.

Question Number 2: Who told you that VirusTotal and Jotti are sources for estaminating false positives? You should keep in mind, that on such online scanning services heuristics are maxed out to the end. 'coz speed doesn't really matter there. That said a installed AV product with normal (default) Settings must not have the same detections as online Scanners.

Question Number 3: Who forces you to run at the highest Heuristic Level IF YOU ALREADY DO KNOW that this most likely produces a certain amount of false positives?

I'm not defending here Dr.Web in particular, but at least we should stay somehow fair. And saying that such products should not be used is utter bullshit, at least regarding Dr.Web

 

I second the Inspectors thoughts to.

 

I was using Antivir back when it was ranked high for FPs, but it sure as hell didnt take away from its detection ability. Dr. Web rules!

 

I’ve been DrWeb user for a long time now and I do experience false positives from time to time but nothing too extreme. You are exaggerating here. IC is right here, you need to check other facts before you come to your own conclusion.


tD

 

Wai Wai:
Run the CureIt scan in your system and report the number of FP

 

Sorry, everyone. A re-read make me realise my tone appears to be too strong. I have toned down my voice.
You know, I can't write everything with absolute care all the time, and "to err is human". Once again, sorry about the confusion caused by my post.

PS: People who have quoted my message may wish to delete or update it, so as to prevent further confusions of other further readers.

 

Inspector Clouseau, yes you are correct and I agree with you wholeheartedly. Sometimes people's minds just get stuck and forget some other factors. Very funny that although I told people not to use AVs with high false positives in this thread; but later when I discussed with another, I told another thing: false positive is not always important. It depends much on how the user handle and treat false positives. It might be a good thing for some people if the AV can achieve more detection rates, even in the cost of more false positives.

 

seems you got the lodore syndrome
i used to post stuff without thinking but im more careful now.
lodore

 

If one is keen on posting, they will suffer. It is just a matter of time.
No one can be careful all the time.

I usually post stuff with some thinking. Still the same thing can happen.
LOL

 

Wai_Wai let it go. You are family here and caught IC at a "moment." Lodore and I have been there to. You have some very informative posts and don’t stop from bringing your thoughts to the front. It is hard for a site like this to manage a lot of different breeds of, origins, intellect, expertise, and lack of those without, (me) the before mentioned attributes. But they actually do a good job and we are all just like a bunch of hens in the hen house. Good days and bad days my friend.

 

ye definatly let it go.
i have bad mouthed products with out prove and i learned my lesson.
lodore

 

Thanks for your forgiveness.
But call me Wai Wai next time (friendlier and no one call my name with underscore; the underscore is there for technical reasons )

What is IC? I'm bad at shorthand.

Good to hear that.

Actually I am an open-minded person, so I am very welcome for such correction and posts (just don't make it too harsh, and explain why I am wrong). But I will feel a bit sad if someone just say "your post is damn rubbish and you are utter bullshxt!! (without any reasons)".

The posts made by Inspector Clouseau, for example, is a good example . The tone is mild so I did not have hard feeling when reading it. Also it does make several good and valid points. It has even provided the reference, so I can investigate further if I need.

I don't mind making mistakes since I don't pretend I must be right all the time, I simply try to explain as accurate as possible within my knowledge. Also it is a good way to learn from mistakes. Someone will finally point out my mistake if I misunderstand something, so I can learn more and gain more (although I learn nothing this time since I do realise all these points, I just forget to take them into account when making the previous post).

I will still eat my my words when I realise so. So don't worry that I am too stubborn all the time.

My two cents worth

 

IC = Inspector Clouseau. Also known by the names of Michael St. Neitzel (real name), Happy Bytes, Cool Daddy, etc. etc.

No offense intended, but it seems that you have not seen the Inspector when he's angry.

 

That is why I refered to it as a ,moment.

 

I don't understand...

 

I agree with IC, concerning Dr.Web, he's right on.

 

Who cares about AV second line of defense?

Black list scanners,bah!

Only good for on - demand second opinion.

Suppose only the paranoid types.

Defensewall - 100%

Sandboxie - 100%

Bufferzone - 100%

Greenborder -100%

Geez you AV backslappers have a lot to learn.

 

Re: WebWasher

Many of the statements (that some object to..) are none-the-less appreciated by 'less knowledgable' (like me)
because they often then result in thoughtful responses that add to my KB.
______________________________________ A question that comes to mind...?

I have not seen any discussion about this 'WebWasher' beyond the above quote..

About six or seven years ago, began to get annoying PopUps while only connected to an FAA
(DUAT = Direct User Access Terminal) Weather/FlightPlanning Terminal.
There would be no other application open, no browser or Email and just downloading Flight & Weather Updates..

At that time, the only message was "Wouldn't you like to have your Company represented in this fashion"

A free install of WebWasher Classic {CYBERG~ARD} (now shows version 3.4 build 67 "177 days used" Configuration Free),
cured this problem for me. This was the first 'anti-spyware' on the system.

It has now run for more than six years on my Win98 System along with NAV and now AntiVir with no problems seen.

I have also subsequently added Spyware Blaster, SpyBot and Ad-Aware to this system, but they must be frequently UpDated,
no clue on how WebWasher updates, except that it HAS Updated since install.

WebWasher runs in the background and must be an 'active' app, but requires no user attention.

Is this the same as what is at the top of the PC-Welt Test? Anyone else use this utility?

 

Re: WebWasher

~removed quote....no need placing a full quote of a post directly above ones post....Bubba~

Good question, I'd like to know that myself. I have also used this program years ago, with Windows 98 SE.

 

As mentioned in another thread, WebWasher uses the engine from Avira.

 

I do not trust to this test at all. There is no logic at all....

If somebody think that this test it true and all others are false, than ok...

 

i think its pretty accurate, and dont understand what you mean by "there is no logic at all", i think the detection and removal of loads of bots etc and stating its percentage is pretty logical to me

 

Inspector Clouseau, Stefan Kurtzhals and vlk replied to this thread, none of them mentioned the test as not trustworthy.