Very quick response from DrWeb!!!

Hi,

Submitted 2 supect files to DrWeb this evening at 21.53 GMT

Dr Web responded at at 10.24pm GMT . Now that is a quick response

Viruses: Trojan.Proxy.3335, Trojan.Packed.189.

Thank you for the cooperation.

--
Yours sincerely,
Virus Monitoring Service Doctor Web Ltd.


I also found an origin detection over the weekend and submitted that. 5 mins later emailed back with exact detection added.


Seems like Dr Web are now adding virus defs really quickly.

Keep up the good work Dr Web.

Cheers

Jlo

 

they have always added them quickly, but it really is.... hit or miss.

ive had samples get checked within a minute, and some not checked at all.

still, it has improved....

not bad for skeleton staff, as it is their christmas now, nice to see samples and updates are still arriving

 

Well I had exactly the same as your experience. Last year I ran Dr Web and found that somtimes samples added really quickly and sometimes it could be weeks. I would then open up a support case with the tracking and number and it would then get sorted.

Thats what drove me away from Dr Web. Still think its a great program but am using KIS with A-Squared and on laptop using NIS2009 with Prevx edge so have no need to another licence.

I also had a licence for Bitdefender but again there sample submission process took ages.

Another AV thats improving is Avast. They were slow to add samples but now I notice detection either the next day or day after in many cases.

Cheers

Jlo

 

I've had similar experiences, sometimes my samples are completely ignored or take very long and sometimes I get a response within an hour. False positives have been always quickly fixed, though.

Perhaps it's something related to traffic getting blocked/filtered at some point.

 

I have about 3 experiences and all had very long time... (weeks). One of then I showed the ticket here in WIlders months ago... but got no response...

 

They better be fast as they don't detect as many bad's as other top a/v's to start with.

 

I can inform, that DrWeb does not add in the bases dust and "broken" files which, probably, once and were viruses. It is a position of principle. It is a fair position. Speed of processing of the user tickets has increased now after introduction in a robot-output agent system.
For certain to receive the ticket it is necessary to send necessarily the sample through the web form on an official site and to place the inquiry in a correct category. It will essentially increase both speed of processing of inquiry and answer reception.

 

Thanks for your reply SerM,

Great to hear things are improving.

Best wishes

Jlo

 

things are always improving jlo

 

Can you explain your post,please?Are you saying that bases dust/broken files,whatever those term's mean are old and can not or would not infect a computer as of today,there for Dr Web chose not to use or add them to their database?

 

no. we don't add broken samples which cannot infect or even cannot run at all.

 

Hi,pugmug
One of heads of the company (format_c) has already answered your question. I will respond such example:
KAV, he AVP, very much likes to find viruses there where they are not present. DrWeb is in this respect much more fair - if the program is not a virus or was a virus, but is hurt and disabled, he will not shout, that the virus is found out. KAV for a long time is engaged in frank and impudent censorship of a software, added in the virus bases of the program which are not viruses, for various reasons - for example, generators of keys, programs which can be used at a writing of viruses or for their inclusion in viruses in view of the small size etc. Though, I do not argue, this competent marketing course KAV smoothly operates on teapots - it is necessary, what abrupt program, viruses catches, and anybody them and does not notice another .

 

First,SerM let me thank you for informing me on who format c is as that person was ask nothing nor answered the question ask by myself.

 

SerM,what do you mean when you say dust and broken files, not samples as format c posted?Please start with dust.p.s.I would not think it correct to come here to this forum and down grade any other a/v such as KVA when you work for Dr Web.It matter's not to me as I use neither of the two product's but it may offend some here who do.

 

The respected pugmug.
I am not the representative of company Dr. Web. Therefore I have no possibility to tell about all nuances of this policy. Let's arrive so:
I can address with the personal message to format_c and ask him to tell about it. And, if he considers it possible, he can tell to us about it.
P.S.
1). I do not wish to give an unreliable information.
2). Concerning a question on politician of the KAV: these are my personal observations (and not only mine) and I think, that at on a free forum I have the right to express the personal opinion.

 

My mistake for which I am sorry as my thinking you were employed by Dr Web was in error.Can you state what you meant by the term dust to start with?

 

Dr web adds only real malware which can run and infect system , if malware couldnt run and infect it isnt malware it is junk , it is simple code and doesnt need to be added in the bases because it wont protect users. But many companies do this , adding everything to the bases just to do good in tests ( i am not saying about Kaspersky , i like K )

So far in real life scenarios Dr web is a really solid antivirus , ligth and protect very well just my opinion but I think many will agree with me.

 

It is good that you believe in said a/v but that is and was not my question.

 

... if the program is not a virus or was a virus, but is hurt and disabled ....
More detailed information can be received at employees of the company

 

Corrupted files, malware that cannot propagate, cause damage or are some old DOS malware probably won't be added, simple or what? Perhaps they priorize current threats(honeypots, email tickets)higher than wasting time on some old collections from VX sites .. or malware collections from bittorrent.

 

Yes that was your question. Dust and broken files is malware files which cant run at all so doesnt need to be covered in bases. I just make a observation in my comment.

 

How do you hurt or know a virus is hurt in reguard to it's age?

 

Because some old malware doesn't even run on modern OS. It is also possible that some corrupted executable contains malicious code from some old virus but the executable doesn't even start.

They focus on current threats and viruses that the user could face today and in normal use. Not on some old viruses that you can only get yourself infected with only on purpose.

 

Dr web cover old malware , but doesnt cover malware which cant run or infect system because they arent malware , they are junk code.

 

How would you know what some other than yourself posted?