Dr. Web Statement Regarding Virus Bulletin

In case those who might have an interest have not yet seen this...
http://info.drweb.com/show/3489/en

 

It is a test which dropped is of no pity, leave as it is ok.

 

ROFL we cant pass it so we drop out.

 

It's bad for the company's publicity when they frequently fail. I believe Trend Micro is also pulling out of Virus Bulletin's test.

 

Did Trend issue a statement also?

 

Ahhhh........And the DrWeb bashing begins.
It's a test, only a test, nothing more.

 

Actually I can't see anything in Dr.Web's official statement that I could take issue with, besides they are leaving the door open to a return in the future.

 

kind of like High School..... saying SAT's mean nothing but they should let you into collage anyways ?

 

Compairing a HS test to an AV test

 

lol you said a Test is just a test. I was pointing out its not.

tests are there to help. there also a hell of a marketing tool but as stated above if you cant pass it. its bad for your company and your visibility. I just find it funny is all

Edit.
I also find it funny how most company's have no problem passing it Eset I think has done it now 50 times in a row. instead of trying to fix the problem or maybe look into other means they simply just cry and drop out.

kind of sounds like high school to me

 

Sure, they could spend their time and effort on passing the test, but it's still a question of whether doing so will make their product provide better protection for their customers. And the answer to this is: not necessarily.

VB100% tests are only a legacy; nothing but a dinosaur left over from the 90s era when the certification was actually a legitimate and authoritative endorsement for the product's quality. Unfortunately the malware scape has changed radically while VB100% has not, and the end result is that today the VB100% certificate is nothing but a cheap and meaningless promotional ad for some vendors who still try their best to milk it for all it's worth.

 

I highly doubt many of the company's that pass the test spend a good portion of there time trying to. that would just be stupid and the Detection rates on other tests would go down. having a scanner that can pick up new old is always good, esp if the computer gets infected with a said variant of one of those test samples. tho the av could not pass the test the computer wanders aimlessly in the wind. last VB I seen on Dweb it missed 44 samples. they used the excuse that they were unprepared. that's all this seems to be is nothing but a excuses to failing a test that if it is so old should be a breeze to pass.

 

Antivirus companies periodically remove old samples that don't warrant detecting anymore from the databases. Engine and heuristics algorithms are constantly tweaked as well to stay efficient against new malware as their programming routines and anti-AV obfuscation techniques continue to evolve. If I remember correctly (I don't really bother keeping up with such antiques), the WildList still includes macro virii that infect Word 95/97 documents; detecting these would make no sense. Just because something is old, doesn't mean it should be detected, or generic signature/heuristics algorithms preserved to detect them at the expense of newer, far more widespread malware. Of course, not being a DrWeb user, I don't know if this is what happened to them, but it doesn't change the fact that the sample set used by the WildList is hopeless irrelevant – both statistically, in terms of sample size, and realistically, in terms of the malware types and variants they choose to (not) include in testing.

At any rate you seem to have fallen into the same old trap of many people who have argued about VB100%. Ultimately the test is about appearances. If you pass this technically irrelevant test, your product appears to still fulfill some minimum passing grade. If you withdraw from it, you appear to be chickening out, so to speak. Facts have long since given way to rhetoric and popular perception.

 

Personally I don't care about VB100 or the tests. what I do care about is a virus that was the worst thing to hit Computers 3 years ago could repeat it self if people keep with the Attitude its old who cares... remember the Iloveyou bug that thing destroyed many peoples MP3's and photo's lets take it out of the deff because its old and watch someones 12gig library meet its doom.

you could go round and round this all day long but the fact still stands if you cant detect it then your user's are still vulnerable to it.

edit.
also from a corporations standpoint, some corps do not upgrade there computers but once every 5-8 years. not because they cant but because they would be running the same crappy software on just new systems. it all depends on the point of view and where the person stands so in some respects tests are all point of views I guess.

I don't see them as "Chickening out" I see them as making up more excuses for why something is the way it is. when the TOP contenders in detection have no problem passing it ether. why still detecting more virus's then any other.

 

Scare stories that are irrelevant to reality. I can tell you that the antivirus product you have in your signature does not detect all variants of the CIH virus that destroys the (hardware) BIOS and essentially renders the entire computer unusable, not just your data. Would you be concerned by this? I didn't think so.

No, just because an antivirus product does not detect virus X doesn't mean its users are vulnerable to it. Things aren't as simple as that. But that's for another post entirely.

As for what you see them as, you're only proving my point. The VB100% test is more about appearances than facts. Never mind that VB100% ceased to be relevant a long time ago, the companies who realize this and choose to not endorse and participate in a meaningless test are perceived as only making excuses.

 

around and around all day. here we go. good night

 

It will do them harm,that is why they gave a statement.If they could pass it they would stay in it .As they said,
Virus Bulletin is one of the most respected titles devoted to prevention, detection and removal of malware and spam.

 

I am holding my comments on this one; but it appears Dr.Web has been "frustrated" in recent days from its not so good performances in the test.....

 

and is that surprising. I realy cant fathom how people still buy their garbage and think they are getting a premeir product. They are so far behind in this game and this statement is a pitiful attepmt to save face.

 

It's turning into an "If I can't win, I won't enter" world. Many other AVs are far more deserving of the "garbage" tag than Dr. Web, but it's a fact that every AV that has opted out of VB tests is an AV that couldn't cut the mustard in the test.

edit:
I often read "VB100 is easy to pass because they test only against wildlisted viruses." If it's so easy to pass, why do so many AVs fail so often ?

 

Dr.Web is the best piece of security software I've ever bought and I still don't have any reason to switch for another. When I'm buying their software, I'm getting:

-A product that doesn't produce errors and is extremely stable
-A product that doesn't have conflicts with other software I have
- .. has been developed for over a decade
- .. updates definitions many times per day, or even hour
- .. engine/etc. updates have never been problematic
- .. is light and doesn't slow down anything
- .. can be tweaked exactly the way I want it
- .. is very cheap
- .. plus, fast replies to support requests and it usually takes only a few hours to add new virus record if I send them a sample.

I don't understand people who buy lots of different software and don't have any product loyality, is it because those premium products don't satisfy? Probably same people that have CureIt for backup or somehow end up dowloading it.

Fajo, IF Avira would fail a VB test or would do bad in some other test, would you still think these tests are worthy or would you switch software? When was the last time you've seen a Dr.Web user asking for help with his/her malware infected computer?

..And of course, if dr.web would do good in some other test, it must be suddenly meaningless and no good, or would it?.

 

Probably because not every AV have representative in WildList.org and get access to the "test set" before the actual test.

 

not only that, have you seen the wildlist, its certainly not malware that is in the wild infecting their customers....

drweb see this more and more with their latest technology AV-DESK (yes, drweb not only thinks of new technologys, but creates them too) , the service shows real malware on infected machines not this crappy wildlist that some avs use to claim a nice little logo for their website.

brilliant minds and fantastic coders are no substitute for a mediocre-propaganda product that hoodwinks its customers.

 

It is irrelevant because for example even AV-comparatives does not have access to the WildList; but they get all the samples in it regardless....

 

It does depend doesn't it......Dr.Web has not had a consistent good performance in VB100 for a long while now. If a product has one failure and passes the next three again; then I wouldn't really care because occasional problems do happen. On the other hand, consistent bad performances do not speak well at all about any product.

Thing is; we have seen Dr.Web comment on AV-comparatives and now even Virus Bulletin. It strikes me as odd that suddenly Dr.Web performs not so good on both these tests and they immediately pull out and start throwing some PR statement. I might have understood about AV-comparatives but given that this is the second test they have "slammed", I am beginning to suspect something.

Malware-test lab (which appears to be now defunct) and AV-comparatives have had problems with the stability of Dr.Web, as noted in AV-comparatives' PDF file of August 2007 where it was noted that in all on-demand tests so far, Dr.Web has been found to crash on several (in that case 10) infected samples.

While personally I have never experienced such problems; this is indeed something to note.

Only if you use the Smart Scan for the real-time monitor - I remember that if I enabled both Create and Write and Run and Open mode at the same time then I would have a significant slowdown.

That used to be so once upon a time; the last 2 or 3 times I sent them samples; they added very few....

I'm not trying to put down Dr.Web - the product has excellent malware removal capability. The point is that with this news it appears that Dr.Web is just frustrated with their failures. For their good I hope they come out with version 5 fast.....