Dr Web and AV Comparatives

Hi All,

I noticed on the list of AV's page on AV comparatives, Dr Web is mentioned only at the bottom as having been tested in 2007. Will it still be tested in 2008?

Regards
Jeremy

 

no, this year not.
another russian AV software will be tested instead.

 

hmmm.

 

Chris,

What does this imply to you?

 

it means drweb wont be tested by av-comparatives,

too many arguments and disagreements between the tested and the tester, regarding the test i guess.

 

That's too bad-I was looking forward to improvement in the tests and still think Dr. Web is right behind Avira for overall protection/use.

 

Their decision?

Apart from KAV, this is?

Suggests to me that DW have decided not to play the numbers game. At least they will no longer be seen to be at the bottom of the on-demand tests.

 

yes, their decision.
VBA32 will be tested this year (not really from .ru, but from .by)

 

Behind yes; well behind in detection in most test sites and in my unofficial testing But still a very capable Tier 2 scanner.

 

for a while i have wanted to know the detection rate of vba32 should be interesting.

 

Thanks IBK and good news for VBA32.

I assume that VirusBlokAda have now reached your minimum standard for inclusion in the tests, including number of false positives?

 

yep, its too bad.

Drweb have 'quite a few' disagreements with the files and methodology used in these tests, these huge tests as ive said before, and that the percentages given, give false readings to which offers better protection.

drweb will continue to do what they do, and drweb users will continue to be virus-free.

 

Any details on why?

 

no idea, hope/think so. VBA32 is one of the products which where often requested to be included.

 

Check out the "Test of Other AV products, February 2007" on the av-comparatives site and a recent test here .

 

But as stated I thought that any AV products had to reach a certain standard before they could be included?

 

yes, but i am confident.
test-set, levels etc. changed, so there is much new that i do not know what still applies and what not. will let you know in soem weeks.

 

But ALL of them show Kaspersky/Avira at the top, Dr Web/F-Prot in the middle and eTrust and VirusBuster bringing up the rear. IMO, this seems the correct order as regards detection rates?

Overall, I think that it is a good decision by Dr Web to pull out of av-comparatives as their plunging level-rating was not good PR for them.

 

Nice sarcasm.

 

its not being sarcastic,

where are all the infected drweb users?

on here?
on their own forum?

................
they are nowhere to be seen, if you look at this compared to other AV's....... i judge on that.

especially when drwebs own cureit is used sooo much to clean pc's with so-called 99% detection rates.

are you even aware of the files that are used in these tests and how they are tested for validity?

you would be surprised how many of the so-called threats that drweb did NOT detect were not a threat at all, (manually, not automatically checked by drwebs analyists)

drweb said themselfs, they COULD do what the majority of AV's do and add the WHOLE of the missed samples to their database in just 20 minutes time, this equates usually to the high-percentage-detectors, whereas Drweb only add actual threats, manually checking the files themselfs, and of course, this does take longer to do.

sure, drweb does miss threats, and so do many others, but its the difference between adding priority threats vs none priority ones, and plenty were added from av-comparatives, but there are still big disagreements between the tester and the tested.

lets take a few examples of recent tests that have been circling on wilders lately, anti-malware.ru and shadowserver, because sooo called TOP 'AV'S from av-comparatives dont do so well, the tests are obviously fake/false/not trusted.

 

Not a good criteria; Dr Web is such a niche AV there are very FEW non-Russian users compared to other AVs.

Similarly, no VirusBuster/Ikarus users here have reported being infected

 

You might want to know that Ikarus is a very fearsome scanner indeed.

 

They're too afraid to admit that they are using the good Dr.

All kidding aside, it is naive to assume that all Dr.Web (or insert other AV here) users are free of malware. Not to mention I think it's pretty obvious that Dr.Web has a small market share compared to other AV's.

 

i did not say that though,

 

Please clarify this statement then.

Isn't your underlying meaning that anyone who is using Dr.Web is "infection free"?