Dr.Web have many fp-s!

Wouldn't it be better then to just add these threats to be on the safe side for the customers protection rather then making an all encompassing statement, "Those missed samples are not a real threat to the public"?

 

It very simple. If they possess a threat to the user, yes add them ASAP. But otherwise developers should use their time on something else.


tD

 

I still think a concerted effort to add the missed samples from test to test provides an additional degree of protection to the users and is not just all marketing hype.

We may have to agree to disagree on that.

I also don't feel there is any value in folks posts that use an AV that doesn't put forth that effort to put down other AVs that do.

 

Development is all about trade-offs, marketing is all about praise. It's obvious, isn't it?

Nobody is able to to catch 100% of malware, we have to decide what is important and what's not. It would be nice to have all that missed samples detected (it would provide more protection, you are right), but we put on the top the samples which spread and hit real people.

Well, is there an AV company which does it in a different way?

 

I would like to ask how good (or bad) are AV vendors at detecting targeted/regional malware? I ask that because:
-Almost all AVs detects ITW malware.
-Almost all AVs add detection for zoo samples, although with different speeds.