Does anyone know how to play taps?

I fear it may soon be time to say goodbye to an old friend. After failing to improve in any considerable margin with the latest av-comparatives test, Dr Web has been lagging behind; yet another sub par preformance by Dr Web. Can we truly pin all our hopes on a new version? As you know, NOD32 is coming out with a new version "soon" too and I must say it is very tempting. I do not care for ESET but I like their product very much. It is a only easier to not degrade than it is to improve, right? It was fun while it lasted.

 

Here is my $.02 worth:

I "played taps" on Dr. Web almost a year ago today. I switched to BitDefender (first V9 and then V10) to replace it, which I like a WHOLE LOT better.

OK, a full admission: I still run Dr. Web on one of my older laptop systems because I still have a Dr. Web license through early 2008. It is simply a matter of economics......

 

...

Who is degrading ? I can't understand

 

No one is degrading, HiTech_boy. This is just a personal opinion based on reading various reviews. It's NOT an objective statement. I've been a NOD customer for almost a year now, but DrWeb is also an excellent AV. Please don't read the reviews, use the software. IF it fails you, than you can say who is degrading and who is progressing, out of your personal experience.

Cheers.

 

well im showing some faith and keeping with the doctor.

the new version, as taken a year to make, so its going to be better, plus ... this doesnt even include all the things that will be in version 5, dont forget... all the versions dr.web was tested against were all new versions of the software, dr.web were just slower to release it.

even IC, said the older f-prot (i dont know the version) would have probably missed a further 40,000 files compared to the one tested.

if this is the case with the new version of dr.web, im sure we could of got that ADVANCED

i wonder if IBK will ask to test the new version, or do dr.web need to contact IBK, i dont know how it all goes.

 

quote
"Please don't read the reviews, use the software. IF it fails you, than you can say who is degrading and who is progressing, out of your personal experience."
end quote

I think that in general personal experience of the average user does not prove much. In my case I have had less than a half dozen alerts of viruses in about 8 years of computer use. As it turns out one was this AM, and F-Secure warned and stated that it had removed the virus. I think I was on one of the forums, and it might have been a FP.

The tests, such as AVC, exposes an AV to more malware than I would experience in a lifetime. If I used Dr Web for a year and did not experience an infection it would not prove anything except that I am a VERY save user.

Until someone can prove otherwise, I continue to maintain that if an AV cannot detect in a lab with decent samples, it cannot detect any better in the "real world."

I am for anyone using whatever he desires, but I would not settle for a Standard when I can get an Advanced for no more cost, and even free.

Regards,
Jerry

 

and i also think, the latest AV test just shows that there is really no need to have these extra security programs, aswell as an AV, most detected a really high amount of dialers / PUPS etc etc.

 

In this context, Dr Web users have to consider;

1. Have I been kept malware free by Dr Web during my present period of use.

2. Unless you are a high-risk surfer, you are highly unlikely to come across any of these zoo malware samples. Further, during normal Internet use, how many Dr Web users here have been infected during the down turn in its rating over at av-comparatives?

So should you decide to drop/not purchase Dr Web because it cannot detect thousands of malware samples that the average user will never see? I would have thought that detection and removal of ITW malware is the more important criteria to judge any AV.

IMO, what is hurting Dr Web at the present time is the visible perception of the recent results over at av-comparatives. It is clear that Dr Web is going backwards in its detection rate of zoo malware compared to other AV's and compared to its Level rating of say 3 years ago when it was classified as an Advanced/Advanced + scanner. The importance of these results are that they are then used as part of the marketing strategy of many of the top AV's.

Therefore, IMHO, the results over at av-comparatives should not be an important factor in deciding whether to jump ship from Dr Web.

 

well, if the new version of dr.web will find as much as the difference between f-prot versions, it will be advanced for sure, i hope the new version will be tested

and it will only get better with V5 aswell, so im not too gloomy about this test.

also, dr.web has a very good record with VB, so aint too worried

i would say i can be a high-risk user, and whenever ive tried online scanners of the top-tiered av's, nothing is ever found, ever.

 

Maybe Dr Web 5 will be heuristically better than version 4 but probably not as much with the on-demand scanning.

Chris, check out the rate of addition of the missed samples of Dr Web and F-Prot in the av-comparative tests. Frisk have been working very hard in adding the missed samples whereas, in contrast, it appears that Dr Web needs more analysts.

 

maybe, blackcat....

but the rate missed on f-prot is a comparison between 2 different versions of the AV, whereas dr.webs is not.

i wonder what f-prot (old verson) vs dr.web would have been, i doubt there would be 'that much' difference.

 

I don’t get it? DrWEb has always performed poor (compare to i.e. KAV) in these kinds of tests. Take any test from any year. Its excellence does not come from these tests but from the flexibility of DrWeb’s engine. Detection of the real threads is rather high and among the best.

For example: Test was performed by A. Marx in 2001 and DrWeb scored 87.4. Look around the net if you don’t believe…


tD

 

Yes, but what if I am using the best possible AV, fully patched, best heuristics etc. and still get infected? Who am I going to blame? Myself, of course. I am trying to say that you can be so unsafe surfer that a plethora of security apps can't help you. No AV has 100% detection rate. An example: let's say that Volvo is the safest car or planet? Does everybody buy Volvo? No. And why? You tell me that...
The point is that you are your best security, and you can be perfectly safe whether you drive a Volvo (ie. KAV) or a BMW (DrWeb). You just have to be reasonably careful. I had a friend who was infected 2 years ago with some serious V. He was using Panda which rated pretty well at that time. But the man simply lost his confidence, refused to use any AV and started using Acronis TI as his sole protection.

 

Dr. Web is working on improving their software. I know I would love to get version 5 today but when it's ready they will release it. I would rather have a well beta tested release then a rushed buggy one anyday.

http://beta.drweb.com/windows/

 

I have a somewhat intriguing concern i would like to see opinions to.

I only recently settled on KIS6 after trialing Avira, BitDefender, Avast, AVG and a couple other more lower rated AV's.

Oddly enough my main objective was not so much detection capability as it was stability, WHY? because without working stability you don't really have a working AV anyway right?

I come to the conclusion that AV's are perhaps the most difficult of all security programs to perfect given the nature of how many different procedures they must employ in order to be effective. That concept, however well intentioned still does give rise to stability issues on some machines whether it is with other security programs such as HIPS or the particular system set up itself.

I find some AV's due to the very nature of what they are designed to do, do create a "Lag" (depending on version/prog. update) even with a small change sometimes, but once a user is experienced a noticable degrade in performance on their machine they, like myself, might take a dim view of that product and are ready to take a chance on another one.

So with all that what if anything about DrWeb would encourage an AV user to switch to them as opposed to some other, moreover, what with DrWeb would be the chief lobbying point to replace say a KIS6, notwithstanding the Suite part, but let's focus on the AV part only as main subject of this mention.

Heuristics perhaps?

Thanks.

 

I agree.Sometimes it's hard to notice,but it's sensible after a fresh windows install or when you uninstall the program after many months.Has happened to me with antivirus and HIPS.They do slow down even the fastest machine.

 

IBK has stated that Dr. web needs to add more analysts as they appear to slow to add malware.

 

I can't in all honesty make an official indictment at DrWeb like it's users can from their experience with it, but such sour public reviews/reports about DrWeb would in my opinion be more acceptable if it's developers were neglecting users concerns or not addressing issues when brought to their attention.

Is this the case?

 

i dont believe this for one second, i know IBK thinks this but i dissagree, dr.web have always said they will only add malware that is a threat to the user, and these 'tests' (AS good as they are) have a wide range of malware that a user will never get, or malware that isnt even going around the internet, i may be wrong but this is just what i think.

i have still yet to come across a user of dr.web who says "this malware got into my machine and f'ed it up", dr.web has kept me secure and takes away the nasties on the internet without fuss or even much action on my part.

sure, heuristics are betteron dr.web, even with the upcoming ones that kaspersky are offering, im sure dr.webs heuristics are even better in the new engine which has just been released, also dr.web offer small updates (15kb MAX) and they are very frequent, sometimes a few times per hour.
dr.web can be installed no problem on infected machines, and like bitdefender will fix any problems within the program, on scheduled updates. (hard to explain when ive drank a few, but hope you know what i mean here)
also, drweb will use a max of 10mb harddrive space (pretty good eh?)

these are just a few reasons why someone would use dr.web, but in my opinion, kaspersky will always be the 'benchmark' for detection, even more so than the ones rated higher on percentages, but kaspersky does have its faults too.

i hope this isnt turning into a 'marketing' reply post, but im just trying to answer your question without getting 'too much into it'

id very much like to see the new engine on the same test that IBK does, if its not too much trouble, im sure dr.web will allow him too if he chose to.

anyway, i like dr.web, it runs very well for my laptop and i will keep the faith with them and continue to use them, i know there will always be people who diss the software, but im looking forward to the vista version, excited to get it back installed.

i know dr.web is a small company, but when you talk to the staff or ask querys about a certain part of the software, the reply feels more on a personal level than a corporate one, lets just hope they keep improving the software as they have been doing, and keep up the high level of support, either way, users of dr.web should not be 'changing' to another AV due to a test result. EVEN though, i personally am intrigued by these tests, i go off my personal opinion of the program

ANYWAY, just waffling now as i do sometimes, so i shall leave you at that, and look forward to the replys

 

I understand perfectly clear now C.S.J but you may want to scale back on the juice some next time. Do you realize the aroma of strong drink is just as enticing as drinking it?

 

Over on the Dr Web forums, I suggested that maybe they needed more analysts and it was suggested that I apply for such a position

All small AV vendors need more analysts.

 

New DrWeb office
http://blogs.drweb.com/?q=system/files/images/pict0987.png
Quite a big virlab room in new office.
http://blogs.drweb.com/?q=system/files/images/pict1086.preview.jpg

 

lets all go there, and analyze *lol*

i like my post EASTER, i think it was quite understandable and answered some questions

 

As a malware analyst, you need to do a very difficult job diligently, so this is not a joke:

- Analysis of different malware types
- Work on long term projects like engine development, unpack support, generic signatures, heuristic engine, etc.

Experience required is as follows:

- Analytical abilities, basic assembler/C/C++ x86 orientation, will need to know basics about computer security
- English communication ability is a must, other languages are bonus.
- Team Spirit is essential, time flexibility - as you will be required to respond to latest malware threats.
- Integrity, and firmness.

If you qualify for all of these, I suggest you drop an email to either Dr.Web or Virus Chaser or Grisoft, as all of these need analysts right now.

I suppose the major reason why either of these companies are not getting enough analysts are:

- Virus Chaser: needs to have knowledge of Asian language
- Dr.Web: Russian knowledge, maybe not attractive package (unsure)
- Grisoft: Open to European Union Citizens only

 

i think you may be right malcontent,

i aint sure the new spam released version of DR.WEB does not have the new AV engine in, ive tried to find where it might mention this but i just cant find it.

maybe the new engine is still in the beta, in this case IBK should hold out testing it until the new engine is released