dr web 4.44 scan speed

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Banshee, Sep 20, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Banshee

    Banshee Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Posts:
    543
    Any of you tested dr web 4.44 beta version ? I installed it just to check its scan speed and false positives on my pc.

    It is still scanning 92% and it has been scanning for the past 4 hours and 30+ mins. :

    8 False positives so far.

    Kis7 scans this pc in just 1 hour (scan all files ticked).


    Would 4 hours and 30+ mins be an improvement in scan speed over the previous version ?


    Thanks
     
  2. n8chavez

    n8chavez Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Posts:
    2,305
    Location:
    Location Unknown
    I cannot comment on your particular numbers, but Dr Web has been a slow, and careful, scanner ever since I can remember. There have been never feature implemented in the beta, such as spidershield, that may be causing you issue. I do know that 4.44 is just a steping stone to v5, which will be drastically improved.
    Chris, where are you? You may be able to help more than I.
     
  3. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    scan speed is the same at the moment, or feels pretty much the same to me.

    drwebs scanner is a very 'complete' scan, meaning it scans absolutely everything unlike such scanners as nod32 and many many others. (i think)

    not quite sure, but i know drweb keep adding different packers and keep improving their scan, and its nice to see it not getting any slower.

    the scanner (and engine) will be completely different in V5 n8chavez as far as im aware, so 4.44 'is' just a stepping stone towards 5.

    if all V5 components were ready, i very much doubt there would even be a 4.44 version.

    i was told there would be a faster scanner, but i dont think its the one in 4.44 as i dont see any difference.
     
  4. Banshee

    Banshee Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Posts:
    543

    Kav scans all them files. Yet it takes kav one hour or so to do the same scan.

    BTW, scan is now complete.It took dr web 5 hours and 13 mins to finish its job.

    It's a long time.
     
  5. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006
    Hi banshee,
    how much data do you have?
    and how long did the first scan of kaspersky take?
    lodore
     
  6. Banshee

    Banshee Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Posts:
    543
    Lodore,

    Re Kis7:The first time it was a little over one hour.Now it is around 5 mins.

    I am not sure why they find this drweb so good. Maybe the icon thingy ?
     
  7. risl

    risl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Posts:
    581
    I just bought it few days ago. It's very light, updates are frequent, support is very helpful .. or at least has been for me. It's reliable, no compatibility issues with anything and no errors. Eventhough detection rates are not top3, it shuts up and does it's work quietly and smoothly. Dr.Web is also very configurable. You can always have some extra free antispyware or antivirus ondemand scanners for backup if intrested in detection percentages. As i'm not a newbie/risk user, detection rates don't matter that much. It takes care of itw-malware and runs well, which is good enough for me. ;)
     
  8. Banshee

    Banshee Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Posts:
    543
    Yes, not top 3.It got "standard" in av-comparatives but did worse of them all avs tested (%wise).It shows.

    It must be something like cavs . I don't understand why ppl buy this really.

    a)scan speed blows
    b) detection is nothing to brag about
    c) false positives is nothing to brag about

    You got free avs that do way better than this thing.

    It can be of use if u like submitting files to virustotal and u don't have files to submit. Download drweb, scan ur pc and voilà you got fps no end. :D
     
  9. BlueZannetti

    BlueZannetti Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Posts:
    6,590
    If detection is all you weigh, then restricting to top "x" positions is fine, but that's not the only criteria for many.

    Endless system scanning, if done, can be scheduled during off hours with any product. Within reason, this is a non-issue for any product.
    Personally, I've not run into issues here, although it is on the lower end of peer group and this does bear watching moving forward. Note that a "Standard" rating from www.av-comparatives.org is a solid rating.
    At least on my machines, the fp's seem common to most of the AV's I've looked at. I do see them for all products, and they tend to be the same files.
    I wouldn't say "way better". Equivalent in broad strokes? Yes.

    Of course, that does leave the open the question of why someone would use Dr Web. In my own case, it tends to be a low system footprint option that is generally compatible with other software. For me, those two characteristics are critically important and Dr Web is in the mix of a small number of products I own/still use.

    Blue
     
  10. Banshee

    Banshee Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Posts:
    543
    Blue,

    First off, each to his own.But.


    c) false positives is nothing to brag about
    ---
    At least on my machines, the fp's seem common to most of the AV's I've looked at. I do see them for all products, and they tend to be the same files.
    -------

    No false positive here with any product but drweb and avira .Avira just a few tho with slider settings all the way up to max.


    Quote:
    You got free avs that do way better than this thing.
    ---
    I wouldn't say "way better". Equivalent in broad strokes? Yes.

    ---

    Some free avs are better than drweb.Did you trial antivir ? I did not try cavs yet but I will have to give it a go to see if it does any worse than the doctor.

    No wonder this av is cheap. I'd say in this case you get what you pay for.
     
  11. Menorcaman

    Menorcaman Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2004
    Posts:
    4,661
    Location:
    Menorca (Balearic Islands) Spain
    Enough is enough. This thread took a serious downturn including a number of personal attacks. Seven Posts have been removed and the thread will be locked if it deteriorates and/or strays off topic again.

    Menorcaman
     
  12. risl

    risl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Posts:
    581
    I don't really care about false positives, I can filter out what is and what's not a false positive. Scanning speed is not a problem since I can leave my computer scanning when i go to work or sleep. ~removed personal attack....Bubba~

    I have absolutely nothing to complain about dr.web(unlike with some of those "better free avs")and that is why I use it.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 21, 2007
  13. BlueZannetti

    BlueZannetti Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Posts:
    6,590
    What's more germane to my software selection, my own experience or yours? I don't want to state the obvious, but it's mine. For the general reader, I'd hope that they realize that false positives, like software conflicts, depend entirely what you have installed on your system. It's a personal calculation and assessment that one has to make.

    Are better? According to what criteria? It's not a criteria independent result, and here's a hint, different people use different criteria with different weights.

    Yes, I've looked at Antivir. It's fine. I don't happen to use it.

    OK, that's your opinion. Mine differs from yours.

    Blue
     
  14. Arin

    Arin Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2004
    Posts:
    997
    Location:
    India
    I think the original question has been answered already. People who dislike Dr.Web for the slow scanning speed (like me) will still wait. And people who are not bothered by slow scanning speed will keep on using it. I don't know why people take it to their hearts.
     
  15. Banshee

    Banshee Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Posts:
    543
    No clue.It has its fans tho. This product is what it is.It is being rated as standard so a "solid" av.No big deal tho.No idea what makes it so special.It works for some and so it is good for them and does not for others and thefore it isn't.

    It is relatively cheap compared to others.
     
  16. Severyanin

    Severyanin AV Expert

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Posts:
    57
    :) Banshee, just a short comment on what you said about the detection rates. At Av-comparatives they have a collection that has been submitted to all AV companies, so it is not a problem to add them all to Dr.Web's definition base - a matter of 20 minutes, I believe. This is what all Top3 and lower do.
    Dr.Web, however, has to be sure that everything is added to the base is a malware, not garbage. Because, unfortunately, garbage is present there.
    So, the job is done - but the number of files to check is too big.

    So, the conclusion is: AV-comparatives, unfortunately, is not the right measurement of detection rates. Really sorry that people are looking at those results to make their choice.
     
  17. Severyanin

    Severyanin AV Expert

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Posts:
    57
    Banshee, Dr.Web noe is the most expensive one in Russia. And people buy it well.
     
  18. Severyanin

    Severyanin AV Expert

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Posts:
    57
    The 4.44 CureIt! has been released yesterday.
    Read here: http://info.drweb.com/show/3156/en
    Try it here: http://www.freedrweb.com.

    The speed has been improved - but the on-demand scan is still slow compared to others, I believe.
     
  19. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    fantastic comment, surely that is something like ive been saying.

    good post :thumb:
     
  20. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    also Severyanin, the website seems to be having some HTML problems at the moment, so better to try this link for a direct download of the new CureIt. ~ Site seems fine now therefore direct link to file download disabled - Menorcaman ~
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2007
  21. Blackcat

    Blackcat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    4,010
    Location:
    Christchurch, UK
    So where would you suggest that people look for accurate detection rates?

    And what about Dr Web's results at av-test.org? The results there are very similar to those over at av-comparatives. Should we dismiss them as well?

    If you are suggesting that there is a LOT of garbage files in av-comparatives test-bed how do you explain NODs result? Eset also takes a lot of time in assuring only malware is added to their database yet their detection rates are considerably better than Dr Web's ;)

    Overall, the results of Dr Web's detection rate in a VARIETY of test sites suggest that it is a second tier AV. But as already stated many times before this should not be a decider in choosing an AV. Its detection rate is more than enough for the majority of users.

    In fact if you believe that your true detection rates are greatly underestimated at av-comparatives why is your Company still taking part in the tests? You could just decide to withdraw DW from testing which other vendors have done in the past. It's not very good PR for DW if you know that your product is being seriously underestimated in testing.

    Or is it just to receive the missing samples that you will eventually put into your database?
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2007
  22. Banshee

    Banshee Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Posts:
    543
    Blackcat, the "garbage" theory has been preached long enough but that I know of no evidence was offered.I also would like to know more about this.

    All I heard so far is fiction and wishful thinking.

    Let's hope they tell us more.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2007
  23. Banshee

    Banshee Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Posts:
    543

    Yes, slow.

    [Scan path] C:\WINDOWS
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Scan statistics
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Objects scanned: 43065
    Infected objects found: 0
    Objects with modifications found: 0
    Suspicious objects found: 0
    Adware programs found: 0
    Dialer programs found: 0
    Joke programs found: 0
    Riskware programs found: 0
    Hacktool programs found: 0
    Cured: 0
    Deleted: 0
    Renamed: 0
    Moved: 0
    Ignored: 0
    Scan speed: 1537 Kb/s
    Scan time: 00:37:57
     
  24. Blackcat

    Blackcat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    4,010
    Location:
    Christchurch, UK
    IBK has already answered the suggestion that Dr Web's results are due to the high number of "garbage" files in the test-bed;

    It's a pity I think that IBK's methodology has been questioned here and it appears to be more like sour grapes coming from a vendor who has not reached the Advanced-level. If Dr Web are not happy, for whatever reason, follow Panda's example and withdraw your product from testing.
     
  25. SystemJunkie

    SystemJunkie Resident Conspiracy Theorist

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2006
    Posts:
    1,500
    Location:
    Germany
    This sounds cruel, but logical that false positive crown has in most cases always gone to Dr.Web. They search for regsvr32 strings in programs, no wonder that most uninstaller (e.g. AOL Setup) become suspected as potential backdoor. My advice for DrWeb: Use heuristic steppings like e.g. Arcavir or AntiVir.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.