Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by tsilo, Jan 18, 2007.
Dr.Web have many fp-s!
Re: False positive drweb
i was expecting your post, and no they do not, you cant constantly win a VB certified award with false positives, nor can you with an ICSA labs one.
and from an avira person, you really cant judge anyone for FP's, as for the last year avira has probably generated more than most.
but i dont remember many companys putting as much effort into reducing FP's as dr.web does, so...there!
i know your trying to slay dr.web on any chance you get, and i very much doubt you have even used the software, whereas i have tried avira, yes it has a better detection but on single-file viruses its the slowest scanner out there, over 2 hours for 2gb of data, is this really good? and update problems? and mail scanning problems? .. also, avira is sluggish when you compare it to dr.web, dont believe... try it.
i think the pros overpower the cons of dr.web, false positives and slow scanning speed is the only cons that face dr.web, whereas avira have a number of them, and dr.web have already sorted the slow scanning speed, its now FAST! only.. its not released yet, so is a few false positives your only argument against dr.web? not a very good argument id say, and like i said.. you cant get VB or ICSA with any false positives, and dr.web has a great record there, your only argument is what av-comparatives say, and is probably the same reason you speak highly of avira anyway, detection detection detection. *laughs*
Re: False positive drweb
I am nod32 user!
How can we guess wich AV is in our system? If we have many fp-s we have Dr.Web !
Slogan: want to have many fp-s, here is Dr.Web! or: want to detect viruses in your clean files, here it is, Dr.Web is your choice!
Re: False positive drweb
you dont even read the posts do you, your just in a world of your own.
what is your referance to say dr.web has many FP's?
i dont believe for a second you have tried it or tested it, av-comparatives?
and on another note, have you seen how many signatures nod add before av-comparatives? now... that is funny, av-comp is a marketing scheme to them, whereas some av's dont play that game.
I submit many samples to virustotal.com and I know it..
no you dont know it, virustotal is no valid at all.
many and i mean LOADS that dr.web find, virustotal says its clean next to dr.web, your knowledge of dr.web is very minimal and if this is your only means, its laughable.
I used also Dr.Web-s Cure-it...
sure you do
Calm down guys. No need to get personal. I think we should stick to the facts. Present evidence for arguments or don't post them. Otherwise debate is based on emotion and that can only lead to people getting upset.
Before posting think... does this move the debate forward based on recorded observations or does it just amount to a statement of blind belief. If blind belief then it will only lead to disagreements.
drweb adds much more samples before the test than eset does.
i dont believe that, eset add alot.... i still think its unfair for you IBK to add samples that cannot be executed into your tests, knowing dr.web dont add signatures for these.
but anyway, back onto topic..
IBK, he goes off your test and VirusTotal to judge an AV, sorry... but hang on while i laugh.
like i said, he says it... so it MUST BE TRUE!
cheers blackcat, thats what i meant to say..... (post below)
But in total, it adds a lot less of the missed samples from the previous test than Eset?
And as to the original question; IME of using Dr Web over several years I have only come across about 6-7 FP's.
antivir has great detection and its very light on resourses, its very fast scanning.
my sister only had one problem with it once which was the icon had a flopped unbrela when the guard was on but that was fixed by an update the next day.
dr web is a great av also but i didnt like the interface.
antivir used to have alot of fp's but they seem to of fixed them now.
dr web are fixing the fp problem and its mostly in the beta and since it clearly stats in the beta it could have some more fp's and problems since its a beta its no problem.
im trying to cover both sides here
its you that tells this BS; what Drweb misses is real malware, not files that can not be executed. that sounds just like an excuse for the not high results, and frankly spoken, i hate that you write this in every post and try to defend drweb. drweb is currently improving a lot and no, they are (like you say) not adding samples that cannot be executed, they are adding real malware. should drweb ever beat e.g. AVK, someone using clamwin will tell "yeah, but drweb performs just better because clamwin adds only real malware that can be executed".
I too noticed Dr.WEB adding real malware, not junk. I corrupted a few files and threw them at Drweb with no notifications.
Seems like they are taking the McAfee route of Quality over Quantity. Which is a good route.
CSJ - you need to calm down and not jump into the pool head first without looking.
your probably right, i can get a bit too 'over-the-top', thats for sure.
i mean well though
Are we here now in a kindergarten?
Not sure....do you mean "kindergarten" or "krabbelstube"..... i think it is the second.....
To clear up the confusion, being a license holder for Dr.Web I must say this:
1) It does have a slightly high level of FPs, and I haven't used AVIRA thouroughly enough to comment on its FP count
2) All of IBK's samples used in the AV-comparatives tests are real, executable malware. The thing about "non-executable" malware is an excuse and nothing else.
3) Dr.Web does *not* detect corrupted files. In fact it skips scanning such files as they serve no purpose.
4) Detection rates have improved slightly in my experience as of late.
It is, however, interesting to know that Dr.Web is also adding lots of samples to the database just before the AV-comparatives test. Hmm
Does anyone find it odd that people here are so easily "baitable" into a completely illogical mud throwing "discussion?" CSJ - When someone tries to jab you...duck. Don't put your face right in the oncoming fists' path. We all know how you feel about Dr Web, and I for one share your high regard for it. If a thread such as this one is opened with no obviously questions or plea for help, or doesn't even substantiate a claim then it should be ignored, as there is no point to it.
Apparently in the next On-Demand test, but in the last 2006-08 test only Avast, Avira, F-Prot and NOD were those av-vendors that were "quilty" to this and particular only NOD made it suddenly.
somehow it sounds like drweb and others are "not allowed" to improve during december/january or june/july.
Separate names with a comma.