Dr. Web updates

I notice Dr. Web has not updated virus signatures for a few days. Last was 368569 on 4/30.

 

Don't forget first of May is a major holiday in Russia.

 

True, but malware does not observe holidays. I use Dr. Web (and others at times) and with the program's decent heuristics, users should be protected.

 

It's a major holiday here in Greece too. Unfortunately that's the way it is, nothing works or moves that day

 

It should be with the release of the new Kaspersky Suite.

Buck, Dr. Web has hueristics and also if something was needed I am sure they have staff that could push out a update.You are better protected with Dr Web and 3 day old sigs then some up to date ones.

 

The lack of updates was not meant as a criticism- just stating facts.

 

yep that's what heuristics are for,

Nobody should be on their computer anyway, its our bank holiday weekend too, I'm planning on getting ****ed off
my face

I'm sure there are skeleton staff still there if there is an outbreak of something

Some avs have weekly updates, (if that) how do they manage?

Yes it is a fact bunk, but no need to worry

 

Kaspersky is also in Russia, they came up with an update on May 1. I find it amazing in the current world that security companies, like av-industries, don't bring out updates during weekends or holidays. I saw it happen often with Eset, also with Avira and Symantec, and I fear that more companies can be added. It's dangerous, whatever heuristics programs may have. The buyers of the software rely on the programs. And please: understand that not all pc users are on Wilders. The mass is ignorent, they buy the proggie and assume they are safe.

 

Remember that they pushed over 1000 signatures update before the holidays.

 

Based on monthly Zero Day statistics, Dr. Web is just behind F-Protect and ahead of Avira. This test is a good measure of heuristics.

http://www.shadowserver.org/wiki/pmwiki.php?n=Stats.VirusMonthlyStats

 

Good point Edwin024.

That ought to be a valid point regardless of what favorite AV you have.

 

Perhaps they had gone in the football match between Zenit Saint Petersburg and Bayern Muenchen

4-0 just for the record.

 

They're back, http://live.drweb.com.

 

It's a pity to think that having new updates every two-three hours is definitely safer than a program which updates 3 times per day (for e.g.) . A vendor can release update once per week but it cathes all the nasties , it is enough . No matter that Kaspersky added Proactive modules and improved heuristics , they are still rely mostly on signature , whereas ESET rely more on heuristics. AVIRA scores good on heuristics , too . Different strategies to fight malware - they work differently and do work .

If you complain DrWeb didn't release an update , can you stand up and say you got infected and lost data because of this ? No , you can't.

 

to survive in the fight against malware you really need hourly signiture updates with decent heristics and some sort of HIPS module.

 

Can you prove it

 

well i ment a combonation of all the things listed
you need a decent amount of signiture updates along with decent heristics and HIPS module t

 

Wrong. Both Avira and the new Kaspersky beta have excellent heuristics; the only reason you rarely see those heuristics in action is because they are ALSO very swift in adding signatures. On the other hand, ESET relies on heuristics most of the time, because it's SLOW in adding signatures. You don't judge the effectiveness of a heuristics engine by the number of times it triggers.

Yep, and some work better than others.

 

A vendor can adjust heuristic rules so that 99.99 % of the malware is detected . But this is not done because it will also slow down the machine and will generate false positive . But YES , with 99.99 we will for sure survive the fight against malware and hackers.
With 99.99% of the malware caught proactively , will we need new signature update every hour -> NO. Will we even need new signature update every week -> NO . Because hackers will need some more time to bypass these 99.99%.

With 60 - 70% of malware caught proactively , no hourly updates are needed , I believe.

Do you also think about the OS built-in security feautures ? If you think about that , we can for sure say that at least 10% (if not much more) cannot run without user insistent interaction.

 

Exactly. Which is why those products that rely exclusively on their "cutting-edge" heuristics are nothing but a farce. Good protection consists of multiple technologies, such as swift signature updates and behavior blockers, working in tandem.