I dont think Webwasher is that good.

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by MalwareDie, Apr 4, 2007.

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

    MalwareDie Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Posts:
    500
    I think PC-Welts overrates webwasher. It uses mcafee, Computer Associates, and Sophos. all engines in Webwasher are weaker than the ones in Trustport. I think it would not get an advanced+ if tested by av-comparatives.
     
  2. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    3+ engine av's , i always expect a 99.9% detetion, because lets face facts,thats why that av has those engines, for detection.


    i think the av-test.org tests are better than those of av-comparatives, ive always looked with interest at thier results, sooo many av's tested too, even though av-comparatives added quite a few more in the last :D
     
  3. ren

    ren Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2006
    Posts:
    45
  4. dah145

    dah145 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2006
    Posts:
    262
    Location:
    n/a
    webwasher uses Avira Antivir engine plus its own, if I am not wrong...
     
  5. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    original poster is correct ;)

    says so on their own website, dont go-off what other websites say.
     
  6. lucas1985

    lucas1985 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2006
    Posts:
    4,047
    Location:
    France, May 1968
    If you look at Castlecops' MIRT, Antivir and Webwasher use the same names for detections.
     
  7. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    In addition to Secure Computing’s own Anti-Malware engine, the Webwasher Anti-Virus solution enables up to three brand-name A/V vendors solutions (McAfee, Sophos, and CA) to provide inbound screening of all Web traffic.

    http://www.securecomputing.com/index.cfm?sKey=1654

    again, it states it on their own website o_O

    Mcaffe, CA and Sophos.
     
  8. Londonbeat

    Londonbeat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2006
    Posts:
    350
    They should update their website as Webwasher has used Antivir engine for some time. The second paragraph here from back in 2006 on Avira's website confirms that Webwasher uses the avira engine.
     
  9. pykko

    pykko Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Posts:
    2,236
    Location:
    Romania...and walking to heaven
    Webwasher uses AntiVir engine - 100 % sure. Londonbeat is right. ;)
    Also they have some other engines... perhaps their own: heuristics and signatures.
     
  10. MalwareDie

    MalwareDie Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Posts:
    500
    That would make more sense i guess if it used the Avira engine. Something powered by mcafee, sophos, and computer associates stil wouldn't be that good. I doubt using those engines that it can even get a 97% detection with those engines.
     
  11. FRug

    FRug Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2006
    Posts:
    309
    The 'heuristics' added by webwasher on top of the avira engine are pretty paranoid though, for a gateway product that is probably ok, but you certainly wouldn't want to use it on an end user system. The amount of FPs would drive you insane. The same is true for other gateway-only products btw.
    To secure a company network, you probably can't get paranoid enough :)
     
  12. lucas1985

    lucas1985 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2006
    Posts:
    4,047
    Location:
    France, May 1968
    Yes, all the detections I've seen from the Webwasher's own engine are generic packers detections.
    As you said, being a gateway-targeted product, this isn't surprising.
    I'm building a UTM router. Thanks to HAVP, it'll run more than one AV engine. Moving "blacklist-based" security to the gateway is very tempting.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.