In The Market For A New Virus Scanner

independent tests and reviews are important (but yes, they should not be taken as solely decision maker without evaluating the other things by the user itself). Also Dr.Web chooses the ones where they score good for their publicity (http://company.drweb.com/press/), the critic that Igor made in his interview was about the virusp test which got published years ago in a british magazine, where Dr.Web was on place 17th.
better relying in known good independent reviews/tests than relying on vendors statements, as e.g. detection rates is not something that an user can easily evaluate by himself.
Dr.Web is good, but I am sure they could and will even get better in (hopefully very near) future.

 

I agree n8chavez, Dr.Web does have a memory management issue with it's scanner, not a big deal to me personally, but I do hope they correct this in the near future

 

IBK, your point well taken and I understand what you are saying, no offense to you or av-comparatives, but I'm a skeptic by nature...

 

i am not just defending av-comparatives, but also other well-known independent tests that for sure do not contain garbage (e.g. av-test.de -> http://hoax-info.de/av/xref0906table.html).

 

I just thought of something else that might be important when making your decision. The 2.7 beta version of NOD32 does include active and on-demand protection for rootkits, as well as improved spyware detection. It seems like NOD32 is trying to become an all-in-one application that will not require you to use additional security scanner; e.g. ewido, super antispyware, a squared, adaware, spybot unhackme, etc. I like that aspect of NOD32. Other companies might soon follow their lead in this respect but it's good to see them say they offer protection against these publicly, even if it only enhanced user assurance.

Also, as a side note, Dr Web's schedule does require use of command line parameters/switches, which are not very difficult.

Just trying to give you all possible information so you can make the best informed decision that's appropriate for you.

 

I understand, thank you.

 

I too, think most av's are headed in this direction, "one size, fits all".

 

I also appreciate that one or several independent test should not be the sole decision for choosing an AV.
But when it gets down to it I want an AV for only one reason, and that is protection from malware. Of course, it must run well on your system.

If the accolades for Dr Web are primarily connected with smooth operation on a particular or most systems then I have no argument with that.
But when a freebie, like Avast, has a better detection rate, and runs well on ones system, I see no reason to choose a paid one whose detection is less. I think one is less secure with the Dr than with any of the three freebies. The fact that one has used it with no infections is not much proof for its security. Folks with AVG free also have the same no infections experience.

If Dr Web were free, I would still prefer Avast Home, or one of the others that ran well on my system.

My own recommendation would be to trial several and get the one that suited best.
For me, on my systems, it goes like this. Free - Avast. Paid, in order. - KAV 6, F-Secure, and NOD32.

Regards,
Jerry

 

I cannot recommend f-secure. It has a ridiculous numver of running processes and required way too much system resources. It, in my opinion, is well behind other AVs.

 

What we see in all these type threads is that some applications run well on a particular system and some do not. Only a trial will reveal what suits you and yours the best.

Regards,
Jerry

 

Question ? If this is the case, why does Dr.Web participate in your tests now ? They don't score well there and I doubt they ever will because of the way they manage their database when it comes to test set samples used by independent testers and what they consider real viruses and threats, or do they just not have enough analyst to bring their database up to date to compete in tests ? I'm sure they would publicize their test score at av-comparatives also, if they were considered top tier in your test results.

 

I agree, and would like to add, personal preference when it comes to using and selecting your av product.

 

Standard is already a good score, but it is lower than A or A+.
You are maybe too pessimistic. It is not because what they miss are not real viruses or threats. Thats a 'myth'.

Yeah, a person working for Dr.Web told me they have a lot of malware to add but maybe not enough analysts and that in any case they will try their best to compete with the others and grow up in detection rates.

sure; i know; no doubt about that . we should just wait a bit more, maybe v5 will be already a big step forward.

About why they participate now: I think Dr.Web is a loyal (ethically correct) company and has nothing to hide to their users. They know that the results are useful to see in what areas improvements are needed and by participating they also can show how they improve over the time. It also helps to find out bugs or problems that need to be fixed.

 

Getting back to Bethrezen's question about simple and light to run AV's I think F-Prot would be another option to look at...

 

Thank you very much for your response, I now see some things in a different light... I learned something today... thanks again for your experience and expertise.

 

Concerning copyright issues, is it allowed to publish this direct link?

 

Yes, I think so, I found it on another forum and it says that they had the permission to use/show those results (http://hoax-info.de/av/xref0906.html):

 

Hoax-Info Service is granted to publish the link......