The Future of Dr Web

My intention here is not to rehash the same old conversations about Dr Web. Nor is it to say that Dr Web is better than X or X is better than Dr Web because of Y. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable than me can help me fill in the blanks.

I've always liked Dr Web's philiosophy of concision; small yet powerful. It should be said that I do not agree with many philosophies of other products discussed here that result in the product not being the best it can be. NOD32 for instance adds definitions on a priority basis which might help most but not everyone; some are bound to be left in the cold. VBA32, while it does have powerful hueristics and seems to be rapidly adding signatures seems to have no regard for resource usage and is content with VBA32 going from lightweight to bloatware. However, these products detect more, at the moment, than Dr Web does. But will that always be the case?

Both NOD32 and recently VBA32 (in the current beta) have made a point to tell the user that they are attempting to make their product an all-in-one scanner for malware, adding detection capabilities for stealth maleware as well as rootkits. Dr Web has yet to make such a claim. Will Dr Web ever intend itself to be an all-in-one solution? I ask because lisencing time is near and because I am interested. I understand Dr Web has released a beta version of the new scanning engine. But is it's intent then to improve upon existing detection scores, or is it to rise to the top in terms of what it can detect? Where does Dr Web's philosophy dictate should be the case?

 

i think dr.web is already an all-in-one scanner which already scans for those things.

Mass-mailing worms
E-mail viruses
Peer-to-peer viruses
Internet worms
File viruses
Trojans
Stealth viruses
Polymorphic viruses
Bodiless viruses
Macro viruses
MS Office viruses
Malicious scripts

Script viruses
Spyware
Spybots
Password stealers
Paid Dialers
Adware
Riskware
Hacktools
Backdoors
Joke programs
Rootkits
Other malware

i personally think thats enough to be called an all-in-one scanner.

 

Sure
All AV vendors are going towards a all-in-one malware engine and building security suites. Dr. Web, for example, has added spam detection.

 

and ive heard of a firewall too..... maybe just hearsay, but i dont think so.

 

maybe they can keep it light because i always hate the day when products turn bloatware.
i wont mentun kaspersky this time
the last time i had to face a product that become bloatware was spysweeper5.0 and i hated that day.
the problem is the market is changing and even light nod32 and light drweb have to make suites to keep up with the market because most people want all in one products so they dont have to have like 10 programs and risk them conflicting. they have to give what people want or they could go out of business.
i just wish them luck and hope they can keep it as light as possible with all the features and hope it doesnt become spysweeper 5.2 or norton 2003
lodore

 

Maybe I should clarify things a bit. I did not mean to ask if Dr Web was indeed becoming a suite, which would include several different types of program all in one unified interface. Instead I wanted to know if the Dr Web engine was eventually going to become one that can detect all types of malware, as is the case with NOD32, Kaspersky, and now VBA32. Whether or not htis is done effectively is another issue. But these companies have said specifically that they will scan for all malware types. I was just wondering if Dr Web will follow suit.

 

Why not? File viruses are a rarity these days. You need an engine that can cope with the repacked stuff, the rogue apps, the mass worms, the botnet backdoors, etc.
All this requires complex engines.

 

I do not think it really matters what is said. Dr Web will most likely keep viruses as their priority (as will NOD32, KAV, etc), but there is no denying that many antivirus software (including Dr Web) have already added detection for other types of malware and will likely continue doing so. At one time worms/viruses used to be the big thing, then adware/trojans, and now most likely rootkits. And most antiviruses have added detection to said malware accordingly.

The benefits really outweigh the risk at this time. If there is a lone antivirus software that can consistently detect 99% of viruses but nothing else, how well will it really do when users in the real world are just as likely to encounter worms, adware, trojans, and all other types of malware on a daily basis. Who is going to stop their users from looking into another antivirus solution that does offer detection capabilities of these types of malware. At a time when "everyone is doing it" you are putting yourself in a very precarious position if you are the only one with no detection for trojans (as an example) when everyone else is doing it. Suddenly the argument that trojans should be handled by a dedicated anti trojan scanner is not looking so hot.

Many tests also do not just include virus samples in their test bed but also include trojans and other malware. And if you think of the products who have probably gotten a lot of unintentional press by doing well on these tests, would it really be in the best interest to disregard a said classification of malware because it does not fall under the "virus" category?

Like you said though "whether or not this is done effectively is another issue" and imo a much more important issue. An antivirus who says they will detect all malware does not mean a whole lot when it can not detect/remove a certain type of malware. And an antivirus who says they will focus on viruses does not mean a whole lot when it can not detect/remove a good percentage of ITW viruses.

 

The answer is actually quite simple -- we are moving already in that direction. We do better than most of the anti-trojan products (or may be than any anti-trojan product?). Anyway, we try not to use the term 'virus' anymore, replacing it with 'malware'. Bloatware is bad, complex and reliable protection is good. Its up to you to decide who is getting it right. After all, almost nobody wants anti-virus, people want protection. We know that.

 

yep, as i said above... all those different things are scanned for, surely that already makes it an all-in-one scanner, i think there is more a threat from the other types of malware than viruses, we know viruses are still important, but there are sooo many different threats these days, they have to watch out for those, which is why it changes to 'malware' ... which means a bloody big range of things. *lol*

 

It's good to hear a developer come out and say that directly. Even if this has always been the case, it's nice to hear. Especiall since many AVs state this directly.

This appropriately concise statement is exactly why I will stay with Dr Web. I can't tell you how upset I get when AVs take the opposite approach to system resources; if they have them we can use them. Not true. Even NOD32 is getting 'heavier.' Dr Web is 8.9 meg and a awesome 8 megs of ram. Right on Dr Web. I hope version 5 will not change this.

It sound like what Serge is saying is that now, or soon with the release of version 5, we will have the best of both worlds; power and concision.

 

I like people who just come right out and say it
its impossible to have all the technlogys without getting at least a bit heavier.
but making it as light as possible is the key so people can use it on there old pc's
lodore

 

it will get slightly heavier as more technologys get introduced, but im sure, 100% that dr.web will keep it extremely light, and will keep their updates to around 15kb, very smart

 

i bet they will.
nod32 only grew a bit when they added antistealth technlogy
but it does improve the rootkit detection and removal
lodore

 

Back to DrWeb

Hello Forum,
License has finished with Kaspersky,going back to DrWeb.Just like the company's philosophy and of coarse there Antivirus.
Badcompany.

 

Re: Back to DrWeb

I can respect that, I did just the opposite wanting a more reliable product. But you have to do what you feel is right.

 

I must say that nowadays here at wilders seems to be many dr.web users.

I have also used now almost one year dr.web in my laptop and I have liked it much. Still one happy year left

 

the future of dr.web.........

well, with my vista being delivered in about 7 days, where is the dr.web vista version?

ive been told that practically everything is working on the vista version of dr.web, yet no beta? no release date? when its soooo close, surely something should be mentioned at the least.

i just hope that in 7 days or so, i wont be without my doctor

 

The new version is on the way to release, but not in a week. I suppose there will be at least one short beta cycle (now Vista compatible).

 

so no av at the start of my vista experience, not happy.

oh well, it better be worth its wait serge