21 ответов в этой теме

[mondeo1]

Hi

Check this new test...

http://www.anti-malware-test.com/?q=node/93

hm...

BL

[SergM]

LOl! We do not pay attention to THEIR tests.

[risl]

It seems to me that people at Dr.Web doesn't pay much attention to any tests at all. When there is no public information about Dr.We's performance against malware, people will start to choose other antiviruses that don't fear to be publicly reviewed.

Perhaps there are flaws in the testing and most of them are done by amateurs. But there are in my opinion good independent tests like av-comparatives that are industry standard these days.

Dr.Web performed badly and others did well so Dr.Web dropped out from these tests. I would like to know why others managed to score well but Dr.Web didn't. I think this can't be completely explained by the amounts of garbage/corrupted files.

[Eugeny Gladkih]

Hi

Check this new test...

http://www.anti-malware-test.com/?q=node/93

hm...

BL

that's Kaspersky Lab site

[mondeo1]

I agree with Risl. Dr. Web is ending almost every time like the last or between second-class. All these tests are prejudiced eventually unfair?

BL

[C.S.J]

I agree with Risl. Dr. Web is ending almost every time like the last or between second-class. All these tests are prejudiced eventually unfair?

BL

true, i do think Drweb need to get 'back into the game', but when flaws in testing are found, drweb should correspond with them to get these fixed for the next round of tests.

as for AM.ru, Drweb used to score extremely well with them, and it surprises me that now Drweb add 5x/6x/7x/8x more virus definations per day than they used to, results have been falling with their tests of late.

[risl]

No information about performance leads to no trust.

It's simple as that.

Who would buy a car when you have no idea how much gas it consumes, what kind of motor it has, how safe it is, what colour it is and so on?

Who would install a burglar alarm system when you have no idea if it will alert?

"Have you been infected with Dr.Web?" is not a valid question to argue this, the real question is "Will you get infected with Dr.Web?" and we want to see results about the performance.

[C.S.J]

No information about performance leads to no trust.

It's simple as that.

Who would buy a car when you have no idea how much gas it consumes, what kind of motor it has, how safe it is, what colour it is and so on?

Who would install a burglar alarm system when you have no idea if it will alert?

"Have you been infected with Dr.Web?" is not a valid question to argue this, the real question is "Will you get infected with Dr.Web?" and we want to see results about the performance.

true, i agree drweb need to get back into the game.

in all honestly, i aint very excited about the new beta, Drweb would need to revamp it for me to get excited about it.

the firewall is too noisy, bugs (as expected), and there is still no acceptable GUI.

its all nice and well saying its better to improve detection and its self protection modules, but im tired of seeing Drweb in its current state, i want to see a full product now, thats in a nice GUI with no extra pop ups, it all should be accessible through the one single GUI now, im also tired with Drweb feeling like a package with multiple modules, instead of one complete security package.

these would ALL need to be applied for me to keep up my interest.

[mondeo1]

I agree that not all tests are independent. But what should convince prospective customer to buy Dr. Web product? Why should he buy Dr. Web with poor results in tests when he has a possibility to download free Avira or Avast or...etc. that are better reputable? Why do you consider this tests or reviews without value? What is wrong? I would like to find some arguments.

Thanks

[Eugeny Gladkih]

I agree that not all tests are independent. But what should convince prospective customer to buy Dr. Web product? Why should he buy Dr. Web with poor results in tests when he has a possibility to download free Avira or Avast or...etc. that are better reputable? Why do you consider this tests or reviews without value? What is wrong? I would like to find some arguments.

Thanks

what kind of the arguments do you want looking at the site of Kaspersky Lab? they are well knows liars

[risl]

There are well known independent testing sites like AV-comparatives where we would like to see some arguments. Others participate there and those are the most discussed tests around. People don't even talk about Dr.Web or F-prot on internet forums anymore because they don't participate.

[Eugeny Gladkih]

People don't even talk about Dr.Web or F-prot on internet forums anymore because they don't participate.

... and Trend Micro

[mondeo1]

Hello
I was waiting more arguments and concretions before i logged in.

BL

[C.S.J]

People don't even talk about Dr.Web or F-prot on internet forums anymore because they don't participate.

... and Trend Micro

are drweb not ready to get back into the game then?

[Eugeny Gladkih]

People don't even talk about Dr.Web or F-prot on internet forums anymore because they don't participate.

... and Trend Micro

are drweb not ready to get back into the game then?

looking at the testers and their methodology I guess it have no use

[risl]

What is the correct methodology?

[Stefan Dashich]

What is the correct methodology?

There is no any correct methodology.

[risl]

Then why not accept it and participate like the others. People lose interest towards Dr.Web because there are no public results about detection.

[Eugeny Gladkih]

What is the correct methodology?

the correct methodology of what aspect?

ARA the thread subject - take a look at shadowserver.org, the 0day daily statistics is here

[Baron]

What is the correct methodology?

the correct methodology of what aspect?

ARA the thread subject - take a look at shadowserver.org, the 0day daily statistics is here

Thanks for that Eugeny. Very interesting!