21 ответов в этой теме

[C.S.J]

The time is arriving, when i start to question what i should be using, do i need to change, or do i fancy a change?

the time has arrived when loads of other companys have totally different software compared to when i last tried them all, 3 years ago.

Norton is now excellent, while 3 years ago it was not.
Nod32 has improved and added new features.
Vipre has entered the market, its new and fresh but is rather unknown as nobody really knows how good it is, this is an antivirus i already own aswell also due to a great deal from Mike.
F-Secure - my Ex-Antivirus company, an Antivirus my family uses and also an Antivirus i own due to some cheap offers


or i could simply just use my Prevx 3.0 on its own as a stand-a-lone Antivirus, even though it works perfectly with drweb running.

or a drweb renewal?

A happy, loyal customer i would say i have been, for sure.



however,

The one thing that really does bother me with Drweb, and it has done for the past 3 years is the EXTREMELY slow product updates, where is the GUI? the firewall? the HIPS, Control centre? whatever... etc

I dont usually purchase 1 year deals, so the future must enter my mind.....

[risl]

I don't care about firewalls, hips, behavior blockers, or what ever "additional features." The new GUI/control center would be nice but not a must. I only want a lightweight pure av with good protection.

Dr.Web has introduced a few new features that should improve this: origins tracing, fly-code, spider shield etc.

.. but still it doesn't improve in tests. Tests aren't always accurate but I think they can show atleast _some_ direction. I can't come up with a logical explanation why it's still always only something between 85-93% despite all the new technology/features. Other av-companies are capable of scoring over 95% constantly, even smaller and less experienced companies than Dr.Web can do this.

ClamAV, Twister, Comodo, Rising, Ikarus, .. and some other bullshit applications have started to achieve better results than Dr.Web. I simply don't understand this.

The program works very well: it's stable, compatible, light but it seems to be underperforming in pure detection of malware .. that is very sad

[Blackcat]

After just trying Dr Web again after a long break I have the following observations;

Big plus; It is still the lightest AV in real-time on my computer with virtually no performance hit after a little tweaking.

Minus; The initial SLOW scan when you select the Scanner is particularly slow here and seems to take a lot longer than I remember, and there is still no setting where you can disable this. The overall scan speed is till very slow.

Your choices;

1. Alternative AVs you listed-

Norton 2009 is excellent; very light and some good features. But you may need to shut off some of its options depending upon your other software and little choice in tweaking the Guard. There is no interactive option for the Guard to deal with malware.

NOD; IMHO has never been the same since they upgraded from version 2. Buggy and not as light as it was.

Vipre; light but VERY expensive for a new AV and no indication of detection rates. My own view is that by signature they are very weak. A tier 3 scanner.

F-Secure; great detection but heavy on my machines.

2. No AV-

With Prevx AND a sandbox you could run without any AV in real-time. I have been doing this for over a year now. You could then just use a free AV or a cheap one simply as an on-demand scanner only.

Overall, I will probably NOT buy Dr Web again because I have excellent FREE alternatives ( through work and my Bank) and the price is now getting a little high now that the migration scheme has stopped for Home users.

Whether you renew or not depends solely on you Chris and your present software mix. I am not too bothered about the extra features as there is other software that can more than cover the gaps. Dr Web will NEVER be able to make progress compared to the big companies as they simply do not have the manpower.

But overall I would have thought that they would have at least thrown you some free licenses for all the help and "marketing" you have done for their AV.

[C.S.J]

After just trying Dr Web again after a long break I have the following observations;

Big plus; It is still the lightest AV in real-time on my computer with virtually no performance hit after a little tweaking.

Minus; The initial SLOW scan when you select the Scanner is particularly slow here and seems to take a lot longer than I remember, and there is still no setting where you can disable this. The overall scan speed is till very slow.

Your choices;

1. Alternative AVs you listed-

Norton 2009 is excellent; very light and some good features. But you may need to shut off some of its options depending upon your other software and little choice in tweaking the Guard. There is no interactive option for the Guard to deal with malware.

NOD; IMHO has never been the same since they upgraded from version 2. Buggy and not as light as it was.

Vipre; light but VERY expensive for a new AV and no indication of detection rates. My own view is that by signature they are very weak. A tier 3 scanner.

F-Secure; great detection but heavy on my machines.

2. No AV-

With Prevx AND a sandbox you could run without any AV in real-time. I have been doing this for over a year now. You could then just use a free AV or a cheap one simply as an on-demand scanner only.

Overall, I will probably NOT buy Dr Web again because I have excellent FREE alternatives ( through work and my Bank) and the price is now getting a little high now that the migration scheme has stopped for Home users.

Whether you renew or not depends solely on you Chris and your present software mix. I am not too bothered about the extra features as there is other software that can more than cover the gaps. Dr Web will NEVER be able to make progress compared to the big companies as they simply do not have the manpower.

But overall I would have thought that they would have at least thrown you some free licenses for all the help and "marketing" you have done for their AV.

cheers blackcat, nice to hear from you again still lurking the boards eh?

just to be clear though, i have ZERO problems with the antivirus itself, but my main nag that does enter my mind, is all the new things that for sooo long have been 'soon' and have still not arrived.

i mean, a 3 yr licence basically gets you 4.33 (back end of), 4.44 which was just basically a tweaked 4.33 and V5 which is only a part V5 in my opinion.

its extremely frustrating to see, its nice that Igor has his beliefs and timelines but so do the customers.... he needs to realise this and enter the western world.

when you only buy a 1 year licence, you basically buy the version your using and continue to use for 12 months subscription, however... when you usually buy 3 years, the future needs to be thought of, for sure.

currently i stand firmly with the drweb and prevx combination, with only a few changes to the prevx part of the combination in the past years while i try new things, but it does seem to work great for me and always end up using this combination.

[Blackcat]

Chris

I am also presently using Prevx and Dr Web here, with Sandboxie launched for banking/purchases. A layered combination which is as light as a feather.

Just found out that you can renew Dr Web even though your license may have lapsed several years ago. A good deal indeed!

I may therefore, jump again into the fold.

Unless there is a BIG difference in price, I would be very relunctant to buy ANY multiple/ three-year license for any security software, unless it was a "lifetime license".

You don't know whether the company will be there in x years, particularly if it is a one-man show and there are new products coming on the market all the time.

[Badcompany]

Dr.Web has introduced a few new features that should improve this: origins tracing, fly-code, spider shield etc.

.. but still it doesn't improve in tests. Tests aren't always accurate but I think they can show atleast _some_ direction. I can't come up with a logical explanation why it's still always only something between 85-93% despite all the new technology/features. Other av-companies are capable of scoring over 95% constantly, even smaller and less experienced companies than Dr.Web can do this.

Can someone from Drweb give us some light on this question.
Badcompany

[risl]

If there will be an answer I only hope it would be something more informative than just "tests are crappy and flawed" "tests are not real" "there are garbage files" or something similar

[Hal9000]

If there will be an answer I only hope it would be something more informative than just "tests are crappy and flawed" "tests are not real" "there are garbage files" or something similar

Something like that ? : http://eset.com.au/compare/snakeoil.html

[risl]

That is just a NOD32 advertisement. It doesn't explain why Dr.Web usually performs poorly despite the new technologies.

[Dr33]

i would also like to see a better score in Detection rates and the GUI

[Blackcat]

I think that most of us would like better detection rates seen on the major Testing sites but on the other hand how many of us have been infected by malware when using Dr Web?

Most users would not run just with DW ONLY in real-time; run it with a HIPS and/or a Sandbox and you have a very good layered defense.

Its great strength continues to be, and always has been, its light footprint in real-time.

Even on a new laptop, with 4GB RAM and a fast processor, IME, it is still much lighter than many other AVs I have tried.

Overall, IMHO, if you run DW as part of a layered defense, it is the AV with still the best balance between performance and detection in real-time.

[risl]

I believe many users who select Dr.Web as their AV have some knowledge and probably wouldn't get infected with no security apps at all.

But the "issue" what I'm trying to point out is ..

- We get some new technologies that are supposed to improve detection rates - we see no results according to tests, detection rates seem to be about the same if it was 4.33, 4.44 or 5.0
- Couple of releases are mentioned to improve scanning speed by 30% - the scanner is still slow or no noticeable improvements
- The "GUI" improvements are only some icons remade and a few background images for old windows and menus.

The main problem is: Other avs are improving their products much faster, they don't fear to make fresh radical changes and score better in detecting malware.

Not that I would quit using Dr.Web or renewing my licenses, It's still a very nice program but it's somehow frustrating to see how all the potential is not being used.

[Blackcat]

Unfortunately until Dr Web start to fully automate their malware analysis and increase their manpower, change will always lag behind the big vendors.

Look at other small vendors such as VBA32 and Frisk.

[SergM]

http://www.antivirus.ru/AntiVirPS.html
Translate this page in Googl.

[Dr33]

those test are using virus total results which dont use the latest engines of all the AV

[SergM]

Even with such engines the results are impress.

[sr]

EXTREMELY slow product updates and slow bugfixing is normal for company with less than 5 active developers for product. You can see in drweb bugtracker that are days when are in real resolved 0 (zero) bugs.

[Dr33]

also it seems that Ilya Georgievsky is the only one handling the requests , i have seen many times he is the only one entering records