But once you dig down, it becomes a less rosy picture for Dr. Web. The citation for the 1992 date doesn't actually appear to contain that information. It's a bunch of rather poorly written(perhaps by non-English speakers) reviews that don't actually give much useful information about the company or product. Secondly, the website that posted all the test results has not had any activity for over a year.
Their download.com cleaner software has not been updated since 2010.
Finally, a Google search comes up with their main website, wikipedia page, news stories with about their discovery, and several other links to sites that feel like antivirus phishing pages rather than legitimate links.
All-in-all, there isn't enough content to really judge them as absolutely trustworthy. It's really a brand recognition issue in a space where trust is absolutely key in evaluating claims. Kaspersky has the brand and trust worldwide. Dr. Web appears to have it in Russia, but not nearly as much outside of the country.
Their download.com cleaner software has not been updated since 2010.
Finally, a Google search comes up with their main website, wikipedia page, news stories with about their discovery, and several other links to sites that feel like antivirus phishing pages rather than legitimate links.
All-in-all, there isn't enough content to really judge them as absolutely trustworthy. It's really a brand recognition issue in a space where trust is absolutely key in evaluating claims. Kaspersky has the brand and trust worldwide. Dr. Web appears to have it in Russia, but not nearly as much outside of the country.