Suggestion for Update technique Spybot v2

[xpsunny]

Hi,

I would be great if spybot integrates all the detection bases (trojan,worms,rouges,etc.) into a single file. Something similar to Avira's VDF. One file all detection bases.

Moreover, instead of providing multiple file update downloads, how about Avira's updating technique. All the increment updates are downloaded as a single file.

And last but not the least, merge and re-shuffle the signatures. For example: All the virtualmonde detection patters should coincide with each other. As of now the malware the comes under the same category gets scanned in the order of the sequence of the updates.

PS: this thread is in conjunction with the blog.

[Mastaclocksetta]

I think that automatic updates should be added, so that way, the user does not have to manually check for updates each time Spybot S&D is opened. In other words, automatic as in no user intervention.

[md usa spybot fan]

Mastaclocksetta:

That option is currently available via the Windows OS scheduler. To implement automatic updates, go into Spybot » Mode » Advanced mode » Settings » Scheduler. Click "Add Updater" followed by "Edit updater" and provide the required information and/or any information you deem appropriate via the Schedule and Settings tabs.

[TwistedMike]

I would be great if spybot integrates all the detection bases (trojan,worms,rouges,etc.) into a single file. Something similar to Avira's VDF. One file all detection bases.

And last but not the least, merge and re-shuffle the signatures. For example: All the virtualmonde detection patters should coincide with each other. As of now the malware the comes under the same category gets scanned in the order of the sequence of the updates.

PS: this thread is in conjunction with the blog.

i totally agree with xpsunny on this one.if u guys were to make all of the files into one its would be better on download and it would be nice if they were scanned in order like all virtualmonde files then all of then next and so on but this one is not that big of a deal.

[sims39]

they use to have one single file as did every other company.
And i had an idea for seperate files for worms, trojans etc and at the same time so did safer-networking.
By having seperate files if only the trojan detections get an update than you only need to download the trojan detection list not every thing in the one file.
Saves bandwidth and is faster to download, not everyone has super broadband

[xpsunny]

they use to have one single file as did every other company.
And i had an idea for seperate files for worms, trojans etc and at the same time so did safer-networking.
By having seperate files if only the trojan detections get an update than you only need to download the trojan detection list not every thing in the one file.
Saves bandwidth and is faster to download, not everyone has super broadband

Hello,

I would like to inform you that I am was actually referring to the Avira Free's update technique. Although they have a single detection base file, the updates are always short and sweet.

I think you should try Avira Free for once, and perform an update, you'll know all the stuff yourself. However please do not consider that I am recommending you to use Avira.

[xpsunny]

A picture says a thousand words....

[xpsunny]

http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/779/picturezr7.jpg

[PepiMK]

The old one is not quite true since we do have the *C.sbi files that are already a very simple partial incremental update. That might grow with the 2.0 structure, but not

For anything else, I'll repeat a concern I mentioned at the blog discussion, bit which you seem to have ignored:

Or updates would be incremental as you said, in which case the client would have to be able to encrypt as well as decrypt, which is an unnecessary security risk.

Avira can afford sending a dozen expensive lawyers after anyone stealing the database. We don't want to.

(well, anything can be hacked, and just decryption would be sufficient for database stealers)

Oh, and I just see that its still the same thing as on the blog, so you totally ignored my other arguments, as for example memory usage, as well.

You see, a discussion means, well, discussing, not repeatedly saying "I want this" without even responding to other arguments.

[TwistedMike]

I think that everybody should drop the idea of 1 virus database file at first i thought it was a good idea but now that i understand it better and after reading about features coming to 2.0 it would be a down side to have one virus database. one example is what if 1 of your include file gets corrupt you would then have to download the whole file over again. In 2.0 you can just download the corrupt file again with less hassle. I be leave that sums it up and by asking members of SB to make one virus database is going to make them very annoyed and i don't think that would be the best thing.