6880442
story
Comments: 344 +- Technology: Test of 16 Anti-Virus Products Says None Rates "Very Good" on Saturday November 07, @10:20PM
Posted
by
timothy
on Saturday November 07, @10:20PM
from the keeps-the-av-people-in-business-though dept.
from the keeps-the-av-people-in-business-though dept.
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicsecurity.gif); width:59px; height:78px;
security
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicsoftware.gif); width:65px; height:65px;
software
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicworms.gif); width:69px; height:37px;
worms
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicit.gif); width:75px; height:61px;
it
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topictech2.gif); width:60px; height:80px;
technology
An anonymous reader writes "AV-Comparative recently released the results of a malware removal test in which they evaluated 16 anti-virus software solutions. The test focused only on the malware removal/cleaning capabilities, therefore all the samples used were ones that the tested anti-virus products were able to detect. The main question was if the products were able to successfully remove malware from an already infected/compromised system. None of the products performed at a level of 'very good' in malware removal or removal of leftovers, based on those 10 samples."
Related Stories
IT: Fake Antivirus Overwhelming Scanners 334 comments
Submission: Battle of the Anti-Virus: Which is the Best? by Anonymous Coward
Defeat is worse than death because you have to live with defeat.
-- Bill Musselman
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.
I use Microsoft anti-virus and love it (Score:3, Funny)
BuY H3rB@l V1agaRa t0Day!!!
Reply to This
Re:I use Microsoft anti-virus and love it (Score:5, Insightful)
BuY H3rB@l V1agaRa t0Day!!!
I know you are going for funny with a shot at Microsoft (will that work around here I wonder? :), but you did notice that Microsoft Security Essentials was one of the best in the test? ;->
No kidding. I am not an MS fanboi by any stretch, but when they released Security Essentials, I gave it a whirl and have now swapped out AVG for it on everything I run AND recommend it to many of my clients (who usually are complaining about how slow their computer is since they installed NORTON 360 or they have a paid AV that expired years ago) It's lightweight, easy to us, has a very easy to understand user interface that isn't so graphical (*cough* N360), and it just works. Nice to see it garner some of the higher ratings in this test.
What amazes me is how much like Malware Norton, McAffee, and CA can be. Uninstalling them doesn't remove them completely. You HAVE to use their removal tool. I had to remove CA ISS the other day and it was painful. Had to remove it in pieces AND run a fix on the registry permissions which had been completely locked down to the point that 'Administrator' couldn't add/remove programs. So yeah - any time systems come into my shop, I recommend they drop whatever paid AV they're using and run MSE. No nag screens like AVG and it doesn't talk to you like Avast :) My only fear is that in a year they'll let it stagnate OR try to bloat it like the others. But if they keep it simple and go for the majority of infection vectors, hats off to them. Still won't make me use IE, but it's nice to see something like this come out of Redmond, even if they bought part of it.
Reply to This
Parent
Security... (Score:5, Insightful)
Reply to This
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Since you seem so confident and intelligent, how do you plan to teach that to a "normal person"?
And on real slashdot style, a car analogy; we dont care how the taxi works or how its supposed to secure us, we just want to get around conveniently. Without getting killed. Now the taxi driver might care more about his systems and how the inners of car work, but we just couldn't care less. It's the same thing when casual people use computers, and you're pretty ignorant if you dont understand why it is so or why
Re:Security... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's like a piece of wood, a tape measure and a saw. If the person doesn't use the tape measure properly, and saws the wood too short, there isn't any magic that can fix the problem. Even buying a new piece of wood and a new fancy tape measure will still have the same problem if the user can't be bothered to learn how it works.
And a computer is only slightly more complicated than a tape measure...
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Security... (Score:5, Insightful)
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Security... (Score:5, Funny)
It's like a piece of wood, a tape measure and a saw. If the person doesn't use the tape measure properly, and saws the wood too short, there isn't any magic that can fix the problem.
Ah muggles... you never cease to amuse me!
Reply to This
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that the user isn't interested in the wood, tape measure, or saw, he wants a table, and thought he bought one, thank you very much. Why does he have to know how the tape is made to put his plate on it?
Computers are somewhat unique in the level of awareness that a user has to have in order to use one safely. Unfortunately, for a lot of users, the difference between computers and magic is not apparent to them.
Re:Security... (Score:4, Interesting)
>If the person doesn't use the tape measure properly, and saws the wood too short, there isn't any magic that can fix the problem.
Use the other end of the piece of wood?
Worked for me many times :o)
"Measure twice, cut once"
Reply to This
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
they "just want it to work"
My mom used to say 'Want in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up faster.'
Re:Security... (Score:4, Insightful)
Reply to This
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
it's certainly appropriate to debate the effectiveness of these methods
I completely agree, but some people seem to think security software is going to prevent anything from happening to their computer. I don't think a seat belt, crumple zones etc are going to prevent anything from happening to me regardless of what I do. Or for that matter what another driver does. Why should I refuse to learn anything about using a computer?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Unless things have changed since I took the test to get a driver's license it do
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The primary problem that anti-virus software tries to protect against malicious activities of other people and not the actual computer user. The level of security to truly harden a networked computer from attack is incredibly high. Even the most sophisticated of us cannot guarantee 100% security of a networked system. Certainly my systems and your systems will have high levels of security but even we cannot guarantee 100% security of our own systems. Luckily, if you're in the top 50% of secure systems and y
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Security... (Score:5, Funny)
My mom used to say 'Want in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up faster.'
Well? What were the results? How many times did you repeat the experiment?
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Security... (Score:4, Interesting)
Here's another analogy for you: don't rely on the police to catch the robbers. Use houses with locks on them and learn how to use it.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Security... (Score:5, Interesting)
The trouble is when you invite a guest into your house, there is no guest room that _you_ can easily use, so you have to invite him into your personal room. The design of the house is such that you cannot usefully interact with the guest while the guest is in a different room from you.
This means he has full access to your personal room. The geeks who don't understand the real world will say "Ah, but OS XYZ is secure because the "maintenance personnel only" room is locked and unaccessible". But who the fuck cares? You keep most of your stuff and valuables in your personal room! Insurance can take care of recreating the maintenance room stuff - not hard since the stuff in there is the same for every house of that model. They'll never be able recreate your personal documents.
This is changing a bit with Vista and Windows 7, but it's still not good enough IMO. As for Linux, I don't see much help with what I'm talking about for the average desktop user yet. Apparmor is not "desktop ready" yet, and SELinux is barely even ready for average admins.
This test of AV products is like inviting a crook/spy into your whole house, closing your eyes and letting him mess it up (plant bugs if he wants etc), and then get someone to try to clean everything up and restore stuff back to what it was.
Yes it can be done in many cases. But it's foolish to expect the clean up to be 100% in all cases.
If you really want to do that, you use a special house. Then you invite the crook into that special house. Then when he's done, you press a button and the house reverts back to its original state.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Security... (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not a question of being or not being totally effective, you can make that argument from any direction and arrive at the same answer. No product is 100% effective. It looks like this review was just saying that none of the products tested met their expectations.
So that either means that their expectations were unreasonable, or all the tested products stink.
Or a combination of the two. That's where my money is. Regardless of topic, security is best handled from the inside, where your footing is solid and attacks only come from one direction. Problem is, the inside is not secure. At that point you require extraordinary external security, which either means you need to be very good at it yourself, or you have to find someone that's top-notch to make up for the problem. It's no surprise that so many of these products didn't fair well, they're defending the castle while standing outside the walls. And since you're already starting out with a handicap and are going against experts and people motivated by money, if you want the job done right, you're best to do it yourself. The human element of unpredictability along with knowing what's safe and what's not safe is the best defense, not software. If you're a computer noob, there simply isn't a "very good" solution, as this review basically concludes.
Reply to This
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's really not. If other houses on your street don't bother with locks, a lock is all you need unless you have a dedicated adversary.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Using it right now. It found a suspected trojan in my half life 1 install. It looked like a false positive, but who knows. I quarantined the file anyways. It was for opposing force. Anyone else have this detection? What was interesting was that it said it listed it as active. I was kind of surprised by this. Since I long lost my half life cds, it was a pirated copy, but usually they embed trojans in the installer exe or the cracked exe, which all tested out to be fine. Security essentials seems pretty good
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How does having the source code for the OS helps you in detecting viruses - written by someone else - located inside binaries belonging to software - also typically written by someone else?
PE format (Win32 .exe/.dll) spec is open, by the way.
Re:Security... (Score:4, Insightful)
I've been into computers for over 10 years now and while I know far more than the average user, I don't know enough to hold a flame to many nerdier folk.
However. I've dealt with enough real life cases in computer security/maint to know that the average user doesn't care about a process. They don't want to hear about it being a process. They view the computer as a glorified telephone/television combo. They just want to be able to power up, do what they want and log out. The average user these days isn't going to spend time to learn about how to properly protect themselves online because they have other things to do.
To expand on a car analogy someone else used...
Likening computer security to a car would mean comparing it to car security. While some people might take their cars to a car audio shop to get a security system installed, most will just buy their car from the dealer and just want to push the button and have their car secured. Even if they won't always push the button. Unless they're in an 'unsafe' neighborhood.
What the average user doesn't understand is that every time the get online they're in an unsafe neighborhood. They don't know it and they're not going to do the research to find out. They're not reading
What good is firewall software if the user has no clue whether to allow a process access to the internet or not, but since it just popped up while they were installing something new, they allow it anyways? The firewall/software does nothing for them.
And before someone brings up the Linux solution. I love Linux. I use it. It is NOT user friendly though. With all the different flavors around, the *cough* average user would just rub their temples in frustration and stick with Macrohard products. And if they did pick a Linux distro, they would have to pray that all the components in their computer are compatible. I've installed linux on multiple systems (which previously ran some variation of winblows) and every system has had at least one piece of hardware that didn't have a driver available.
So, to make a long story short (TOO LATE) computer security for the average person will never happen. The only way to make computers secure for the average user to make the internet secure. The only way to make the internet secure is to allow your local ISP to start white-listing/black-listing sites, thus dictating where you can and can not go. And that's never going to happen. Or at least, we hope it doesn't.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Security... (Score:4, Insightful)
Which is fine until that one virus manages to get through by accident. I ran my machine AV-free for a long time until that happened, and the cleanup was unpleasant - the preventive features of AV software are far superior their cleanup ones. :S
Yes, but think about it this way. Lets say your computer runs at half its speed with an anti-virus. You run your machine for 365 days without an AV for 30 mins doing routine work that would be slowed down by the AV (file copying, plus additional maintenance for the AV itself, etc) so it would take an hour. That is 182.5 hours per year you use it for maintenance without an AV. With an AV that doubles to 365 hours. Even if you add in a entirely long clean up process of 48 hours, you still come out ahead. And unless you get a nasty virus that somehow corrupts everything you can just restore from backup (you do have a backup of everything important right?) and if you don't have a backup you can usually boot from a Linux disk (most can read NTFS just fine) and copy things to an external HDD. So unless that machine was really mission critical (such as, if its down for 2 days you are out of lots of money) not having an AV and having a long clean up may actually save you time.
Reply to This
Parent
Sign of the times... (Score:3, Interesting)
Despite this being Slashdot, when I first saw the headline about "anti-virus" products, I immediately thought "stuff like Tamiflu".
Reply to This
Re:Sign of the times... (Score:4, Interesting)
They took 16 flu shots from companies that produce flu products, and used several flu strains that all companies advertise their products for (influenza C, H1N1, H1N2, H3N1, H3N2, and H2N3). The study focused on creating the necessary antibodies and 'cleaning the system' from the flu. Unfortunately, none of them rated 'very good'.
If you have a dark sense of humor, read on.
399234 test subjects were used, and 4735 deaths recorded.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Sign of the times... (Score:5, Funny)
I can't provide citations to stuff I just made up
Reply to This
Parent
Browsing safely (Score:5, Insightful)
Reply to This
Common sense was left out of the program (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't fall for the copout of accusing the users of being idiots. Instead it's a long chain of events with stupidity at many steps on the part of some developers which gave us a house of cards which the user can upset so easily.
We can't just say "haha, user is an idiot" when we in the computer software industry can look in the mirror to see part of the real idiocy. Every time I make a user "admin" or "power user" so that they can run badly written software I add to the idiocy and create another potential node for a botnet or another chance at credit card fraud.
At one site I do work for EVERY user has to be "admin" so they can run an internally developed dotnet application that writes it's config file to the root of the system drive simply because that's where the developer wanted to put it. The developer has a string of certifications and years of experience but still carries on with such overtly STUPID actions, not because he is stupid but because a very large chunk of the industry is stupid and stupidity is standard operating procedure. Most of the new security options in Microsoft's products are rendered pointless when the applications on top come from such a culture of stupidity.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Browsing safely (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think anyone sells common sense.
It wouldn't matter if they did; no one would buy it as everyone thinks they already have it.
Reply to This
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
WRONG SITE! (Score:5, Informative)
They said AV-Comparative.org in the article. Try going there and see what happens. The correct site is av-comparatives.org.
Reply to This
They tested Anti-virus software for malware (Score:5, Insightful)
How about testing some malware removal programs? Malwarebytes, Adaware, Spybot?
I find Malwarebyte's Anti-malware to work wonders. Paired with Avast home edition, it is a good free combination. I think most system administrators notice the difference between software primarily tailored for virus detection and removal, and ones tailored for malware detection and removal.
They tested these:
Avast Professional Edition 4.8
AVG Anti-Virus 8.5
AVIRA AntiVir Premium 9.0
BitDefender Anti-Virus 2010
eScan Anti-Virus 10.0
ESET NOD32 Antivirus 4.0
F-Secure AntiVirus 2010
G DATA AntiVirus 2010
Kaspersky Anti-Virus 2010
Kingsoft AntiVirus 9
McAfee VirusScan Plus 2009
Microsoft Security Essentials 1.0
Norman Antivirus & Anti-Spyware 7.10
Sophos Anti-Virus 7.6
Symantec Norton Anti-Virus 2010
Trustport Antivirus 2009
Reply to This
Expeted Linux fanboy response. (Score:3, Insightful)
*whispers*
"Shall I?"
(whisperwhisper)
"Why me??"
(whisperwhisper)
"Ok, damnit! I'll do it! But you owe me one!"
*steps forward into the spotlight*
*loud*
"Well, I found a better combination:"
*louder*
"JUST INSTALL GNU/LINUX!"
*normal voice*
"Thank you, thank you! I will be here..." *dodges flying chair and Granny Smith with bite mark* "... all night!"
(P.S.: I use Linux as my main Desktop. And Windows for the games. No hard feelings here. :)
Also (Score:4, Informative)
Testing online (meaning running the removal program on a running, infected, system) removal seems kinda silly. You are fighting a war there and the malware has the upper hand being there first. On a compromised system you generally want to work on it offline. You either boot a live CD or take the hard disk to another computer. That way the malware can't be running. You can then use tools to track it down and remove it.
Running a scanner on a live system is more of a preventative measure and a detection measure. You have a realtime scanner looking for threats coming in. If it finds them, it can block them before they have a chance to do anything. This is 99.9% of the good a virus scanner does. It stops them before they ever infect the system. It can then also help in terms of alerting you if a system is infected.
However counting on one to be good at removal on a live system seems silly. Take the system offline, fix it, and bring it back up.
Reply to This
Parent
Offline isn't always best, actually. (Score:3, Informative)
We have root kits that embed themselves into alternate data streams, utilize virtualization, employ self-encryption and password protection and randomize what would otherwise be easy-to-detect signatures etc.. Some root kits can *only* be reliably detected if they are actually *running* because they conceal themselves using these techniques. *Even then*, it requires a competent utility with things like ste
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think all system administrators performing the job they are paid to do don't muck about with such things - guessing where the system has been compromised and what is in some hidden corner. Instead they wipe it and rebuild or restore from backups. Of course outside the job we are confronted by people that do not have backups or e
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Agreed...
They should have instead tested:
And then maybe considered testing some of the lesser-known or that I believe to be outdated and/or quite ineffective:
Stop with the recommendations (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop recommending products. The tests demonstrate that av products don't perform well. It is right on. 80% of my day is spent cleaning malware. I have written here many times about how you need a combination of products. I've also emphasized the need to do the initial cleaning with the infected drive as the secondary in a second machine.
Until you do this day in and day out please stop with the recommendations, as you are not helping anyone one bit.
Reply to This
No Joke (Score:5, Interesting)
It used to be that the virus got a hold of the system, maybe did a little damage or had a little fun. Sometimes it was pretty funny. Such as screwing with the mouse.
Then things started to get a little more serious. The virus would insinuate itself into the system folder and maybe IE. They stated doing tasks. Thus rose the botnets.
Then it became big business for people. The spreading of spam and fake anti-virus (that wanted you to purchase the "full version" so that you'd get rid of the virus they said you had) was the order of the day. They started blocking access to the run box, the task manager, and sites that might be able to help you (online virus scanners). They started killing the AV programs. They also replaced the explorer.exe and iexplore.exe files. Hell, they even go after Firefox, Chorme, and Opera.
They really get their hooks into in and don't want to let go because it means money. Big money. So I'm not surprised that AV programs are having a tough time getting rid of them. It hasn't been kiddies out for fun for a long time. Now it's all about professional programmers out to make an ill gotten buck.
Reply to This
Re:No Joke (Score:5, Interesting)
Ain't that the truth.
The kicker? Most of the infections I deal with on a regular basis are coming from AD BANNERS. I have literally had people get a brand new machine, sit down at it, open IE8 and browse to one of the major sports news sites (ESPN, TSN, MLB, NFL, etc.) and get IMMEDIATELY infected by a banner ad!
There are few things worse than giving someone a brand new machine, and before you've even been able to get back to your cube and sit down your BB is buzzing and you are being told to get back there because they have a virus! ARGH!
Honestly, it's gotten so bad that with most of the fake AV viruses we just freaking wipe the stupid PC immediately. Format and re-image and done. It's faster and easier.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:No Joke (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of the infections I deal with on a regular basis are coming from AD BANNERS. I have literally had people get a brand new machine, sit down at it, open IE8 and browse to one of the major sports news sites (ESPN, TSN, MLB, NFL, etc.) and get IMMEDIATELY infected by a banner ad!
Hmmm... could a law suit (class-action or otherwise) be an idea here? After all, isn't it illegal to infect someone's computer with malware? How is it that these major websites are getting away with it?
Reply to This
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't be so sure -- there have been plenty of cases the last few years with major websites being duped into pushing out malware.
For eample, the New York Times pushed out trojans recently: http://www.scmagazineus.com/New-York-Times-inadvertently-sold-ad-space-to-hackers/article/148990/ [scmagazineus.com]
Another one (a little longer back) revolved around
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That is why we have to love how Google does their ads. Graphical ads just don't feel safe. But, maybe I'm paranoid. Maybe it's the flash ads that are the real offenders.
So, either banner blocking software, or perhaps freeze software, so if someone is infected, a reboot brings it back to status quo.
Re:No Joke (Score:4, Informative)
Its even past that. It used to be kids who were out to knock off someone's machine on a local BBS. Then it became the legion of professionals who went blackhat due to cash.
Now, you have well heeled groups, from criminal organizations to whole governments who have immensely deep pockets who spend billions in order to search through every Windows and UNIX executable just to find the single buffer overrun, race condition, or other small goof that can be used in an elaborate attack. The payoff is big, and not just economics.
Of course the attacks are nastier and nastier.
Best defenses? After the obvious firewall and network IDS, two of the best system level out there are virtualization with a hardened hypervisor and jailing of apps. After that, an OS based IDS that can detect known signatures and unknown suspect activity. This way, something that gets access to the OS via an unjailed browser or plugin hole is stopped.
Reply to This
Parent
The usual suspects (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, half of the software they tested is not anti-Malware software (Avast, for example, is an AV, not an Anti-Malware).
They also did not test MalwareBytes, probably because it would make all of the others look bad.
Reply to This
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Malwarebytes seems to detect everything nasty.
Of course, in my experience, it also detects a lot of stuff that isn't nasty. Don't even bother running it on a drive from an old Win98 computer. It'll tell you there's 30 viruses from 2008/2009 installed on it, even if that computer had no internet access. :P
But if you examine the results and use some deductive reasoning, it's an amazing tool.
all lame (Score:4, Informative)
Reply to This
Wipe It (Score:5, Insightful)
Imaging products have become so good and fast that I no longer bother with 'scrubbing' a computer clean when it gets a virus. I can reimage the machine in less time; 15 minutes from start to finish, and I don't have to worry about viral remnants in the registry or some deeply buried hidden folder with a time bomb inside.
I keep our company's image file up-to-date, and when something goes wrong with a computer (drive crash, corrupt registry, malware, whatever) they are back online in 15 minutes. Screw scouring the web for a utility to remove a particular virus that may or may not work, and screw relying on an all-in-one product to save you from malware.
I have come to terms with the absolute fact that users are stupid and careless and aside from rare individual who bother to be responsible, they will always be stupid and careless, no matter how much I wish they would change.
In a business environment, imaging is the way to go.
(I use a Mac at home and don't have to worry about such things)
Reply to This