Analytics

3/12/2008
09:20 AM
Connect Directly
Google+
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

AV Still Weak on Rootkit Detection, Fixing Infections

New AV-Test.org results reveal some nagging problems with antivirus products

Independent antivirus testing organization AV-Test.org has released new test results on the latest versions of 30 antivirus products, and the report cards weren't all good.

None of the AV products scored straight As, and a few failed in some categories, such as remediation from malware infections and AV's old nemesis, rootkit detection.

New malware just keeps on coming, according to the report. In January and February alone, AV-Test.org discovered a whopping 1.1 million samples of unique malware spreading around the Net. The organization found nearly 5.5 million total during all of last year, up from 972,000 in 2006. (See Bake-off: Many AV Products Can't Detect Rootkits.)

“We thought it would be a good idea to start a new test of anti-malware software in order to see how well the tools are currently performing, given the masses of malware ‘in the wild,’” says Andreas Marx, CEO and managing director for the Germany-based AV-Test.org. AV-Test.org only tested the newest versions (as of March 1) of the English-language versions of the products, he says.

Researcher Alex Eckelberry, who is president and CEO of Sunbelt Software, took the results a step further by assigning them equivalent letter grades.

AV-Test tested the products on their on-demand detection of malware; on-demand detection of adware and spyware; false positives per 100,000 files; performance (scanning speed); proactive detection of new and unknown malware; response time to new widespread malware; and detection of active, running rootkits; and remediation.

Each product had its ups and downs in various categories. While Microsoft’s Forefront aced the false positives test and got a 98 percent score in remediation -- for instance, it received the equivalent of an “F” for its response time to new widespread malware outbreaks, taking more than eight hours to do so.

"There is this problem with remediation. I think that was borne out in the test results, which showed the lowest scores all around in remediation -- basically, a C -- score if you average it out," Eckelberry says. "So if the user caught something, how are they going to get rid of it? This often involved a process of trying multiple programs and remedies... I think this might be due in part to legacy antivirus engines dealing with highly complex threats."

Aside from the same troubles with rootkit detection, which scored an average C-, performance was a problem in the tests, he says. "An antivirus product is worse than useless if the user uninstalls it due to frustration with high resource usage, slow boot times, endless pop-ups -- and worse, an inability to deal effectively with certain types of malware," he says.

Overall, Sophos scored well (all As and Bs) in the AV-Test.org tests, as did Symantec’s Norton Antivirus (five As, two Bs, and a C in response time to new malware, with a 4- to 6-hour window). McAfee got all As and Bs, except for two Cs -- in performance, and in response time to new malware (4-6 hours).

CA’s eTrust VET earned the dubious distinction of scoring the lowest of all of the products in detecting adware and spyware, with only a 56.5 percent success rate, while K7 Computing wasn’t far behind, with a 59.5 percent rate of detection. K7 fared better in malware detection, with a score of 65.5 percent, and CA’s eTrust VET was more successful, with a 72.1 percent score.

Have a comment on this story? Please click "Discuss" below. If you'd like to contact Dark Reading's editors directly, send us a message.

  • Sophos plc
  • Microsoft Corp. (Nasdaq: MSFT)
  • Symantec Corp. (Nasdaq: SYMC)
  • McAfee Inc. (NYSE: MFE) Kelly Jackson Higgins is Executive Editor at DarkReading.com. She is an award-winning veteran technology and business journalist with more than two decades of experience in reporting and editing for various publications, including Network Computing, Secure Enterprise ... View Full Bio

    Comment  | 
    Print  | 
    More Insights
  • Comments
    Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
    RIP, 'IT Security'
    Kevin Kurzawa, Senior Information Security Auditor,  11/13/2018
    Understanding Evil Twin AP Attacks and How to Prevent Them
    Ryan Orsi, Director of Product Management for Wi-Fi at WatchGuard Technologies,  11/14/2018
    Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
    White Papers
    Video
    Cartoon Contest
    Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
    Latest Comment: This comment is waiting for review by our moderators.
    Current Issue
    Flash Poll
    Online Malware and Threats: A Profile of Today's Security Posture
    Online Malware and Threats: A Profile of Today's Security Posture
    This report offers insight on how security professionals plan to invest in cybersecurity, and how they are prioritizing their resources. Find out what your peers have planned today!
    Twitter Feed
    Dark Reading - Bug Report
    Bug Report
    Enterprise Vulnerabilities
    From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
    CVE-2018-17906
    PUBLISHED: 2018-11-19
    Philips iSite and IntelliSpace PACS, iSite PACS, all versions, and IntelliSpace PACS, all versions. Default credentials and no authentication within third party software may allow an attacker to compromise a component of the system.
    CVE-2018-9209
    PUBLISHED: 2018-11-19
    Unauthenticated arbitrary file upload vulnerability in FineUploader php-traditional-server <= v1.2.2
    CVE-2018-9207
    PUBLISHED: 2018-11-19
    Arbitrary file upload in jQuery Upload File <= 4.0.2
    CVE-2018-15759
    PUBLISHED: 2018-11-19
    Pivotal Cloud Foundry On Demand Services SDK, versions prior to 0.24 contain an insecure method of verifying credentials. A remote unauthenticated malicious user may make many requests to the service broker with different credentials, allowing them to infer valid credentials and gain access to perfo...
    CVE-2018-15761
    PUBLISHED: 2018-11-19
    Cloud Foundry UAA release, versions prior to v64.0, and UAA, versions prior to 4.23.0, contains a validation error which allows for privilege escalation. A remote authenticated user may modify the url and content of a consent page to gain a token with arbitrary scopes that escalates their privileges...