Risk

8/17/2010
03:24 PM
George V. Hulme
George V. Hulme
Commentary
50%
50%

Anti-Virus Suite Protection? Not Much

It's no secret that anti-virus software doesn't do much to protect you against new and rapidly moving viruses, so it shouldn't come as much of a surprise that these suites don't do much good defending you against exploit code, either. A fresh evaluation from NSS Labs reveals just how vulnerable you really are.

It's no secret that anti-virus software doesn't do much to protect you against new and rapidly moving viruses, so it shouldn't come as much of a surprise that these suites don't do much good defending you against exploit code, either. A fresh evaluation from NSS Labs reveals just how vulnerable you really are.One of the reasons I've always taken interest in NSS Labs reports is because they are independently conducted and not funded by the security firms tested. In this report, NSS Labs tested the leading corporate anti-virus and end-point anti-virus applications on their ability to protect the host from exploit attacks. Exploit code is software that leverages application vulnerabilities to gain access. Many attacks today are in fact exploit-based attacks that are delivered in e-mail and malicious or compromised web sites and target web browsers, plug-ins, and client-side applications. These are the kinds of attacks that made the now famous Operation Aurora attack on Google and many other U.S. companies possible, and were heavily reported on earlier this year.

To conduct this test, NSS Labs took 123 common and already public exploits (many have been public for awhile, some years even) and tested them against a selection of the leading anti-virus vendors: AVG, Norman, ESET, Panda, F-Secure, Sophos, Kaspersky, Symantec, McAfee, and Trend Micro.

The results are dismal and, according to NSS Labs, reveal that about 75 percent of organizations are not adequately protected.

How unprotected?

Well, the average protection score was 76 percent against the original exploit and 58 percent for a similar or alternative exploit. Note these exploits were not obfuscated in any way, according to NSS Labs. So many attacks in the real-world would even be more successful.

In baseball, a 76% average would be outstanding. When protecting your data: not so much.

But when one looks beneath the averages the results are even worse. Only one vendor, the highest ranked, stopped all exploits thrown at it. The lowest ranked vendor didn't even manage to stop 70 percent of the exploits thrown at it.

Symantec, according to the report, only managed to stop 71 percent of the exploits thrown at it.

These just aren't acceptable results. So not only are software vendors not investing enough to develop applications that will keep your data safe, but neither are most of the vendors that purport to protect you.

For my security and technology observations throughout the day, find me on Twitter.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Want Your Daughter to Succeed in Cyber? Call Her John
John De Santis, CEO, HyTrust,  5/16/2018
New Mexico Man Sentenced on DDoS, Gun Charges
Dark Reading Staff 5/18/2018
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
[Strategic Security Report] Navigating the Threat Intelligence Maze
[Strategic Security Report] Navigating the Threat Intelligence Maze
Most enterprises are using threat intel services, but many are still figuring out how to use the data they're collecting. In this Dark Reading survey we give you a look at what they're doing today - and where they hope to go.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2018-11354
PUBLISHED: 2018-05-22
In Wireshark 2.6.0, the IEEE 1905.1a dissector could crash. This was addressed in epan/dissectors/packet-ieee1905.c by making a certain correction to string handling.
CVE-2018-11355
PUBLISHED: 2018-05-22
In Wireshark 2.6.0, the RTCP dissector could crash. This was addressed in epan/dissectors/packet-rtcp.c by avoiding a buffer overflow for packet status chunks.
CVE-2018-11356
PUBLISHED: 2018-05-22
In Wireshark 2.6.0, 2.4.0 to 2.4.6, and 2.2.0 to 2.2.14, the DNS dissector could crash. This was addressed in epan/dissectors/packet-dns.c by avoiding a NULL pointer dereference for an empty name in an SRV record.
CVE-2018-11357
PUBLISHED: 2018-05-22
In Wireshark 2.6.0, 2.4.0 to 2.4.6, and 2.2.0 to 2.2.14, the LTP dissector and other dissectors could consume excessive memory. This was addressed in epan/tvbuff.c by rejecting negative lengths.
CVE-2018-11358
PUBLISHED: 2018-05-22
In Wireshark 2.6.0, 2.4.0 to 2.4.6, and 2.2.0 to 2.2.14, the Q.931 dissector could crash. This was addressed in epan/dissectors/packet-q931.c by avoiding a use-after-free after a malformed packet prevented certain cleanup.