Welcome Guest. | Log In| Register | Membership Benefits
  • Email this page E-mail this page
  • |  Print Print this page
  • |   Bookmark and Share

Bake-off: Many AV Products Can't Detect Rootkits

Only four of 28 antivirus products caught all rootkits in latest AV test by independent researchers

Jan 24, 2008 | 02:55 AM

By Kelly Jackson Higgins
DarkReading

Indie antivirus testing organization AV-Test.org has released its quarterly comparison test of 28 antivirus products, and the results show that one thing's for sure: Few are good at sniffing out rootkits.

There were no big surprises when it came to how the products performed in standard signature detection, generating false positives, proactive detection, and their response time to malware attacks. "Products which performed well last time did perform well this time, too -- the changes are usually plus or minus three percent or so at the maximum," says Andreas Marx, CEO and managing director for the Germany-based AV-Test.org.

But many of the products didn't perform as well when it came to detecting active rootkits on systems. "Many products still have quite some problems here," Marx says. "Active rootkits are very tricky to detect. Without special detection routines, a scanner might report that a system is clean even if it's indeed infected and might be part of a botnet already."

F-Secure, Panda, Symantec, and Trend Micro were the only AV packages that detected all 12 active rootkits in the test, and AntiVir, Avast, AVG, BitDefender, Dr Web, eTrust-VET, Kaspersky, McAfee, Nod32, and Sophos caught all but one rootkit. Microsoft missed two rootkits.

The worst performers: ClamAV, Command, and K7 Computing, which missed three or more of the 12 rootkits.

Symantec performed well in most categories, with 98 percent or more in successful signature detection and zero false positives, but earned only a "satisfactory" rating for its four- to six-hour response time for widespread malware outbreaks. McAfee had a 90 percent or more success rate in signature detection, zero false positives, and a six- to eight-hour response time for widespread malware outbreaks. Both McAfee and Symantec scored in the "good" range for proactive detection.

Microsoft fared the same as McAfee in signature detection (90 percent or more) and generated no false positives. But Microsoft received a "poor" grade in proactive detection, and a "very poor" in its over eight-hour response time in widespread malware outbreaks.

Meanwhile, the number of MD5-unique malware samples received by AV-Test.org has increased dramatically -- from 972,000 in 2006 to 5,490,000 in 2007. Marx says the good news is that AV vendors are now more frequently updating signatures to keep up with the barrage of new malware.

Those numbers have a lot to do with the increasing number of variants for Trojans and other malware samples, notes Alex Eckelberry, president and CEO of Sunbelt Software. "There are many [samples] that are variants of the same piece of malware," he says.

— Kelly Jackson Higgins, Senior Editor, Dark Reading


Subscribe to RSS










Bugs
ENTERPRISE VULNERABILITIES
Vulnerability:suse linux
Published:2010-01-22
Severity:High
Description:SUSE Linux Enterprise 10 SP3 (SLE10-SP3) configures postfix to listen on all network interfaces, which might allow remote attackers to bypass intended access restrictions.
Vulnerability:ie
Published:2010-01-22
Severity:High
Description:The URL validation functionality in Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 and 8 does not properly process input parameters, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary local programs via a crafted URL, aka "URL Validation Vulnerability."
Vulnerability:bind
Published:2010-01-22
Severity:Medium
Description:ISC BIND 9.0.x through 9.3.x, 9.4 before 9.4.3-P5, 9.5 before 9.5.2-P2, 9.6 before 9.6.1-P3, and 9.7.0 beta does not properly validate DNSSEC (1) NSEC and (2) NSEC3 records, which allows remote attackers to add the Authenticated Data (AD) flag to a forged NXDOMAIN response for an existing domain.
Vulnerability:ie
Published:2010-01-22
Severity:High
Description:Microsoft Internet Explorer 6, 6 SP1, 7, and 8 does not properly handle objects in memory, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code by accessing an object that (1) was not properly initialized or (2) is deleted, leading to memory corruption, aka "Uninitialized Memory Corruption Vulnerability," a different vulnerability than CVE-2009-2530 and CVE-2009-2531.
Vulnerability:ie
Published:2010-01-22
Severity:High
Description:Microsoft Internet Explorer 8 does not properly handle objects in memory, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code by accessing an object that (1) was not properly initialized or (2) is deleted, leading to memory corruption, aka "Uninitialized Memory Corruption Vulnerability," a different vulnerability than CVE-2009-3671, CVE-2009-3674, and CVE-2010-0246.


Briefing Centers
POWERFUL INFORMATION
AT YOUR FINGERTIPS
(SPONSORED LINKS)