Endpoint
9/9/2009
02:28 PM
Tim Wilson
Tim Wilson
Quick Hits
Connect Directly
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%
Repost This

Majority Of Users Have Considered Tossing Signature-Based Products, Study Says

In survey, only 20 percent of security pros say they are confident in their blacklisting-based tools

Traditional anti-malware tools have become so inefficient at handling current threats that most IT administrators have considered throwing them out altogether, according to a study published today.

The study, which was conducted by Dimensional Research and sponsored by application whitelisting vendor CoreTrace, surveyed 226 IT administrators, CIOs, and security professionals about their attitudes toward traditional signature- and blacklisting-based technology.

According to the survey, 89 percent of respondents are using traditional anti-malware tools, but 74 percent say they are "not confident" in the effectiveness of those tools. Only 20 percent of security pros said they are confident in the technology.

In fact, 58 percent of the security professionals surveyed said they have considered scrapping their traditional products altogether. However, only 8 percent have actually done so, the study says. Fifty-three percent of respondents said the tools "are better than nothing," while about half of respondents said they had to keep their products in place to meet compliance requirements or corporate guidelines.

CoreTrace, which is among a number of vendors that are pushing the concept of whitelisting, is still fighting an uphill battle, however: Eight-two percent of the respondents said they have concerns about whitelisting technology, as well.

"A lot of people still equate whitelisting with lockdown, but that's changing as people get more familiar with it," says JT Keating, vice president of marketing at CoreTrace.

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.

Tim Wilson is Editor in Chief and co-founder of Dark Reading.com, UBM Tech's online community for information security professionals. He is responsible for managing the site, assigning and editing content, and writing breaking news stories. Wilson has been recognized as one ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Cartoon
Latest Comment: LOL.
Current Issue
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2011-3154
Published: 2014-04-17
DistUpgrade/DistUpgradeViewKDE.py in Update Manager before 1:0.87.31.1, 1:0.134.x before 1:0.134.11.1, 1:0.142.x before 1:0.142.23.1, 1:0.150.x before 1:0.150.5.1, and 1:0.152.x before 1:0.152.25.5 does not properly create temporary files, which allows local users to obtain the XAUTHORITY file conte...

CVE-2013-2143
Published: 2014-04-17
The users controller in Katello 1.5.0-14 and earlier, and Red Hat Satellite, does not check authorization for the update_roles action, which allows remote authenticated users to gain privileges by setting a user account to an administrator account.

CVE-2014-0036
Published: 2014-04-17
The rbovirt gem before 0.0.24 for Ruby uses the rest-client gem with SSL verification disabled, which allows remote attackers to conduct man-in-the-middle attacks via unspecified vectors.

CVE-2014-0054
Published: 2014-04-17
The Jaxb2RootElementHttpMessageConverter in Spring MVC in Spring Framework before 3.2.8 and 4.0.0 before 4.0.2 does not disable external entity resolution, which allows remote attackers to read arbitrary files, cause a denial of service, and conduct CSRF attacks via crafted XML, aka an XML External ...

CVE-2014-0071
Published: 2014-04-17
PackStack in Red Hat OpenStack 4.0 does not enforce the default security groups when deployed to Neutron, which allows remote attackers to bypass intended access restrictions and make unauthorized connections.

Best of the Web