Vulnerabilities / Threats
10/25/2012
11:03 AM
Connect Directly
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Antivirus Tool Fail: Blocking Success Varies By 58%

Only two of 13 endpoint security software scanners blocked more than 80% of known exploits, NSS Labs study reports.

Who Is Hacking U.S. Banks? 8 Facts
Who Is Hacking U.S. Banks? 8 Facts
(click image for larger view and for slideshow)
In a test of 13 top endpoint security suites, only two blocked known exploits more than 80% of the time.

That finding comes via a new report from independent testing firm NSS Labs, which studied the effectiveness of leading Windows endpoint--often referred to as antivirus--security suites.

In terms of their overall ability to block known exploits, NSS found that Kaspersky Internet Security 2012 stopped 92.2% of threats, while Alwil Avast Pro Antivirus 7 blocked 81.9%. Next in line were Symantec's Norton Internet Security version 19 (74.1%), AVG Internet Security 2012 (73.3%), ESET Smart Security 5 (70.7%), Trend Micro Titanium Maximum Security version 6 (69.8%), McAfee Internet Security 11 (65.5%), and Avira Internet Security 2012 (64.7%).

Meanwhile, Microsoft Security Essentials only blocked about half of the exploits it encountered, followed by F-Secure Agent version 1.57 (44.8%), Norman Security Suite 9.00 (42.2%), Panda Internet Security 2012 (38.8%), and Total Defense Internet Security Suite version 8 (34.5%).

According to a September 2012 antivirus market-share report from research firm OPSWAT, in North America, Microsoft controls 27% of the market, followed by Symantec (16%), Avast (11%), and AVG (10%).

[ Defense isn't enough to protect your systems. See Play Offense On Security In 2013: Gartner. ]

In today's era of advanced persistent threats, spear-phishing attacks, social engineering campaigns, and drive-by attacks, are endpoint security solutions performing well enough? The NSS Labs report suggests not. "Most vendors lack adequate protection against exploits," according to the report. As a result, "based on market share, between 65% and 75% of the world is poorly protected, and 75% to 85% in North America is poorly protected."

For its tests, NSS Labs used a Web server to attempt to infect its test PCs, but only using known exploits which have been seen on the Internet and in circulation for months, if not years. In other words, testers employed no zero-day vulnerabilities. In addition, the firm studied how different browsers reacted to the various exploits, using all versions of Internet Explorer since IE6, multiple versions of Firefox, as well as Apple Safari, and Google Chrome.

On that front, researchers issued a stark security warning--to consumers, but also applicable to businesses--that anyone still using IE6 "must be technically knowledgeable enough to employ other defenses, or will almost certainly be compromised." That's because when using IE6, only the McAfee endpoint security product blocked 100% of drive-by-download attacks, delivered via either HTTP or HTTPS. While four other products also performed well, Microsoft's wasn't one of them. "Ironically, Microsoft Security Essentials was one of the poorest performers at protecting users of IE6, and failed to block any of the Office 2003 exploits when delivered via Internet Explorer 6," according to the report.

Of course, security experts always recommend that businesses employ layered information security defenses, and not rely solely on antivirus software to block threats. According to NSS Labs, those extra layers of business defense should include, at a minimum, a robust patch management program, including rapid upgrading to the latest browser versions and browser plug-ins, as well as the use of an intrusion prevention system (IPS), especially in businesses that allow--explicitly or otherwise--employees to connect their own devices to the corporate network, per the bring-your-own-device (BYOD) movement.

While the report focuses on consumer-grade antivirus software, it's important to note that most endpoint security vendors' consumer-grade suites include a more sophisticated array of exploit-blocking tools than their enterprise-grade software. That's due in part to the industry assumption that for many consumers, the only defense standing between their PC and a malware infection is the antivirus software. Furthermore, those defenses are facing an ever-increasing number of threats, as the reported number of new vulnerabilities has been increasing by about 30% per year. Even one exploit that slips past the security defenses could result in an infection, allowing attackers to install additional malware onto the PC, or add the PC to their botnet.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Leo Regulus
50%
50%
Leo Regulus,
User Rank: Apprentice
11/4/2012 | 4:08:31 PM
re: Antivirus Tool Fail: Blocking Success Varies By 58%
I am a user / reseller of GFI Vipre which is not listed. I occasionally service infected units. The most frequently used of the AV products on infected units are listed in the higher area of your effectiveness list. Go figure...
PJS880
50%
50%
PJS880,
User Rank: Ninja
10/30/2012 | 5:22:48 PM
re: Antivirus Tool Fail: Blocking Success Varies By 58%
Those percentages do not seem good at all, and actually this very alarming considering how many people use end point as protection tool. What I think is even more alarming than the actual high percentages is that these are known exploits! If I was a a Antivirus company at the very least I would be able to block and catch the known exploits!

Paul Sprague
InformationWeek Contributor
AustinIT
50%
50%
AustinIT,
User Rank: Apprentice
10/26/2012 | 2:42:22 PM
re: Antivirus Tool Fail: Blocking Success Varies By 58%
Pretty alarming when you thing about it. Endpoint suites should be expected to block all known vulnerabilities.

Points out the critical need to patch your OS and Apps on a regular basis.
Stus
50%
50%
Stus,
User Rank: Apprentice
10/25/2012 | 9:48:48 PM
re: Antivirus Tool Fail: Blocking Success Varies By 58%
Having built an antivirus product from scratch, I am not surprised. That is why the new company I started specializes in end-user security awareness training, because the bad guys bypass the antivirus and social engineer the user to click on a link or open a malicious attachment.
http://www.knowbe4.com/

Warm regards,
Stu
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
Partner Perspectives
What's This?
In a digital world inundated with advanced security threats, Intel Security seeks to transform how we live and work to keep our information secure. Through hardware and software development, Intel Security delivers robust solutions that integrate security into every layer of every digital device. In combining the security expertise of McAfee with the innovation, performance, and trust of Intel, this vision becomes a reality.

As we rely on technology to enhance our everyday and business life, we must too consider the security of the intellectual property and confidential data that is housed on these devices. As we increase the number of devices we use, we increase the number of gateways and opportunity for security threats. Intel Security takes the “security connected” approach to ensure that every device is secure, and that all security solutions are seamlessly integrated.
Featured Writers
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Dark Reading's October Tech Digest
Fast data analysis can stymie attacks and strengthen enterprise security. Does your team have the data smarts?
Flash Poll
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2013-7407
Published: 2014-10-22
Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the MRBS module for Drupal allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of unspecified victims via unknown vectors.

CVE-2014-3675
Published: 2014-10-22
Shim allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (out-of-bounds read) via a crafted DHCPv6 packet.

CVE-2014-3676
Published: 2014-10-22
Heap-based buffer overflow in Shim allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a crafted IPv6 address, related to the "tftp:// DHCPv6 boot option."

CVE-2014-3677
Published: 2014-10-22
Unspecified vulnerability in Shim might allow attackers to execute arbitrary code via a crafted MOK list, which triggers memory corruption.

CVE-2014-3828
Published: 2014-10-22
Multiple SQL injection vulnerabilities in Centreon 2.5.1 and Centreon Enterprise Server 2.2 allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary SQL commands via (1) the index_id parameter to views/graphs/common/makeXML_ListMetrics.php, (2) the sid parameter to views/graphs/GetXmlTree.php, (3) the session_id...

Best of the Web
Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Follow Dark Reading editors into the field as they talk with noted experts from the security world.