Vulnerabilities / Threats
11/16/2009
04:21 PM
Connect Directly
Google+
LinkedIn
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Most Security Products Fail Initial Certification Tests

A study based on the testing of thousands of security products over 20 years finds that most require several rounds of testing before achieving certification.

Seventy-eight percent of security products do not perform as intended when first tested and typically require at least two rounds of further testing to achieve certification, claims a report released on Monday.

The "ICSA Labs Product Assurance Report" comes from ICSA Labs, a division of Verizon Business. The company offers vendor-neutral certification and testing of security products.

The report was produced in conjunction with the Verizon Business Data Breach Investigations research team and was based on the testing of thousands of security products over the past 20 years.

The report aims to make buyers aware that "all is not as it seems in the world of security products" and to make vendors aware of common pitfalls in the certification process.

George Japak, managing director, ICSA Labs and a co-author of the report, said in a statement that vendors should view certification failures as opportunities to improve their products.

Only 4% of products pass on the first round. Nonetheless, most vendors address shortcomings in their products and resubmit them, which is why 82% of products submitted for certification eventually receive it.

That 82% figure represents an average that includes anti-virus, network firewall, Web app firewall, network IPS, IPSec VPN, SSL VPN, and Custom Testing products. In most of these categories, the percentage of products eventually receiving certification ranged from 80% and 100%. But one category, network IPS, represented an outlier: Only 29% of network IPS products ever attained certification.

The report says the category covers "a complex technology with difficult testing requirements" and notes that many vendors, unable to pass the rigorous tests, dropped out of the certification process.

The primary reason for these certification failures is that the products tested don't do what they're supposed to do.

For an anti-virus product, that means failing to block viruses and for an IPS (intrusion prevention system) that means failing to block malicious network traffic.

Failure to properly log data represented the second most common reason for certification failure.

Security problems represent the third most common reason for certification failure. These are seen in 44% of security products.

"One of the more ironic examples we've ever come across was a Web application firewall that turned up numerous vulnerabilities within its Web administration interface," the report states. "Cross-site scripting, SQL injection, and buffer overflow vulnerabilities and unencrypted admin interfaces are some of the common security issues identified within the Custom Testing engagements, Web Application Firewalls, and Network Firewalls programs."

Register now for Black Hat DC, the largest and the most important security conference series in the world. It happens Jan. 31-Feb. 3, 2010, in Arlington, Va. Find out more and register.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
Dark Reading Live EVENTS
INsecurity - For the Defenders of Enterprise Security
A Dark Reading Conference
While red team conferences focus primarily on new vulnerabilities and security researchers, INsecurity puts security execution, protection, and operations center stage. The primary speakers will be CISOs and leaders in security defense; the blue team will be the focus.
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: No, you were supposed to display UNICODE characters!
Current Issue
Security Vulnerabilities: The Next Wave
Just when you thought it was safe, researchers have unveiled a new round of IT security flaws. Is your enterprise ready?
Flash Poll
[Strategic Security Report] Assessing Cybersecurity Risk
[Strategic Security Report] Assessing Cybersecurity Risk
As cyber attackers become more sophisticated and enterprise defenses become more complex, many enterprises are faced with a complicated question: what is the risk of an IT security breach? This report delivers insight on how today's enterprises evaluate the risks they face. This report also offers a look at security professionals' concerns about a wide variety of threats, including cloud security, mobile security, and the Internet of Things.
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2017-0290
Published: 2017-05-09
NScript in mpengine in Microsoft Malware Protection Engine with Engine Version before 1.1.13704.0, as used in Windows Defender and other products, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service (type confusion and application crash) via crafted JavaScript code within ...

CVE-2016-10369
Published: 2017-05-08
unixsocket.c in lxterminal through 0.3.0 insecurely uses /tmp for a socket file, allowing a local user to cause a denial of service (preventing terminal launch), or possibly have other impact (bypassing terminal access control).

CVE-2016-8202
Published: 2017-05-08
A privilege escalation vulnerability in Brocade Fibre Channel SAN products running Brocade Fabric OS (FOS) releases earlier than v7.4.1d and v8.0.1b could allow an authenticated attacker to elevate the privileges of user accounts accessing the system via command line interface. With affected version...

CVE-2016-8209
Published: 2017-05-08
Improper checks for unusual or exceptional conditions in Brocade NetIron 05.8.00 and later releases up to and including 06.1.00, when the Management Module is continuously scanned on port 22, may allow attackers to cause a denial of service (crash and reload) of the management module.

CVE-2017-0890
Published: 2017-05-08
Nextcloud Server before 11.0.3 is vulnerable to an inadequate escaping leading to a XSS vulnerability in the search module. To be exploitable a user has to write or paste malicious content into the search dialogue.