Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Analytics

3/12/2008
09:20 AM
Connect Directly
Google+
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

AV Still Weak on Rootkit Detection, Fixing Infections

New AV-Test.org results reveal some nagging problems with antivirus products

Independent antivirus testing organization AV-Test.org has released new test results on the latest versions of 30 antivirus products, and the report cards weren't all good.

None of the AV products scored straight As, and a few failed in some categories, such as remediation from malware infections and AV's old nemesis, rootkit detection.

New malware just keeps on coming, according to the report. In January and February alone, AV-Test.org discovered a whopping 1.1 million samples of unique malware spreading around the Net. The organization found nearly 5.5 million total during all of last year, up from 972,000 in 2006. (See Bake-off: Many AV Products Can't Detect Rootkits.)

“We thought it would be a good idea to start a new test of anti-malware software in order to see how well the tools are currently performing, given the masses of malware ‘in the wild,’” says Andreas Marx, CEO and managing director for the Germany-based AV-Test.org. AV-Test.org only tested the newest versions (as of March 1) of the English-language versions of the products, he says.

Researcher Alex Eckelberry, who is president and CEO of Sunbelt Software, took the results a step further by assigning them equivalent letter grades.

AV-Test tested the products on their on-demand detection of malware; on-demand detection of adware and spyware; false positives per 100,000 files; performance (scanning speed); proactive detection of new and unknown malware; response time to new widespread malware; and detection of active, running rootkits; and remediation.

Each product had its ups and downs in various categories. While Microsoft’s Forefront aced the false positives test and got a 98 percent score in remediation -- for instance, it received the equivalent of an “F” for its response time to new widespread malware outbreaks, taking more than eight hours to do so.

"There is this problem with remediation. I think that was borne out in the test results, which showed the lowest scores all around in remediation -- basically, a C -- score if you average it out," Eckelberry says. "So if the user caught something, how are they going to get rid of it? This often involved a process of trying multiple programs and remedies... I think this might be due in part to legacy antivirus engines dealing with highly complex threats."

Aside from the same troubles with rootkit detection, which scored an average C-, performance was a problem in the tests, he says. "An antivirus product is worse than useless if the user uninstalls it due to frustration with high resource usage, slow boot times, endless pop-ups -- and worse, an inability to deal effectively with certain types of malware," he says.

Overall, Sophos scored well (all As and Bs) in the AV-Test.org tests, as did Symantec’s Norton Antivirus (five As, two Bs, and a C in response time to new malware, with a 4- to 6-hour window). McAfee got all As and Bs, except for two Cs -- in performance, and in response time to new malware (4-6 hours).

CA’s eTrust VET earned the dubious distinction of scoring the lowest of all of the products in detecting adware and spyware, with only a 56.5 percent success rate, while K7 Computing wasn’t far behind, with a 59.5 percent rate of detection. K7 fared better in malware detection, with a score of 65.5 percent, and CA’s eTrust VET was more successful, with a 72.1 percent score.

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.

  • Sophos plc
  • Microsoft Corp. (Nasdaq: MSFT)
  • Symantec Corp. (Nasdaq: SYMC)
  • McAfee Inc. (NYSE: MFE) Kelly Jackson Higgins is the Executive Editor of Dark Reading. She is an award-winning veteran technology and business journalist with more than two decades of experience in reporting and editing for various publications, including Network Computing, Secure Enterprise ... View Full Bio

    Comment  | 
    Print  | 
    More Insights
  • Comments
    Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
    Small Business Security: 5 Tips on How and Where to Start
    Mike Puglia, Chief Strategy Officer at Kaseya,  2/13/2020
    Architectural Analysis IDs 78 Specific Risks in Machine-Learning Systems
    Jai Vijayan, Contributing Writer,  2/13/2020
    Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
    White Papers
    Video
    Cartoon
    Current Issue
    6 Emerging Cyber Threats That Enterprises Face in 2020
    This Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at six emerging cyber threats that enterprises could face in 2020. Download your copy today!
    Flash Poll
    How Enterprises Are Developing and Maintaining Secure Applications
    How Enterprises Are Developing and Maintaining Secure Applications
    The concept of application security is well known, but application security testing and remediation processes remain unbalanced. Most organizations are confident in their approach to AppSec, although others seem to have no approach at all. Read this report to find out more.
    Twitter Feed
    Dark Reading - Bug Report
    Bug Report
    Enterprise Vulnerabilities
    From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
    CVE-2020-9308
    PUBLISHED: 2020-02-20
    archive_read_support_format_rar5.c in libarchive before 3.4.2 attempts to unpack a RAR5 file with an invalid or corrupted header (such as a header size of zero), leading to a SIGSEGV or possibly unspecified other impact.
    CVE-2019-20479
    PUBLISHED: 2020-02-20
    A flaw was found in mod_auth_openidc before version 2.4.1. An open redirect issue exists in URLs with a slash and backslash at the beginning.
    CVE-2011-2498
    PUBLISHED: 2020-02-20
    The Linux kernel from v2.3.36 before v2.6.39 allows local unprivileged users to cause a denial of service (memory consumption) by triggering creation of PTE pages.
    CVE-2012-2629
    PUBLISHED: 2020-02-20
    Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) and cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in Axous 1.1.1 and earlier allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that (1) add an administrator account via an addnew action to admin/administrators_add.php; or (2) c...
    CVE-2014-3484
    PUBLISHED: 2020-02-20
    Multiple stack-based buffer overflows in the __dn_expand function in network/dn_expand.c in musl libc 1.1x before 1.1.2 and 0.9.13 through 1.0.3 allow remote attackers to (1) have unspecified impact via an invalid name length in a DNS response or (2) cause a denial of service (crash) via an invalid ...