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.

Risk

1/24/2008
02:55 AM
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

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

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

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
News
Inside the Ransomware Campaigns Targeting Exchange Servers
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  4/2/2021
Commentary
Beyond MITRE ATT&CK: The Case for a New Cyber Kill Chain
Rik Turner, Principal Analyst, Infrastructure Solutions, Omdia,  3/30/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
2021 Top Enterprise IT Trends
We've identified the key trends that are poised to impact the IT landscape in 2021. Find out why they're important and how they will affect you today!
Flash Poll
How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
Recent breaches of third-party apps are driving many organizations to think harder about the security of their off-the-shelf software as they continue to move left in secure software development practices.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2021-30480
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-09
Zoom Chat through 2021-04-09 on Windows and macOS allows certain remote authenticated attackers to execute arbitrary code without user interaction. An attacker must be within the same organization, or an external party who has been accepted as a contact. NOTE: this is specific to the Zoom Chat softw...
CVE-2021-21194
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-09
Use after free in screen sharing in Google Chrome prior to 89.0.4389.114 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page.
CVE-2021-21195
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-09
Use after free in V8 in Google Chrome prior to 89.0.4389.114 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page.
CVE-2021-21196
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-09
Heap buffer overflow in TabStrip in Google Chrome on Windows prior to 89.0.4389.114 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page.
CVE-2021-21197
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-09
Heap buffer overflow in TabStrip in Google Chrome prior to 89.0.4389.114 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page.