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
Google+
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
Threaded  |  Newest First  |  Oldest First
Zero-Factor Authentication: Owning Our Data
Nick Selby, Chief Security Officer at Paxos Trust Company,  2/19/2020
44% of Security Threats Start in the Cloud
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  2/19/2020
Ransomware Damage Hit $11.5B in 2019
Dark Reading Staff 2/20/2020
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-2014-7914
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-21
btif/src/btif_dm.c in Android before 5.1 does not properly enforce the temporary nature of a Bluetooth pairing, which allows user-assisted remote attackers to bypass intended access restrictions via crafted Bluetooth packets after the tapping of a crafted NFC tag.
CVE-2016-4606
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-21
Curl before 7.49.1 in Apple OS X before macOS Sierra prior to 10.12 allows remote or local attackers to execute arbitrary code, gain sensitive information, cause denial-of-service conditions, bypass security restrictions, and perform unauthorized actions. This may aid in other attacks.
CVE-2020-5243
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-21
uap-core before 0.7.3 is vulnerable to a denial of service attack when processing crafted User-Agent strings. Some regexes are vulnerable to regular expression denial of service (REDoS) due to overlapping capture groups. This allows remote attackers to overload a server by setting the User-Agent hea...
CVE-2019-14688
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-20
Trend Micro has repackaged installers for several Trend Micro products that were found to utilize a version of an install package that had a DLL hijack vulnerability that could be exploited during a new product installation. The vulnerability was found to ONLY be exploitable during an initial produc...
CVE-2019-19694
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-20
The Trend Micro Security 2019 (15.0.0.1163 and below) consumer family of products is vulnerable to a denial of service (DoS) attack in which a malicious actor could manipulate a key file at a certain time during the system startup process to disable the product's malware protection functions or the ...