Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Can You Trust Anti-Virus Rankings?

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the of-course-not dept.

Slatterz writes "It seems nobody can agree on a universal set of tests for rating anti-virus software, with Eugene Kaspersky the latest to weigh in on the topic, criticizing the well-known Virus Bulletin 100. Kaspersky is one of several big anti-virus brands to fall foul of the VB100 tests, reportedly failing to pass a recent test of security software on Windows Server 2008, along with F-Secure and Computer Associates. At Kaspersky, bloggers have pointed out that they don't focus on detecting PoCs, calling it a 'dead end,' and saying their anti-virus database focuses on 'real threats and exploits.' 'I don't want to say it's rubbish,' Kaspersky told PC Authority. 'But the security experts don't pay attention to these tests. It doesn't reflect the real level of protection.'"

5 of 258 comments (clear)

  1. No more.... by TheNecromancer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    than I can trust the hackers that write these damn viruses that keep infecting my PC! Yeah, standards in this industry would be a start in the right direction, but right now ANY virus protection software is better than none!

    I use Norton Internet Security, and while it is passable, I find that it's a resource hog. I know there are other products out there that are less "intrusive", but I just don't want to take the chance (or time) with another product.

    --
    Attention all planets of the Solar Federation! We have assumed control! - Neil Peart
    1. Re:No more.... by JustinOpinion · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Norton is ... ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO REMOVE.

      Which I found especially hilarious/frustrating when I was required to upgrade the version of Norton on a bunch of lab computers. The upgrade wouldn't work, and told me I had to uninstall the previous version. Turns out uninstalling the previous version was unbelievably difficult. The auto-uninstall didn't work. The Norton removal tool didn't work. Finally I had to follow a series of manual step-by-step instructions about what files to delete and what registry keys to modify.

      And after all this pain and suffering to remove Norton... I had to install a new version. (That I knew would be a pain to eventually uninstall or upgrade.)

      Needless to say I now avoid Norton like the plague. Yet I would argue that Norton/Symantec is widespread not only because of default installs--but because they seem to do a good job marketing to the higher-ups. They win large-scale deployment contracts, where the software annoys end users and many admins, but looks good and secure on paper, I guess.

  2. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  3. That's why I by svendsen · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have different Anti virus product on each of my machines at home. I figure the gap of what they won't detect is smaller then what just having one product will detect.

    Bullet proof? Of course not.

    So far with Avast, AVG, (mind you one virus product per computer only) ZoneAlarm, FireFox, and some basic sense I haven't been hit.

    My only issues (sad enough) is when a windows update broke Zone Alarm and when AVG detected Zone Alarm as a virus (cause a new version came out) and shut it down.

    Now that i really think of it all the products designed to protect me have been the ones giving me all the trouble. HAHAHA (as I cry)

  4. Re:No. by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Indeed; nor should we expect them to. The vast majority of computer users want to use the computer in the same way that they use any other appliance; and frankly, they /should/ be able to. Unfortunately, the only way to give them that experience is to a) line up all malware authors and shoot them; or b) provide them with locked-down machines that can only run Authorized Content in an Approved Manner.

    The problem with that is we've just spent the last 20+ years going through massive innovation because there's no particular approval to how this tech is used. Bolting on Approval could have ugly effects. Unless, of course, that approval is from the end user. Which puts us in the same place we are now.

    The other issue is that we're not dealing with a toaster. Nobody expects their toaster to also become a calculator, telephone, and TV on demand. We're dealing with a complex and powerful machine. A computer is not a toaster (or a truck - but I digress).

    That doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to simplify the tech. After all, an automobile is also a pretty advanced piece of machinery as well. But the key to this is making really intelligent and sufficiently paranoid choices on how to go about doing this so the end user doesn't have to. Part of the problem is that some aspects of the industry like to portray their products as toasters while making poor design choices; a customer base of monkeys with machineguns.