Slashdot Mirror
Can You Trust Anti-Virus Rankings?
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.'"
Game over.
Take crash tests on new vehicles. Name me one that doesn't have a 5-star crash rating? The rating system is too easy, and needs to constantly be moved to achieve a new level of betterness. Not everybody should get A's. Once the majority of players reach a standard, the standard should be moved to motivate advancement in the field and show the better of the pack.
For example, the 5-star front-impact crash rating is par for the course now... but nobody seems to advertise the offset crashes, such as the right half of your bumper hitting the left half of your 'opponents' bumper. Why? Because it's sad in comparison. It's also not pretty to watch.
So all the power to making the standards hard to achieve. Yes this may not be the 'real world' threat, but it's a threat nonetheless. They're basically saying "Since England isn't going to declare war on the USA, any preparedness for receipt of an attack by the USA shouldn't be considered in overall military preparedness". That's of course rediculous. Protect only against the popular virus and the unpopular virus will begin to spread.
when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
Norton is an utter piece of crap, it would be advisable to get rid of it now
Anti-Virus is outsourcing the problem of deciding what is good to execute on your computer to a vendor who works backwards and blind.
... and keeping up with that growth rate is not a game I'd want to play! My list of "good" software doesn't increase on a quadratic growth rate, does yours? If this were any other field of computation, the signature approach would have been laughed off the planet by now.
It's "backwards", in that you don't tell them what is "good". They try to guess what would be on your "bad" list. As everyone here knows, it turns out that the "bad" list is much, much longer than the "good" list. In 2007 alone, F-Secure added more virus sigs to their products than the totality of sigs accumulated from the previous 20 years! And last I heard from them, 2008 was projected to double 2007. That sounds almost like quadratic growth to me
It's "blind" in that they aren't seeing what is actually running on your computer. For privacy (and performance) reasons, nobody provides metrics back to AV vendors about all of the executables that weren't labeled "bad", and rarely do the metrics about what is labeled "OK" actually go back to them. The AV vendors have to take a shot in the dark. They can simulate what they think your computing environment looks like, but it's just a guess. They cannot know if you have custom or proprietary software that matches one of their AV sigs unless they actually test that particular program against their sigs (and you don't let them do that, hence the "blind" remark).
Backwards and Blind is very problematic. Every once in awhile, we hear about fiascos like Symantec deciding an asian language DLL is a virus, killing all of their asian customers' windows installs for a day or two.
The question the benchmark is really trying to answer is: Which vendor's product is best tuned for the least amount of false positives and false negatives? When we should really be asking the question: Do I know what is good to run on my computers? And if the answer to that is "yes", then we should be asking the question: Why can't these vendors make a product that only allows my "good" programs to execute and nothing else?
libertarian: (n) socially liberal, financially conservative; neither left, nor right.
Wow, solid, well supported argument right there.
Indeed, it is. Norton really is a load of crap. It is a resource hog of cpu, memory and hard drive. I believe the only reason it is found on anyone's PC is because Norton pays PC companies to install it by default. Because, frankly, you would have to literally know nothing about AV to choose Norton. As in, you did no research and picked the shiniest box off the shelf. At which point, I have lost sympathy for the user.
My company relies on SOPHOS. In 12 years of working with SOPHOS, never has a virus had a chance to spread...despite the users best efforts.
Bearded Dragon
but right now ANY virus protection software is better than none!
That depends, do you walk around all day with a rubber on your weiner? No? Newsflash, niether does your computer, so stop putting it's dick everywhere.
I am the lawn!
Correction:
The reason Norton is on any PCs is because Norton pays PC companies to install it by default AND IT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO REMOVE.
Cleaning viruses off by hand is easier than uninstalling Norton.
Ask 8 slackers a question, get 10 awnsers (a citation, but I can't remember from who)
Do I know what is good to run on my computers? And if the answer to that is "yes", then ...
The problem with that, of course, is that the answer is "no" for most people.
So Norton finally got their act together with the 2009 version? Good for them. But, they have a long road to travel to fix the perception that their product is bloated. Such a history is difficult to change overnight.
Bearded Dragon
May I recommend the Norton Removal Tool
It shouldn't need to exist in the first place, of course - the uninstall should work - but IME it works pretty well.
It doesn't spread, so it's not a virus. More like a cancer. Or a birth defect, if it comes pre-installed.
Oh come on who are you kidding? It is easy to remove:
1. Log in as administrator /s Symantec /s Symantec
2. Open command prompt
3. cd \Program Files\ and rmdir
4. CD Common Files and rmdir
5. Open the registry and go to the SERVICES key and delete all the Symantec services
6. Open the registry and go to the RUN key and delete all the Symantec entries
7. Reboot
8. Install and run ccleaner, run the registry tool and let it clean up the now-broken library registrations
9. Use the uninstaller tool in ccleaner to remove now-broken uninstallers (that don't really clean up Symantec's poop trail ANYHOW)
10. Now try removing the directories again (steps 3 & 4) to remove the remaining Symantec poop
There, now Symantec PoopWare is now completely uninstalled. Now, wasn't that easy?
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
You do realize that's it's possible, albeit likely Norton encouraged them to write the review?
I believe this is tangent to the point of the /. article: not only are tests flawed, but you should inherently not trust any major news source to unbiasedly review a product.
- Why do they only compare it to Kaspersky?
- Why do they mention ram but not a speed comparison (I'd gladly give up 15mb of more ram just to have better performance in my AV, ram is dirt cheap)
- If NIS2009 is so "lite", why don't they mention the specs in comparison to older NIS (only Norton would want to cover up their old specs, which is a core issue that makes me suspect this is a shill article).
Not to mention I never trust any online news source, including tech sites, to have somebody savvy enough to know how to test an AV properly, which, as the /. article points out, not even the AV "experts" have figured that out, much less some tech site.