Test of 16 Anti-Virus Products Says None Rates "Very Good"

An anonymous reader writes "AV-Comparative recently released the results of a malware removal test in which they evaluated 16 anti-virus software solutions. The test focused only on the malware removal/cleaning capabilities, therefore all the samples used were ones that the tested anti-virus products were able to detect. The main question was if the products were able to successfully remove malware from an already infected/compromised system. None of the products performed at a level of 'very good' in malware removal or removal of leftovers, based on those 10 samples."

Comments

Security...

[xanadu113]

Security is a process, not a product.

Re:Security...

[davester666]

It's like a piece of wood, a tape measure and a saw. If the person doesn't use the tape measure properly, and saws the wood too short, there isn't any magic that can fix the problem. Even buying a new piece of wood and a new fancy tape measure will still have the same problem if the user can't be bothered to learn how it works.

And a computer is only slightly more complicated than a tape measure...

Re:Security...

[Kratisto]

No, see, it's like a computer and a user and antivirus software. The user expects the antivirus software to either protect him from getting a virus to begin with, or to remove it swiftly if it fails. Unfortunately, the antivirus software isn't very good in the latter situation, and because the user is an idiot, no antivirus software can help him in the first situation.

Re:Security...

[Leekle2ManE]

I've been reading slashdot for a while and I've avoided commenting because... I'm not a nerd. I'm a geek. Which my friend always find annoying because 'back in his day' nerd and geek were the same thing.

I've been into computers for over 10 years now and while I know far more than the average user, I don't know enough to hold a flame to many nerdier folk.

However. I've dealt with enough real life cases in computer security/maint to know that the average user doesn't care about a process. They don't want to hear about it being a process. They view the computer as a glorified telephone/television combo. They just want to be able to power up, do what they want and log out. The average user these days isn't going to spend time to learn about how to properly protect themselves online because they have other things to do.

To expand on a car analogy someone else used...
Likening computer security to a car would mean comparing it to car security. While some people might take their cars to a car audio shop to get a security system installed, most will just buy their car from the dealer and just want to push the button and have their car secured. Even if they won't always push the button. Unless they're in an 'unsafe' neighborhood.

What the average user doesn't understand is that every time the get online they're in an unsafe neighborhood. They don't know it and they're not going to do the research to find out. They're not reading /. They don't see comments about Security being a process and not a product. They just want to start up the computer and feel safe that their security system is working. They're not going to search online to find the best anti-virus product(s) available. They're not going to look for reviews of 16 anti-virus programs reviewed. They quite simply don't care and don't feel that they should have to care.

What good is firewall software if the user has no clue whether to allow a process access to the internet or not, but since it just popped up while they were installing something new, they allow it anyways? The firewall/software does nothing for them.

And before someone brings up the Linux solution. I love Linux. I use it. It is NOT user friendly though. With all the different flavors around, the *cough* average user would just rub their temples in frustration and stick with Macrohard products. And if they did pick a Linux distro, they would have to pray that all the components in their computer are compatible. I've installed linux on multiple systems (which previously ran some variation of winblows) and every system has had at least one piece of hardware that didn't have a driver available.

So, to make a long story short (TOO LATE) computer security for the average person will never happen. The only way to make computers secure for the average user to make the internet secure. The only way to make the internet secure is to allow your local ISP to start white-listing/black-listing sites, thus dictating where you can and can not go. And that's never going to happen. Or at least, we hope it doesn't.

Browsing safely

[Utopia Tree]

I don't think anyone sells common sense.

Re:Browsing safely

[Tumbleweed]

I don't think anyone sells common sense.

It wouldn't matter if they did; no one would buy it as everyone thinks they already have it.

They tested Anti-virus software for malware

[Jazz-Masta]

How about testing some malware removal programs? Malwarebytes, Adaware, Spybot?

I find Malwarebyte's Anti-malware to work wonders. Paired with Avast home edition, it is a good free combination. I think most system administrators notice the difference between software primarily tailored for virus detection and removal, and ones tailored for malware detection and removal.

They tested these:

Avast Professional Edition 4.8
AVG Anti-Virus 8.5
AVIRA AntiVir Premium 9.0
BitDefender Anti-Virus 2010
eScan Anti-Virus 10.0
ESET NOD32 Antivirus 4.0
F-Secure AntiVirus 2010
G DATA AntiVirus 2010
Kaspersky Anti-Virus 2010
Kingsoft AntiVirus 9
McAfee VirusScan Plus 2009
Microsoft Security Essentials 1.0
Norman Antivirus & Anti-Spyware 7.10
Sophos Anti-Virus 7.6
Symantec Norton Anti-Virus 2010
Trustport Antivirus 2009

Stop with the recommendations

[HermMunster]

Stop recommending products. The tests demonstrate that av products don't perform well. It is right on. 80% of my day is spent cleaning malware. I have written here many times about how you need a combination of products. I've also emphasized the need to do the initial cleaning with the infected drive as the secondary in a second machine.

Until you do this day in and day out please stop with the recommendations, as you are not helping anyone one bit.

Re:No Joke

[dangitman]

Most of the infections I deal with on a regular basis are coming from AD BANNERS. I have literally had people get a brand new machine, sit down at it, open IE8 and browse to one of the major sports news sites (ESPN, TSN, MLB, NFL, etc.) and get IMMEDIATELY infected by a banner ad!

Hmmm... could a law suit (class-action or otherwise) be an idea here? After all, isn't it illegal to infect someone's computer with malware? How is it that these major websites are getting away with it?

Wipe It

[Talisman]

Imaging products have become so good and fast that I no longer bother with 'scrubbing' a computer clean when it gets a virus. I can reimage the machine in less time; 15 minutes from start to finish, and I don't have to worry about viral remnants in the registry or some deeply buried hidden folder with a time bomb inside.

I keep our company's image file up-to-date, and when something goes wrong with a computer (drive crash, corrupt registry, malware, whatever) they are back online in 15 minutes. Screw scouring the web for a utility to remove a particular virus that may or may not work, and screw relying on an all-in-one product to save you from malware.

I have come to terms with the absolute fact that users are stupid and careless and aside from rare individual who bother to be responsible, they will always be stupid and careless, no matter how much I wish they would change.

In a business environment, imaging is the way to go.

(I use a Mac at home and don't have to worry about such things)

Re:I use Microsoft anti-virus and love it

[baptiste]

BuY H3rB@l V1agaRa t0Day!!!

I know you are going for funny with a shot at Microsoft (will that work around here I wonder? :), but you did notice that Microsoft Security Essentials was one of the best in the test? ;->

No kidding. I am not an MS fanboi by any stretch, but when they released Security Essentials, I gave it a whirl and have now swapped out AVG for it on everything I run AND recommend it to many of my clients (who usually are complaining about how slow their computer is since they installed NORTON 360 or they have a paid AV that expired years ago) It's lightweight, easy to us, has a very easy to understand user interface that isn't so graphical (*cough* N360), and it just works. Nice to see it garner some of the higher ratings in this test.

What amazes me is how much like Malware Norton, McAffee, and CA can be. Uninstalling them doesn't remove them completely. You HAVE to use their removal tool. I had to remove CA ISS the other day and it was painful. Had to remove it in pieces AND run a fix on the registry permissions which had been completely locked down to the point that 'Administrator' couldn't add/remove programs. So yeah - any time systems come into my shop, I recommend they drop whatever paid AV they're using and run MSE. No nag screens like AVG and it doesn't talk to you like Avast :) My only fear is that in a year they'll let it stagnate OR try to bloat it like the others. But if they keep it simple and go for the majority of infection vectors, hats off to them. Still won't make me use IE, but it's nice to see something like this come out of Redmond, even if they bought part of it.