Skip to main content

Anti-virus Statistics - Motivations

In a study completed and published by Avira (http://www.avira.com/en/company_news/recognition_performance_virus_protection.html) The results of the survey showed that for 34 percent (3,207 respondents) a long-established, trustworthy brand was key. Almost as many users, 33 percent (3,077 respondents), based their decision on the virus detection rates achieved in independent tests.

Detection rates - lets call this effectiveness of the control - as this is the key metric used to measure effectiveness. This is a skewed metric as for the large majority of evaluations (ICSALabs, VB100, etc) use the "in-the-wild" or ITW list of viruses to perform the evaluations. There is no evaluation of these product's ability to respond or even detect newly released virus and malware.

In all honesty really what we are dealing with here is preventative vulnerability management not virus detection and correction, and in my opinion there are four types of preventative protections required for the average consumer (some are currently reality - others not):

1. The consumers buying products based on their security. This does not exist in any meaningful way for the general community. Lets get someone to independently evaluate the software makers on this and publish it for consumers to make choices based on their performance.

2. A service used to update software code quickly. There should also be an independent evaluation of a code's susceptibility to vulnerabilities and speed in which these are patched by the vendor. This should apply to all software not just operating systems and browsers. Again there could be independent evaluations of the companies policies, practices and past performance related to this.

3. A perfect ITW detection engine - 100% - there is no reason a product should be less than this for KNOWN viral code. Really this should be combined with #4.

4. A product to detect and respond to new threats - ones without signatures - which is a significantly larger threat as they are generally being developed with more financial motivation. Apple's and Microsoft's authorization of unsigned code is a good first step but this should be done at the CPU level to detect suspicious behavior by software and apply a policy to it. Do consumers actually read a warning about unsigned code? or do they just click "continue". AMD - Intel - Other chip makers? Is this possible at a low level? and how do we trust these companies themselves.

Anyone else have thoughts on other ways of preventing the impacts of vulnerabilties?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Local Classified Penny Auction Scam

While there are a lot of new posts regarding the new ways to exploit people using novel techniques and 0day exploits, there continues to be a rash of tried and true methods of coercion.  I want to just walk through a simple example and reflect on how effective these methods continue to be. Many people turn toward online classified sites to buy and sell items online.  This example starts with kijiji.ca which even I've used on occasion to find used electronics and other items.  Doing a search on the site for a " Samsung Galaxy Note 2 " returns a posting from today with someone selling one for an unreasonably priced unit. $125 for a $500 phone?, but what if it's for real?  No harm in just asking some simple questions.  Email sent with some obvious questions regarding the condition and location. About an hour passes before I get a response from what appears to be a legit seller. Notice no answer to the questions I asked, but a friendly pointer at where th

Edmonton HeartBleed Information Session - April 16th, Royal Glenora Club

Since the latest major OpenSSL vulnerability was publicly disclosed, many people and organizations are scrambling to understand, respond and prepare themselves for the future.  Twitter, vendor support channels and media outlets have been quick to cover different angles of the issue but there has been overwhelming amount  of information released. With all this information, it can be difficult to understand what's relevant.  To help clarify we holding a special ISACA sponsored 2-hour session on Wednesday, April 16th, starting at 12:00pm at the Royal Glenora Club.   Benoit and I will be attempting to explain as much of the issue as we can from a technical and non-technical perspective, discussing the vulnerability, its scope with relation to our personal and professional lives and other related concerns such as our trust in the public PKI system.  The second hour we will be an interactive discussion about how others are dealing with problem, questions about related topics,

OpenSolaris, ZFS, iSCSI and OSX - Creative Storage - Part II

In part I of this post, I looked at the simple steps required to setup a relatively simple storage solution using OpenSolaris, ZFS, iSCSI and OSX. This was about a month ago, and I've made some significant changes on how this is used for me. At the end of the last post I left off on the part dealing with configuration of the iSCSI initiator side of the solution. I stopped here because there were some issues related to the installation and use of the software. The iSCSI initiator that I was using was Studio Network Solutions GlobalSAN initiator (version 3.3.0.43) which is used to allow for connections to their products. This software will also allow for connections to ANY iSCSI target! After the configuration of the iSCSI target on the ZFS pool, and installation of the client it was trivial to get the connection established with the storage pool, and it showed up in OSX as a raw disk which had not been formatted. I proceeded to format the disk as HFS+ and it then mounted as a lo