Is it time to revalue the role of anti-malware? Maybe, but uninformed or intentionally misleading mutterings about signatures are not where to start.
It's been a busy few weeks. Last week I was in Krems, Austria for the EICAR conference. The week before, I was in Prague for the CARO workshop (where my colleagues Robert Lipovsky, Alexandr Matrosov and Dmitry Volkov did a great presentation on "Cybercrime in Russia: Trends and issues" – more information on that shortly),
All this is potentially frightening and inconvenient (or worse) for a home user. And if it happens in a corporate environment, it can be very, very expensive to remedy. So while some of the public comments we see in the wake of such incidents may seem over the top, “FP rage” is certainly understandable.
Who would have thought that an initiative aimed at increasing the accuracy and relevance of anti-malware testing would be quite so controversial? Well, it was to be expected that AMTSO (the Anti-Malware Testing Standards Organization) would generate a certain amount of controversy: clearly, the organization is not going to get everything right first time. And
…Somewhere in this welter of misinformation, well-meant but muddled thinking, and black propaganda, there are some issues that need clarifying… Watch this space for further information. And while you’re waiting, you might want to check the documentation and other resources at the AMTSO web site to see what the organization really proposes and what it is really trying to achieve…
Further to my "top ten of top tens" post, I was encouraged by some queries to revisit the “Top Ten Mistakes Made When Evaluating Anti-Malware Software” list quoted by Kevin Townsend here. As it was an AMTSO issue and most of the queries have related to an AMTSO blog post, I've returned to it (and
I've noticed a number of tests recently that seem to be intended to prove that free antivirus is as good as commercial AV. As it happens, I'm not against free AV in principle, as long as people are entitled to use it – commercial use of free AV is usually not permitted. And I'm overjoyed when
AMTSO (the Anti-Malware Testing Standards Organization) has published its review analysis of the Endpoint Security Test that was published by NSS Labs on September 8, 2009. The Review Analysis published on March 17, 2010 compared AMTSO’s Fundamental Principles of Testing to the NSS Labs report and found that it doesn’t comply with two of the nine AMTSO
Larry Seltzer posted an interesting item yesterday. The article on "SW Tests Show Problems With AV Detections " is based on an "Analyst's Diary" entry called "On the way to better testing." Kaspersky did something rather interesting, though a little suspect. They created 20 perfectly innocent executable files, then created fake detections for ten of them.
Greetings, friends, fans and foes. I know it’s been a while, but I’ve been travelling, with intermittent connectivity: first the Infosecurity expo in London, then the CARO and AMTSO workshops in Budapest, then the EICAR conference in Berlin. This week I’ve been at the Channel Expo in Birmingham (the one in the UK, that is)
So the CARO workshop came and went (and very good it was too): unfortunately, because of the nature of the event, I can’t tell you too much about it. However, at least some of the presentations are expected to be made available soon, and we’ll pass on that information when we have it. After a
Good morning. Is there anyone still out there and connected? Thought so. While one or two people who comment here seem to think I’m personally responsible for developing, maintaining, and marketing ESET products (and in at least one case writing the malware as well) I’m afraid I didn’t spend April 1st crouched over a rack