Does Anti-Virus Software provide adequate protection?

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by C.S.J, Feb 9, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    as far as im aware, they are testing zero day, confirmed in-the-wild malware.

    link to full article

    anyone have anymore information on Cyveillance?
     
  2. JRViejo

    JRViejo Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Posts:
    20,921
    Location:
    U.S.A.
  3. bellgamin

    bellgamin Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    5,648
    Location:
    Hawaii
    Cyveillance sells security services and is, to a significant extent, competing with antivirus programs for business. Thus, their *test data* should be viewed in that context.

    Most top tier antivirus programs include Behavior Blockers (BB) & Heuristics for dealing with 0-day threats. Even so, high risk surfers are well advised to include layered protecction such as...

    Antivirus w/BB + Firewall + Sandbox + Imaging SW
     
  4. Malcontent

    Malcontent Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2005
    Posts:
    451
    Location:
    Cleveland, Ohio USA
  5. dawgg

    dawgg Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2006
    Posts:
    817
    "DOES ANTIVIRUS SOFTWARE PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROTECTION AGAINST MALWARE?" - IMO - Yes for most people.

    Not sure about the the detection rates for AVs, (no indication of AV settings, version and last update etc) so will ignore that - maybe it is a fair comparison, but not enough detail for me to take too much consideration in, but at the end of the day, the article isnt written for people like many here in wilders looking for comparison charts, more like an article which is trying to scare web-users.

    It definatly looks like the article's skewed to making it look like users are in more danger than in reality "So if you visit a malicious Web site you could have a more than 1 in 2 chance of being infected with malware." - pushing more fear that is..
    a) most people dont often visit malicious web sites
    b) people have to somehow be tempted to download and execute the malware... doesnt happen everytime people visit unknown websites.

    Re: anti-phishing... Agree with the article more-or-less, although this quote seems weird: "reliance on browser-embedded anti-phishing technology to protect consumers against these attacks is not an adequate phishing defense strategy." - my reply would be... surely its better than nothing - can you recomend anything better? - why not mention educating users? people have are more than able to learn about this.

    The rest of the article looks more subdued and more of a report of malware and phishing.. not too fussed about which countries are more responsible for what, but a sound read for those interested that much in the figures and graphs - (not me).

    They look like a professional organisation showing trends in phishing etc
     
  6. TechOutsider

    TechOutsider Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Posts:
    549
    It provides enough protection for me even though I am a high-risk surfer. I use a layered AV soley with Windows and my hardware firewall.

    When I find an undetected file, I just send it to my vendor; generally they are ok about response time.
     
  7. steve1955

    steve1955 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Posts:
    1,384
    Location:
    Sunny(in my dreams)Manchester,England
    companies such as this one have a vested interest in trying to get users to mistrust their AV products,we all know that none are perfect but probably none when configured correctly are as bad as made out here
     
  8. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    For those who don't know, they were all tested using default settings.
     
  9. steve1955

    steve1955 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Posts:
    1,384
    Location:
    Sunny(in my dreams)Manchester,England
    results are a bit of a waste of space then!(and very misleading!)
     
  10. ola nordmann

    ola nordmann Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Posts:
    89
    Problem is most tests only use the on-demand scanner, because it's more practical with large malware collections.

    With some AVs this is not a problem because they detect exactly the same with realtime vs on-demand scanning, but with others the results are lower with on-demand scanning since the AV-product include additional HIPS/behaviour blocker that only works in realtime :)

    One extreme example is Comodo - they're AV-scanner is not among the highest rated, but in realtime it includes D+ (hips) which will nail much more malware.

    Kaspersky and others also have started to include HIPS in their antivirus.
     
  11. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    It does for me and my sister. I have avast! set to more manual control on my PC while on sister's laptop, it's configured for full silent operation and also password protected for max protection of settings.
    So far no problems at all. Pretty light and does its job :)
     
  12. steve1955

    steve1955 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Posts:
    1,384
    Location:
    Sunny(in my dreams)Manchester,England
    These results are a marketing tool,nothing else.
    What's the phrase?about lies ,damned lies and statistics!
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.