Would you change your AV because of this test?

Don't bother... They can't handle the truth!

 

Fuzzfas, this is the best post I have seen in a while.

I'm beginning to get just a wee bit tired from all the "super antiviruses" scoring 98% or more and 70-80% on proactive tests, because there are actually a whole bunch of people who believe that this crap is true.

 

Actually the facts are true! Detection rates are accurate in most cases but as some have said, while it's all true, it's not the only factor of value.

Many more variables are at work here invalidating even the "Best" Detection rate of any products.

- All Anti virus products stop some viruses
- All Anti virus products fail to stop some viruses

But the real kicker is that usually you take notice when "Your" Anti virus products failed to stop the one virus that infected you...

Yesterday I cleaned up a system with more than 8 different viruses with Norton Internet security suite 2008 installed and running... However it couldn't detect the darn things and couldn't clean them either. Setup = Vista home premium with UAC enabled... Read all about it here: https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1172045&postcount=240

The moral of this story: Don't trust anything marketing people say in brochures or some labs... Even the Big brands screw up when it comes to "protecting" us against viruses...

 

The facts are true of the tester's sample set, not of what happens in reality.

 

No arguments from me Solcroft...

 

Just a note about Anti virus recommendations.

In the corporate world IT Pro's are expert at covering their butts where they make bad decisions: They use only "TOP Brands" so as to be able to say: Well, I picked the Best of the litter... How could I have predicted it a top brand like this would turn up to be garbage?

Trust me most of us, have done it. Delegate responsibility that way and it will continue to perpetuate crappy product sales thriving ...


(A gripe)
One of the things that really turn my crank is clients who get infected often turn their hanger on me... usually covertly.
I sold them the AV, They blame me for "It" being unable to prevent the infection and feel "I"'m ripping them off for charging them to clean it... Like it's my frigging fault? Sometimes they imply I might of "infected" them to make money!!! Holy crap!

I blame the bastards that write this crap! Why would anyone devote their intelligence to screwing others? It's way beyond my limited comprehension of the human mind..

 

Not really. The most widely-used brands are the ones that malware writers spend time on devising evasion techniques for. It's the same logic as the one that causes people to write viruses for Windows, instead of Mac or Linux.

And unfortunately it seems that there's absolutely nothing antivirus vendors can do about this.

 

True enough... However I think both statements are valid. I have personally used the "Brand Name" as an evasion tactic, and even witnessed it being discussed in meetings in that context so I know I'm not unique (Note I have changed this practice long time ago)

Still the issue with AV's is that no matter what the "Focus" of the writers are they still fail from a user perspective.
These products should provide an insurance like in UPS's When power surge HIT your "protected" equipment in the server room you can get up to $200,000.00 coverage to replace the equipment the UPS effectively failed to protect! No matter if it's a lightning strike or a blown generator... it still failed.

For some reasons where it comes to viruses, consumers have accepted to shoulder the entire burden of that failure while developers continue to profit...

Failure, here while being predictable is still an unacceptable element!

 

If they did that they would sink faster than... something really fast. Failure is predictable for antivirus software, but preventing that failure 100% of the time is simply impossible thanks to technological and economic constraints.

 

Same reality is prevalent in the UPS world. A lot is at stake here, however UPS/line conditioners Manufacturers learn to build their device to actually work. The same problems used to afflict UPS's Simply PUT they didn't work (Many Surge Product still don't work properly by the way). Those that do usually have the Insurance to prove it or at least to compensate against possible failures.

Many companies retired their inferior products others went out of business. Fact of life. It did force the industry to improve itself and develop better products... What's wrong with that?

This is what is needed in the software security world.... Improve or die! so I can invest my $$$ in a product I can trust implicitly and not get ripped off!

Instead developers now hand out their product for free! Giving something that doesn't work half the time for free is not a really nice gift!
And it is a poor substitute to compensate for a failed technology! Yet users actually pay for renewals year after year! Baffles me!

 

It's one thing to claim that vendors should learn to build something that works. It's another thing altogether to be actually able to do it.

The Storm worm, for example, continues to maintain a near-100% undetected streak across VirusTotal whenever a brand new variant is released. I don't see this fact changing anytime soon. While it's all fine and dandy to say that vendors need to create bulletproof products, a brief glimpse of the technical impossibilities involved will usually bring you back to the ground pretty quickly.

 

I understand the complexity trust me. The solutions are out there. It's Just that no one wants to "Do what it takes". If developers had to certify every executable and support dll or the many miscellaneous files published with every applications to a registrar and certify the files. Security vendors would have no problems listing good versus bad... However no one wants it. Why?

It should be legislated (I know it does require international support and enforcement) but if someone wants to profit from development it should be law... I probably would go out of business if viruses diseapered but so what? It's for the greater good!

 

Already discussed to death. A quick google search will give you the answer to your question, if you're really interested in the issue.

 

Nope, just the opposite.

 

Unfortunately I'm not a developer, just the janitor cleaning up the mess they left behind!

(Edit) --- My point is not that I'm not interested in the answer, but that my effective role in IT doesn't empower me to bring about effective and positive change over the issue!

 

Not much point in proposing utopian, yet unfeasible miracle cures if you're not going to educate yourself about the issues, is there?

 

Look my point is not by any means invalidated by this rather weak perspective.
Fact is consumers are burnt, developers profit and user stupidity and ignorance is blamed...

I still think that no mater how one may attempt to deflect this issue it is still the relevant factor, not my semi ignorance of all of the facts or my apparent lack of interest in learning them (Not the fact actually).

Besides my effort here is not to "propose" a solution but to shed light on a problem, that is being deflected by interests at the expense of the consumers of which category I belong!

People Rag my Ass over this, like I have something to do about it... Least I can do is bring the issue up to those who could potentially actually effect some type of positive change!

 

I see no problems with such "blaming", as you put it. The fact remains that plenty of people stay safe with inferior antivirus software, or none at all, and others get infected even though they've literally installed VirusTotal on their computer. Do you have any other explanation for such occurences, other than user education (or the lack thereof)?

What issue is being deflected, exactly?

As far as I'm concerned, all I've done is point out that taking the moral high ground and demanding a technically impossible feat from antivirus vendors is nothing but a waste of time that doesn't get anyone anywhere - that's that.

 

I cant get over it... Rationalizing being able to sell a product that fails without any accountability whatsoever! The reality is consumers are paying, but the protection doesn't work? Do they get compensated for that failure? Not by a long shot...

When clients call me to cleanup what anti virus failed to fix or because they browse porn sites and never do maintenance on their pc and screw it all up... They often refuse to pay me when It cant be fixed. Even though I may have worked for hours on a problem they caused for themselves...

The fact that Anti virus products don't work and that developers take no responsibility for products they actually profit from... even though they don't work regardless of the causes.

The fact that Anti virus products don't work is a fact even you wont dispute solcroft... However it's not about high grounds it's about kicking some out of complacency and finding solutions that work.

Some are already working on it think of Prevx, and comodo's free av (developing hybrids based on the best of both worlds) making things differently. Or sanasecurity and others like them...

Innovations is what we need, and it has nothing to do with taking the high ground, if companies don't wake up soon they'll be out of business in no time because others are actually working on effective solutions. They may not be ready yet but soon enough!

 

It's a free market, and free markets breed efficiency. The products that do their job best, or are marketed most cleverly, prosper while the others are forced to the sidelines.

I think you've abandoned all semblance of logical discussion when you claim that vendors have no accountability for their products. I'm not Blue, and I don't explain the obvious to people who refuse to see it. Vendors are legally bound to ensure that their products do what they claim it does, and are pressed to provide superior technology and support services to their customers in order to profit. The issue here is that you're intent on holding vendors accountable when they don't do a perfect job - $20,000 payment per infection missed? - which, as I've already told you, is impossible due to today's technological constraints.

So they did. But why should they pay you when you offer no results? For one who's been harping about accountability, this seems quite like an abrupt about-turn of tune.

Stop talking about ridiculous issues of holding security vendors accountable for something they have no control over, and I might believe you.

 

Not at all, I have been "Held Accountable" more than once. I have no trouble with it either. I am simply pointing the obvious here regarding the inadequacy and inequality of the relationship between security solutions and the consumers.

Actually I wont do that. The automotive industry had to be forced by government to institute standards of safety. The pharmaceutical industry still sells drugs that are more armful than the disease they offer support to. Products are pushed commercially that are known to destroy the environment... Business simply put cant be trusted to have the consumers best interest at heart when profits is all they understand...

 

Why try and blame the people that are trying to fix the problem? Why not blame those creating the problem in the first place?

 

The motivation is as old as man is, it is called greed and has been around since caveman days.

Unfortunately governments can not be trusted either.

 

Actually I'm not... I'm talking about innovations here, as well as accountability.
Not blaming or being irrational... the point is that perhaps if more cooperation takes place in facing this common challenge a solution can be found...

Besides software being an unresolvable problem is bullshit... We send shuttles in outer space but we cant fix frigging viruses? This is ridiculous, it is simply that the problem is not taken seriously as it is far too profitable to keep it alive!

 

Actually that's another compelling reason to buy from a major vendor: after-sales support. My experiences with Symantec support regarding cleanup for an infected machine running one of their products was surprisingly pleasant.

As for the point you're trying to make, claiming than vendors should cough up $20,000 per missed infection is a very - pardon the adjective - stupid way to get about it, nuff said. Your point might be valid, but your lack of rationality and logical thought just about murdered it completely.

Then I'm afraid you'll have to excuse me if I'm of the opinion that you're doing exactly what I said you were - claiming the moral high ground and making fancy speeches about utopian, flawless, and completely ridiculous solutions to the problem.