Security giants fail VB100 virus test

Researchers at Virus Bulletin have released the results of the latest VB100 computer security test, highlighting failures at a number of leading security vendors. Products from Sophos, Trend Micro and Kaspersky were among those that failed to protect fully against a collection of outdated viruses.

The December edition of the VB100 test subjected security software to 100 Windows 2000 viruses collected from labs and websites. "It was a shock and a concern to see such a poor performance from so many products in this latest round of testing," said John Hawes, a technical consultant at Virus Bulletin. "It is particularly disappointing to see so many major products missing significant real-world threats."

View: The full story @ vnunet

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

999 comes to VoIP

Next Story

Microsoft DirectX 10.1 Version – Final Update for DirectX 10

55 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

You would really need to see the chart to get a real explanation of the results to see why some of them failed. Even tho we would exspect something we pay/paid for to be 100%. For example tho.. like trend micro on windows X64 failed because of 2 false positives better than some of the others that missed wilds or had 92 false positives :)

But youd really hafta register and see the chart to get a real explaniation for the fails per OS.

Eset is awesome been using it for 3 years now ever any problems!

The Walker said,
A fail is a fail.. get real, I don't need some chart to tell me that.

did you actually READ his comment?
I aggree with him stating that a fail as in detecting harmless code as harmful isn't as bad as a fail as in failing to detect really harmful code.

Glassed Silver:mbl

for those of you worried about Kaspersky and other Companies that didn't passed the test, don't give too much importance to this kind of tests because there is no standard for testing av products as of today (unfortunate enough).

in my experience, you need to tinker with your av product to rise or customize the desired level of protection.
I've been using kaspersky AV and Internet Security for about three years without any single infection. I use them on about 20 computers but i manually set some settings to meet my needs.

This tests are run using the default configuration of each program, which i think can lead to some programs not passing tests.

That being said, if you think your av product is doing its work and you haven't exprienced any kind of infection you couldn't get rid of, stick to it. That is what i do everytime i read virus tests. I prefer to test them on real-life scenarios.

Anyone notice that once these company's start getting attention and more users, there products start getting bloated and crappy?.

BeLGaRaTh's list is misleading... please don't follow it..... certain antiviral programs failed for only specific OSs i.e. Alwil passed for everything except Windows 2000.

Evolution said,
BeLGaRaTh's list is misleading... please don't follow it..... certain antiviral programs failed for only specific OSs i.e. Alwil passed for everything except Windows 2000.

Well all I did was copy paste the fail/pass, if people want to read the full report they can register, I only made it for the lazy people who dont want to waste 2 mins filling in a form

Evolution said,
BeLGaRaTh's list is misleading... please don't follow it..... certain antiviral programs failed for only specific OSs i.e. Alwil passed for everything except Windows 2000.

Well all I did was copy paste the fail/pass, if people want to read the full report they can register, I only made it for the lazy people who dont want to waste 2 mins filling in a form

How come the vnunet story mentions Sunbelt software passing and yet it is not mention on Virus Bulletin's site? I knew Sunbelt was online to become a full anti-virus in addition to anti-spyware, but this is strange. Can anyone give me any clues as to what is going on here? Thanks.

For those that don't want to take 2 mins to register here are the results ...

PASS -

Agnitum
BitDefender (SOFTWIN)
Bullguard
CA eTrust
Eset
GDATA
Grisoft
McAfee (This surprises me)
Microsoft Forefront
MicroWorld
PC Tools AntiVirus
CAT QuickHeal
Symantec (WOW!!!)
VirusBuster


FAIL -

AEC (Trustport)
Alwil
Avira
CA Home
Doctor Web
Fortinet
FRISK
Ikarus
iolo
Kaspersky (surely some mistake? Even though I am an Eset user)
Kingsoft
Norman
PC Tools Spyware Doctor
Redstone
Rising
Sophos (another surprise here, seeing as it the AV of choice for most businesses)
Trend Micro

BeLGaRaTh said,
For those that don't want to take 2 mins to register here are the results ...

PASS -

McAfee (This surprises me)

It shouldn't. Mcafee has been very busy getting to the top of the antivirus world!

They are now one of the few who have fast scanning, small footprint and overall excellent protection !
Try it, give it a spin !

people bash symantec for being a resource hog which it is but due to some unknown phenomena the bashing leads over into their detection rates which are actually quite excellent

CRIKEY said,
people bash symantec for being a resource hog which it is but due to some unknown phenomena the bashing leads over into their detection rates which are actually quite excellent

Kaspersky and NoD32 fanbots can argue about which one is best all they want, but no single AV is perfect. I have at least two installed most of the time (on-demand only, not memory resident), plus anti-spyware, and a firewall to block anything trying to call home.

I've lately found an even better way of dealing with viruses. Test your software in a virtual machine. Then you can be 99.98% sure nothing will get through, except maybe some sort of extremely advanced rootkit, which is not something the average script kiddie is capable of creating.

Companies whose products passed the test included BitDefender, Symantec, McAfee, Sunbelt and Microsoft.

So McAfee, Symantec and Microsoft all passed... The ones that supposedly don't work? And the test requires NO false positives and detection of ALL current 'in the wild' virii.

Most of them passed for XP... except Agnitum, Ahnlab, Doctor Web, F-secure, Grisoft, Ikarus, Iolo, Kaspersky, NWI, and Proland Software.

However for Vista x64, the following passed: Alwil, Bullguard, CAT QuickHeal, Eset, Gdata, Grisoft, Kaspersky, Kingsoft, McAfee, Microsoft ForeFront, Microworld, Sophos, and Symantec.... most of the others except Trend Micro had no entry.

neufuse said,
So now Microsoft passes and Trend fails... thought last time people were ripping MS for failing this
Do you mean this testing round?

In that case, Microsoft was dead last in its performance score, after previously achieved a perfect VB100 rating the time before.

I think it is fair to wonder why a company misses the VB100 mark. I think it especially fair to be very concerned when they were previously VB100, then drop to dead last the next round - it smells of resting on ones laurels, so to speak.

I posted back then that "perhaps Microsoft will see these results as a sign to get back in gear and strive for that 100% perfect score again". I see that with their VB100 certification back, they have indeed gotten back in gear.

Well that fricken sucks. So Norton is a hog, Trend and Kaspersky are now in hot water for not passing.

What good virus software is there now? NOD32?

Primetime2006 said,

Stick to playing with your legos, troll.

No thank you. I'll continue to play with my brand new shiny Macbook running Mac OS X Leopard. I'll leave the legos for you and the other miserable PC users worrying about viruses.

internetworld7 said,

No thank you. I'll continue to play with my brand new shiny Macbook running Mac OS X Leopard. I'll leave the legos for you and the other miserable PC users worrying about viruses. :laugh:

Great. Go sit under your bridge and stroke your Mac.

How's that keyboard working for ya, or the hybrid standby failures, or the battery draining bugs, or the...yeah the list of Mac EFI/Leopard related bugs is getting long over the past few weeks. Ahem.

OPaul said,
Does anyone have a link to the results that doesn't require paying?
Yeah. The link in the article.

Registration is free. I registered to them about a year ago. No spam or anything. One of the few "good" organizations, as near as I can tell.

Ficman said,
Trend doesn't surprise me, Karpersky does...

For me, karpesky failed too many times in the past, so i will stick with Antivir (Umbrella corps?).

The link sucks, it's almost as small as the summary. Trying to find the entire test results lead me to a Login page for the VB100 people. I'd liked to have seen the entire test results. since i can't find them or the methodology used in the test. Im skeptical of the results.

Never heard of the test, or the testers before. Can't find more then a summary of the results without logging in. Why does the article say "outdated" viruses? how outdated? are we talking Melissa outdated, or something from last month outdated.

meh.. could be worthless.

The VB100% award suggests (to newbies) that the tested products are capable of detecting 100% of all viruses. This is simply not true since no product is able to detect all viruses. These vendors have come to realize the marketing significance of these tests, and the effort they put into their products to pass the VB100 tests may not reflect the effort they put into detecting viruses outside of those included in the VB100 test set. It's possible for an AV product to pass all the VB100 tests but still have mediocre virus detection, and those that fail the tests could offer superior detection and removal. Look to av-comparatives and av-test.org for credible test results.