Av-Comparatives - Anti-Phishing Tests

All Contents | Last updated on 30Oct2011, Sunday

Anti-Phishing Tests - October 2011

Note:
These tests are not conducted by Chimalogy but by Av-Comparatives.

Test procedure

In our common test scenario we simulate a user which relies on the Anti-Phishing protection provided by its security product while browsing the web (and/or checking his web mail

e-mail account, i.e. anti-spam features are not considered as they are not the scope of this test).

The test was done using Windows XP SP3 and Internet Explorer 7 (without the build-in phishing blocker in order to get browser-independent results) under VMware. All security products were tested using default settings. All products were tested in parallel at the same time on the same URLs.

Tested products (19)

• AVG Internet Security 2011

• Avira Premium Security Suite 10.1

• Bitdefender Internet Security 2012

• Bullguard Internet Security 10.0

• eScan Internet Security 11.0

• ESET Smart Security 4.2

• F-Secure Internet Security 2011

• G DATA Internet Security 2012

• K7 Total Security 11.1

• Kaspersky Internet Security 2012

• McAfee Total Protection 2011

• Panda Internet Security 2012

• PC Tools Internet Security 2011

• Qihoo 360 Internet Security 2.0

• Quick Heal Internet Security 2011

• Symantec Norton Internet Security 2011

• Trend Micro Titanium Internet Security 2012

• Trustport Internet Security 2012

• Webroot Internet Security Complete 7.0

We were asked to test also Avast, Microsoft (Security Essentials) and Sophos. But Avast and Sophos do not have any Anti-Phishing feature, except blocking phishing mails with their spam filter.

Microsoft does block phishing websites in its browser (Microsoft Internet Explorer) and its spam filter (e.g. Microsoft Outlook); Security Essentials is not designed for this task.

ESET doesn’t have a dedicated module for anti-phishing protection yet. However, phishing sites are currently blocked along with other potentially harmful sites (like in most other products), employing various technologies such as web filter, parental control and detection of suspicious content aimed at the phishing landing pages themselves.

Qihoo is mainly targeted to block Chinese phishing sites.

Test Set

Phishing URLs taken out from spammed prevalent phishing mails and/or collected by our crawler and researchers. All phishing URLs had to be active/online and attempt to get personal information. Duplicate phishing URLs, as well as phishing campaigns hosted on same server/IP were removed.

All test cases were manually re-verified after the test. At the end, only 697 different and valid Phishing URLs remained. The phishing campaigns targeted various types of personal data.

Among those were (in the following order) phishing attempts to gather e.g. login credentials etc. for: PayPal, eBay, Online Banking & Credit cards, Social networks, Online Games,

E-mail accounts and other online services.

Below you see the percentages of blocked phishing websites (size of test set: 697 phishing URLs). Please take into consideration the false alarm rates (on next pages) when looking at the below results (products with false alarms are marked with an asterisk).

(Click on the image for a clearer view)


(Click on the image for a clearer view)

Anti-Phishing “False Alarm” Test

For the Anti-Phishing False Alarm Test we selected 1000 legitimate banking sites (all of them using HTTPS) from all over the world and checked if those legitimate online banking sites were blocked by the various security products.

Wrongly blocking such sites is a serious mistake. From the tested 19 products, only two (K7 and Webroot) had false alarms on the tested 1000 legitimate online banking sites:

K7 (1 false alarm):

• Bank Islam from Malaysia

Webroot (12 false alarms):

• AB Finance Bank from Russia

• Bank of Kenya from Kenya

• BLC Bank from Lebanon

• Dawia Next Bank from Japan

• Dhanlaxmi Bank from India

• Habib Bank Zuricj from UAE

• ING NL from Netherlands

• Marfin Laiki Bank from Cyprus

• Refah Bank from Israel

• Saxo eBank from Sweden

• ScotiaBank from Mexico

The discovered false alarms have been reported to the respective vendors and are now no longer blocked.

Which products support which browser?

Most browsers already include their own Anti-Phishing technologies. Nevertheless, due to the complexity and amount of social engineered scams and phishing attempts, it is recommended to make use of the Anti-Phishing features provided by security products too.

Practically all security products support the main stream browsers (i.e. Internet Explorer and Firefox), while only few support also other browsers. Due to that, it may be safer to make use of a supported browser to perform e.g. online banking.

(Click on the image for a clearer view)

Passed - Green (Supports all of the 5 commonly used browsers)

Neutral - Orange (Supports at least 3 commmonly used browsers)

Failed - Red (Supports less than 3 commonly used browsers)

Passed:

AVIRA Premium Security Suite

Bitdefender Internet Security

ESET Smart Security

G DATA Internet Security

Kaspersky Internet Security

Panda Internet Security

Trend Micro Titanium Internet Security

Neutral:

PC Tools Internet Security

Symantec Norton Internet Security

Failed:

AVG Internet Security

Bullguard Internet Security

eScan Internet Security

F-Secure Internet Security

K7 Total Security

McAfee Total Protection

Qihoo 360 Internet Security

Quick Heal Internet Security

Trustport Internet Security

Webroot Internet Security

Conclusion:

Top 7 that passes the overall tests.

1) 94.4% - Bitdefender

2) 92.8% -Trend Micro

3) 89.1% - AVIRA

4) 88.5% - G DATA

5) 85.1% - Kaspersky

6) 84.5% - Panda

7) 78.0% - ESET

Note:

I'm suprised that ESET managed to pass since it doesn’t have a dedicated module for anti-phishing protection yet but phishing sites is currently blocked along with other potentially harmful sites.

Chance of getting phished = Your Common Sense + Browsers + Security Products

In fact, this test seems pretty useless(except is show where is your anti-virus standing) to me as common sense play the largest part in this.

My advise is to always keep your software like browser and security product up-to-date and never open/click on any suspicious links from unknown and known person. Always double check with the person before clicking the link and is possible, type the link in your browser instead of clicking it.

Reference:

http://www.av-comparatives.org/en/comparativesreviews/anti-phishing-test

All Contents

Read More

AV-Test

All Contents | Last updated on 23Aug2011, Tuesday

Note:

This is another independence test conducted by AV-Test. (June 2011)

*Anti-virus that are used in these tests are used on their default settings which mean some had their heuristic turned on while the other did not turn on which resulted in the difference in the detection and false positive rate.

Chimalogy:

I believe False Positives is to be taken into account as it sometime cause as much or more damage/impact than a real infection.

I ranked according to the Score they achieved > Number of False Positives > Detection Rate > Repair.

Protection

"We" test the protective effect of security solutions by installing them on a non-infected system and examining how they respond to malware threats.

"We" do so by simulating a variety of attack scenarios such as the threat of e-mail attachments, infected websites or malicious files that have been transferred from external storage devices.

When carrying out these tests, AV-TEST takes the entire functionality of the protection program into account.


Here are the final score of Protection:


(Click on the image for a clearer view)

This is a summary of Protection Test. Maximum score is 6.0. Anything that is below 4.0 is not recommended to be use.

The number inside the bracket means the following: Protection/Blocking/Detection
(The higher the score the better).

Top 3* for Protection Test are BitDefender, Kaspersky, and AVG.

Repair

The repair performance of products is analysed using a system that is already infected.

"We" evaluate the products' ability to remove active malware and to restore other system changes as well as its performance when detecting and removing specially hidden malware (rootkits).


Here are the final score of Repair:


(Click on the image for a clearer view)

This is a summary of Repair test. Maximum score is 6.0. Anything that is below 4.0 is not recommended to be use.

The number inside the bracket means the following: Removal/Detection (The higher the score the better).

Top 3* for Repair Test are Kaspersky, BitDefender, and F-Secure.

Usability

"We" investigate the influence that security software has on the usability of the system and the system interferences that occur, for example: warning messages, general messages and blockages, false positives during system scans and the computer slowing down while the software is being used.


Here are the final score of Usability:


(Click on the image for a clearer view)

This is a summary of Usability test. Maximum score is 6.0. Anything that is below 4.0 is not recommended to be use.

The number inside the bracket means the following: Slow down/False Positives (The lower the score the better).

Top 3* for Usability Test are BitDefender , ESET and Microsoft.

ESET had the lowest impact on the system among all Anti-Virus that are tested. But due to False Positives, it had dropped 1 rank.

Overall Score

I decide to summarized the score to see the average score that each anti-virus had performed.


Here are the final score of Overall Score:


(Click on the image for a clearer view)

This is a summary of Overall test. Maximum score is 18.0. Anything that is below 11.0 is not recommended to be use.

The number inside the bracket means the following: Slow down/False Positives (The lower the score the better).

Top 3* for Overall Score Test are BitDefender, Kaspersky and F-Secure.

Here are the Anti-Virus who had achieved AV-TEST award:

Passed:

Avast: Free AntiVirus 6.0
AVG: Internet Security 10.0
Avira: Premium Security Suite 10.0
BitDefender: Internet Security Suite 2011
BullGuard: Internet Security 10.0
ESET: Smart Security 4.2
F-Secure: Internet Security 2011
G Data: Internet Security 2012
GFI: Vipre Antivirus Premium 4.0
Kaspersky: Internet Security 2011 & 2012
Microsoft: Security Essentials 2.0
Panda: Internet Security 2011 & 2012
Sophos: Endpoint Security and Control 9.5 & 9.7
Symantec: Norton Internet Security 2011
Trend Micro: Titanium Internet Security 2011
Webroot: Internet Security Complete 7.0


Failed:

Comodo: Internet Security Premium
K7 Computing: Total Security
McAfee: Total Protection
Norman: Security Suite Pro
PC Tools: Internet Security
CA: Internet Security Suite

Reference:

http://www.av-test.org/en/tests/test-reports/quarter-22011/

All Contents

Read More

Latest Comparative Anti-Virus Results(Virus Bulletin)

All Contents | Last updated on 22Aug2011, Monday

VB100 comparative testing is a regular independent comparison of anti-malware solutions.

The VB100 award is a certification of products which meet the basic standards required to be recognised as legitimate and properly functioning anti-malware solutions.



To display a VB100 logo, a product must:

- Prove it can detect 100% of malware samples listed as 'In the Wild' by the WildList Organization.

- Generate no false positives when scanning an extensive test set of clean samples.

- All this must be done with default, out-of-the-box settings in the VB lab environment.

Windows Server 2008 R2 - June 2011

Passed:

Agnitum Outpost Security Suite Pro

Avast Software avast! 4.8

Avertive VirusTect

AVG Internet Security 2011

Avira AntiVir Server

BitDefender Security for File Servers

Bkis BKAV Professional I.S.

Bullguard AntiVirus

CA Total Defense r12 I.S.

Central Command Vexira

Clearsight Antivirus

Defenx Security Suite 2011

Digital Defender

eEye Blink Server

eScan Internet Security Suite

ESET NOD32 Antivirus

F-Secure Protection Service

Fortinet FortiClient

GFI/Sunbelt VIPRE Antivirus

Kaspersky Small Office Security

Kingsoft AntiVirus 2011 Advanced A

Kingsoft AntiVirus 2011 Standard

Lumension EMSS

Microsoft Forefront Endpoint Protection 2010

Mongoosa

Norman Security Suite

Preventon Antivirus for Server

Quick Heal AntiVirus 2011 Server Ed.

Sophos Endpoint Security and Control

TrustPort Antivirus 2011

VirusBuster For Windows Server

SPAMfighter VIRUSfighter

Failed:

Arcabit ArcaVir 2011 (1 False Positive)

Commtouch Command Anti-Malware (2 False Positives)

Coranti 2010 (2 False Positives)

EmsiSoft Anti-Malware for Server (1 False Positive)

Frisk F-PROT Antivirus (2 False Positives)

G Data AntiVirus Client (1 False Positive)

Ikarus virus.utilities (1 False Positive)

Keniu Antivirus (1 False Positive)

Kingsoft AntiVirus 2011 Advanced B (7 False Positives)

Returnil System Safe 2011 (2 False Positives)

TGSoft VirIT eXplorer PRO (764 WildList Misses, 4 False Positives)

Reference:

http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archive/test?recent=1

RAP(Reactive And Proactive) detection scores : Average quadrant Dec2010 - Jun2011
This is an additional test conduct by Virus Bulletin.




Source:
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/latest_comparative/index

VB100 Results Overview(Accuracy over the years):

Top 13 most popular used anti-virus:

ESET : 95.77%(Feb 1998 - Jun 2011)
Symantec : 88.71%(Jan 1998 - Apr2011)

Avira : 85%(Feb 2005 - Jun2011)

Sophos : 78.38%(Jan 1998 - June2011)

Quick Heal : 76.00%(Jun 2002 - Apr2011)
Microsoft Security Essentials : 75.00%(Dec 2009-Dec 2010)

Kaspersky : 74.67%(Jan 1998 - Jun 2011)

BitDefender : 72.97%(Jul 2000 - Jun2011)

F-Secure : 72.73%(Jan 1998 - Jun 2011)

Norman : 68.57%(Jan 1998 - Jun2011)

McAfee : 66.18%(Jan 1998 - Apr2011)

Avast : 64.62%(Jan 1998 - Jun2011)

AVG : 63.33%(Feb 1998 - Jun2011)

*Percentage is based on = {[(Total entries) - (Number of failure)] / (Total entries)} X 100

Source:

http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archive/test?recent=1

Chimalogy:

Top 3 are Eset, Symantec and Avira. Eset remains one of the top detection rate and zero/lowest false positives than other anti-virus in the market.

All Contents

Read More