.
/v3-uk/news/2001098/antivirus-struggles-bit-vista
03 Aug 2007, Tom Sanders in California , V3
Antivirus software for the 64-bit version of Windows Vista is struggling to properly protect the operating system, according to a new test by the Virus Bulletin security certification body.
Of the 20 antivirus products tested, 35 per cent failed to meet the test's criteria. Six of the failing grades were caused by so called false positives, legitimate files that are incorrectly flagged as malware.
Of the major vendors, McAfee Virusscan and Symantec Antivirus both passed the test, as did Microsoft's Forefront, Redmond's enterprise grade security suite that was released last May.
CA's eTrust application failed the test. The software comes with improper default settings that instruct the software to ignore many file formats. It therefore failed to detect many malware applications. Instead users have to apply the proper settings manually.
Trend Micro submitted three products for testing, all of which mistook a Microsoft development tool for malware.
"A false positive can cause as much disruption as a virus infection," John Hawes, technical consultant at Virus Bulletin, commented.
"False warnings often lead end-users to delete valid files in the belief that they are some form of attack and the resultant damage can be significant."
Traditional antivirus software doesn't function on 64-bit operating systems. The PatchGuard technology in Windows Vista's 64-bit version requires a new approach to security software because it prevents the applications from accessing the operating system's kernel. Virus Bulletin suggested that teething problems with the new designs contributed to the unusually high fail rate.
The Virus Bulletin certification is known for its stringency against a host of active and old malware applications. Failure to detect a single current pest will prompt a failing grade, as do false positives. All tested applications were submitted voluntarily by their developers.
The full results of the test are available to subscribers of Virus Bulletin.
Do you agree?
how bout Avast and KAV
Avast has made x64 AV which works quite nicely for a long while since XP64's inception, also KAV works fine on it, don't know why they didn't bother testing them.
Posted by Arup Roy Chowdhury, 03 Aug 2007
Pure crap!
The article might as well be titled "Crap Antivirus Software Still Crap" since the four products in question are now and always have been utterly useless.
Posted by K. Thor Johnson, 03 Aug 2007
That's stupid
What's the connection between false positive identification and 64-bit Vista?? Just because this time the test was done on 64-bit Vista does not prove a thing. It could have been 32-bit Win2k, the results would have been the same.
Quote from this month VB:
"With few additions to the WildList, and many items removed, the target for the VB100 seemed much easier to achieve this month. ... Almost all of this month?s failures were due to false positives, thanks in part to an enlargement of the clean test sets."
Lame article...
Posted by Cristian, 03 Aug 2007
What about..?
What about Kaspersky,did he pass test!?
Posted by Bozo, 06 Aug 2007
What about the rest
AVG & AntiVir antivirus are the most common free programs installed on computers by repairs, can you tell me how they did, or at least send or post on the site a detailed list of the resukts.
Posted by Rodney, 07 Aug 2007
Which Product
Which Symantec and McAfee products did you test? I need to purchase one of the two. I do prefer Symantec as time and again it has used the least amount of system resources. Thanks.
Posted by MJT, 20 Nov 2007