Ethical Hacking Learn to find vulnerabilities before the bad guys do! Gain real world hands on hacking experience in our state of the art hacking lab. Course designed and taught by expert instructors with years of penetration testing experience. 12 student maximum in every class. Certification attempt included in every package. | Computer Forensics Training at InfoSec Institute Gain the in-demand skills of a certified computer examiner, learn to recover trace data left behind by fraud, theft, and cybercrime perpetrators. Discover the source of computer crime and abuse at your organization so that it never happens again. All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 12 students or less to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert instructors. |

| Subject: | RE: Consumer Reports AV and their 5,500 new variants |
|---|---|
| Date: | Mon, 18 Sep 2006 09:50:29 -0700 |
[Reposting at moderators request -bill] Hi Roger, I read your article: http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/09/08/37OPsecadvise_1.html Well done! Besides pointing out the soft underbelly of the AV community, you gracefully avoided the controversy of creating new malware. The analogy I use when describing defensive computer security, is like coming home from a Karate class, and demonstrating your latest moves: "Try to hit my chin. Ow! Slower. No, a little higher. Wait, my foot wasn't in the right place. Hold on, I wasn't ready. OK, now. With the other hand! No, you're supposed to let me grab your wrist. You're not cooperating!" The old karate demands a cooperative attacker, or at least one that follows a known set of rules. Corporate Firewalls were once seen as the ultimate defense, but intruders were supposed to follow network rules and not hopscotch in through harmless port traffic, or have the user install something interesting that connected out to the intruder, and computers were not supposed to travel out of the network perimeter. With all due respect the old guard (I'm not that young myself), I wonder if AV is 'the old karate'. Maybe some of the experts should try out a few new attacks. Bill Stout Disclaimer - "I don't speak for my employer. Some of my evening posts are accompanied by a glass of whiskey or wine. I don't always pay attention when I type." Obligatory political statement - 'No peace for terrorists' -----Original Message----- From: Roger A. Grimes [mailto:roger@banneretcs.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 8:31 AM To: Paul Schmehl; Bill Stout; Kurt Seifried; focus-virus@securityfocus.com Cc: rubin@jhu.edu Subject: RE: Consumer Reports AV and their 5,500 new variants I've been doing AV for 20 years now, and supported this basic safety tenet, but the Consumer Reports' lab testing incident doesn't bother me. It had a good AV expert behind the work, tested logical goals that can only be tested by creating new malware programs, and was kept controlled. If it wasn't done by a professional and if great care wasn't taken to make sure they didn't leak, I'd be bothered. But let's be honest, at this point, the malware problem is so bad, the AV vendors are so bad at detecting them, and so many variants are being created each day, that the original problem of something new leaking out, just isn't the priority it used to be. If I worked for an AV vendor, I'd stop my complaining and get to work on a better product. The state of AV protection is as bad as it has ever been. I've been reading about the "death of antivirus scanners" for 20 years now, but for the first time I think their time is nearing the end, and I say so in my Friday column in InfoWorld. Roger ***************************************************************** *Roger A. Grimes, InfoWorld, Security Columnist *CPA, CISSP, MCSE: Security (2000/2003/MVP), CEH, yada...yada... *email: roger_grimes@infoworld.com or roger@banneretcs.com *Author of Professional Windows Desktop and Server Hardening (Wrox) *http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0764599909 ***************************************************************** -----Original Message----- From: Paul Schmehl [mailto:pauls@utdallas.edu] Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 10:21 AM To: Bill Stout; Kurt Seifried; focus-virus@securityfocus.com Cc: rubin@jhu.edu Subject: RE: Consumer Reports AV and their 5,500 new variants --On Wednesday, September 06, 2006 01:01:39 -0700 Bill Stout <bill.stout@greenborder.com> wrote:
Indeed, the consensus throughout the antivirus development and testing
community is that creating a new virus or variant for product testing would be very bad - and totally unnecessary. To do so would undoubtedly raise questions about their ethics." Maybe opinions have changed on creating viruses in a closed test lab, and it's no longer unethical.
I can assure you that within the AVIEN community nothing has changed. We are completely oppposed to the creation of viruses in a lab, for many reasons, all of which we have publicly articulated. Paul Schmehl (pauls@utdallas.edu) Adjunct Information Security Officer The University of Texas at Dallas http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ALERT: "How a Hacker Launches a SQL Injection Attack!" - White Paper It's as simple as placing additional SQL commands into a Web Form input box giving hackers complete access to all your backend systems! https://download.spidynamics.com/1/ad/sql.asp?Campaign_ID=70160000000CZWl ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | RE: Consumer Reports AV and their 5,500 new variants, Nick FitzGerald |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: Consumer Reports AV and their 5,500 new variants, Roger A. Grimes |
| Previous by Thread: | RE: Consumer Reports AV and their 5,500 new variants, Nick FitzGerald |
| Next by Thread: | RE: Consumer Reports AV and their 5,500 new variants, Roger A. Grimes |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |