How Long Must You Wait for an Anti-Virus Fix?

[Thrall]

February 23, 2004
By Brian Livingston

Imagine that your office building was on fire, and you called the fire department, only to be told, "Please wait there while we invent a new method to fight the kind of fire you have."

You'd be furious! You'd expect the firefighters to rush to your building immediately, ready to fight whatever kind of fire they found.

Unfortunately, anti-virus services are forced into a scenario that no firefighter would accept: "We have to invent new defenses every day." Anti-virus software can predict and prevent some never-before-seen viruses. But all too often, a new virus can spread unchecked while software vendors develop and distribute a new "signature" file that can match the virus and kill it.

The Time Lag Between Discovery and Disinfection

Just how long is the period between a new virus getting "into the wild" and an effective antidote getting into your company's anti-virus arsenal?

To answer that question, I turned to AV-Test.org, a group of researchers which has studied anti-virus technology for years.

AV-Test is not as well-known in the United States as it should be, possibly because the group is located in Germany at the Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg. Many of the organization's articles have been published in German computer magazines that have no English editions — but I hope that'll change.

I interviewed by telephone Andreas Marx, manager of AV-Test, to get his view of anti-virus response times. He provided me with test results showing how long it took 23 major anti-virus programs worldwide to come up with new signature files during the past several weeks.

"I hope this will decrease the time it takes updates to get released," Marx told me, explaining why he feels sharing the information is important.

Finding — and Fighting — New Virus Threats

The new signature files involved in this horse race were developed to fight four novel viruses that weren't being caught by the preventive or "heuristic" techniques of most anti-virus programs. These four new viruses are known as Dumaru.Y, MyDoom.A, Bagle.A and Bagle.B.

AV-Test uses special scripts to check the servers at anti-virus companies every five minutes, looking for new signature files. It then calculates the time between each virus being first spotted somewhere in the world by the MessageLabs consulting group and the time when each anti-virus service has a working fix available to the public (not counting beta versions available only to testers).

According to the organization's data, these are the average lag times, in hours and minutes, for each program during the test period:

H:M Anti-Virus Program
06:51 Kaspersky
08:21 Bitdefender
08:45 Virusbuster
09:08 F-Secure
09:16 F-Prot
09:16 RAV
09:24 AntiVir
10:31 Quickheal
10:52 InoculateIT-CA
11:30 Ikarus
12:00 AVG
12:17 Avast
12:22 Sophos
12:31 Dr. Web
13:06 Trend Micro
13:10 Norman
13:59 Command
14:04 Panda
17:16 Esafe
24:12 A2
26:11 McAfee
27:10 Symantec
29:45 InoculateIT-VET

The averages vary from about 7 hours per virus to more than one full day (almost 30 hours).

It's important to note two things about the figures in the table above:

• Some of the programs were able to detect some of the viruses in the testing period heuristically — without needing an update. Ikarus, Quickheal, and Virusbuster were able to do this with the Dumaru.Y virus, whereas Norman and RAV were able to do it with Bagle.B. In those cases, the anti-virus program was assigned a response time of zero for that one virus. This reduced those vendors' average response times.

• On the other hand, A2 had not posted a signature for the Bagle.B virus within three days, when the test period ended. This program, therefore, was assigned a response time of 35 hours in this instance. If this virus had not been considered in the statistics, A2's average response time would have been reduced to 15:26 rather than 24:12.

Distributing the Fix Is As Important As Developing It

Aside from the immediate problem of developing signature files that can detect new viruses, there's another element to a good anti-virus service. The new signatures must be distributed to corporate and individual customers across the Internet, using the infrastructure the provider has built.

In a PDF white paper released in February and entitled "Outbreak Response Times," AV-Test shows that the frequency with which anti-virus companies update their software online varies widely. Although new signatures are sometimes posted very quickly in special cases, many major anti-virus services schedule regular online updates only once or twice a week, AV-Test says. Other providers, such as F-Secure, schedule updates seven times a week, while Kaspersky Labs schedules them 20 times a week, according to AV-Test's figures.

Updating Anti-Virus Signatures Around the Clock

Actually, says Antony Holdsworth, technical consultant for Kaspersky Labs' United Kingdom office, his company recently started posting a new signature file on its servers every three hours.

"We're seeing about 300 new viruses a week," Holdsworth explains. "There are always new anti-virus signatures to post," even with updates scheduled eight times a day, he adds.

Kaspersky schedules new signature files the most often — and earned the fastest average response times in AV-Test's real-time trials, shown above — because the company has a large number of people around the world analyzing viruses and developing cures, Holdsworth says.

Conclusion

Your company may not feel it has a virus problem. Some corporations think they can prevent viruses by stripping all attachments out of incoming e-mail. "But people use workarounds like Hotmail to get attachments," AV-Test's Marx says.

If you do find yourself coping with new viruses all too often, the response time of your anti-virus service may be a factor you'll want to take a good, hard look at.

Ref: DataMation

[jee]

Makes one wonder where Symantec and Norton is?

[Thrall]

Second-last

[Psych0_Cr1tt3r]

27:10 Symantec

Thats pathetic!

[Zellin]

26:11 McAfee
27:10 Symantec

Its dodgy how 2 of the major companies are in the slowest three:!:
I Should probably stop releasing them nasties some time.

[Thrall]

I think it's probably a corporate-thing - takes longer to get someone in authority who doesn't know technically what he or she's talking about to sign off the update as being safe to release.

Eugene Kaspersky in Russia is a different story - a geek-CEO with a passion for his work

[snipeers]

according to the AV-Test.org website...

<i>A liability for the correctness of the data and results given on this test cannot be taken by the authors. We do not give any <b>guaranty</b> of any kind, neither explicit nor implicit, including all guaranties of usablity or uselessness for any kind of purpose.</i>

so much so for the Purveyors of Truths.

LINK

[Thrall]

I imagine Tom's Hardware or any other testing-type site have similar disclaimers, yup

[hamin_aus]

Then there's the school that believes most viruses are released by the AV companies themselves in order to keep ppl buying.....

[Tel]

It makes you wonder what the "big boys" are doing there in their expensive offices charging the earth for their Anti-virus products.

Symantec, McAfee and TrendMicro all had slower response times and that is just not acceptable.

[Thrall]

I interviewed by telephone Andreas Marx, manager of AV-Test, to get his view of anti-virus response times. He provided me with test results showing how long it took 23 major anti-virus programs worldwide to come up with new signature files during the past several weeks.

"I hope this will decrease the time it takes updates to get released," Marx told me, explaining why he feels sharing the information is important.

I agree - I hope it lights a fire under someone's ***...