Avc aph 201207_en
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Avc aph 201207_en

on

  • 6,248 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
6,248
Views on SlideShare
743
Embed Views
5,505

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

4 Embeds 5,505

http://www.comss.ru 5476
http://translate.googleusercontent.com 24
http://www.admuncher.com 4
http://131.253.14.98 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Avc aph 201207_en Document Transcript

  • 1. Anti‐Phishing Test – July 2012  www.av‐comparatives.org Anti-Phishing TestJuly 2012Language: EnglishJuly 2012Last revision: 14th August 2012www.av-comparatives.org ‐ 1 ‐ 
  • 2. Anti‐Phishing Test – July 2012  www.av‐comparatives.org IntroductionWhat is Phishing?Taken from Wikipedia1:“Phishing is a way of attempting to acquire sensitive information such as usernames, passwords and creditcard details by masquerading as a trustworthy entity in an electronic communication. This is similar to Fish-ing, where the fisherman puts a bait at the hook, thus, pretending to be a genuine food for fish. But thehook inside it takes the complete fish out of the lake. Communications purporting to be from popular socialweb sites, auction sites, online payment processors or IT administrators are commonly used to lure the un-suspecting public. Phishing is typically carried out by e-mail spoofing or instant messaging and it often di-rects users to enter details at a fake website whose look and feel are almost identical to the legitimate one.Phishing is an example of social engineering techniques used to deceive users, and exploits the poor usabil-ity of current web security technologies.”For more information about how not to get hooked by a phishing scam, please have a look at e.g. theConsumer Alert of the FTC: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/alerts/alt127.shtmTest procedureIn our common test scenario, we simulate a user that relies on the Anti-Phishing protection provided byits security product while browsing the web (and/or checking his webmail e-mail account, i.e. anti-spamfeatures are not considered, as they are not the scope of this test). The test was done on real machines,using Windows XP SP3 and Internet Explorer 7 (without the build-in phishing blocker in order to getbrowser-independent results). All security products were tested with default settings and in parallel atthe same time on the same URLs.Test SetPhishing URLs were mainly taken out from phishing mails during 6th to 27th July 2012. All phishing URLshad to be active/online and attempt to get personal information. After removing all invalid, offline andduplicate (sites hosted on same server/IP) test-cases, only 574 different and valid Phishing URLs re-mained. The phishing campaigns targeted various types of personal data. Among those were (in the fol-lowing order) phishing attempts to gather e.g. login credentials etc. for: PayPal, Online Banking & Creditcards, E-mail accounts, eBay, Social networks, Online Games, and other online services.The lifespan of phishing URLs is getting shorter, and more and more phishing sites are targeted/smallcampaigns to remain under the radar, which makes it increasingly difficult for Anti-Phishing/URL-Blockercountermeasures to be efficient in time.1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phishing ‐ 2 ‐ 
  • 3. Anti‐Phishing Test – July 2012  www.av‐comparatives.org Tested productsThe tested product versions are the ones that were available at time of testing (July 2012). The followingproducts were included in the Anti-Phishing test:  Avast Free Antivirus 7.0  G DATA Internet Security 2013  AVG Internet Security 2012  GFI Vipre Internet Security 2012  Avira Internet Security 2012  Kaspersky Internet Security 2012  BitDefender Internet Security 2012  McAfee Internet Security 2012  BullGuard Internet Security 12.0  PC Tools Internet Security 2012  eScan Internet Security 11.0  Qihoo 360 Internet Security 3.0  ESET Smart Security 5.0  Sophos Endpoint Security 10.0  Fortinet FortiClient Lite 4.3.3  Trend Micro Titanium Internet Security 2012  F-Secure Internet Security 2012  Webroot SecureAnywhere Complete 2012Notes:Panda Cloud Free Antivirus was also tested, but unfortunately, Panda had technical issues during theperiod of the test. There was a downtime of the server pushing out URL filtering signatures in July.Therefore, the measured results would not reflect the usual phishing protection of the product. Due tothat, we decided to do not publish the results of PCAV.ESET v5 does not have a dedicated module for anti-phishing protection yet. However, phishing sites arecurrently blocked along with other potentially harmful sites (like in most other products), employingvarious technologies such as webfilter, parental control and detection of suspicious content aimed at thephishing landing pages themselves. The new version (v6.0) of ESET includes dramatically improved anti-phishing protection. We evaluated the new version in parallel: it would have blocked 93,9% of the phish-ing sites.Kaspersky is also going to release a new version (2013) soon, which includes improved phishing protec-tion too. The new version would have blocked 97,4%.Qihoo is mainly targeted to block Chinese phishing sites.Anti-Phishing “False Alarm” TestFor the Anti-Phishing False Alarm Test we selected 300 very popular banking sites (all of them usingHTTPS and showing a login form) from all over the world and checked if any of the various security prod-ucts blocked those legitimate online banking sites. Wrongly blocking such sites is a serious mistake.From the tested products, only GFI Vipre had one false alarm on the tested 300 legitimate online bankingsites:GFI Vipre (one false alarm):  Bank24 from RussiaThe discovered false alarm has been reported to the respective vendor and is now no longer blocked. ‐ 3 ‐ 
  • 4. Anti‐Phishing Test – July 2012  www.av‐comparatives.org Test ResultsBelow you see the percentages of blocked phishing websites (size of test set: 574 phishing URLs). Pleasetake into consideration the false alarm rates when looking at the below results (products with falsealarms are marked with an asterisk). 1. BitDefender 97,4% 2. McAfee 97,0% 3. Kaspersky 94,8% 4. BullGuard 92,2% 5. F-Secure 90,1% 6. Sophos 89,7% 7. PC Tools 89,2% 8. Trend Micro 88,5% 9. Webroot 86,9% 10. Avast 82,2% 11. AVIRA 82,1% 12. GFI Vipre* 79,8% 13. G DATA 72,3% 14. Qihoo 62,0% 15. AVG 61,3% 16. Fortinet 60,3% 17. ESET 58,0% 18. eScan 57,7% ‐ 4 ‐ 
  • 5. Anti‐Phishing Test – July 2012  www.av‐comparatives.org Award levels reached in this testThe awards are decided and given by the testers based on the observed test results (after consultingstatistical models). The ranking system for this Anti-Phishing test was: Anti-Phishing Anti-Phishing Anti-Phishing Anti-Phishing Ranking system Protection under 50% Protection Cluster 3 Protection Cluster 2 Protection Cluster 1 zero FPs Tested Standard Advanced Advanced+ 1 to 3 FPs Tested Tested Standard Advanced 4 to 6 FPs Tested Tested Tested Standard More than 6 FPs Tested Tested Tested TestedThe following awards are for the results reached in this Anti-Phishing Test: AWARD LEVELS PRODUCTS BitDefender McAfee Kaspersky BullGuard F-Secure Sophos PC Tools Trend Micro Webroot Avast AVIRA G DATA GFI Vipre* Qihoo AVG Fortinet ESET eScan -* downgraded by one rank due to a wrongly blocked banking site (FP). ‐ 5 ‐ 
  • 6. Anti‐Phishing Test – July 2012  www.av‐comparatives.org Copyright and DisclaimerThis publication is Copyright © 2012 by AV-Comparatives e.V. ®. Any use of the results, etc. in whole orin part, is ONLY permitted with the explicit written agreement of the management board of AV-Comparatives e.V., prior to any publication. AV-Comparatives e.V. and its testers cannot be held liable forany damage or loss, which might occur as a result of, or in connection with, the use of the informationprovided in this paper. We take every possible care to ensure the correctness of the basic data, but liabil-ity for the correctness of the test results cannot be taken by any representative of AV-Comparatives e.V.We do not give any guarantee of the correctness, completeness, or suitability for a specific purpose ofany of the information/content provided at any given time. No-one else involved in creating, producingor delivering test results shall be liable for any indirect, special or consequential damage, or loss of prof-its, arising out of, or related to, the use (or inability to use), the services provided by the website, testdocuments or any related data. AV-Comparatives e.V. is a registered Austrian Non-Profit-Organization.For more information about AV-Comparatives and the testing methodologies please visit our website. AV-Comparatives e.V. (August 2012) ‐ 6 ‐