This document summarizes the results of an anti-virus comparative retrospective test conducted in March 2012 that evaluated the abilities of various anti-virus programs to detect new malware through heuristic detection before signature updates as well as behavioral protections after execution; over 4,000 new malware samples from around March 2nd 2012 were used in the test which evaluated 17 anti-virus programs with the results showing the detection rates for scanning and any additional protection provided by behavioral analysis after execution.
This document summarizes the results of an anti-virus file detection test conducted in September 2012. 20 major anti-virus products were tested on their ability to detect malware in a set of over 240,000 recent malicious files. G DATA detected 99.9% of the malware and had few false alarms. Webroot detected below 80% of malware and had many false alarms. The results showed detection rates and false alarms for each product, with the products ranked and receiving awards based on their combined performance.
This document summarizes the results of an anti-virus test conducted in March 2012. 20 anti-virus products were tested on their ability to detect malware. G Data detected 99.7% of malware samples, scoring highest. Microsoft detected 93.1% of samples, scoring lowest. The test also evaluated false alarms on clean files. Microsoft generated 0 false alarms, while Webroot generated 428 false alarms, the most of any product. Based on detection rates and false alarms, products received awards of Advanced+, Advanced, Standard or Tested.
This document summarizes the results of an anti-virus test conducted in March 2012. 20 anti-virus products were tested on their ability to detect malware. G Data had the highest detection rate at 99.7%, while AhnLab had the lowest at 94%. Microsoft had the fewest false positives at 0, while Webroot had the most at 428. Based on detection rates and false positives, products received awards of Advanced+, Advanced, Standard or Tested. G Data, AVIRA and Kaspersky received Advanced+.
The document summarizes the results of an anti-virus file detection test conducted in March 2013 by AV-Comparatives on 20 antivirus products. It found that G DATA 2013 detected 99.9% of malware files with few false alarms, earning it the top award level. Microsoft Security Essentials detected 92% of malware with very few false alarms. Overall detection rates ranged from 99.9% to 91.2%, and false alarms ranged from 0 to 38 across the tested products. The test aimed to evaluate how well products can distinguish malware from good files through detection rates and false alarm results.
IRJET- Faces of Testing Strategies: Why &When?IRJET Journal
The document discusses different strategies for software testing. It begins by explaining that software testing is important to ensure quality and catch bugs. There are different reasons to test, including reducing risks from critical bugs and meeting deadlines. Testing can find defects but is unlikely to find all of them, so teams must decide when to stop based on the likelihood of finding more defects with further effort. The document also discusses assessing when a software system is ready to progress or be released based on the level of confidence from testing and how much of the system's functionality has been tested. It notes that false confidence is a risk and testing should focus on the most severe and user-relevant bugs.
This document summarizes the results of an on-demand malware detection test conducted by AV-Comparatives in February 2010. 20 antivirus products were tested on their ability to detect malware samples from a set containing over 1.2 million files. The summary includes detection rates for each product, with G DATA, AVIRA, and Panda detecting over 99% of malware. It also includes false positive results, with eScan, F-Secure, and others having very few false alarms. Finally, it shows the award levels reached by each product based on detection and false alarms, with some products reaching the highest ADVANCED+ level.
This document summarizes the results of a performance test of 19 antivirus products conducted in October 2012. A variety of common computer tasks were performed on a test system with each antivirus product installed to measure the impact on system performance. The tested products achieved different award levels based on their results. Users are advised to consider how antivirus products may impact system performance when choosing security software.
Accuracy and time_costs_of_web_app_scannersLarry Suto
The study tested seven web application security scanners on their ability to find vulnerabilities on intentionally vulnerable test sites created by the scanner vendors. When run in both "Point and Shoot" and "Trained" modes, NTOSpider found the most vulnerabilities with the fewest false positives. Appscan and Hailstorm also performed well after additional training. However, even fully trained, the scanners missed an average of 49% of vulnerabilities. Training scanners took significant time and may not be practical for large sites. The results were consistent with an earlier 2007 study and suggest accuracy should remain a top priority for security teams evaluating vulnerability scanners.
This document summarizes the results of an anti-virus file detection test conducted in September 2012. 20 major anti-virus products were tested on their ability to detect malware in a set of over 240,000 recent malicious files. G DATA detected 99.9% of the malware and had few false alarms. Webroot detected below 80% of malware and had many false alarms. The results showed detection rates and false alarms for each product, with the products ranked and receiving awards based on their combined performance.
This document summarizes the results of an anti-virus test conducted in March 2012. 20 anti-virus products were tested on their ability to detect malware. G Data detected 99.7% of malware samples, scoring highest. Microsoft detected 93.1% of samples, scoring lowest. The test also evaluated false alarms on clean files. Microsoft generated 0 false alarms, while Webroot generated 428 false alarms, the most of any product. Based on detection rates and false alarms, products received awards of Advanced+, Advanced, Standard or Tested.
This document summarizes the results of an anti-virus test conducted in March 2012. 20 anti-virus products were tested on their ability to detect malware. G Data had the highest detection rate at 99.7%, while AhnLab had the lowest at 94%. Microsoft had the fewest false positives at 0, while Webroot had the most at 428. Based on detection rates and false positives, products received awards of Advanced+, Advanced, Standard or Tested. G Data, AVIRA and Kaspersky received Advanced+.
The document summarizes the results of an anti-virus file detection test conducted in March 2013 by AV-Comparatives on 20 antivirus products. It found that G DATA 2013 detected 99.9% of malware files with few false alarms, earning it the top award level. Microsoft Security Essentials detected 92% of malware with very few false alarms. Overall detection rates ranged from 99.9% to 91.2%, and false alarms ranged from 0 to 38 across the tested products. The test aimed to evaluate how well products can distinguish malware from good files through detection rates and false alarm results.
IRJET- Faces of Testing Strategies: Why &When?IRJET Journal
The document discusses different strategies for software testing. It begins by explaining that software testing is important to ensure quality and catch bugs. There are different reasons to test, including reducing risks from critical bugs and meeting deadlines. Testing can find defects but is unlikely to find all of them, so teams must decide when to stop based on the likelihood of finding more defects with further effort. The document also discusses assessing when a software system is ready to progress or be released based on the level of confidence from testing and how much of the system's functionality has been tested. It notes that false confidence is a risk and testing should focus on the most severe and user-relevant bugs.
This document summarizes the results of an on-demand malware detection test conducted by AV-Comparatives in February 2010. 20 antivirus products were tested on their ability to detect malware samples from a set containing over 1.2 million files. The summary includes detection rates for each product, with G DATA, AVIRA, and Panda detecting over 99% of malware. It also includes false positive results, with eScan, F-Secure, and others having very few false alarms. Finally, it shows the award levels reached by each product based on detection and false alarms, with some products reaching the highest ADVANCED+ level.
This document summarizes the results of a performance test of 19 antivirus products conducted in October 2012. A variety of common computer tasks were performed on a test system with each antivirus product installed to measure the impact on system performance. The tested products achieved different award levels based on their results. Users are advised to consider how antivirus products may impact system performance when choosing security software.
Accuracy and time_costs_of_web_app_scannersLarry Suto
The study tested seven web application security scanners on their ability to find vulnerabilities on intentionally vulnerable test sites created by the scanner vendors. When run in both "Point and Shoot" and "Trained" modes, NTOSpider found the most vulnerabilities with the fewest false positives. Appscan and Hailstorm also performed well after additional training. However, even fully trained, the scanners missed an average of 49% of vulnerabilities. Training scanners took significant time and may not be practical for large sites. The results were consistent with an earlier 2007 study and suggest accuracy should remain a top priority for security teams evaluating vulnerability scanners.
Software Quality Analysis Using Mutation Testing SchemeEditor IJMTER
The software test coverage is used measure the safety measures. The safety critical analysis is
carried out for the source code designed in Java language. Testing provides a primary means for
assuring software in safety-critical systems. To demonstrate, particularly to a certification authority, that
sufficient testing has been performed, it is necessary to achieve the test coverage levels recommended or
mandated by safety standards and industry guidelines. Mutation testing provides an alternative or
complementary method of measuring test sufficiency, but has not been widely adopted in the safetycritical industry. The system provides an empirical evaluation of the application of mutation testing to
airborne software systems which have already satisfied the coverage requirements for certification.
The system mutation testing to safety-critical software developed using high-integrity subsets of
C and Ada, identify the most effective mutant types and analyze the root causes of failures in test cases.
Mutation testing could be effective where traditional structural coverage analysis and manual peer
review have failed. They also show that several testing issues have origins beyond the test activity and
this suggests improvements to the requirements definition and coding process. The system also
examines the relationship between program characteristics and mutation survival and considers how
program size can provide a means for targeting test areas most likely to have dormant faults. Industry
feedback is also provided, particularly on how mutation testing can be integrated into a typical
verification life cycle of airborne software. The system also covers the safety and criticality levels of
Java source code.
This document discusses using agile software development methods for medical device software in a compliant way. It provides an overview of agile concepts like Scrum, test-driven development, and continuous integration. It also addresses how standards like IEC 62304 and risk management can help integrate agile into a regulated environment. The document recommends starting small with agile and focusing on visualization, communication, and integrating risk management activities.
1) Organizations are increasingly aware of the importance of quality in application development and are setting higher standards for quality and usability of applications.
2) Software testing is a vital part of quality management and helps identify defects before production to improve integrity, performance and reliability.
3) Ordina takes a risk-based approach to testing to focus on critical components, potentially saving time and money. A risk analysis determines which parts of the system require more testing based on impact, probability and chance of errors.
This paper describes the different techniques of testing the software. This paper explicitly addresses the idea for testability and the important thing is that the testing itself-not just by saying that testability is a desirable goal, but by showing how to do it. Software testing is the process we used to measure the quality of developed software. Software Testing is not just about error-finding and their solution but also about checking the client requirements and testing that those requirements are met by the software solution. It is the most important functional phase in the Software Development Life Cycle(SDLC) as it exhibits all mistakes, flaws and errors in the developed software. Without finding these errors, technically termed as ‘bugs,’ software development is not considered to be complete. Hence, software testing becomes an important parameter for assuring quality of the software product. We discuss here about when to start and when to stop the testing of software. How errors or Bugs are formed and rectified. How software testing is done i.e. with the help of Team Work.
What do hospital beds, blood pressure cuffs, dosimeters, and pacemakers all have in common? They are all medical devices with software that regulates their functionality in a way that contributes to Basic Safety or Essential Performance. With the FDA reporting that the rate of medical device recalls between 2002 and 2012 increased by 100% – where software design failures are the most common reason for the recalls – it’s no wonder IEC 62304 has been implemented. Its implementation, however, has medical device manufacturers asking questions about if, when and under what circumstances the standard is required.
This article explains what IEC 62304 is, when medical devices must comply with it and how IEC 62304 compliance is assessed.
The document summarizes the results of a test comparing the malware protection of Windows 8 and Kaspersky Internet Security. Kaspersky blocked all 42 real-world malware attacks in tests of URLs and emails, while Windows 8 failed to block 5 attacks. In static detection tests, Kaspersky detected 99% of over 111,000 malware files while Windows 8 only detected 90%. Both products detected all 2,500 prevalent malware files and had no false positives on 345,900 clean files. The results indicate Kaspersky provides better protection against modern malware threats than Windows 8 alone.
Abstract: Today data privacy at the software testing level is too often treated as a non-functional requirement. Software security is tested, but seldom with data privacy-specific testing. This paper's goal has been to present a new method for developing a data privacy security metric during software testing that incorporate privacy-specific threat analysis.
This new metric is based on a quantified version of the LINDDUN Privacy framework based on Deng, Wyuts, All doctoral research. [Deng 2010]
The document describes a whole product dynamic "real-world" protection test conducted from March to June 2013 by AV-Comparatives. It tested the ability of various antivirus products to protect against malware in real-world browsing scenarios. Over 1,900 malicious URLs were tested on computers installed with different antivirus products using default settings. The results showed the protection levels achieved by each product on a monthly basis from being fully protected to being compromised. The test aimed to simulate everyday browsing threats that ordinary users may encounter online.
Antivirus software testing for the new milleniumUltraUploader
This document discusses the need for standardized testing of antivirus software to properly evaluate claims by vendors of providing "faster, better, cheaper" protection. It outlines the current state of antivirus testing, including certification programs run by ICSA, Westcoast Labs, and universities. The tests evaluate detection of viruses in the wild and ability to disinfect. The document argues for a functional approach to testing that is not specific to any vendor or product.
This document provides a summary of the winners and top performers in AV-Comparatives' various anti-virus tests during 2012. It recognizes Bitdefender as the overall "Product of the Year" winner based on its consistent high performance across all tests. Additional top rated products included Avast, AVIRA, BullGuard, ESET, F-Secure, G DATA, and Kaspersky. Winners of individual tests included Bitdefender, Kaspersky, F-Secure, and G DATA for dynamic and proactive protection. AVIRA, Kaspersky, and Bitdefender scored highest on file detection. Products with fewest false positives were Microsoft, ESET, Bitdefender and Kaspersky
The AV-Comparatives Guide to the Best Cybersecurity Solutions of 2017Jermund Ottermo
The document summarizes the results of AV-Comparatives' Whole Product Dynamic "Real-World" Protection Test conducted between July and November 2017. It tested 19 security programs and found that most programs were able to block over 99% of malware with few systems compromised. Panda blocked all malware attempts without any issues. Programs like Bitdefender and Trend Micro blocked nearly all attempts, allowing just 1 malware case. Others like Symantec and Kaspersky blocked the majority but had some user-dependent cases. eScan and Adaware had lower protection rates between 95-97%.
The document discusses different types of antivirus testing methods and potential ways to exploit weaknesses in those methods. It describes "wildcore" testing using real malware samples and "zoo" testing using large malware collections. It also outlines "retrospective" testing using older signature databases. The document suggests hacks like automatically signing samples, customizing settings, and detecting other antivirus products' false positives to manipulate test results. Feedback from the antivirus industry is mixed, with some condoning common practices while others find them problematic.
LC Chen Presentation at Icinga Camp 2015 Kuala LumpurIcinga
This document provides an introduction to open source network monitoring. It discusses key topics such as network monitoring, network management, why network management is important, popular open source monitoring tools like Icinga 2, Smokeping and Cacti, potential traps of open source like lack of support and integration issues. It also covers elements of open source maturity, a maturity model, and benefits of open source like cost savings, avoiding vendor lock-in and access to more functionality.
This document provides an overview of risk-driven software testing. It discusses identifying project risks, defining testing goals and acceptance criteria, and developing testing strategies to address risks. Key points covered include identifying critical success factors, stating test objectives, considering lessons learned from past projects, and ensuring testing deliverables address project risks. The overall message is that taking a risk-based approach to testing can help prevent common problems by prioritizing testing efforts and resources based on the identified risks.
This document outlines an approach for integrating security into the software development lifecycle (SDLC) using DevSecOps principles. It discusses how security can shift left by being incorporated into various phases of product development and delivery, including product management, design, development, deployment, defect management, and monitoring. It provides examples of how to integrate security practices and tools at each stage. The goal is to establish security as a critical product feature rather than an afterthought, and foster collaboration between security and development teams through a DevSecOps model and maturity criteria.
This document discusses an introduction to a class on rapid software testing. It states that the class aims to make students stronger, smarter and more confident testers by challenging them to think for themselves rather than simply listening to what the instructors say. The class can be beneficial for testers of all experience levels who want to improve at their work. Heuristics are discussed as techniques that can help substitute for complete analysis and involve guidewords, triggers, reframing ideas, and procedures to help solve problems.
Veracode is a well-established US-based provider of application security testing (AST) services including static application security testing (SAST), dynamic application security testing (DAST), mobile AST, and software composition analysis (SCA). Veracode offers a broad set of AST services to help organizations build and deploy applications faster while reducing business risk. The company pioneered binary code analysis and was an early innovator in mobile AST and SCA. Veracode aims to help customers reduce risk across their entire software development lifecycle through its unified cloud-based platform and services.
This document summarizes the results of a "Whole Product Dynamic 'Real-World' Protection Test" conducted from March to June 2014 on 23 security products. The test aimed to simulate real-world conditions by exposing the products to over 4,000 malicious URLs and evaluating how well each product was able to protect the system without any user interaction. The results showed protection levels achieved by each product on a monthly basis over the test period, with some products reaching the highest award level for their ability to block malware without issues.
The document summarizes the results of a test of 15 mobile security products for Android devices conducted in August 2012. Kaspersky Mobile Security had the highest detection rate at 99.95% and the lowest false positives, earning a final score of 99.55 and the top ranking. Bitdefender Mobile Security Premium placed second with a detection rate of 99.78% and final score of 99.38. Trend Micro Mobile Security came in third with detection of 99.18% but had more false positives, giving it a final score of 98.18.
Hii assessing the_effectiveness_of_antivirus_solutionsAnatoliy Tkachev
The document summarizes a study that assessed the effectiveness of antivirus software in detecting newly created malware. Some key findings include:
- The initial detection rate of new viruses by antivirus software is less than 5%, and for some vendors it can take up to 4 weeks to detect a new virus.
- Free antivirus software from Avast and Emisoft had among the best detection capabilities, though they also had high false positive rates.
- Given the low effectiveness of antivirus software, the document suggests that enterprises and consumers should consider alternative security approaches and that compliance requirements around antivirus could be eased to allow budgets to be used more effectively.
This document summarizes the results of a test of nine major antivirus programs' ability to detect malware threats on the internet and accurately handle legitimate software applications. The test exposed each antivirus program to 100 recent internet threats in a realistic way to see how effectively they blocked infection. It also installed 100 legitimate applications to test for false positives. Based on the results, the most accurate programs with the highest total accuracy ratings were Norton Internet Security 2013, Avast! Free Antivirus 7, and Kaspersky Internet Security 2013. Trend Micro Internet Security 2013 had the most issues, blocking legitimate applications and being compromised by threats the most.
Zero days-hit-users-hard-at-the-start-of-the-year-enAnatoliy Tkachev
The document summarizes security trends from the first quarter of 2013, noting that multiple zero-day exploits targeted popular applications like Java and Adobe Flash Player. Old threats like spam botnets and banking Trojans improved their techniques. South Korean cyber attacks in March highlighted the dangers of targeted attacks. Fake mobile apps and phishing targeting mobile browsers also posed problems. The United States hosted the most malicious domains and was among the top sources of spam.
Software Quality Analysis Using Mutation Testing SchemeEditor IJMTER
The software test coverage is used measure the safety measures. The safety critical analysis is
carried out for the source code designed in Java language. Testing provides a primary means for
assuring software in safety-critical systems. To demonstrate, particularly to a certification authority, that
sufficient testing has been performed, it is necessary to achieve the test coverage levels recommended or
mandated by safety standards and industry guidelines. Mutation testing provides an alternative or
complementary method of measuring test sufficiency, but has not been widely adopted in the safetycritical industry. The system provides an empirical evaluation of the application of mutation testing to
airborne software systems which have already satisfied the coverage requirements for certification.
The system mutation testing to safety-critical software developed using high-integrity subsets of
C and Ada, identify the most effective mutant types and analyze the root causes of failures in test cases.
Mutation testing could be effective where traditional structural coverage analysis and manual peer
review have failed. They also show that several testing issues have origins beyond the test activity and
this suggests improvements to the requirements definition and coding process. The system also
examines the relationship between program characteristics and mutation survival and considers how
program size can provide a means for targeting test areas most likely to have dormant faults. Industry
feedback is also provided, particularly on how mutation testing can be integrated into a typical
verification life cycle of airborne software. The system also covers the safety and criticality levels of
Java source code.
This document discusses using agile software development methods for medical device software in a compliant way. It provides an overview of agile concepts like Scrum, test-driven development, and continuous integration. It also addresses how standards like IEC 62304 and risk management can help integrate agile into a regulated environment. The document recommends starting small with agile and focusing on visualization, communication, and integrating risk management activities.
1) Organizations are increasingly aware of the importance of quality in application development and are setting higher standards for quality and usability of applications.
2) Software testing is a vital part of quality management and helps identify defects before production to improve integrity, performance and reliability.
3) Ordina takes a risk-based approach to testing to focus on critical components, potentially saving time and money. A risk analysis determines which parts of the system require more testing based on impact, probability and chance of errors.
This paper describes the different techniques of testing the software. This paper explicitly addresses the idea for testability and the important thing is that the testing itself-not just by saying that testability is a desirable goal, but by showing how to do it. Software testing is the process we used to measure the quality of developed software. Software Testing is not just about error-finding and their solution but also about checking the client requirements and testing that those requirements are met by the software solution. It is the most important functional phase in the Software Development Life Cycle(SDLC) as it exhibits all mistakes, flaws and errors in the developed software. Without finding these errors, technically termed as ‘bugs,’ software development is not considered to be complete. Hence, software testing becomes an important parameter for assuring quality of the software product. We discuss here about when to start and when to stop the testing of software. How errors or Bugs are formed and rectified. How software testing is done i.e. with the help of Team Work.
What do hospital beds, blood pressure cuffs, dosimeters, and pacemakers all have in common? They are all medical devices with software that regulates their functionality in a way that contributes to Basic Safety or Essential Performance. With the FDA reporting that the rate of medical device recalls between 2002 and 2012 increased by 100% – where software design failures are the most common reason for the recalls – it’s no wonder IEC 62304 has been implemented. Its implementation, however, has medical device manufacturers asking questions about if, when and under what circumstances the standard is required.
This article explains what IEC 62304 is, when medical devices must comply with it and how IEC 62304 compliance is assessed.
The document summarizes the results of a test comparing the malware protection of Windows 8 and Kaspersky Internet Security. Kaspersky blocked all 42 real-world malware attacks in tests of URLs and emails, while Windows 8 failed to block 5 attacks. In static detection tests, Kaspersky detected 99% of over 111,000 malware files while Windows 8 only detected 90%. Both products detected all 2,500 prevalent malware files and had no false positives on 345,900 clean files. The results indicate Kaspersky provides better protection against modern malware threats than Windows 8 alone.
Abstract: Today data privacy at the software testing level is too often treated as a non-functional requirement. Software security is tested, but seldom with data privacy-specific testing. This paper's goal has been to present a new method for developing a data privacy security metric during software testing that incorporate privacy-specific threat analysis.
This new metric is based on a quantified version of the LINDDUN Privacy framework based on Deng, Wyuts, All doctoral research. [Deng 2010]
The document describes a whole product dynamic "real-world" protection test conducted from March to June 2013 by AV-Comparatives. It tested the ability of various antivirus products to protect against malware in real-world browsing scenarios. Over 1,900 malicious URLs were tested on computers installed with different antivirus products using default settings. The results showed the protection levels achieved by each product on a monthly basis from being fully protected to being compromised. The test aimed to simulate everyday browsing threats that ordinary users may encounter online.
Antivirus software testing for the new milleniumUltraUploader
This document discusses the need for standardized testing of antivirus software to properly evaluate claims by vendors of providing "faster, better, cheaper" protection. It outlines the current state of antivirus testing, including certification programs run by ICSA, Westcoast Labs, and universities. The tests evaluate detection of viruses in the wild and ability to disinfect. The document argues for a functional approach to testing that is not specific to any vendor or product.
This document provides a summary of the winners and top performers in AV-Comparatives' various anti-virus tests during 2012. It recognizes Bitdefender as the overall "Product of the Year" winner based on its consistent high performance across all tests. Additional top rated products included Avast, AVIRA, BullGuard, ESET, F-Secure, G DATA, and Kaspersky. Winners of individual tests included Bitdefender, Kaspersky, F-Secure, and G DATA for dynamic and proactive protection. AVIRA, Kaspersky, and Bitdefender scored highest on file detection. Products with fewest false positives were Microsoft, ESET, Bitdefender and Kaspersky
The AV-Comparatives Guide to the Best Cybersecurity Solutions of 2017Jermund Ottermo
The document summarizes the results of AV-Comparatives' Whole Product Dynamic "Real-World" Protection Test conducted between July and November 2017. It tested 19 security programs and found that most programs were able to block over 99% of malware with few systems compromised. Panda blocked all malware attempts without any issues. Programs like Bitdefender and Trend Micro blocked nearly all attempts, allowing just 1 malware case. Others like Symantec and Kaspersky blocked the majority but had some user-dependent cases. eScan and Adaware had lower protection rates between 95-97%.
The document discusses different types of antivirus testing methods and potential ways to exploit weaknesses in those methods. It describes "wildcore" testing using real malware samples and "zoo" testing using large malware collections. It also outlines "retrospective" testing using older signature databases. The document suggests hacks like automatically signing samples, customizing settings, and detecting other antivirus products' false positives to manipulate test results. Feedback from the antivirus industry is mixed, with some condoning common practices while others find them problematic.
LC Chen Presentation at Icinga Camp 2015 Kuala LumpurIcinga
This document provides an introduction to open source network monitoring. It discusses key topics such as network monitoring, network management, why network management is important, popular open source monitoring tools like Icinga 2, Smokeping and Cacti, potential traps of open source like lack of support and integration issues. It also covers elements of open source maturity, a maturity model, and benefits of open source like cost savings, avoiding vendor lock-in and access to more functionality.
This document provides an overview of risk-driven software testing. It discusses identifying project risks, defining testing goals and acceptance criteria, and developing testing strategies to address risks. Key points covered include identifying critical success factors, stating test objectives, considering lessons learned from past projects, and ensuring testing deliverables address project risks. The overall message is that taking a risk-based approach to testing can help prevent common problems by prioritizing testing efforts and resources based on the identified risks.
This document outlines an approach for integrating security into the software development lifecycle (SDLC) using DevSecOps principles. It discusses how security can shift left by being incorporated into various phases of product development and delivery, including product management, design, development, deployment, defect management, and monitoring. It provides examples of how to integrate security practices and tools at each stage. The goal is to establish security as a critical product feature rather than an afterthought, and foster collaboration between security and development teams through a DevSecOps model and maturity criteria.
This document discusses an introduction to a class on rapid software testing. It states that the class aims to make students stronger, smarter and more confident testers by challenging them to think for themselves rather than simply listening to what the instructors say. The class can be beneficial for testers of all experience levels who want to improve at their work. Heuristics are discussed as techniques that can help substitute for complete analysis and involve guidewords, triggers, reframing ideas, and procedures to help solve problems.
Veracode is a well-established US-based provider of application security testing (AST) services including static application security testing (SAST), dynamic application security testing (DAST), mobile AST, and software composition analysis (SCA). Veracode offers a broad set of AST services to help organizations build and deploy applications faster while reducing business risk. The company pioneered binary code analysis and was an early innovator in mobile AST and SCA. Veracode aims to help customers reduce risk across their entire software development lifecycle through its unified cloud-based platform and services.
This document summarizes the results of a "Whole Product Dynamic 'Real-World' Protection Test" conducted from March to June 2014 on 23 security products. The test aimed to simulate real-world conditions by exposing the products to over 4,000 malicious URLs and evaluating how well each product was able to protect the system without any user interaction. The results showed protection levels achieved by each product on a monthly basis over the test period, with some products reaching the highest award level for their ability to block malware without issues.
The document summarizes the results of a test of 15 mobile security products for Android devices conducted in August 2012. Kaspersky Mobile Security had the highest detection rate at 99.95% and the lowest false positives, earning a final score of 99.55 and the top ranking. Bitdefender Mobile Security Premium placed second with a detection rate of 99.78% and final score of 99.38. Trend Micro Mobile Security came in third with detection of 99.18% but had more false positives, giving it a final score of 98.18.
Hii assessing the_effectiveness_of_antivirus_solutionsAnatoliy Tkachev
The document summarizes a study that assessed the effectiveness of antivirus software in detecting newly created malware. Some key findings include:
- The initial detection rate of new viruses by antivirus software is less than 5%, and for some vendors it can take up to 4 weeks to detect a new virus.
- Free antivirus software from Avast and Emisoft had among the best detection capabilities, though they also had high false positive rates.
- Given the low effectiveness of antivirus software, the document suggests that enterprises and consumers should consider alternative security approaches and that compliance requirements around antivirus could be eased to allow budgets to be used more effectively.
This document summarizes the results of a test of nine major antivirus programs' ability to detect malware threats on the internet and accurately handle legitimate software applications. The test exposed each antivirus program to 100 recent internet threats in a realistic way to see how effectively they blocked infection. It also installed 100 legitimate applications to test for false positives. Based on the results, the most accurate programs with the highest total accuracy ratings were Norton Internet Security 2013, Avast! Free Antivirus 7, and Kaspersky Internet Security 2013. Trend Micro Internet Security 2013 had the most issues, blocking legitimate applications and being compromised by threats the most.
Zero days-hit-users-hard-at-the-start-of-the-year-enAnatoliy Tkachev
The document summarizes security trends from the first quarter of 2013, noting that multiple zero-day exploits targeted popular applications like Java and Adobe Flash Player. Old threats like spam botnets and banking Trojans improved their techniques. South Korean cyber attacks in March highlighted the dangers of targeted attacks. Fake mobile apps and phishing targeting mobile browsers also posed problems. The United States hosted the most malicious domains and was among the top sources of spam.
The survey received 1247 responses from visitors to AV-Comparatives' website. After filtering invalid responses, 1065 responses remained. Most respondents were from Europe and used Windows 7 and Firefox browser. The most commonly used antivirus programs were free versions like Avast, AVG, and Microsoft Security Essentials, as well as paid versions from Symantec, Kaspersky, and ESET. Respondents expressed most interest in on-demand detection tests and retrospective tests evaluating heuristics. They found AV-Comparatives, Virus Bulletin, and ICSA Labs to be the most reliable testing organizations.
The document provides a summary of the results of a test of various home anti-virus protection programs. It tested the programs' ability to protect against internet threats from October to December 2012 and how they handled legitimate software.
The key points are:
- Paid security suites' effectiveness varied widely, but all beat Microsoft's free Security Essentials. Nearly every product was compromised by at least one threat.
- Blocking malicious sites based on reputation is effective, as products that prevented visiting malicious sites gained an advantage over those facing downloaded malware.
- Some programs were too harsh in evaluating legitimate software, with Trend Micro blocking the most legitimate apps at 21. Norton Internet Security was the most accurate overall
The document summarizes Trend Micro's 2012 Mobile Threat and Security Roundup. It found that in 2012 there was a significant increase in detected Android malware, reaching 350,000 samples by year's end. Premium service abusers that charge users fraudulent fees were the most common mobile threat. The document also notes that threats are increasing in sophistication, with cybercriminals developing new methods of attacking users beyond traditional social engineering. As Android grows in popularity, it faces similar threats to what Windows faced as the dominant desktop platform.
The document provides a summary of anti-virus test results from 2010. It names the top performing anti-virus programs in various categories:
1) Overall winner for 2010 was F-Secure based on its overall performance in tests throughout the year.
2) Top performers in on-demand malware detection were G DATA, AVIRA, and Symantec.
3) Top performers in proactive on-demand detection were G DATA, AVIRA, and Microsoft.
4) Top performers for fewest false positives were F-Secure, Microsoft, and BitDefender.
The summary provides awards and rankings for various categories of anti-virus performance tests conducted in 2010.
The document is a summary of a security survey conducted in 2013 by AV-Comparatives. Some key findings include:
- Over 4,700 computer users worldwide participated in the anonymous online survey.
- Most users were aware of security risks but about 3% did not use any security software.
- Detection rates, malware removal, and performance impact were the most important factors for users when choosing security software.
- Windows 7 and 8 were the most commonly used operating systems, and Firefox and Chrome the most popular browsers.
- Over half of respondents paid for security software while free solutions grew in popularity. Improved performance was the most requested improvement to security software.
This document summarizes the results of a performance test conducted by AV-Comparatives in May 2012 on various internet security suite products. It tested the impact of these products on common tasks like file copying, archiving, encoding, installing/uninstalling applications, launching applications, and downloading files. The test was conducted on a Windows 7 system and results were grouped into categories based on the level of observed impact, from "very fast" to "slow". The document provides details on the test methods, products tested, and factors that can also influence system performance.
This document summarizes the results of testing 10 security products against 15 techniques that could be used by financial malware to steal user credentials from online payment systems. Three products - Kaspersky Internet Security 2013, Bitdefender Internet Security 2013, and avast! Internet Security - were able to fully protect against the threats in both a loose and strict security view. Five products failed to provide protection for more than a few of the scenarios. The tests were designed based on techniques used by real malware like Zeus, Sinowal, and Silon to steal credentials through browser injection, process hooking, and keylogging.
This document summarizes the results of a performance test conducted by AV-Comparatives in April 2013 on 21 antivirus products. The test evaluated the impact of each product's real-time scanning components on system performance across various tasks like file copying, archiving, installing applications and using PC Mark 7. Most products had some negative impact on performance, with suite products generally having a higher impact than antivirus-only products. The test aimed to help users understand how different antivirus solutions affect system speeds so they can choose optimal protection for their hardware configurations and needs.
The document summarizes the results of an on-demand anti-virus detection test conducted by AV-Comparatives in February 2010. It tested 20 major anti-virus products on their ability to detect malicious software. The results showed detection rates ranging from 99.7% to 97.1%, with lower percentages indicating more missed malware samples. A graph visually depicted the differences in missed samples between the products. The report also included sections on false positive testing and scanning speed.
The document summarizes the results of a performance test of 21 antivirus programs conducted by AV-Comparatives in November 2010. The test measured the impact of each antivirus program on system performance across various tasks like file copying, application launching, and using a performance testing suite. On-access scanners were found to have some negative impact on performance due to the system resources required to continuously monitor files. Factors other than the antivirus program itself, like outdated hardware or a cluttered hard drive, could also negatively influence performance. The test aimed to provide an indication of each product's performance impact rather than definitive comparisons.
This document describes a whole product dynamic "real-world" protection test conducted from August to November 2012. It tested 20 security products against over 2000 malicious URLs to evaluate each product's ability to protect a system from internet-based threats under real-world conditions. The test aimed to simulate the everyday experience of users by testing products with their default settings and incorporating factors like automatic updates. Products that blocked threats without requiring user interaction, or where the system was still protected after user-dependent alerts, were considered protected. The test found variation in results between products and over time.
Technology auto protection_from_exploitКомсс Файквэе
This document provides an introduction, methodology, and results of a comparative assessment of Kaspersky Internet Security 2013 conducted by MRG Effitas in August 2012. The assessment tested Kaspersky and nine other leading antivirus/internet security applications to evaluate the effectiveness of Kaspersky's new Automatic Exploit Prevention technology at detecting exploits and protecting against zero-day vulnerabilities. The methodology used both in-the-wild exploits and samples generated by the Metasploit framework to bypass traditional detection methods and test protection against unknown threats. The full report contains the security applications tested, details of the vulnerabilities and payloads used, and conclusions about the test results.
This document summarizes the results of an anti-virus test conducted in March 2013. 422 live malware samples were used to test 21 antivirus products. The test evaluated the ability of each product to detect and block the malware samples in real world conditions. Microsoft Security Essentials detected 90.3% of samples while several third party products detected 100%. The detailed report of the full 4 month test results will be released in July 2013.
This document provides an overview of software testing fundamentals. It defines key terms related to testing like bugs, defects, errors, and failures. It explains why testing is important and discusses test techniques like validation, verification, static testing, and dynamic testing. The document outlines the testing process including planning, analysis, implementation, execution, evaluation, and closure. It discusses principles of testing and notes that while testing can find defects, it cannot prove that a system is completely bug-free. Exhaustive testing of all possible test cases is infeasible for most systems.
This document summarizes the results of testing various anti-malware solutions for Android. It tested the solutions using 618 malicious Android applications and reported the detection rates. Some solutions were able to scan the entire device storage for malware, while others could only scan installed applications and files. The testing was performed on both emulators and real Android devices to verify the results. The document analyzes the detection rates of each solution at the family level to provide more insight than just an overall detection percentage. This allows identifying weaknesses in detecting specific malware families.
The document is a test report that evaluated 41 Android anti-malware solutions and grouped them into categories based on their average detection rates of malware families. The top category detected over 90% of malware and included solutions from Avast, Dr.Web, F-Secure, Ikarus, Kaspersky, Lookout, McAfee, MYAndroid Protection, NQ Mobile, and Zoner. The next category detected between 65-90% and included solutions from 13 companies. The third category detected between 40-65% and included BluePoint, G Data, and Kinetoo. The fourth category detected less than 40% and the final category did not detect anything.
The document is a test report that evaluated 41 Android anti-malware solutions and grouped them into categories based on their average detection rates of malware families. The top category detected over 90% of malware and included solutions from Avast, Dr.Web, F-Secure, Ikarus, Kaspersky, Lookout, McAfee, MYAndroid Protection, NQ Mobile, and Zoner. The next category detected between 65-90% and included solutions from 13 companies. The third category detected between 40-65% and included BluePoint, G Data, and Kinetoo. The fourth category detected less than 40% and did not include major security companies.
This document summarizes the results of a malware removal test conducted by AV-Comparatives in October 2012. 14 antivirus products were tested on their ability to remove malware from an infected system. The test found that Bitdefender, Kaspersky, and Panda achieved the highest ADVANCED+ rating, demonstrating reliable malware removal with only negligible traces left behind. Most other products received lower ratings, with some only partially removing malware or leaving problematic issues. The test provides a useful evaluation of how effectively different antivirus software can clean an infected computer.
AV Comparatives 2013 (Comparación de Antivirus)Doryan Mathos
This document summarizes the results of a performance test conducted by AV-Comparatives in April 2013 on 21 antivirus products. The test evaluated the impact of each product on system performance across various tasks like file copying, archiving, application launching etc. Products were grouped into categories based on their impact: slow, mediocre, fast, very fast. Most products had a mediocre or fast impact, with a few being slow or very fast. The test aimed to help users understand real-world performance impacts but noted that individual systems may produce different results.
The document summarizes the results of a performance test of 21 antivirus and internet security products on a Windows 8.1 system. The test measured the impact of the security software on common tasks like file copying and downloading. It found that suite products have a higher impact than antivirus-only products due to running more background processes. The test used standard tools to ensure accurate and replicable results. Overall system performance is also affected by factors like hardware specifications, having unnecessary programs running, and failing to keep software up to date.
Software testing is the process of executing a program to identify errors. It involves evaluating a program's capabilities and determining if it meets requirements. Software can fail in many complex ways due to its non-physical nature. Exhaustive testing of all possibilities is generally infeasible due to complexity. The objectives of testing include finding errors through designing test cases that systematically uncover different classes of errors with minimal time and effort. Principles of testing include traceability to requirements, planning tests before coding begins, and recognizing that exhaustive testing is impossible.
This document summarizes the results of a whole product dynamic "real-world" protection test conducted from February to June 2016. It tested 18 antivirus and internet security products on 1868 malicious URLs. The top performing products like F-Secure and Trend Micro blocked all threats without any system compromises. Products like Bitdefender, Kaspersky Lab and Avira blocked over 99% of threats with only a few user-dependent results. The test aims to simulate real-world browsing conditions and how well products can protect against internet-based malware threats.
Welingkar_final project_ppt_IMPORTANCE & NEED FOR TESTINGSachin Pathania
Software testing is an important step in the software development process to identify bugs and ensure quality. It is done at various stages including unit, integration, system, and acceptance testing. Automation testing helps test cases be run quickly and consistently. In conclusion, software testing is crucial to identify and remove errors, improving the performance and consistency of software products.
11 steps of testing process - By Harshil BarotHarshil Barot
The 11-step software testing process involves verifying requirements, design, code, and installation as well as validating that user needs are met. The key steps include:
1) Developing a test plan based on an assessment of the development status.
2) Testing requirements, design, code during construction, and software changes to find defects.
3) Executing tests, recording results, and reporting findings throughout the process.
4) Conducting acceptance testing with end users to validate software meets needs.
The goal is to deliver high-quality, bug-free software through a rigorous process of verification and validation activities.
Testbytes is a community of software testers who are passionate about quality and love to test. We develop an in-depth understanding of the applications under test and include software testing strategies that deliver quantifiable results.
In short, we help in building incredible software.
Ocean lotus Threat actors project by John Sitima 2024 (1).pptxSitimaJohn
Ocean Lotus cyber threat actors represent a sophisticated, persistent, and politically motivated group that poses a significant risk to organizations and individuals in the Southeast Asian region. Their continuous evolution and adaptability underscore the need for robust cybersecurity measures and international cooperation to identify and mitigate the threats posed by such advanced persistent threat groups.
Your One-Stop Shop for Python Success: Top 10 US Python Development Providersakankshawande
Simplify your search for a reliable Python development partner! This list presents the top 10 trusted US providers offering comprehensive Python development services, ensuring your project's success from conception to completion.
Introduction of Cybersecurity with OSS at Code Europe 2024Hiroshi SHIBATA
I develop the Ruby programming language, RubyGems, and Bundler, which are package managers for Ruby. Today, I will introduce how to enhance the security of your application using open-source software (OSS) examples from Ruby and RubyGems.
The first topic is CVE (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures). I have published CVEs many times. But what exactly is a CVE? I'll provide a basic understanding of CVEs and explain how to detect and handle vulnerabilities in OSS.
Next, let's discuss package managers. Package managers play a critical role in the OSS ecosystem. I'll explain how to manage library dependencies in your application.
I'll share insights into how the Ruby and RubyGems core team works to keep our ecosystem safe. By the end of this talk, you'll have a better understanding of how to safeguard your code.
Let's Integrate MuleSoft RPA, COMPOSER, APM with AWS IDP along with Slackshyamraj55
Discover the seamless integration of RPA (Robotic Process Automation), COMPOSER, and APM with AWS IDP enhanced with Slack notifications. Explore how these technologies converge to streamline workflows, optimize performance, and ensure secure access, all while leveraging the power of AWS IDP and real-time communication via Slack notifications.
HCL Notes und Domino Lizenzkostenreduzierung in der Welt von DLAUpanagenda
Webinar Recording: https://www.panagenda.com/webinars/hcl-notes-und-domino-lizenzkostenreduzierung-in-der-welt-von-dlau/
DLAU und die Lizenzen nach dem CCB- und CCX-Modell sind für viele in der HCL-Community seit letztem Jahr ein heißes Thema. Als Notes- oder Domino-Kunde haben Sie vielleicht mit unerwartet hohen Benutzerzahlen und Lizenzgebühren zu kämpfen. Sie fragen sich vielleicht, wie diese neue Art der Lizenzierung funktioniert und welchen Nutzen sie Ihnen bringt. Vor allem wollen Sie sicherlich Ihr Budget einhalten und Kosten sparen, wo immer möglich. Das verstehen wir und wir möchten Ihnen dabei helfen!
Wir erklären Ihnen, wie Sie häufige Konfigurationsprobleme lösen können, die dazu führen können, dass mehr Benutzer gezählt werden als nötig, und wie Sie überflüssige oder ungenutzte Konten identifizieren und entfernen können, um Geld zu sparen. Es gibt auch einige Ansätze, die zu unnötigen Ausgaben führen können, z. B. wenn ein Personendokument anstelle eines Mail-Ins für geteilte Mailboxen verwendet wird. Wir zeigen Ihnen solche Fälle und deren Lösungen. Und natürlich erklären wir Ihnen das neue Lizenzmodell.
Nehmen Sie an diesem Webinar teil, bei dem HCL-Ambassador Marc Thomas und Gastredner Franz Walder Ihnen diese neue Welt näherbringen. Es vermittelt Ihnen die Tools und das Know-how, um den Überblick zu bewahren. Sie werden in der Lage sein, Ihre Kosten durch eine optimierte Domino-Konfiguration zu reduzieren und auch in Zukunft gering zu halten.
Diese Themen werden behandelt
- Reduzierung der Lizenzkosten durch Auffinden und Beheben von Fehlkonfigurationen und überflüssigen Konten
- Wie funktionieren CCB- und CCX-Lizenzen wirklich?
- Verstehen des DLAU-Tools und wie man es am besten nutzt
- Tipps für häufige Problembereiche, wie z. B. Team-Postfächer, Funktions-/Testbenutzer usw.
- Praxisbeispiele und Best Practices zum sofortigen Umsetzen
Letter and Document Automation for Bonterra Impact Management (fka Social Sol...Jeffrey Haguewood
Sidekick Solutions uses Bonterra Impact Management (fka Social Solutions Apricot) and automation solutions to integrate data for business workflows.
We believe integration and automation are essential to user experience and the promise of efficient work through technology. Automation is the critical ingredient to realizing that full vision. We develop integration products and services for Bonterra Case Management software to support the deployment of automations for a variety of use cases.
This video focuses on automated letter generation for Bonterra Impact Management using Google Workspace or Microsoft 365.
Interested in deploying letter generation automations for Bonterra Impact Management? Contact us at sales@sidekicksolutionsllc.com to discuss next steps.
GraphRAG for Life Science to increase LLM accuracyTomaz Bratanic
GraphRAG for life science domain, where you retriever information from biomedical knowledge graphs using LLMs to increase the accuracy and performance of generated answers
Main news related to the CCS TSI 2023 (2023/1695)Jakub Marek
An English 🇬🇧 translation of a presentation to the speech I gave about the main changes brought by CCS TSI 2023 at the biggest Czech conference on Communications and signalling systems on Railways, which was held in Clarion Hotel Olomouc from 7th to 9th November 2023 (konferenceszt.cz). Attended by around 500 participants and 200 on-line followers.
The original Czech 🇨🇿 version of the presentation can be found here: https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/hlavni-novinky-souvisejici-s-ccs-tsi-2023-2023-1695/269688092 .
The videorecording (in Czech) from the presentation is available here: https://youtu.be/WzjJWm4IyPk?si=SImb06tuXGb30BEH .
Have you ever been confused by the myriad of choices offered by AWS for hosting a website or an API?
Lambda, Elastic Beanstalk, Lightsail, Amplify, S3 (and more!) can each host websites + APIs. But which one should we choose?
Which one is cheapest? Which one is fastest? Which one will scale to meet our needs?
Join me in this session as we dive into each AWS hosting service to determine which one is best for your scenario and explain why!
Digital Marketing Trends in 2024 | Guide for Staying AheadWask
https://www.wask.co/ebooks/digital-marketing-trends-in-2024
Feeling lost in the digital marketing whirlwind of 2024? Technology is changing, consumer habits are evolving, and staying ahead of the curve feels like a never-ending pursuit. This e-book is your compass. Dive into actionable insights to handle the complexities of modern marketing. From hyper-personalization to the power of user-generated content, learn how to build long-term relationships with your audience and unlock the secrets to success in the ever-shifting digital landscape.
Trusted Execution Environment for Decentralized Process MiningLucaBarbaro3
Presentation of the paper "Trusted Execution Environment for Decentralized Process Mining" given during the CAiSE 2024 Conference in Cyprus on June 7, 2024.
5th LF Energy Power Grid Model Meet-up SlidesDanBrown980551
5th Power Grid Model Meet-up
It is with great pleasure that we extend to you an invitation to the 5th Power Grid Model Meet-up, scheduled for 6th June 2024. This event will adopt a hybrid format, allowing participants to join us either through an online Mircosoft Teams session or in person at TU/e located at Den Dolech 2, Eindhoven, Netherlands. The meet-up will be hosted by Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e), a research university specializing in engineering science & technology.
Power Grid Model
The global energy transition is placing new and unprecedented demands on Distribution System Operators (DSOs). Alongside upgrades to grid capacity, processes such as digitization, capacity optimization, and congestion management are becoming vital for delivering reliable services.
Power Grid Model is an open source project from Linux Foundation Energy and provides a calculation engine that is increasingly essential for DSOs. It offers a standards-based foundation enabling real-time power systems analysis, simulations of electrical power grids, and sophisticated what-if analysis. In addition, it enables in-depth studies and analysis of the electrical power grid’s behavior and performance. This comprehensive model incorporates essential factors such as power generation capacity, electrical losses, voltage levels, power flows, and system stability.
Power Grid Model is currently being applied in a wide variety of use cases, including grid planning, expansion, reliability, and congestion studies. It can also help in analyzing the impact of renewable energy integration, assessing the effects of disturbances or faults, and developing strategies for grid control and optimization.
What to expect
For the upcoming meetup we are organizing, we have an exciting lineup of activities planned:
-Insightful presentations covering two practical applications of the Power Grid Model.
-An update on the latest advancements in Power Grid -Model technology during the first and second quarters of 2024.
-An interactive brainstorming session to discuss and propose new feature requests.
-An opportunity to connect with fellow Power Grid Model enthusiasts and users.
Monitoring and Managing Anomaly Detection on OpenShift.pdfTosin Akinosho
Monitoring and Managing Anomaly Detection on OpenShift
Overview
Dive into the world of anomaly detection on edge devices with our comprehensive hands-on tutorial. This SlideShare presentation will guide you through the entire process, from data collection and model training to edge deployment and real-time monitoring. Perfect for those looking to implement robust anomaly detection systems on resource-constrained IoT/edge devices.
Key Topics Covered
1. Introduction to Anomaly Detection
- Understand the fundamentals of anomaly detection and its importance in identifying unusual behavior or failures in systems.
2. Understanding Edge (IoT)
- Learn about edge computing and IoT, and how they enable real-time data processing and decision-making at the source.
3. What is ArgoCD?
- Discover ArgoCD, a declarative, GitOps continuous delivery tool for Kubernetes, and its role in deploying applications on edge devices.
4. Deployment Using ArgoCD for Edge Devices
- Step-by-step guide on deploying anomaly detection models on edge devices using ArgoCD.
5. Introduction to Apache Kafka and S3
- Explore Apache Kafka for real-time data streaming and Amazon S3 for scalable storage solutions.
6. Viewing Kafka Messages in the Data Lake
- Learn how to view and analyze Kafka messages stored in a data lake for better insights.
7. What is Prometheus?
- Get to know Prometheus, an open-source monitoring and alerting toolkit, and its application in monitoring edge devices.
8. Monitoring Application Metrics with Prometheus
- Detailed instructions on setting up Prometheus to monitor the performance and health of your anomaly detection system.
9. What is Camel K?
- Introduction to Camel K, a lightweight integration framework built on Apache Camel, designed for Kubernetes.
10. Configuring Camel K Integrations for Data Pipelines
- Learn how to configure Camel K for seamless data pipeline integrations in your anomaly detection workflow.
11. What is a Jupyter Notebook?
- Overview of Jupyter Notebooks, an open-source web application for creating and sharing documents with live code, equations, visualizations, and narrative text.
12. Jupyter Notebooks with Code Examples
- Hands-on examples and code snippets in Jupyter Notebooks to help you implement and test anomaly detection models.
Ivanti’s Patch Tuesday breakdown goes beyond patching your applications and brings you the intelligence and guidance needed to prioritize where to focus your attention first. Catch early analysis on our Ivanti blog, then join industry expert Chris Goettl for the Patch Tuesday Webinar Event. There we’ll do a deep dive into each of the bulletins and give guidance on the risks associated with the newly-identified vulnerabilities.
1. Anti‐Virus Comparative ‐ Retrospective test – March 2012 www.av‐comparatives.org
Anti-Virus Comparative
Retrospective/Proactive test
(Heuristic detection and behavioural protection against
new/unknown malicious software)
Language: English
March 2012
Last revision: 20th July 2012
www.av-comparatives.org
‐ 1 ‐
2. Anti‐Virus Comparative ‐ Retrospective test – March 2012 www.av‐comparatives.org
Contents
1. Introduction 3
2. Description 4
3. False alarm test 5
4. Test results 6
5. Summary results 7
6. Awards reached in this test 8
7. Copyright and Disclaimer 9
‐ 2 ‐
3. Anti‐Virus Comparative ‐ Retrospective test – March 2012 www.av‐comparatives.org
1. Introduction
This test report is the second part of the March 2012 test1. The report is delivered in late July due to
the large amount of work required, deeper analysis, preparation and dynamic execution of the retro-
spective test-set. This year this test is performed only once, but includes also a behavioural protec-
tion element.
New in this test
There are two major changes in this test relative to our previous proactive tests. Firstly, because of
the frequency of updates now provided by the vendors, the window between malware appearing and a
signature being provided by the vendor is much shorter. Consequently we collected malware over a
shorter period (~1 day), and the test scores are correspondingly higher than in earlier tests. Secondly,
we have introduced a second (optional) element to the test: behavioural protection. In this, any mal-
ware samples not detected in the scan test are executed, and the results observed. A participating
product has the opportunity to increase its overall score by blocking the malware on/after execution,
using behavioural monitoring.
The following vendors asked to be included in the new behavioural test: Avast, AVG, AVIRA, BitDe-
fender, ESET, F-Secure, G DATA, GFI, Kaspersky, Panda and PC Tools. The results published in this re-
port show results for all programs for the scan test, plus any additional protection by those products
participating in the behavioural test. Although it was a lot of work, we received good feedback from
various vendors, as they were able to find bugs and areas for improvement in the behavioural rou-
tines.
The products used the same updates and signatures they had on the 1st March 2012, and the same
detection settings as used in March (see page 5 of this report) were used for the heuristic detection
part. In the behavioural test we used the default settings. This test shows the proactive detection and
protection capabilities that the products had at that time. We used 4,138 new malware variants which
appeared around the 2nd March 2012. The following products were tested:
AhnLab V3 Internet Security 8.0 Fortinet FortiClient Lite 4.3
avast! Free Antivirus 7.0 G DATA AntiVirus 2012
AVG Anti-Virus 2012 GFI Vipre Antivirus 2012
AVIRA Antivirus Premium 2012 Kaspersky Anti-Virus 2012
BitDefender Anti-Virus Plus 2012 Microsoft Security Essentials 2.1
BullGuard Antivirus 12 Panda Cloud Antivirus 1.5.2
eScan Anti-Virus 11.0 PC Tools Spyware Doctor with AV 9.0
ESET NOD32 Antivirus 5.0 Qihoo 360 Antivirus 2.0
F-Secure Anti-Virus 2012 Tencent QQ PC Manager 5.3
At the beginning of the year, we gave the vendors the opportunity to opt out of this test. McAfee,
Sophos, Trend Micro and Webroot decided not to take part in this type of test, as their products rely
very heavily on the cloud.
1
http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/docs/avc_fdt_201203_en.pdf
‐ 3 ‐
4. Anti‐Virus Comparative ‐ Retrospective test – March 2012 www.av‐comparatives.org
2. Description
Many new viruses and other types of malware appear every day, which is why it is important that an-
tivirus products not only provide new updates, as frequently and as quickly as possible, but also that
they are able to detect such threats in advance (preferably without having to execute them or contact
the cloud) with generic/heuristic techniques; failing that, with behavioural protection measures. Even
if nowadays most antivirus products provide daily, hourly or cloud updates, without proactive meth-
ods there is always a time-frame where the user is not reliably protected.
The data shows how good the proactive heuristic/generic detection capabilities of the scanners were
in detecting new threats (sometimes also named as zero-hour threats by others) used in this test. By
design and scope of the test, only the heuristic/generic detection capability and behavioural protec-
tion capabilities (on-execution) were tested (offline). Additional protection technologies (which are
dependent on cloud-connectivity) are considered by AV-Comparatives in e.g. whole-product dynamic
(“real-world”) protection tests and other tests, but are outside the scope of retrospective tests.
This time we included in the retrospective test-set only new malware which has been seen in-the-field
and prevalent in the few days after the last update in March. Additionally, we took care to include
malware samples which belong to different clusters and that appeared in the field only after the freez-
ing date. Due to the use of only one sample per malware variant and the shortened period (~1 day) of
new samples, the detection rates are higher than in previous tests. We adapted the award system
accordingly. Samples which were not detected by the heuristic/generic on-demand/on-access detec-
tion of the products were then executed in order to see if they would be blocked using behaviour-
analysis features. As can be seen in the results, in at least half of the products the behaviour analyser
(if even present) did not provide much additional protection. Good heuristic/generic detection still
remains one of the core components to protect against new malware. In several cases we observed
behaviour analysers only warning about detected threats without taking any action, or alerting to
some dropped malware components or system changes without protecting against all malicious ac-
tions performed by the malware. If only some dropped files or system changes were detected/blocked,
but not the main file which showed the behaviour, it was not counted as a block. As behaviour analy-
sis only come into play after the malware is executed, a certain risk of getting compromised remains
(even when the security product claims to have blocked/removed the threat). Therefore it is prefera-
ble that malware gets detected before it gets executed, by e.g. the on-access scanner using heuristics
(this is also one of the reasons for the different thresholds on the next page). Behaviour analys-
er/blockers should be considered as a complement to the other features inside a security product
(multi-layer protection), and not as a replacement.
What about the cloud? Even in June (months later), many of the malware samples used were still not
detected by certain products which rely heavily on the cloud. Consequently, we consider it to be a
marketing excuse if retrospective tests - which test the proactive detection against new malware - are
criticized for not being allowed to use cloud resources. This is especially true considering that in
many corporate environments the cloud connection is disabled by the company policy, and the detec-
tion of new malware coming into the company often has to be provided (or is supposed to be provid-
ed) by other product features. Clouds are very (economically) convenient for security software vendors
and allow the collection and processing of large amounts of data. However, in most cases (not all)
they still rely on blacklisting known malware, i.e. if a file is completely new/unknown, the cloud will
usually not be able to determine if it is good or malicious.
‐ 4 ‐
5. Anti‐Virus Comparative ‐ Retrospective test – March 2012 www.av‐comparatives.org
AV-Comparatives prefer to test with default settings. Almost all products run nowadays by default
with highest protection settings or switch automatically to highest settings in the event of a detected
infection. Due to this, in order to get comparable results for the heuristic detection part, we also set
the few remaining products to highest settings (or leave them to default settings) in accordance with
the respective vendor’s wishes. In the behavioural protection part, we tested ALL products with DE-
FAULT settings. Below are notes about settings used (scan of all files etc. is always enabled) of some
products:
F-Secure: asked to be tested and awarded based on their default settings (i.e. without using their
advanced heuristics).
AVG, AVIRA: asked us not to enable/consider the informational warnings of packers as detections.
Because of this, we did not count them as such.
Avast, AVIRA, Kaspersky: the heuristic detection test was done with heuristics set to high/advanced.
This time we distributed the awards by using the following award system / thresholds:
Proactive Detection/Protection Rates
Heuristic Detection 0-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%
Heuristic + Behavioural Protection 0-30% 30-60% 60-90% 90-100%
Very few FP tested STANDARD ADVANCED ADVANCED+
Few FP tested STANDARD ADVANCED ADVANCED+
Many FP tested tested STANDARD ADVANCED
Very many FP tested tested tested STANDARD
Crazy many FP tested tested tested tested
NB: To qualify for a particular award level, a program needs to get EITHER the relevant score on heu-
ristic detection alone, OR the relevant score for heuristic and behavioural protection, but not both.
Thus a program that scores 85% on heuristic detection receives an Advanced+ award, even if it fails
to improve its score at all in the behavioural test.
3. False alarm test
To better evaluate the quality of the detection capabilities, the false alarm rate has to be taken into
account too. A false alarm (or false positive [FP])2 is when an antivirus product flags an innocent file
as infected although it is not. False alarms can sometimes cause as much trouble as real infections.
The false alarm test results (with active cloud connection) were already included in the March test
report.
Very few false alarms (0-3): Microsoft, ESET
Few false alarms (4-15): BitDefender, F-Secure, BullGuard, Kaspersky, Panda, eScan,
G DATA, Avast, AVIRA
Many false alarms (over 15): Tencent, PC Tools, Fortinet, AVG, AhnLab, GFI
Very many false alarms (over 100): Qihoo
2
All discovered false alarms were already reported to the vendors in March and are now already fixed. For de-
tails, please read the report available at http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/docs/avc_fps_201203_en.pdf
‐ 5 ‐
6. Anti‐Virus Comparative ‐ Retrospective test – March 2012 www.av‐comparatives.org
4. Test Results
The table below shows the proactive detection and protection capabilities of the various products.
The awards given (see page 9 of this report) consider not only the detection/protection rates against
new malware, but also the false alarm rates.
Key:
Dark green = detected on scan
Light green = blocked on/after execution
Yellow = user dependent
Red = not blocked
Some observations:
Behavioural detection was used successfully mainly only by Avast, AVG, BitDefender, F-Secure,
Kaspersky, Panda and PC Tools.
BitDefender and Kaspersky scored very high and have even detected some few more samples, but
failed to block or remove them (so they were counted as miss/not-blocked).
Qihoo detected a lot of malware using heuristics, but also had a high rate of false positives.
PC Tools was quite dependent on user decisions, i.e. gave a lot of warnings.
‐ 6 ‐
7. Anti‐Virus Comparative ‐ Retrospective test – March 2012 www.av‐comparatives.org
5. Summary results
The results show the proactive (generic/heuristic) detection and protection capabilities of the securi-
ty products against new malware. The percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number. Do not
take the results as an absolute assessment of quality - they just give an idea of whom detect-
ed/blocked more and who less, in this specific test. To know how these antivirus products perform
with actual signatures and cloud connection, please have a look at our File Detection Tests of March
and September. To find out about real-life online protection rates provided by the various products,
please have a look at our on-going Whole-Product Dynamic “Real-World” Protection tests.
Readers should look at the results and decide on the best product for them based on their individual
needs. For example, laptop users who are worried about infection from e.g. infected flash drives
whilst offline should pay particular attention to this Proactive test.
Below you can see the proactive heuristic detection and behavioural protection results over our set of
new/prevalent malware appeared in-the-field within ~1 day in March (4,138 different samples):
Heuristic Heuristic + Behavioural False
Detection Protection Rate3 Alarms
1. Kaspersky 90% 97% few
2. BitDefender 82% 97% few
3. Qihoo 95% very many
4. F-Secure 82% 91% few
5. G DATA 90% 90% few
6. ESET 87% 87% very few
7. Avast 77% 87% few
8. Panda 75% 85% few
9. AVIRA 84% 84% few
10. AVG 77% 83% many
11. BullGuard, eScan 82% few
12. PC Tools 53% 82% many
13. Microsoft 77% very few
14. Tencent 75% many
15. Fortinet 64% many
16. GFI 51% 51% many
17. AhnLab 47% many
3
User-dependent cases were given a half credit. Example: if a program blocks 80% of malware by itself, plus
another 20% user-dependent, we give it 90% altogether, i.e. 80% + (20% x 0.5).
‐ 7 ‐
8. Anti‐Virus Comparative ‐ Retrospective test – March 2012 www.av‐comparatives.org
6. Awards reached in this test
The following awards are for the results reached in the proactive/retrospective test:
AWARDS PRODUCTS
Kaspersky
BitDefender
F-Secure
G DATA
ESET
Avast
Panda
AVIRA
BullGuard
eScan
Microsoft
AVG*
Tencent*
Qihoo*
PC Tools*
Fortinet*
GFI*
AhnLab
McAfee
Sophos
NOT INCLUDED4
Trend Micro
Webroot
*: these products got lower awards due to false alarms5
4
As those products are included in our yearly public test-series, they are listed even if those vendors decided
not to be included in retrospective tests as they rely heavily on cloud-connectivity.
5
Considering that certain vendors did not take part, it makes sense to set and use fixed thresholds instead of
using the cluster method (as by the non-inclusion of the low-scoring products clusters may be built “unfairly”).
‐ 8 ‐