Comments on: Kaspersky, Virus Total, and Unacceptable Shortcuts http://blog.eset.com/2010/02/02/kaspersky-virus-total-and-unacceptable-shortcuts Wed, 16 May 2012 18:22:59 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Optimus Prime http://blog.eset.com/2010/02/02/kaspersky-virus-total-and-unacceptable-shortcuts/comment-page-1#comment-96064 Optimus Prime Mon, 17 May 2010 03:20:59 +0000 http://www.eset.com/threat-center/blog/?p=2668#comment-96064 FAIL   FAIL
 

]]> By: Hidden Peak http://blog.eset.com/2010/02/02/kaspersky-virus-total-and-unacceptable-shortcuts/comment-page-1#comment-84223 Hidden Peak Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:36:15 +0000 http://www.eset.com/threat-center/blog/?p=2668#comment-84223 Bontchev's point ov view is understandable. Tests => PR => user's attention => sales => profit (which is the main reason why all security firms do exist). But let's not forget primary goal of any AV-product - protection of user's computer. And it has nothing to do with magazine's tests. Any clean object detected as malware = false positive. Messages about such pseudo-malware scares common users (ones who's not an expert or even advanced) as much as detection of real virus. Let's look at the other side of this story. Now we know the approach of some AV-vendors. Got a sample => look at virustotal => positive result from 'big vendors'? => add to databases without own analysis. Nice, isn't it ? In case of real virus it's nothing but stealing of intellectual property. 'Big vendor' put it's efforts, time and money to detect this malware, and some others just used the result in fastest and easiest way. But in case of 'fake malware' those vendors looked like clowns. And is't a reason for their users to think about the question: "Do I use  antivirus or pseudo-antivirus ?" Bontchev's point ov view is understandable. Tests => PR => user's attention => sales => profit (which is the main reason why all security firms do exist).
But let's not forget primary goal of any AV-product – protection of user's computer. And it has nothing to do with magazine's tests. Any clean object detected as malware = false positive. Messages about such pseudo-malware scares common users (ones who's not an expert or even advanced) as much as detection of real virus.
Let's look at the other side of this story. Now we know the approach of some AV-vendors. Got a sample => look at virustotal => positive result from 'big vendors'? => add to databases without own analysis. Nice, isn't it ? In case of real virus it's nothing but stealing of intellectual property. 'Big vendor' put it's efforts, time and money to detect this malware, and some others just used the result in fastest and easiest way. But in case of 'fake malware' those vendors looked like clowns. And is't a reason for their users to think about the question: "Do I use  antivirus or pseudo-antivirus ?"

]]> By: David Harley http://blog.eset.com/2010/02/02/kaspersky-virus-total-and-unacceptable-shortcuts/comment-page-1#comment-83164 David Harley Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:10:33 +0000 http://www.eset.com/threat-center/blog/?p=2668#comment-83164 Yes, they did. And it's not funny. But let's not lose sight of the real issue. Actually, maybe the best summary was made by Vesselin Bontchev, commenting on the Register's article: "If we implement detection of some sample based solely on the fact that XYZ's scanner detects it, we're being accused of not doing proper analysis and copying other company's detection. If we don't detect the sample because our analysis has shown it is obviously not malicious, it gets into the testers' test sets and our detection rate in the tests is lowered. When we protest, we're being told that 'but half a gazillion other products already detect it'. Welcome to the world of anti-virus research, where your only choices are bad ones and worse ones." Yes, they did. And it’s not funny. But let’s not lose sight of the real issue. Actually, maybe the best summary was made by Vesselin Bontchev, commenting on the Register’s article:

“If we implement detection of some sample based solely on the fact that XYZ’s scanner detects it, we’re being accused of not doing proper analysis and copying other company’s detection. If we don’t detect the sample because our analysis has shown it is obviously not malicious, it gets into the testers’ test sets and our detection rate in the tests is lowered. When we protest, we’re being told that ‘but half a gazillion other products already detect it’. Welcome to the world of anti-virus research, where your only choices are bad ones and worse ones.”

]]> By: Hidden Peak http://blog.eset.com/2010/02/02/kaspersky-virus-total-and-unacceptable-shortcuts/comment-page-1#comment-83162 Hidden Peak Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:02:09 +0000 http://www.eset.com/threat-center/blog/?p=2668#comment-83162 >In fact, several vendors only detected one or two of those files In fact, several vendors detected all 10 fake samples, guys. And it's not funny. >In fact, several vendors only detected one or two of those files
In fact, several vendors detected all 10 fake samples, guys. And it's not funny.

]]> By: ZM http://blog.eset.com/2010/02/02/kaspersky-virus-total-and-unacceptable-shortcuts/comment-page-1#comment-82368 ZM Sun, 07 Feb 2010 18:09:09 +0000 http://www.eset.com/threat-center/blog/?p=2668#comment-82368 What version of NOD32 is used in Virustotal ? What version of NOD32 is used in Virustotal ?

]]> By: MinDokan http://blog.eset.com/2010/02/02/kaspersky-virus-total-and-unacceptable-shortcuts/comment-page-1#comment-82309 MinDokan Sat, 06 Feb 2010 19:41:35 +0000 http://www.eset.com/threat-center/blog/?p=2668#comment-82309 PWNED!!!!!!!!1111111111111111111111111111 eleven! Rico is calling Chamuyeros to Eset or Kaspersky, but I don't know why. Who is Chamuyero? (Chamuyero = liar) PWNED!!!!!!!!1111111111111111111111111111 eleven!
Rico is calling Chamuyeros to Eset or Kaspersky, but I don't know why. Who is Chamuyero? (Chamuyero = liar)

]]> By: Juan Carlos Calderon http://blog.eset.com/2010/02/02/kaspersky-virus-total-and-unacceptable-shortcuts/comment-page-1#comment-81993 Juan Carlos Calderon Fri, 05 Feb 2010 03:05:11 +0000 http://www.eset.com/threat-center/blog/?p=2668#comment-81993 Big surprise, if you copy not learn... :), Congrat! ESET... Big surprise, if you copy not learn… :) , Congrat! ESET…

]]> By: Randy Abrams http://blog.eset.com/2010/02/02/kaspersky-virus-total-and-unacceptable-shortcuts/comment-page-1#comment-81797 Randy Abrams Wed, 03 Feb 2010 22:49:31 +0000 http://www.eset.com/threat-center/blog/?p=2668#comment-81797 I'm not sure if Rico is calling us liars or Kaspersky, but he is welcome to his opinion :) I’m not sure if Rico is calling us liars or Kaspersky, but he is welcome to his opinion :)

]]> By: Rico Rico http://blog.eset.com/2010/02/02/kaspersky-virus-total-and-unacceptable-shortcuts/comment-page-1#comment-81793 Rico Rico Wed, 03 Feb 2010 22:00:59 +0000 http://www.eset.com/threat-center/blog/?p=2668#comment-81793 Chamulleros.... Chamulleros….

]]> By: Gyllen http://blog.eset.com/2010/02/02/kaspersky-virus-total-and-unacceptable-shortcuts/comment-page-1#comment-81750 Gyllen Wed, 03 Feb 2010 15:27:22 +0000 http://www.eset.com/threat-center/blog/?p=2668#comment-81750 FAIL.   Eset rulz for not fall in that. FAIL.
 
Eset rulz for not fall in that.

]]>