Re: Consumer Reports Slammed for Creating 'Test' Viruses

[Blue Boar <BlueBoar () thievco com>]

Drsolly wrote:
> No, it's one of the worst ways, about on a par with throwing dice.

If I were to write a new virus, I'm pretty confident that I could 
accurately predict the results of throwing it at 30 virus scanners.

For the occasion claim that some AV package can detect new unknown 
viruses, or that some hueristic package can do so, creating a new virus 
in lab conditions is certainly a valid test.  It's a crap shoot because 
that's how (in)effective AV is at spotting new things, not because the 
test is invalid.

> I agree - the only test method that comes anywhere near being able to 
> work, is to run a three-month-old product against the current crop of 
> viruses (and even that isn't as easy as it sounds).

OK, so if I write a virus today and test today's signature files... it's 
not a valid test.  However, if I save today's signature files, let 
*other people* volunteer to write a bunch of viruses, and then test 
those, it is.

You're not arguing against the validity of the test method, you're 
saying that you don't want additional viruses being created, because you 
don't like it.

I'm not saying you have to like it.

                                                BB
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.