Jump to content

Talk:Antivirus software

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Merge with zero-day virus

[edit]

The issue of zero-day virus needs to be more thouroly discussed in this article. Sections of the zero-day virus article is just a condensed version of sections from this article. If zero-day virus was merged with this article, it would receive more exposure. TechOutsider' (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

zero-day virus is discrete and relevant enough to merit an article - maybe migrate some content from here to there and reduce duplication? Qbeep (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It should at least be linked from this article, either from a short section of "See also" - Ahunt (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that there is no consensus to merge, so the tags will be removed. I have linked zero-day virus in this article. - Ahunt (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you help me 103.62.155.151 (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TechOutsider I quite agree 45.212.9.201 (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

Independent quality testing

[edit]

"Although methodologies may differ, some notable independent quality testing agencies include AV-Comparatives, ICSA Labs, West Coast Labs, Virus Bulletin, AV-TEST and other members of the Anti-Malware Testing Standards Organization."

OK, they are notable. But are they trustworthy? --MisterSanderson (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Years behind?

[edit]

"Additionally anti-virus software is 'years behind security-conscious client-side applications like browsers or document readers', according to Joxean Koret, a researcher with Coseinc, a Singapore-based information security consultancy."

This isn't sufficiently clear! Is it saying that document readers and web-browsers are more secure than ani-virus themselves?--MisterSanderson (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What he is trying to say is that anti-virus scanners are out of date technology in terms of being themselves well protected against exploitation. The ref says, "Anti-virus software is an ideal target for a would-be attacker, according to Joxean Koret, a researcher with Coseinc, a Singapore-based information security consultancy. “If you write an exploit for an anti-virus product you’re likely going to get the highest privileges (root, system or even kernel) with just one shot,” Koret told The Intercept in an email. “Anti-virus products, with only a few exceptions, are years behind security-conscious client-side applications like browsers or document readers. It means that Acrobat Reader, Microsoft Word or Google Chrome are harder to exploit than 90 percent of the anti-virus products out there.” I'll add that last part of the quote for clarity. - Ahunt (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Signature-based detection is a popular heuristic with use cases beyond antivirus software (e.g., with IDS). Perhaps it is worth its own article, or some expansion at IDS (and any other relevant articles). Tule-hog (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]