MRG Effitas 360 Assessment & Certification Programme Q2 2017

MRG Effitas 360 Degree Assessment & Certification
Q2 2017

Copyright 2017 Effitas Ltd.
This article or any part thereof may not be published or reproduced without the consent of the copyright holder.
1

MRG Effitas 360 Assessment & Certification Programme Q2 2017

ContentsIntroduction .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 3
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Certification ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 4
The Purpose of this Report............................................................................................................................................................. 5
Tests Employed ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Security Applications Tested........................................................................................................................................................... 7
Malware sample types used to conduct the tests...................................................................................................................... 7
Test Results .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 8
Q2 2017 In the Wild 360 / Full Spectrum Test Results ........................................................................................................... 8
Understanding Grade of Pass ............................................................................................................................................................. 13
Appendix 1 .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 14
Methodology Used in the 360 Assessment & Certification Programme Q2 2017 ......................................................... 14

Copyright 2017 Effitas Ltd.
This article or any part thereof may not be published or reproduced without the consent of the copyright holder.
2MRG Effitas 360 Assessment & Certification Programme Q2 2017

Introduction
MRG Effitas has a core focus on efficacy assessments in the anti–financial fraud space, but we also publish more
traditional “Real World” detection tests. An example of such a test is our “Time to Detect Assessment Q4 2013”(Project 37).
This assessment measured the ability of security products to protect an endpoint from a live infection, and, in theevent of a system being compromised, the time taken to detect the infection and remediate the system. The timeto-detect-and-remediate component relied on each security product being manually forced to conduct a scan every
thirty minutes over a 24-hour period.
For 2014, it was decided that a new approach was needed as the methodology applied in previous tests did notreflect how a security product would be used on an endpoint in the Real World. In practice, many security
applications will only detect an infection during a reboot/startup or if a scheduled scan has been set by default.
For this assessment, time-to-detect will employ a methodology based on the infected endpoint being re-scanned
once during a 24-hour period.
The methodology employed in this test maps more closely to Real World use, and although it may not be a 100%
accurate model of how an “average” system is used, it gives a more realistic assessment of a security product’s ability
to detect and remediate an infected endpoint.
This Programme is called a “360 Assessment” since it deals with the full spectrum of malware instead of just financial
malware. In the 360 Assessments, trojans, backdoors, ransomware, PUAs, financial malware and “other” malware
are used.

Executive Summary
This Certification Programme is designed to serve as a reflection of product efficacy based on what we havepreviously termed “metrics that matter”.
In many of our previous tests, particularly those that have focused on financial malware, we started with theassumption that the endpoint has already been compromised. Being the world’s largest supplier of early-life malicious
binaries and malicious URLs, and from our own simulator development, we know that all endpoints can be infected,
regardless of the security solution employed.
For us, a product’s ability to block initial infection (although critical in most cases) is not the only metric that matters.
One also needs to measure the time taken for the security product to detect malware on a system and remediateit.
When conducting these tests, we tried to simulate normal user behaviour. We are aware that a “Real World” test
cannot be conducted by a team of professionals inside a lab because we understand how certain types of malware
work, how malware attacks and how such attacks could be prevented. Simulating normal user behaviour means that
we paid special attention to all alerts given by security applications. A pass was given only when alerts werestraightforward and clearly suggested that malicious action should be blocked.

Copyright 2017 Effitas Ltd.
This article or any part thereof may not be published or reproduced without the consent of the copyright holder.
3

MRG Effitas 360 Assessment & Certification Programme Q2 2017

We tested a group of internet security suites and complementary security applications. With these, it is very
important to note that the best choice for an average user is to keep things very simple and for the product not topresent many pop-up alerts or questions.
Out of eighteen products we tested, seven managed to meet the specification to attain our Q2 2017 360 certification
award, these being avast! Internet Security, AVG Internet Security, Avira Internet Security, BitdefenderInternet Security, ESET Smart Security, Kaspersky Internet Security, SurfRight HitmanPro.
All other security applications failed the test in that they were unable to detect the malware and/or remediate thesystem even after the end of a 24-hour period.

Certification
In order to attain a quarterly MRG Effitas 360 Degree certification award, a security application must either protect
the system from initial infection (behaviour protection) (a level 1 pass) or in at least 98% of all cases detect any
missed malware and fully remediate the system before or on the first user initiated rescan (a level 2 pass).
Applications that meet this specification will be given certification for that quarter.
Under the MRG Effitas 360 Degree Assessment & Certification, the following products were certified for Q2 2017:

Certified (level 1): Kaspersky Internet Security
Certified (level 2): avast! Internet Security, Avira Internet Security, AVG Internet Security,
Bitdefender Internet Security, ESET Smart Security, SurfRight HitmanPro.

Copyright 2017 Effitas Ltd.
This article or any part thereof may not be published or reproduced without the consent of the copyright holder.
4

MRG Effitas 360 Assessment & Certification Programme Q2 2017

The Purpose of this Report
Since its inception in 2009, MRG Effitas has strived to differentiate itself from traditional testing houses by having its
primary focus on providing “efficacy assessments” and not just performing “tests”.
Traditionally, testing of security software has centred on measuring a product’s ability to detect malware. Testing
has evolved rapidly over the last two to three years as most labs, under the guidance of AMTSO (of which MRG
Effitas is a member) strived to conduct “Real World” testing.
Although there is no absolute definition of this kind of testing, loosely speaking, it involves the introduction ofmalware to an endpoint through a realistic vector, such as a browser or USB memory stick. Real World testing
mostly involves “dynamic testing” (i.e. the malware is executed and then the ability of the security product to block
the malware is measured).
Several testing labs also conduct “System Rescue” tests. These assess a security product’s ability to remediate a preinfected endpoint.
Whilst both types of tests are useful and yield valid and meaningful data, MRG Effitas wanted to merge these tests
and also go one step further by measuring the time security products take to detect infections and remediate theendpoint.
To make testing more akin to Real World scenarios, no manual scanning was conducted. Instead, the system wasre-scanned once a day (24 hours after the system was compromised), thereby giving security applications theopportunity to detect infections on restart.
As we have stated in our previous test reports, all malware has one primary objective, and that is to make money
for the cybercriminals.
Measuring initial detection rates and the time taken to detect active malware is important, particularly in today’s
threat landscape with the mix of malware that is prevalent.
As we have repeated in our previous financial malware test reports, the longer a cybercriminal can have theirmalware on a system, the greater the opportunity for them to be able to capture private user information includingbanking passwords and social media credentials, etc.
There has been an increase in the prevalence of ransomware, such as “CryptoLocker”, which, once active on thesystem, holds the user at ransom to decrypt system data or unlock the system in some other way (interestingly, themost common way CryptoLocker is installed on an endpoint is via Zeus infections).
For these types of malware, it is initial detection that is of the greatest importance, since the vast majority of security
solutions will be unable to rescue an encrypted or locked system. (In other internal tests, we have found that
Webroot SecureAnywhere was in fact able to undo the encryption performed by some ransomware.)
In providing these quarterly certifications, the MRG Effitas 360 Assessment & Certification Programme is the de facto
standard by which security vendors, financial institutions and other corporations can attain the most rigorous andaccurate determination of a product’s efficacy against the full spectrum of malware that is prevalent during the period.

Copyright 2017 Effitas Ltd.
This article or any part thereof may not be published or reproduced without the consent of the copyright holder.
5

MRG Effitas 360 Assessment & Certification Programme Q2 2017

Tests Employed
In this assessment (Q2 2017), we ran the following tests:
In the Wild 360 / Full Spectrum Test
Approximately 50% of the malicious URLs used in this test were compromised legitimate websites which servedmalware. We believe that such URLs pose the greatest danger to users as this is the place where they least expect
to get infected. 10% of the URLs pose as fake porn websites serving visitors with various types of malware. The
remaining 40% of the URLs come from our regular honeypots or, in case of ransomware and financial malware inparticular, we used URLs from newly-discovered distribution sites.
Malware delivered by URLs used in this test can be considered as Zero Day in the true meaning of that phrase. Thisposed a great challenge to all participants as new variant samples such as Locky (Ransomware) TeslaCrypt(Ransomware), Dridex (Banking Trojan) and many others caused most damage.
It is our opinion that Ransomware currently poses the greatest threat to users, for this reason we choose to use
more URLs serving this threat than before.
Because of the wide spectrum of malware used in this project and the freshness of the samples, we used a smaller
set than usual.
Applications that didn’t protect the system from file encrypting ransomware cannot be certified because they could
not remediate the threat; as files usually cannot be decrypted.
Our testing environment supports the use of VM aware malware, this is the reason why we were able to use moresophisticated threats which wouldn’t run on Virtual Machines.
10% of the threats used in this test were introduced to the system via USB flash memory sticks. These samples cameoriginally from live URLs, but inside archives.
Testing was conducted as per the methodology detailed in Appendix 1. In total, 356 live ITW samples were used.
The stimulus load comprised the following: 201 trojans, 43 backdoors, 51 financial malware samples, 49 ransomware
samples, and 12 others.
Additionally, to measure Deceptor (PUA/Adware) detection capabilities, we introduced a separate section in which
we tested 20 samples approved by AppEsteem.

Copyright 2017 Effitas Ltd.
This article or any part thereof may not be published or reproduced without the consent of the copyright holder.
6

MRG Effitas 360 Assessment & Certification Programme Q2 2017

Security Applications Tested••••••••••••••••••avast! Internet Security 17.5.2302
AVG Internet Security 17.5.3021
Avira Internet Security 15.0.27.34
BitDefender Internet Security 2017 21.0.25.92
ESET Internet Security 10.1.210.0
Kaspersky Internet Security 17.0.0.611
Malwarebytes Anti-Malware 3.1.2.1733
McAfee LiveSafe 16.0.1
Microsoft Windows Defender 4.10.14393.0
Microsoft Windows Defender 4.10.14393.0 + Smart Screen
Panda Internet Security 17.0.1
SurfRight HitmanPro 3.7.20- Build 286
Symantec Norton Security 22.10.0.83
ThreatTrack Vipre Advanced Security 10.1.3.3
Trend Micro Maximum Security 11.1.1045
Watchdog Anti-Malware 2.72.186.101Webroot SecureAnywhere 9.0.17.24
Zemana Anti-Malware 2.74.2.76

Malware sample types used to conduct the tests.

Copyright 2017 Effitas Ltd.
This article or any part thereof may not be published or reproduced without the consent of the copyright holder.
7

MRG Effitas 360 Assessment & Certification Programme Q2 2017

Test Results
The tables below show the results of testing under the MRG Effitas 360 Q2 Assessment Programme.

Q2 2017 In the Wild 360 / Full Spectrum Test Results
The table below shows the initial detection rates of the security products. This table is sorted by smallest amount of failures.

Copyright 2017 Effitas Ltd.
This article or any part thereof may not be published or reproduced without the consent of the copyright holder.
8

MRG Effitas 360 Assessment & Certification Programme Q2 2017

The table below shows the initial detection rates of the on-demand security products. This table is sorted by smallest amount of failures.

Copyright 2017 Effitas Ltd.
This article or any part thereof may not be published or reproduced without the consent of the copyright holder.
9

MRG Effitas 360 Assessment & Certification Programme Q2 2017

The table below shows the initial detection rates of the security products for ransomware. This table is sorted by smallest amount of failures.

Copyright 2017 Effitas Ltd.
This article or any part thereof may not be published or reproduced without the consent of the copyright holder.
10

MRG Effitas 360 Assessment & Certification Programme Q2 2017

The table below shows the initial detection rates of the security products for financial malware. This table is sorted by smallest amount of failures.

Copyright 2017 Effitas Ltd.
This article or any part thereof may not be published or reproduced without the consent of the copyright holder.
11

MRG Effitas 360 Assessment & Certification Programme Q2 2017

The table below shows the initial detection rates of the security products for Deceptors (PUA/Adware). This table is sorted by smallest amount of failures.
(Results of this test are not part of the certificate.)

Copyright 2017 Effitas Ltd.
This article or any part thereof may not be published or reproduced without the consent of the copyright holder.
12

MRG Effitas 360 Assessment & Certification Programme Q2 2017

Understanding Grade of Pass•

Level 1 = All threats detected on first exposure or via behaviour protection or detected in 24 hours.
Kaspersky Internet Security•Level 2 = At least 98% of the threats detected and neutralised / system remediated before or on the firstrescan.
avast! Internet Security
Avira Internet Security
AVG Internet Security
BitDefender Internet Security
ESET Smart Security
SurfRight HitmanPro•

Failed = Security product failed to detect all infections and remediate the system during the test
procedure.
Malwarebytes Anti-Malware
McAfee Internet Security
Microsoft Windows Defender
Microsoft Windows Defender with Smart Screen
Panda Internet Security
Symantec Norton SecurityThreatTrack Vipre Internet Security
Trend Micro Maximum
Watchdog Anti-Malware
Webroot SecureAnywhere
Zemana Anti-Malware

Copyright 2017 Effitas Ltd.
This article or any part thereof may not be published or reproduced without the consent of the copyright holder.
13MRG Effitas 360 Assessment & Certification Programme Q2 2017

Appendix 1
Methodology Used in the 360 Assessment & Certification
Programme Q2 2017
Methodology used in the assessment:
Windows 10 64 bit operating system was installed on a virtual machinei, all updates were applied and third
party applications installed and updated according to our “Average Endpoint Specification” ii
2. An image of the operating system was created.
3. A clone of the imaged systems was made for each of the security applications used in the test.
4. An individual security application was installed using default settingsiii on each of the systems created in 3.
and then, where applicable, updated.
5. A clone of the system as at the end of 4. was created.
6. Each live URL test was conducted by:a. Downloading a single malicious binary from its native URL using Microsoft Edge to the desktop,closing Microsoft Edge and then executing the binary.
b. The security application blocked the URL where the malicious binary was located.
c. The security application detected and blocked the malicious binary whilst it was being downloaded
to the desktop.
d. The security application detected the malicious binary when it was executed according to thefollowing criteria:
It identified the binary as being malicious and either automatically blocked it or postponed
its execution and warned the user that the file was malicious and awaited user input.
7. The system under test was deemed to have been infected if:The security application failed to detect or block the binary at any stage in 6. and allowed it to beexecuted.
8. Testing on infected systems continued for 24 hours. The system was rescanned once, 24 hours after thesystem was compromised.
9. Remediation performance of an application was determined by manual inspection of the system in contrast
to its pre-infected state and not by the logs and reports of the security application itself.iv
10. Testing was conducted with all systems having internet access.
11. Each individual test for each security application was conducted from a unique IP address.
12. All security applications were fully-functional unregistered versions or versions registered anonymously,with no connection to MRG Effitas.
13. All testing was conducted during Q2 2017.
14. As no user initiated scans were involved in this test, applications relied on various technologies to detect,
block and remediate threats. Some of these technologies were: background scanning, startup scanning,scheduled scanning, system monitors, etc. A scheduled scan was used only if enabled by default.
1.

iVM hardware spec is 4GB RAM & 2 core processor.
AES includes Adobe Flash, Reader, Java, Microsoft Office 2010, Edge & VLC Player. All Microsoft components were fully updated; all third-party components were out of date by three months.
During installation of the security application, if an option to detect PUAs was given, it was selected.
iv
This is because in some instances, an application will claim to have removed an infection, but actually failed to do so and was still active on the system.
ii

iii

Copyright 2017 Effitas Ltd.
This article or any part thereof may not be published or reproduced without the consent of the copyright holder.
14