[windows2000] Spyware article
- From: "Nick Smith" <nick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:15:52 -0000
I thought this would be of interest. In an email I receive from
www.windowssecrets.com <http://www.windowssecrets.com/>
Anti-adware misses most malware
By Brian Livingston
Now that 80% of home PCs in the U.S. are infected with adware and
spyware, according to one study
<http://WindowsSecrets.com/links/144045d/361c84h/?u=www.staysafeonline.i
nfo%2Fnews%2FNCSA-AOLIn-HomeStudyRelease.pdf> , it turns out that nearly
every anti-adware application on the market catches less than half of
the bad stuff.
That's the conclusion of a remarkably comprehensive series of
anti-adware tests conducted recently by Eric Howes, an instructor at the
University of Illinois.
Howes, a well-known researcher among PC security professionals,
collected 20 different anti-adware applications. He then infected a
fresh install of Windows 2000 SP4 and Office 2000 SP3 with several dozen
adware programs in separate stages. Finally, he counted how many active
adware components were removed by each anti-adware product.
(Note: I use the single term "adware" in this article to refer to both
"adware" and "spyware." Since it's not necessary for a spyware program
to "call home" to be disruptive, the distinction between adware and
spyware is meaningless. All such programs display ads or generate
revenue for the adware maker in some other way. )
Howes's tests were conducted over a period of weeks in October 2004. His
results were mentioned at the time in several places, including Slashdot
<http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/23/0331228&tid=172&tid=158&;
tid=201&tid=218> and eWeek
<http://WindowsSecrets.com/links/144045d/2a320eh/?u=www.eweek.com%2Farti
cle2%2F0%2C1759%2C1731474%2C00.asp> .
Unbelievably, however, none of these commentators bothered to print a
simple chart showing which anti-adware application did the best job at
removing the unwanted components. Even Howes himself hasn't posted such
a summary. In a telephone interview, Howes exhibited both modesty and
perfectionism, implying that his work wasn't yet done to his
satisfaction - despite the fact that his tests are some of the most
extensive I've ever seen.
Howes's test results sprawl over six long Web pages, with no overall
totals or summary of the figures. It's a daunting body of data, but its
bottom line is explosive. Adware seems to be evolving much faster than
anti-adware, and the battle is so far being won by the adware side.
For this issue of the Windows Secrets Newsletter, therefore, I've
complied Howes's figures into a straightforward chart, shown below. I
removed five products that didn't complete all of Howes's tests for a
variety of reasons. What's left is a revealing rating, from the top to
the bottom of the anti-adware heap.
Each anti-adware application, according to Howe, removed a certain
percentage of "critical" adware components. These are executable .exe
and .com files, dynamic link library (.dll) files, and Windows Registry
entries (autorun commands and the like).
Almost all the anti-adware programs that were tested removed fewer than
half of the hundreds of adware components Howes cataloged. The best at
removing adware was Giant AntiSpyware, but even that program removed
less than two-thirds of a PC's unwanted guests.
Giant AntiSpyware catches 63%, tests say
Howes's tests were conducted before the Microsoft Corp. announced
<http://WindowsSecrets.com/links/144045d/b30337h/?u=www.microsoft.com%2F
presspass%2Fpress%2F2004%2Fdec04%2F12-16GIANTPR.asp> in December that
it was purchasing Giant Company Software outright. For that reason, the
tests use the version of Giant AntiSpyware that was available in October
and not the newer Microsoft beta version that's currently available.
Even so, with Giant's application removing 63% of a PC's adware
components, and its nearest competitor, Webroot Spy Sweeper, removing
less than 50%, it's clear that Microsoft has a potential winner on its
hands.
In the following table, which was reviewed by Howes himself before its
publication here, the Adware Fixed column represents the percentage of
critical components successfully removed, not just detected, by each
product (higher percentages are better). The False Positives column
shows the number of benign Windows files that were incorrectly reported
by a product as adware (lower numbers are better):
Product
Adware Fixed
False Pos.
Giant AntiSpyware
63%
0
Webroot Spy Sweeper
48%
0
Ad-Aware SE Personal
47%
0
Pest Patrol
41%
10
SpywareStormer
35%
0
Intermute SpySubtract Pro
34%
0
PC Tools Spyware Doctor
33%
0
Spybot Search & Destroy
33%
0
McAfee AntiSpyware
33%
9
Xblock X-Cleaner Deluxe
31%
1
XoftSpy
27%
3
NoAdware
24%
0
Aluria Spyware Eliminator
23%
3
OmniQuad AntiSpy
16%
1
Spyware COP
15%
0
SpyHunter
15%
1
SpyKiller 2005
15%
2
Howes didn't test the anti-adware programs in the above list against a
program called CoolWebSearch (CWS). This little bugger mutates every few
days, it seems. CWS actually requires a completely separate anti-adware
program, CWShredder, which is constantly evolving along with the
nuisance. This is explained in more detail later in this article.
The fact that anti-adware products fail to remove all or even most
adware components has been an open secret among security professionals
for some time. For this reason, tech writers often say, "You should
install two different programs and run both of them for maximum
protection."
To test this assertion, I compiled Howes's raw data into a new table
showing the removal rate of the best app, Giant AntiSpyware, with every
other tested product. According to this analysis, combining Webroot Spy
Sweeper with Giant AntiSpyware did the most to remove unwanted
components. But the combination of the two apps increased Giant's 63%
success rate only 7 percentage points, to 70%:
Giant AntiSpyware plus...
Total Adware Fixed
Webroot Spy Sweeper
70%
Ad-Aware SE Personal
69%
PC Tools Spyware Doctor
68%
Pest Patrol
67%
Spybot Search & Destroy
67%
Spyware Stormer
67%
Spyware COP
66%
Aluria Spyware Eliminator
65%
Intermute SpySubtract Pro
65%
NoAdware
65%
XsoftSpy
65%
McAfee AntiSpyware
64%
OmniQuad AntiSpy
64%
SpyHunter
64%
SpyKiller 2005
64%
Xblock X-Cleaner Deluxe
64%
Finally, the computer press often recommends that the two anti-adware
products that should be used together are Ad-Aware SE Personal and
Spybot Search & Destroy. That preference may have become the
conventional wisdom because both of these products have low-end,
freeware versions. PC World
<http://WindowsSecrets.com/links/144045d/211307h/?u=www.pcworld.com%2Fre
views%2Farticle%2F0%2Caid%2C115939%2Cpg%2C6%2C00.asp> , PC Magazine
<http://WindowsSecrets.com/links/144045d/6095b4h/?u=www.pcmag.com%2Farti
cle2%2F0%2C1759%2C1618804%2C00.asp> , and other publications have
recommended this combination as recently as June and August,
respectively.
Ad-aware and Spybot may have been a great combo back then. But adware
apparently moves much faster than these two companies do. According to
Howes's data, the two programs together barely removed half the adware
components on an infected PC:
Ad-Aware SE Personal plus...
Total Adware Fixed
Spybot Search & Destroy
54%
I found no combination of any two anti-adware programs that removed more
adware components than Giant AntiSpyware and Webroot Spy Sweeper, based
on Howes's data. Removing only 70% of adware, unfortunately, isn't good
enough. A much better strategy is to prevent adware from getting into
your systems in the first place. I'll cover that next.
How to defend yourself against adware
First, let me make my opinion clear: The installation of adware should
be illegal and harshly punished. Adware has exploded because it offers
big economic incentives for its sponsors. They'll never adequately
inform PC users about their software before it's installed. This
troubling aspect of adware will never be wished away.
Only software that a PC user specifically consents to should legally be
able to install - and "end-user license agreements" that stretch off the
screen should never be counted as consent. (This isn't a knock on
"ad-supported software," such as the Opera browser. Such legitimate
software is clearly integrated with its advertising and makes it easy to
shut off the ads by registering.)
In reality, today's tech-illiterate legislatures will never ban adware -
if they could even think of an effective legal approach to do so. We
need to engage the battle on a technical level instead.
To understand adware, you first need to know how PCs get it. The ways
that Howes obtained the adware he used in his tests provide us with some
perfect examples:
* Software downloads. For one group of tests, Howes downloaded and
installed Grokster, a popular peer-to-peer file-sharing program, from
CNET Download.com. Installing Grokster and clicking OK in its subsequent
dialog boxes loaded 15 separate adware programs, containing 134
"critical" executable components, by Howes's count. This source of
infection would compromise even Windows XP with its new Service Pack 2
(SP2).
* Drive-by downloads. To set up another group of tests, Howes used
Internet Explorer to visit the following Web locations: 007 Arcade Games
(a games site), LyricsDomain (a song lyrics site), and Innovators of
Wrestling (yup, a wrestling site). This resulted in 23 different adware
programs being installed, carrying 138 components, Howes says. Drive-by
downloads such as these are now less of a problem for users who've
installed XP SP2.
* You can't step into the same river twice. For yet another test,
Howes visited the wrestling site again, but on a different date. The
makers of adware must have signed a lot of distribution contracts with
the site in the interim. Howes says his PC picked up 25 adware programs
and 153 components on that one visit alone. (You'll notice that I didn't
link to the examples I cited above, and I strongly recommend that you
avoid trying any of them.)
It's not enough to say "PC users should be more careful." Computer
professionals, instead, have a duty and an obligation to prevent adware
from infecting their PCs or anyone else's. Here are some steps to take:
* Use Giant AntiSpyware (or install the MS beta), Webroot Spy
Sweeper, and CWShredder.
At the moment, this is the short list of programs that appear to
remove the largest number of adware components. I recommend that you buy
the registered versions of these applications and keep them constantly
updated. The few dollars involved are well worth it, compared to the
damage that can be done by a rogue program controlling your PC.
Microsoft hasn't yet announced whether its version of the Giant
application will cost money or be free after the beta period is over -
stay tuned. (Note: The MS beta is incompatible
<http://WindowsSecrets.com/links/144045d/2ba995h/?u=support.microsoft.co
m%2F%3Fscid%3Dkb%3Ben-us%3B892374> with the MS Media Center Extender
and has other 0.9-type issues.)
See Giant AntiSpyware download
<http://WindowsSecrets.com/links/144045d/421893h/?u=www.download-ware.co
m%2FUtilities%2FSecurity%2FGIANT_AntiSpyware_31269.html> , Microsoft
AntiSpyware beta
<http://WindowsSecrets.com/links/144045d/5f5deah/?u=www.microsoft.com%2F
athome%2Fsecurity%2Fspyware%2Fsoftware%2Fcurrentcustomers.mspx> ,
Webroot Spy Sweeper
<http://WindowsSecrets.com/links/144045d/2ab345h/?u=www.webroot.com%2F>
, CWShredder
<http://WindowsSecrets.com/links/144045d/e3bd4bh/?u=www.intermute.com%2F
spysubtract%2Fcwshredder_download.html> .
* For prevention, install IE-SPYAD and Spyware Blaster. IE-SPYAD
is a list maintained by Eric Howes of approximately 8,900 Web sites that
are known to do things like install adware, hijack your browser home
page, etc. Merging the list into your Windows Registry puts these sites
into IE's Restricted Sites zone. They can't do much of anything to you
then. The list, as of this writing, requires manual updating, but Howes
hopes to automate the process soon.
Spyware Blaster is freeware by Javacool Software that Howes
recommendeds to guard against adware installs. A registration fee of
$9.95 USD enables the auto-update feature of the software, which Howes
encourages. Javacool also makes a related program, SpywareGuard.
As commercial anti-adware programs develop their own always-on
defenses, they may conflict with alternatives such as Spyware Blaster.
Check the maker's documentation for possible incompatibilities before
installing multiple products.
See IE-SPYAD
<http://WindowsSecrets.com/links/144045d/527e23h/?u=netfiles.uiuc.edu%2F
ehowes%2Fwww%2Fresource.htm> , Spyware Blaster
<http://WindowsSecrets.com/links/144045d/78b990h/?u=www.javacoolsoftware
.com%2Fspywareblaster.html> .
* Read up on Eric Howes's site. Aside from Howes's postings about
his anti-adware test suite, linked to below, a particularly good read is
his analysis of so-called anti-adware programs that are actually Trojan
horses. People are so desperate to get rid of the adware that's slowing
their systems to a crawl, Howes says, that too often they grasp at
anything that promises a fix. See his list of rogue/suspect anti-spyware
<http://WindowsSecrets.com/links/144045d/0bb122h/?u=www.spywarewarrior.c
om%2Frogue_anti-spyware.htm> .
* For big problems, consider stronger tools. HikackThis, for
example, is a deep-analysis utility that examines the Registry and
sectors of hard disks where adware often lurks. It's not a tool for
novices, but a serious scalpel for those who are faced with major
surgery on their PC. It produces log files that can be analyzed by
experts, many of whom help PC users by volunteering their time in online
forums. HijackThis quick start
<http://WindowsSecrets.com/links/144045d/8e8962h/?u=www.tomcoyote.org%2F
hjt%2F%23Top>
* Keep your security baseline updated. In this issue of the
Windows Secrets Newsletter, we've begun a regular section on the six
elements needed to protect your PC. This section appears below.
It's absolutely absurd that PC users must download, install, and update
multiple programs just to keep their machines from silently accumulating
crapware from morally-challenged Web sites. It's criminal that the
leading ISPs and software giants of the world didn't move earlier to
prevent these nuisances from taking over the majority of consumers' PCs.
The underlying reason that adware has compromised the entire Internet is
that there's big money to be made. The best analysis of this I've seen
is by Benjamin Edelman, a Harvard Law School student. He's documented
almost $140 million in recent investments by Silicon Valley venture
capitalists in just four of the largest adware makers. See list of
adware angels
<http://WindowsSecrets.com/links/144045d/8b80c9h/?u=www.benedelman.org%2
Fspyware%2Finvestors%2F>
For those who are interested in deeper research on adware, links to Eric
Howes's raw data on his comparative tests are posted on his anti-spyware
testing
<http://WindowsSecrets.com/links/144045d/7ee031h/?u=spywarewarrior.com%2
Fasw-test-guide.htm> page.
To send us more information about adware, or to send us a tip on any
other subject, visit WindowsSecrets.com/contact
<http://WindowsSecrets.com/links/144045d/37ef18h/?u=WindowsSecrets.com%2
Fcontact> . You'll receive a gift certificate for a book, CD, or DVD of
your choice if you send us a comment that we print.
Other related posts:
- » [windows2000] Spyware article
