Anti-adware misses most malware
Now that 80% of home PCs in the
That's the conclusion of a remarkably comprehensive series of anti-adware tests
conducted recently by Eric Howes, an instructor at the
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 and eWeek.
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 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 |
|
|
|
|
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% |
|
|
|
|
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, PC Magazine, 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:
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:
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
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 page.