(InfoWorld) - Antivirus software is frequently tested for performance, so picking a top product should be straightforward: Select the No. 1 vendor whose software kills off all of the evil things circulating on the Internet. You're good to go then, right? Not necessarily.

The increasing complexity of security software is causing vendors to gripe that current evaluations do not adequately test other technologies in the products designed to protect machines.

Relations between vendors and testing organizations are generally cordial but occasionally tense when a product fails a test. Representatives in both camps agree that the testing regimes need to be overhauled to give consumers a more accurate view of how different products compare.

"I don't think anyone believes the tests as they are run now ... are an accurate reflection of how one product relates to the other," said Mark Kennedy, an antivirus engineer with Symantec.

Representatives of Symantec, F-Secure, and Panda Software agreed last month at the International Antivirus Testing Workshop in Reykjavik, Iceland, to design a new testing plan that would better reflect the capabilities of competing products. They hope all security vendors will agree on a new test that can be applied industrywide, Kennedy said.

A preliminary plan should be drawn up by September, Kennedy said.

One of the most common tests involves running a set of malicious software samples through a product's antivirus engine. The antivirus engine contains indicators, called signatures, that enable it to identify harmful software.

But antivirus products have changed over the last couple years, and "now many products have other ways of detecting and blocking malware," said Toralv Dirron, security lead system engineer for McAfee Inc.

Signature-based detection is important, but an explosion in the number of unique malicious software programs created by hackers is threatening its effectiveness. As a result, vendors have added overlapping defenses to catch malware.

Vendors are employing behavioral detection technology, which may identify a malicious program if it undertakes a suspicious action on a machine. A user may unwittingly download a malicious software program that is not detected through signatures. But if the program starts sending spam, the activity can be identified and halted.

Also, a program can be halted if it tries to exploit a buffer overflow vulnerability, where an error in memory can allow a bad program to run. Host-based, intrusion-prevention systems, which can employ firewalls and packet inspection techniques, can also stop attacks.

The ways in which a computer can be infected also make comprehensive testing complex. For example, users may infect their computers by opening malicious e-mail attachments or visiting harmful Web sites designed to exploit known vulnerabilities in a Web browser.

The different modes of attack also involve different defenses, all of which would need to be tested to arrive at an accurate ranking, analysts said.

By contrast, signature-based tests can take as little as five minutes. "This is a very basic test," said Andreas Marx of AV-Test.org, who wrote his master's degree thesis on antivirus testing. "It's easy, and it's cheap."

Other concerns remain, over sample sets of malicious software, the age of the samples and the relative threat those samples pose on the Internet as they become older. Security vendors also think tests should check how well security applications remove bad programs, a process that can affect a computer's performance.

For vendors, a failed test can be embarrassing, since the testing companies often issue news releases highlighting the latest results.

Testing companies make money in various ways. AV-Test.org is often commissioned by technology magazines such as PC World (a magazine owned by IDG). Virus Bulletin licenses its logo to companies for use in promotional material and publishes a monthly online magazine.

Earlier this month, Virus Bulletin announced that its latest round of testing produced some "big-name failures," including products from Kaspersky Lab and Grisoft SRO.

The company's VB100 tests antivirus engines against malware samples collected by the Wildlist Organization International, a group of security researchers who collect and study malware. To pass the VB100, products must detect all samples.

Kaspersky briefly removed a signature for a worm out of its product for "optimization" purposes on the day of the test, wrote Roel Schouwenberg, senior research engineer for Kaspersky, in an e-mail. The signature has since been put back in, he said.

"Obviously, we would have rather passed than failed," Schouwenberg wrote. "Had the test been conducted a day earlier or a day later, we would have passed."

Similarly, F-Secure initially failed its test also because of a technicality, but the failed rating was later reversed. All vendors are told after testing which samples they failed to detect, thus most end up adding signatures to their products.

So what should a user do? John Hawes, a technical consultant for Virus Bulletin, cautioned that the signature-based tests are "not enormously representative of the way things are in the real world."

But Hawes also noted that signature-based tests can indicate the reliability and consistency of a vendor's software. Virus Bulletin also writes reviews of AV suites, which take into account aspects such as usability, which may be just as important as detection for consumers. The company is developing more advanced tests that will test new security technologies.

AV-Test.org is already performing more comprehensive tests, although it uses between 30 to 50 malware samples, a much smaller sample set compared to the Wildlist, which uses more than 600,000 samples, Marx said. Those tests may give a better indication of how a security software suite performs.

At a bare minimum, through, users should install some security software, as computers without it can face high risks, Marx said. Several free suites are available that may be fine for light Internet use, he said.

Ironically, Marx doesn't use any antivirus software. That's because AV-Test.org collects malware for its testing, most of which comes through e-mail from other researchers. "I'm getting about 1,000 viruses a day," he said. "It [antivirus software] would be counterproductive."

(InfoWorld) - The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers is seeking ideas and opinions on ways to modify the agreement terms it enters into with Internet registrars to protect individuals and organizations that do business with them.

The effort stems from the recent debacle involving registrar RegisterFly, which ICANN had to strip of its accreditation due to poor quality of service, which prompted massive and loud complaints from many of its tens of thousands of customers.

At its 29th International Public Meeting in San Juan, Puerto Rico, ICANN on Monday hosted a workshop to discuss possible changes to its Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) and steps it is taking to make sure registrars provide good service to their customers.

Participants in the workshop, titled "Protection of Registrants," generally agreed that the RAA is due for a makeover to prevent another RegisterFly-like situation and because much has changed since the RAA was last amended about seven years ago.

"We need to deal with registrar accreditation and the procedures by which we accommodate registrants," said Susan Crawford, an ICANN board member who moderated the discussion.

Among the issues panelists and audience members debated was the need for Internet registrars -- companies ICANN accredits to sell Internet domain names to individuals and organizations -- to escrow their customers' data with ICANN or another third party.

That way, in the event of a registrar meltdown, ICANN, which manages and oversees the Internet's domain name system, could access the customer data and help customers switch to another registrar.

"This is important to registrants. We want to be able to reconstitute a registrar if it fails so that registrants can continue to have access to their domains and be able to work with them," Crawford said.

Ironically, in its current form, the RAA has a data escrow provision but it hasn't been implemented for several reasons. "It put a burden on ICANN to receive data, so the cost was all on ICANN. And until recently, there wasn't a budget item for the registered data escrow program," Crawford said.

Details on how this escrow will work need to be established, such as what will constitute a valid trigger for the data release and what data will be stored.

Jon Nevett, policy and ethics vice president of Internet registrar Network Solutions, said that ICANN's Registrar Constituency, which he chairs, has worked in recent months on the data escrow program with ICANN, which recently requested proposals to provide escrow services.

A key point for registrars is how ICANN will protect their customers' data if it needs to be transferred, Nevett said. "There is a lot of private information in this data," he said.

One of the issues ICANN is trying to work through is what data would be put in escrow. Under the current RAA provisions that data includes: registrant, administrative contact, technical contact, billing contact, name servers and expiration dates.

"When the provision was drafted, these were the elements that were believed to be critically necessary to restore the functionality of a registrar," said Mike Zupke, ICANN's Registrar Liaison Manager. Changing the data requirements would require amending the RAA, he said.

This issue is an interesting one, considering individuals' privacy concerns when registering a domain name, concerns that have prompted the appearance of "proxy" services that let registrants "hide" from the public some of the information they submit to a registrar, Crawford said.

Nevett argued that providing data to an escrow party that the registrant wants to keep from public view doesn't compromise privacy, because the escrow data wouldn't be publicly available.

Meanwhile, Beau Brendler, director of Consumer Reports Webwatch, suggested that ICANN provide more information about registrars, including ratings, so that consumers can make better informed decisions when choosing one.

There are about 900 registrars currently, according to ICANN.

"Measures that increase compliance are good," Brendler said, adding that ICANN might consider setting up a system to rate registrars and hold registrars to best practices guidelines.

Stacy Burnette, ICANN's director of contractual compliance, said that starting next month her team will publish a report twice a year with results from their registrar audits.

Citing preliminary results, Burnette said that in March her team found that of 881 audited registrars, 19 had non-working Web sites, and that in April, 192 registrars had invoices that were overdue by 30 days or more. Based on these findings, her group is seeking compliance from the offending registrars.

Her group is also currently doing a "code of conduct audit" to ensure that registrars are not engaging in conduct that would give "the appearance of impropriety," she said. Meanwhile, a future audit will focus on registrars' back-end systems performance, checking on issues like availability, downtime and outages, to see if they are meeting standards set in their agreements with ICANN.

Moreover, an ongoing audit is focusing on registrar data retention requirements, while a future audit will verify whether registrars are maintaining the required commercial liability insurance levels, she said.

"We want to encourage compliance to enhance ICANN's ability to preserve and enhance the operational stability, reliability, security and global interoperability of the Internet," Burnette said.

Jail-time beckons

Two Americans pleaded guilty today to selling $6m worth of counterfeit software over eBay.…

(InfoWorld) - Google escalated its antitrust battle with Microsoft Monday by questioning its rival's promised changes to Windows Vista search and asking a federal judge to extend oversight to make sure Microsoft follows through.

In a seven-page brief, Google is asking for permission to file with a federal court in Washington, Google staked out the same position it voiced last week. "Microsoft's hardwiring of its own desktop search product into Windows Vista violates the final judgment in this case," the brief read.

Microsoft responded by saying there's nothing new to Google's latest maneuver. "We believe we went the extra mile to resolve these issues in a spirit of compromise," said company spokesman Jack Evans. "The government has clearly stated that it is satisfied with the changes we're making. Google has provided no new information that should suggest otherwise in their filing."

Less than a week ago, Microsoft agreed to make modifications to Vista's handling of desktop search. On Monday, however, Google again said that the changes weren't sufficient. "The remedies won by the Department of Justice and state Attorneys General from Microsoft are a positive step, but consumers will likely need further measures to ensure meaningful choice," said David Drummond, Google's chief legal officer. "Ultimately, these issues raise the need for continued judicial oversight of Microsoft's practices to ensure that consumers' interests are best served."

Among several objections listed in the brief, Google said Vista would continue to call on Instant Search when users run searches from locales like Windows Explorer and that users will still not be able to easily disable Microsoft's desktop search.

And while the deal struck last week would have Microsoft allow users to select a default search tool in Vista, then use that tool for searches done from the operating system's Start menu, Google hinted that Microsoft may cut off its nose to spite its -- or its rival's -- face. "Google understands that Microsoft may intend to remove these [Search] menu entries from Vista and deprive users of these access points altogether rather than provide the user choice required under III.H.1(a) of the Final Judgment," Google charged.

To better monitor Microsoft's promises, Google suggested to federal district court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who oversees the 2002 antitrust decree, that she extend her oversight. Sections of the settlement, including the part that would conceivably pertain to search, are to expire Nov. 12 2007, but government regulators can unilaterally ask to extend that deadline by two years or even an additional three after that to November 2012.

In any case, Google's brief may be moot; Kollar-Kotelly has a history of rejecting outsiders' efforts to join the case. In a November 2002 opinion, for instance, she wrote: "While there is no inherent flaw in giving third parties a voice in this process, as very often such third parties will be most immediately aware of Microsoft's conduct, non-parties should not be allowed direct access to the enforcement mechanisms."

Chris Wolf, an attorney who chairs the Internet law practice of Proskauer Rose in Washington, said he sees no chance that the judge will start now. "There's no reason why she would change her practice of the past, especially with a brief filed by one who is so obviously a competitor of Microsoft and thus has an ax to grind.

"It would be very different if one of the plaintiffs made these arguments," Wolf said. "But Google's certainly not bashful. It could have done this earlier and likely did, but it was rejected."

"This would be unprecedented," added Microsoft's Evans. "This would be the first time that an operating system would require a third-party product for underlying functionality."

Google filed the "friend of the court" brief a day before Kollar-Kotelly is to hear a status update. That hearing is scheduled to begin at 10:30 EDT Tuesday.

(InfoWorld) - The U.S. Secret Service has cracked down on an international ID theft ring that is responsible for more than $14 million in fraud losses, the agency said Monday.

On June 12, French National Police arrested four on online fraud charges, acting on information provided by the Secret Service, the agency said in a statement.

The arrests were part of an undercover investigation into the activities of an online criminal known by the alias, "Lord Kaisersose," who is "associated with Internet sites known for identity theft and financial fraud activities," the Secret Service said.

Investigators found more than 28,000 stolen credit- and bank-card numbers as a result of this operation, the Secret Service said. "Fraud losses associated with this investigation have exceeded $14 million," the Secret Service said.

At the same time the Secret Service, working with local authorities, closed down an illegal credit card-selling activity based out of Canada and France.

This action, called Operation Hard Drive, led to the arrest of two suspects, who are allegedly behind more than $1 million in credit card fraud.

French police arrested an unnamed man, who went by the alias THEEEEL on credit card-selling Web sites, on charges relating to ID theft.

The second man, Nicholas Joehle, of Calgary, Alberta is alleged to have sold fake credit card readers, known as "skimmers" over the Internet. These devices are often illegally used by employees at legitimate businesses that accept credit cards and are becoming a growing problem in the U.S.

Calgary Police recovered 100 such skimmers, a skimmer-making lab, and $30,000 in U.S. and Canadian currency, the Secret Service said.

Filed under: Internet, Web services