<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Secure San Diego &#187; Anti Virus</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.securesandiego.com/category/anti-virus/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.securesandiego.com</link>
	<description>A little about InfoSec from San Diego</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 May 2010 15:12:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
		<item>
		<title>AV is Dead (or should be)</title>
		<link>http://www.securesandiego.com/2008/10/av-is-dead-or-should-be/</link>
		<comments>http://www.securesandiego.com/2008/10/av-is-dead-or-should-be/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2008 05:48:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Anti Virus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Malware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virus]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.securesandiego.com/?p=30</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Today AV in it&#8217;s traditional form should be dead. It has taken me sometime to catch up on my RSS feeds but it was worth the time. As I got down toward the end I ran across this item from Secunia &#8211; Symantec beats the competition.., now since I am not a fan of Symantec [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Today AV in it&#8217;s traditional form should be dead. It has taken me sometime to catch up on my RSS feeds but it was worth the time. As I got down toward the end I ran across this item from<a href="http://secunia.com/blog/29/" target="_blank"> Secunia &#8211; Symantec beats the competition</a>.., now since I am not a fan of Symantec I was very interested in what this had to say.</p>
<p>As it turns out Secunia did a test of 12 internet security suites and the results where lets say less than desireable. The test was to throw 300 exploits to known vulnerabilities at the 12 and see how well their detection rate was. Over all &#8211; one word <strong>FAIL</strong>. So does this mean that you are not safe well sort of.</p>
<blockquote><p>Even the &#8220;high&#8221; score from Symantec was disappointing. Symantec detected a mere 64 out of 300 exploits, or less than one-fourth, leaving 236 exploits undetected!</p></blockquote>
<p>Read more here <a href="http://secunia.com/blog/29/" target="_blank">http://secunia.com/blog/29/</a></p>
<p>and</p>
<p>here are the test results <a href="http://secunia.com/gfx/Secunia_Exploit-vs-AV_test-Oct-2008.pdf" target="_blank">http://secunia.com/gfx/Secunia_Exploit-vs-AV_test-Oct-2008.pdf</a></p>
<p>Stay tuned for What&#8217;s Next for AV</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.securesandiego.com/2008/10/av-is-dead-or-should-be/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
