Sadly, my experience is that big commercial anti-malware detection is better

For reasons beyond the scope of this entry, for the
past couple of years I’ve been running a large commercial anti-spam
system (and its malware recognition) side by side with what we could
put together with ClamAV and some low-cost
commercial ClamAV signature sources. it’s been clear to me that our commercial
system was recognizing malware that ClamAV was not. Some of this was
new things that we could add to our manual recognition and rejection, but at this point another significant source of
missed ClamAV recognition is (still) malware in Microsoft Office files.

This is not really a result that I was hoping for. Our commercial
anti-spam system has been on vendor life support for more than a
year, so its recognition engine definitely isn’t being updated for
new capabilities and who knows how much its signature database is
being updated. Despite that, it’s still ahead of a well regarded
open source malware detection system.

Some amount of bad email makes it through both ClamAV and our commercial
anti-spam system and is then forwarded on to elsewhere by some of
our users. These days, that elsewhere includes both Office365 and
GMail. Trawling our logs suggests that both of these recognize and
reject even more malware than we do, although this effect is somewhat
entangled in them also recognizing more spam than we do.

This is not really surprising. Large providers of email and of anti-spam
services have more resources for both improving their scanning engines
and coming up with signatures and danger signs. They see more email (one
way or another) and can build more sophisticated systems to analyze it
in various ways. Greater volume with automated analysis and feedback
systems can mean faster responses to new malware. It’s not really
surprising that the open source and small commercial firms can’t match

(One suggestive thing is that our commercial anti-spam software
provider is not getting out of the anti-spam business. Instead, it’s
moving to having only a cloud filtering option, where you run your
incoming email through their cloud systems. This gives them far more
aggregate visibility into potential malware and makes responding to it
much faster. I suspect that they were pushed to this partly to match
the malware filtering quality of the big providers like Google and

PS: For Microsoft Office files specifically, it might
be possible for us to build something using , and we may have to try to, just
to not let too much bad stuff through once we can no longer use the
commercial anti-spam software.

(This is one unhappy aspect of how running your own email is
increasingly an artisanal choice
. It’s possible that a lot of
manual tuning and adjustment and software will get us to something
close to the quality of big commercial providers, but it’s unlikely
to be easy.)

This content was originally published here.

Laat een reactie achter

Het e-mailadres wordt niet gepubliceerd.