From Larry Seltzer at eWeek:
Days after the revelation of a flaw in Windows’ handling of WMF graphics files, dozens of exploits are being spread from thousands of adware sites. But good protection is available.
At the same time, further testing confirms that a workaround issued by third parties and endorsed by Microsoft Corp. is effective in most regards, and in the most important circumstances, but not in all. Also, the workaround has side effects that could prove troublesome.
AV-Test, which tests anti-malware products, has been tracking the situation closely and has, so far, analyzed 73 variants of malicious WMF files. Products from the following companies have identified all 73:
- Alwil Software (Avast)
- Softwin (BitDefender)
- ClamAV
- F-Secure Inc.
- Fortinet Inc.
- McAfee Inc.
- ESET (Nod32)
- Panda Software
- Sophos Plc
- Symantec Corp.
- Trend Micro Inc.
- VirusBuster
These products detected fewer variants:
- 62 — eTrust-VET
- 62 — QuickHeal
- 61 — AntiVir
- 61 — Dr Web
- 61 — Kaspersky
- 60 — AVG
- 19 — Command
- 19 — F-Prot
- 11 — Ewido
- 7 — eSafe
- 7 — eTrust-INO
- 6 — Ikarus
- 6 — VBA32
- 0 — Norman
Link here via CastleCops.
UPDATE: More info and apparently updated comparisons (go to the end of the thread) at Wilders Security.
Alex Eckelberry