And Avast...?
In addition to subject, I am stuck. I sort-of agree with the test that AVG should block the attack in a uniform way, but I also agree with AVG if they block in co-operation with the user using Firefox. At least my government didn't piss around like the British. They said "stop using IE, end of". Of course, few people paid attention (looks like they're still using IE6 at work? I'm not IT so I can't exactly push my boss off his seat and look up the version, but I can tell you it ain't IE8 with the mucked up redesigned ick-factor-heavy URL bar and the stop/reload in the wrong place).
It would be *nice* if we could load a magical piece of software and it made all the problems go away, but that's not reality. We need to be pro-active in this and try to avoid following links that look/sound dodgy, not ordering from non-SSL sites, not running untrusted content, not opening unknown attachments (one of my mother's friends in Oz is compromised, as soon as she sends an email her system sends one from "Hallmark.com" with a zip file containing an eCard; and Yahoo mail says "uh-uh, that's a virus, don't touch it"). Just think what damage it could cause if there wasn't a relatively sane webmail interface in the way.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/09/mcafee_update_snafu/ and a potentially revealing blog posting that might helped the Megasploit show that there's more to an anti-virus package than just one pass. How much stuff does it miss? Or, if heuristically-based, how many annoying false positives (why I gave up AVG for Avast).
There's a review at http://internet-security-suite-review.toptenreviews.com/mcafee-review.html which seems mostly favourable, but note that it is a dead dog when it comes to installing - the review says that during the installation process they could type faster than Word could keep up, plus after uninstalling a lot of crap was left behind (both files and in the registry).
Can't say if Avast is better, but - again - there's a myriad of things more than the one single exploit.


