{"id":727,"date":"2006-01-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-01-31T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/2006\/01\/31\/security-consortium-creates-guidelines\/"},"modified":"2021-12-30T11:38:03","modified_gmt":"2021-12-30T11:38:03","slug":"security-consortium-creates-guidelines","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/2006\/01\/31\/security-consortium-creates-guidelines\/","title":{"rendered":"Security consortium creates guidelines"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>A new consortium of security companies has established guidelines for defining spyware and testing anti-spyware products.   The guidelines could help consumers determine the risks posed by new software and the effectiveness of anti-spyware products.  At a time when the number of spyware applications doubles each year, security companies are banding together to find ways to eliminate confusion about how to test security products.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>&#8220;Few product testers currently document their test samples or methodology,&#8221; the companies said in a statement.   &#8220;Many use very small sample sets in their testing environments.  As a result, there is no distinguishable benchmark for comparison.&#8221;  The software makers are part of a larger organization, called the Anti-Spyware Coalition, which is working to standardize industry terms and technology for battling spyware.  <\/p>\n<p>Next on the group&#8217;s agenda: Defining threat-naming conventions, intelligence-sharing best practices, and emergency information distribution guidelines.  The group says it will use definitions already created by the Anti-Spyware Coalition.<\/p>\n<p>http:\/\/www.zdnetindia.com\/zdnet2005\/mediaturf\/top_728x90_1.html<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[29],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-727","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/727","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=727"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/727\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3214,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/727\/revisions\/3214"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=727"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=727"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=727"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}