CALL OF THE WILDLIST: LAST ORDERS FOR WILDCORE-BASED TESTING?
David Harley, Eset Llc, Andrew S. Lee · 2010
The well-documented problems with WildList testing derive from diffi culties in adjusting to the 21st Century threat landscape. The (obviously overstretched) WildList Organization’s [1] focus on self-replicating malware, which nowadays comprises just a small percentage of the whole range of malware types; the lengthy testing and validation process between the appearance and the inclusion of a specifi c malicious program on the list, and the availability of the underpinning test set to WildList participants are all cited as objections to the validity of WildList testing, and some vendors and testing organizations have heavily criticized it ‐ some vendors even withdrawing from tests that rely heavily on it. In line with AMTSO’s preference for dynamic over static testing, most mainstream testers have supplemented or replaced WildList testing with some form of dynamic methodology, which, done correctly, is assumed to be a better refl ection of today’s user experience. So does WildList testing still have a place in testing and certifi cation? Is it still a meaningful differentiator? If it isn’t, does that mean that sample validation is no longer considered a practical objective for testers, or is that a misreading of the AMTSO guidelines on dynamic testing? This paper summarizes the static/dynamic debate, examining the contemporary relevance of the WildList and WildCore.