Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Security
Security Statistics and Reports
19th edition of protection test against malicious software
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Andy Ful" data-source="post: 1000371" data-attributes="member: 32260"><p>Nowadays, the main problem with testing comes from malware morphism (polymorphism, metamorphism, etc.).</p><p>Due to malware morphism, around 90% of all malware samples are detected only once on a single computer and never seen again (unique to one PC). This is possible because most malware samples are short living and are quickly replaced by morphed variants. From this, it follows that most malware signatures are for "dead" malware samples. Such signatures cannot protect anyone, except for some cases related to malware hunting (when the signature is created before the malware could attack someone).</p><p></p><p>When performing a test with few-day-old samples, most of them (probably more than 75%) can be already detected by signatures and 90% of them were "dead". So, we have a strange situation. For many AVs, more than one-half of the detections can be for "dead" samples. These detections can be very important for the AV scorings in the test, but unimportant for protection in the wild. In fact, the test scorings can significantly depend on how quickly the AV vendors added the signatures for "dead" samples and cannot reflect real-life protection. From several tests, we know that Trend Micro (and some other vendors) do not care much about signature completeness. When one of MT members asked the TM staff about poor results in Malware Protection tests performed by AV-Comparatives, the answer was that the missed samples were not important for users' protection. As we know, Trend Micro is a top AV in Real-World tests.</p><p></p><p><strong>The above issue can be overcome by testing the malware samples in real-time.</strong></p><p></p><p>[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.microsoft.com/security/blog/2017/07/18/windows-defender-antivirus-cloud-protection-service-advanced-real-time-defense-against-never-before-seen-malware/[/URL]</p><p>[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.webroot.com/us/en/lp/2022-brightcloud-threat-report[/URL]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Andy Ful, post: 1000371, member: 32260"] Nowadays, the main problem with testing comes from malware morphism (polymorphism, metamorphism, etc.). Due to malware morphism, around 90% of all malware samples are detected only once on a single computer and never seen again (unique to one PC). This is possible because most malware samples are short living and are quickly replaced by morphed variants. From this, it follows that most malware signatures are for "dead" malware samples. Such signatures cannot protect anyone, except for some cases related to malware hunting (when the signature is created before the malware could attack someone). When performing a test with few-day-old samples, most of them (probably more than 75%) can be already detected by signatures and 90% of them were "dead". So, we have a strange situation. For many AVs, more than one-half of the detections can be for "dead" samples. These detections can be very important for the AV scorings in the test, but unimportant for protection in the wild. In fact, the test scorings can significantly depend on how quickly the AV vendors added the signatures for "dead" samples and cannot reflect real-life protection. From several tests, we know that Trend Micro (and some other vendors) do not care much about signature completeness. When one of MT members asked the TM staff about poor results in Malware Protection tests performed by AV-Comparatives, the answer was that the missed samples were not important for users' protection. As we know, Trend Micro is a top AV in Real-World tests. [B]The above issue can be overcome by testing the malware samples in real-time.[/B] [URL unfurl="true"]https://www.microsoft.com/security/blog/2017/07/18/windows-defender-antivirus-cloud-protection-service-advanced-real-time-defense-against-never-before-seen-malware/[/URL] [URL unfurl="true"]https://www.webroot.com/us/en/lp/2022-brightcloud-threat-report[/URL] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top