you mean like a fragment of codes that is consistent to a specific malware writer on a family of strain?
No, it isn't.If I know something, behavioural scanning is a submodel of heuristics
Correct Heuristic detection techniques might appear to be the same as Behavioral detection techniques and while they both find their origin within the same context they both are additions to their own flaws and strengths so to speak one is made to enhance the other.No, it isn't.
Like I said there are 2 stages : file segmentation and sequence comparison.you mean like a fragment of codes that is consistent to a specific malware writer on a family of strain?
Like I said there are 2 stages : file segmentation and sequence comparison.
Any file can be characterized by properties of data it contains. For instance, one may consider how well-ordered the data are or how much space the data occupy.
The main purpose of the suggested segmentation algorithm is splitting the file into segments that are characterised by size and entropy.
This has a number of advantages that help detect malicious programs efficiently on personal computers. First, this comparison does not take into account the functionality of analysed files and is based solely on determining the similarity in code and data area positions. Therefore, the algorithm is effective against many ways of protecting executable code. On the other hand, such a comparison may result in false alarms. Solution is useful as a preliminary test that triggers the running of additional checks. Second, the method is
relatively easy to implement and does not require code disassembly or emulation. And, third, the malicious file record is compact which is significant when compiling anti-virus databases.
Well it isNo, it isn't.
Really, Symantec and Sophos are the only ones that imply such next gen technology? ex Kaspersky is not such case?Specially the new generation of Heuristics based and Behavioral based engines and other new analyzing techniques will make a AV increasingly smarter, but yet with the exception of Symantec and Sophos there is not a single AV company out there that uses Next Gen technology within their mainstream packages.
And thus its save to say that next gen technology while its being advertised really will start making results in late 2014 begin 2015.
Anyway i hope this explains.
Cheers
Really, Symantec and Sophos are the only ones that imply such next gen technology? ex Kaspersky is not such case?
I got it.No that's not what i was saying, Symantec and Sophos are the only ones now that added the technology to their industry packages as a standard.
Other brands like kaspersky have similar modules but most of them are not yet mature enough to make a real difference yet. While they have been released much earlier then Symantec and Sophos did.
So give it a few months before the real results of those brands become notable in tests and other benchmark reports.
Nice result for panda trend micro & 360. (There are some others too but they are no big players)No no , signature is not good solution.
Whis is original EICAR
https://www.virustotal.com/ru/file/...9d1663fc695ec2fe2a2c4538aabf651fd0f/analysis/
Compiled with fasm
org 0x100
db "X5O!P%@AP[4\PZX54(P^)7CC)7}$EICAR-STANDARD-ANTIVIRUS-TEST-FILE!$H+H*"
Whis is modified EICAR
org 0x100
push ax
pop ax
db "X5O!P%@AP[4\PZX54(P^)7CC)7}$EICAR-STANDARD-ANTIVIRUS-TEST-FILE!$H+H*"
https://www.virustotal.com/ru/file/...475bfdcd096d59f5a5d37ae9/analysis/1405003947/
Signature inside code is not modified but result is not very good for AVP.
sorry for my bad english
I will have to agree that signatures are more important just for the simple reason they are much less likely to flag false positives.Of course they are both important....the question is: which one is more?
In my opinion,Signatures
I will have to agree that signatures are more important just for the simple reason they are much less likely to flag false positives.
Heuristics (Behavior Blocker) can detect many safe files or actions because of their behavior even though they are not malicious.
Such as blocking Windows Updates or component features, blocking safe programs or even corrupting Windows by removing important system files. (all of the above has effected most AV vendors). False positive detections can cause more problem than an actual infection.
Enjoy!!![]()
I would say that a missed virus signature is far more devastating than a simple heuristic false positive so I`ll go for the behavior blocker.
Regards Eck![]()
Problems caused by false positives
A "false positive" is when antivirus software identifies a non-malicious file as a virus. When this happens, it can cause serious problems. For example, if an antivirus program is configured to immediately delete or quarantine infected files, as is common on Microsoft Windows antivirus applications, a false positive in an essential file can render the Windows operating system or some applications unusable.[32] Recovering from such damage to critical software infrastructure incurs technical support costs and businesses can be forced to close whilst remedial action is undertaken.[33][34] For example, in May 2007 a faulty virus signature issued by Symantec mistakenly removed essential operating system files, leaving thousands of PCs unable to boot.[35]
Also in May 2007, the executable file required by Pegasus Mail on Windows was falsely detected by Norton AntiVirus as being a Trojan and it was automatically removed, preventing Pegasus Mail from running. Norton AntiVirus had falsely identified three releases of Pegasus Mail as malware, and would delete the Pegasus Mail installer file when that happened.[36] In response to this Pegasus Mail stated:
“ On the basis that Norton/Symantec has done this for every one of the last three releases of Pegasus Mail, we can only condemn this product as too flawed to use, and recommend in the strongest terms that our users cease using it in favour of alternative, less buggy anti-virus packages.[36] ”
In April 2010, McAfee VirusScan detected svchost.exe, a normal Windows binary, as a virus on machines running Windows XP with Service Pack 3, causing a reboot loop and loss of all network access.[37][38]
In December 2010, a faulty update on the AVG anti-virus suite damaged 64-bit versions of Windows 7, rendering it unable to boot, due to an endless boot loop created.[39]
In October 2011, Microsoft Security Essentials (MSE) removed the Google Chrome web browser, rival to Microsoft's own Internet Explorer. MSE flagged Chrome as a Zbot banking trojan.[40]
In September 2012, Sophos' anti-virus suite identified various update-mechanisms, including its own, as malware. If it was configured to automatically delete detected files, Sophos Antivirus could render itself unable to update, required manual intervention to fix the problem.[41][42]