Manual placement and execution of files still simulate a realistic attack vector—many malware samples are indeed delivered as standalone executables or via droppers that behave immediately upon execution. Furthermore, security solutions are designed to protect users not only at the exact moment of execution but also when files are written to disk, scanned on access, or during heuristic and reputation checks.
In fact, waiting for special conditions to activate (like network availability) is an additional layer, not the baseline. A competent anti-malware solution should still flag the file at static analysis or sandboxing stages before the trigger conditions are met. Therefore, manual execution remains a valid way to test whether the security product can identify and stop malware—especially at early stages—rather than relying solely on delayed behavior that may or may not be triggered in a given test environment.
You listed several sophisticated defenses.
Static analysis
Sandboxing
Heuristic and reputation checks
These are all excellent and necessary security layers. However, modern malware is designed specifically to evade these checks. This is where the "true route of infection" and its specific triggers come into play.
The "Cat-and-Mouse" Game.
Why Triggers Matter
Malware authors know that security software is using these defenses. So, they design their malware to be dormant or benign-looking until it reaches the final stage of the attack chain. Here are a few common evasion techniques that are specifically designed to be triggered only during a real-world infection:
Droppers
A very common type of malware is a dropper. It's a small, seemingly harmless program that does little on its own. Its only job is to get past the initial static and reputation checks, and then, once it's on the user's system, it downloads the final, malicious payload from a remote server. A test that involves placing a zip file on the desktop and running it completely bypasses the dropper's primary function and its associated network traffic, which would be a huge red flag for a good security suite.
Anti-Sandbox Techniques
Malware is often designed to detect if it's running in a virtual machine or a sandbox. It might check for specific hardware characteristics, look for a lack of user activity, or check for specific filenames. If it detects a testing environment, it will not perform its malicious actions, making the security product look ineffective.
Conditional Execution
Some malware will only execute its malicious code under specific conditions. For example, it might, wait until a specific time of day or a specific date.
Only execute if a user is logged in for a certain period of time (to evade rapid, automated tests).
Check for a specific network address to ensure it's on a legitimate network and not a lab's test network.
Only activate after a connection to a Command-and-Control (C2) server is established.
A test that simply runs an executable from a local folder on a desktop bypasses all of these crucial, real-world evasion techniques.
The "true route of infection" is crucial because it initiates the specific triggers and behaviors that malware uses to evade the very defenses the you mentioned. It tests the security suite's ability to stop a threat at every stage of the "kill chain," from the initial contact to the final execution.
avlab.pl
