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
Inactive Support Threads
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
General Security Discussions
Best AVs and Worst AVs in Behavioral Health
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Kaffee4Eck" data-source="post: 1122882" data-attributes="member: 46308"><p>You’re absolutely right that the term <em>“Behavioral Protection”</em> lacks a strict, universally agreed-upon definition — and that vendors often stretch or tailor the term to fit their own narrative. That ambiguity is, without doubt, a challenge in comparing products head-to-head.</p><p></p><p>However, <strong>while there’s no ISO-style standard</strong>, in practice we <em>do</em> see <strong>industry convergence around certain functional pillars</strong> that define what <em>effective</em> behavioral protection looks like — particularly when implemented at enterprise scale. These include:</p><p></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Real-time monitoring of process behaviors</strong> (not just file execution)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Script/memory inspection and blocking</strong></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Correlation of process chains (parent-child, registry, network, etc.)</strong></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Behavior-based anomaly detection</strong> with temporal/contextual logic</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Automated containment or rollback features</strong></li> </ul><p>Vendors like SentinelOne, CrowdStrike, Bitdefender (GravityZone), Sophos (Intercept X), and Defender for Endpoint <strong>all implement these principles</strong>, albeit with different internal architectures — and <strong>these functional overlaps allow for practical comparisons</strong>, even if the marketing terms differ.</p><p></p><p></p><p>That said, some independent organizations <strong>do test behavior-based protections</strong> indirectly, such as:</p><p></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>AV-Comparatives’ Real-World Protection Test</strong> (simulates user interaction with unknown threats)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>MITRE ATT&CK evaluations</strong>, which assess response to multi-step behavior-based attack simulations</li> </ul><p>So while it’s true that definitions vary and marketing can be muddy, <strong>functional behavior and detection outcomes <em>can</em> be evaluated</strong>, especially when comparing real-world protections against modern threats like ransomware, fileless malware, and living-off-the-land attacks.</p><p></p><p>Always great to exchange thoughts on these gray areas — they’re where most of the interesting security conversations live <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" alt="😄" title="Grinning face with smiling eyes :smile:" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/6.6/png/unicode/64/1f604.png" data-shortname=":smile:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Kaffee4Eck, post: 1122882, member: 46308"] You’re absolutely right that the term [I]“Behavioral Protection”[/I] lacks a strict, universally agreed-upon definition — and that vendors often stretch or tailor the term to fit their own narrative. That ambiguity is, without doubt, a challenge in comparing products head-to-head. However, [B]while there’s no ISO-style standard[/B], in practice we [I]do[/I] see [B]industry convergence around certain functional pillars[/B] that define what [I]effective[/I] behavioral protection looks like — particularly when implemented at enterprise scale. These include: [LIST] [*][B]Real-time monitoring of process behaviors[/B] (not just file execution) [*][B]Script/memory inspection and blocking[/B] [*][B]Correlation of process chains (parent-child, registry, network, etc.)[/B] [*][B]Behavior-based anomaly detection[/B] with temporal/contextual logic [*][B]Automated containment or rollback features[/B] [/LIST] Vendors like SentinelOne, CrowdStrike, Bitdefender (GravityZone), Sophos (Intercept X), and Defender for Endpoint [B]all implement these principles[/B], albeit with different internal architectures — and [B]these functional overlaps allow for practical comparisons[/B], even if the marketing terms differ. That said, some independent organizations [B]do test behavior-based protections[/B] indirectly, such as: [LIST] [*][B]AV-Comparatives’ Real-World Protection Test[/B] (simulates user interaction with unknown threats) [*][B]MITRE ATT&CK evaluations[/B], which assess response to multi-step behavior-based attack simulations [/LIST] So while it’s true that definitions vary and marketing can be muddy, [B]functional behavior and detection outcomes [I]can[/I] be evaluated[/B], especially when comparing real-world protections against modern threats like ransomware, fileless malware, and living-off-the-land attacks. Always great to exchange thoughts on these gray areas — they’re where most of the interesting security conversations live 😄 [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top
