Cylance Predictive Malware Response Test - March 2018

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hawaii007

Level 2
Thread author
Verified
Jan 31, 2018
66
Interesting

Source: SE Labs
Download PDF: https://selabs.uk/download/enterprise/march-2018-pmr.pdf

This test was designed to examine Cylance's claim that the Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology at the heart of its endpoint protection product is self-contained, in terms of being effective without relying on regular updates or cloud queries. It was also intended to determine whether or not an AI model created some months and even years in the past could identify and handle threats that subsequently attacked systems on the internet. Predictive Advantage (PA) is the time difference between the creation of the model and the first time a threat is seen by victims and security companies protecting those victims. Out of 45 threats, 43 were detected and prevented from compromising the system with an average PA of 25 months. The threats used in the test were 4. Conclusions discovered in the wild at dates ranging from 11 months to two years and nine months (33 months) after the creation of the AI model. Not only does the data demonstrate that CylancePROTECT (agent v1300, model May 2015) was capable of preventing threats that did not exist at the time the AI model was 'trained', but it provides an insight into how far ahead in time it could be effective without new knowledge. In practical terms, this indicates that regular updates to the product are not always needed, although we would expect Cylance to develop and deploy newly-trained models over time, simply because product development is an ongoing process and machine learning continues to take into account new threats to predict future ones.
 

Attachments

  • 1.jpeg
    1.jpeg
    1.1 MB · Views: 509
  • march-2018-pmr.pdf
    941.5 KB · Views: 333
Last edited by a moderator:
D

Deleted member 65228

The person quoted from the SE Labs' test results.
Hadn't checked it out yet so didn't realize, thanks for letting me know. I don't understand why people don't just use QUOTE tags... Would be easier to understand IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: upnorth

simmerskool

Level 37
Verified
Top Poster
Well-known
Apr 16, 2017
2,607

thanks for those links (y) mekelek mentions both manual scan and on execution. My cylance does not have any control of on-demand manual scans, but it does do a very deep background scan when installed, but after that my understanding is that it only scans on execution. Maybe he got access as some sort of super_user? Maybe he will clarify for me / us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: upnorth

Bleak

Level 4
Well-known
Sep 5, 2017
149
Personally I've never seen a security product produce such weird & stupid false positives as this one does. For one example, it detects anything compiled with a certain C compiler (Pelles C, which is based on LCC), even tried ones as simple as a one line code of 'Hello world' still detects it the same, and if I remember correctly it does the same with MinGW executable.

I understand that a product can catch these type of files based on their date and being unknown, but I believe this kind of detection shall not be caught by signatures.
 
  • Like
Reactions: harlan4096

Hawaii007

Level 2
Thread author
Verified
Jan 31, 2018
66
Personally I've never seen a security product produce such weird & stupid false positives as this one does. For one example, it detects anything compiled with a certain C compiler (Pelles C, which is based on LCC), even tried ones as simple as a one line code of 'Hello world' still detects it the same, and if I remember correctly it does the same with MinGW executable.

I understand that a product can catch these type of files based on their date and being unknown, but I believe this kind of detection shall not be caught by signatures.
 

Attachments

  • 2.jpeg
    2.jpeg
    1,002.6 KB · Views: 415
  • Like
Reactions: harlan4096

mekelek

Level 28
Verified
Well-known
Feb 24, 2017
1,661
thanks for those links (y) mekelek mentions both manual scan and on execution. My cylance does not have any control of on-demand manual scans, but it does do a very deep background scan when installed, but after that my understanding is that it only scans on execution. Maybe he got access as some sort of super_user? Maybe he will clarify for me / us.
you can do on-demand manual scans without having admin access on the panel.
it's at the same place where you can stop and start the background scan.
maybe your policy set by the admin isn't allowing you to change these settings? if so, ask support, they will change the policy

i'm not gonna lie, it is on par with the fastest signatures from kaspersky/norton/eset, and if you set up a ruthless policy, you will be secured.
time will tell, i need to test it more, but as others mentioned, it's very very light on the system.
 

mekelek

Level 28
Verified
Well-known
Feb 24, 2017
1,661
Personally I've never seen a security product produce such weird & stupid false positives as this one does. For one example, it detects anything compiled with a certain C compiler (Pelles C, which is based on LCC), even tried ones as simple as a one line code of 'Hello world' still detects it the same, and if I remember correctly it does the same with MinGW executable.

I understand that a product can catch these type of files based on their date and being unknown, but I believe this kind of detection shall not be caught by signatures.
cylance isn't using signatures, it's using AI , hence the FPs.
 
F

ForgottenSeer 69673

I used it for a few years and then just didn't want to pay 60 bucks a year to renew. With my version, I had a login portal.
From there I was able to do a Virus Total scan and remove them FP's. I can't remember it the files were inspected as they came on my machine or just when I tried to execute them. Also not sure how it will handle file-less malware.
 

DeepWeb

Level 25
Verified
Top Poster
Well-known
Jul 1, 2017
1,396
For all I care, Cylance is a stubborn company that refuses to whitelist perfectly normal programs. It's poisoning the results in VirusTotal with its ridiculous false positives.
 
5

509322

cylance isn't using signatures, it's using AI , hence the FPs.

They are using file hash lookups. Just because Cylance is reporting something falsely does not mean that Cylance has not used a VT lookup itself. ;) Such are the shenanigans. See through it. Do an in-depth web search and study of CYLANCE and you will locate prior employee revelations of CYLANCE shenanigans - or "tips & tricks" as they call it internally.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

About us

  • MalwareTips is a community-driven platform providing the latest information and resources on malware and cyber threats. Our team of experienced professionals and passionate volunteers work to keep the internet safe and secure. We provide accurate, up-to-date information and strive to build a strong and supportive community dedicated to cybersecurity.

User Menu

Follow us

Follow us on Facebook or Twitter to know first about the latest cybersecurity incidents and malware threats.

Top