Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="SeriousHoax" data-source="post: 861313" data-attributes="member: 78686">You&#039;re right. Signatures including advanced heuristics, network and web protection usually get the job done. For the particular sample in the last test, I tested turning off network protection and nothing was detected but the malware seemingly didn&#039;t do anything malicious anyway. Maybe the website it tries to connect is already dead. In general I think it would not be fare to test ESET by turning off one of its protection. ESET counters their not having a proper behavior blocker with fantastic signatures, heuristics and network protection and according to ESET some components of their HIPS including ransomware shield is tied to Real Time Protection that&#039;s why I never do any bonus dynamic test for ESET for ransomwares already detected by signatures. Few days ago I shared one example in our malware hub group of ESET&#039;s advanced heuristics and machine learning in action. Here at first a malware was detected by ESET by its advanced heuristics component then few hours later they created a new signature for the same sample even though ESET was already detecting it.[ATTACH=full]233931[/ATTACH]Many people think that ESET is all about its raw signatures but it&#039;s a combination of good signatures and heuristics. Like you said, it&#039;s probably the best at detecting new variants of malware using already available signatures.Here&#039;s one example of its machine learning ML/Augur in action. Here I tested these samples with few days old signatures. [ATTACH=full]233932[/ATTACH]The machine learning components is still very immature though. I was just lucky maybe to see it in action. Maybe ESET still hasn&#039;t unlocked its full potential to reduce the number of false positives.Last year on ESET forum one of the administrator even said ESET may introduce Application Control into their product something similar to Kaspersky but not anytime soon.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="SeriousHoax, post: 861313, member: 78686"] You're right. Signatures including advanced heuristics, network and web protection usually get the job done. For the particular sample in the last test, I tested turning off network protection and nothing was detected but the malware seemingly didn't do anything malicious anyway. Maybe the website it tries to connect is already dead. In general I think it would not be fare to test ESET by turning off one of its protection. ESET counters their not having a proper behavior blocker with fantastic signatures, heuristics and network protection and according to ESET some components of their HIPS including ransomware shield is tied to Real Time Protection that's why I never do any bonus dynamic test for ESET for ransomwares already detected by signatures. Few days ago I shared one example in our malware hub group of ESET's advanced heuristics and machine learning in action. Here at first a malware was detected by ESET by its advanced heuristics component then few hours later they created a new signature for the same sample even though ESET was already detecting it. [ATTACH type="full"]233931[/ATTACH] Many people think that ESET is all about its raw signatures but it's a combination of good signatures and heuristics. Like you said, it's probably the best at detecting new variants of malware using already available signatures. Here's one example of its machine learning ML/Augur in action. Here I tested these samples with few days old signatures. [ATTACH type="full"]233932[/ATTACH] The machine learning components is still very immature though. I was just lucky maybe to see it in action. Maybe ESET still hasn't unlocked its full potential to reduce the number of false positives. Last year on ESET forum one of the administrator even said ESET may introduce Application Control into their product something similar to Kaspersky but not anytime soon. [/QUOTE]

Verification