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
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
Software
Security Apps
Other security for Windows, Mac, Linux
Homebrewed Zero Day behavior blocker test
Message
<blockquote data-quote="MacDefender" data-source="post: 844695" data-attributes="member: 83059"><p>One more observation: I would really wish that the suspicious behaviors would get presented to the user. Emsisoft shows “Suspicious/xxxx” in the logs and “xxxx” is like StartupItem or Ransomware and it is really intuitive. F-Secure is a mix — some DeepGuard signatures are named after a behavior, or after a specific kind of malware (seems like DeepGuard also uses behavior signatures to find variants of known malware) but other DeepGuard detections are just a jumble of lowercase letters.</p><p></p><p>Norton and Kaspersky are both really nondescript.</p><p></p><p>I suspect behavior blocker rules are part of their secret sauce and they hold these cards close to their chest. For example if you collect F-Secure diagnostic logs, they have a lot of plaintext logs — “Capricorn” is obviously an Avira scanner and has log entries when it consults the Avira cloud. “Lynx” is a certificate scanner and when executing a signed binary you get a log entry with the certificate it looks up and their results. But “HIPS” is DeepGuard and the log file is completely encrypted. It’s usually empty but after executing these two malware samples, it wrote out 8MB of random binary data to the HIPS log. Are they trying to thwart competitors or malware writers or both? Hmm I really wonder <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite109" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="MacDefender, post: 844695, member: 83059"] One more observation: I would really wish that the suspicious behaviors would get presented to the user. Emsisoft shows “Suspicious/xxxx” in the logs and “xxxx” is like StartupItem or Ransomware and it is really intuitive. F-Secure is a mix — some DeepGuard signatures are named after a behavior, or after a specific kind of malware (seems like DeepGuard also uses behavior signatures to find variants of known malware) but other DeepGuard detections are just a jumble of lowercase letters. Norton and Kaspersky are both really nondescript. I suspect behavior blocker rules are part of their secret sauce and they hold these cards close to their chest. For example if you collect F-Secure diagnostic logs, they have a lot of plaintext logs — “Capricorn” is obviously an Avira scanner and has log entries when it consults the Avira cloud. “Lynx” is a certificate scanner and when executing a signed binary you get a log entry with the certificate it looks up and their results. But “HIPS” is DeepGuard and the log file is completely encrypted. It’s usually empty but after executing these two malware samples, it wrote out 8MB of random binary data to the HIPS log. Are they trying to thwart competitors or malware writers or both? Hmm I really wonder :) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top