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
LMT AntiMalware
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Parsh" data-source="post: 876563" data-attributes="member: 58090"><p>While the <em>anti-logger</em> sounds like a good AV companion, to be more readily considered a good<em> freemium </em>companion, it will have to complement rather than overlap the typical features of the AVs out there.</p><p>Scope of UAC is another matter. I am sure most AVs keep an eye on at least their own registry entries and the autoruns, though the effectiveness of flagging malicious changes may vary. Heuristics and user-mode Keylogger protection are covered by a typical AV and a few reputed AVs do use Yara rule engine. It wouldn't be a surprise if they use and have improved on the use of existing Yara rules repository. Still they can be handy to flag suspicious files and initiate further check or an alert.</p><p></p><p>Some other interesting mods could include harnessing VT results as you suggested earlier for a second check, and a few more secondary features that can be strongly marketed other than for calling it an "antilogger"... like VDS loves to be called a computer lock or an anti-exe with VT, sandbox, commandline verification and cloud whitelists ...</p><p>I do think that it is a good program with a lot of potential if it wants to invite a freemium tag <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite109" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p>The not so common features like configurable VT-based rules, the AI engine, adding guarding of vulnerable apps maybe or maybe not, just showing results of cloud sandbox analysis of suspicious files like VDS did with cuckoo — could be paid. I am not saying integrate all of it. However, adding some of these will increase the USP of the product desirably.</p><p></p><p>He'll have to expand the training of the AI engine with more datasets than the one initially used as seen in the link, to keep things relevant. He has apparently used supervised learning.Then, tuning via more validation datasets followed by test datasets. The amount of (correctly labeled) samples in the dataset is key for the model accuracy, so large representative datasets are needed for a good AI module. If it only checks on VT for suspicious files as suggested, the risk of flagging system files should not rise. And for the many new data that the app would confront throughout its use, an unsupervised learning model could become useful, and clustering could help with labeling there. That's next level and would require a steady support to development.</p><p>Rather, the AV results from VT could be intuitively used if the list of detecting engines is shown (is it? I haven't checked. Will try soon). If it includes the ML engines of reupted AVs, cherry on the cake!</p><p></p><p></p><p>I get your point you're keeping with a micro-fee. It could be justified. However, don't you think that average people tend to judge the value of protection also based on the fees - and a micro-fee might sound discouraging for a buyer per se?</p><p>Marketing some unique points over an AV would more easily justify a slightly higher ask amount IMHO.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Parsh, post: 876563, member: 58090"] While the [I]anti-logger[/I] sounds like a good AV companion, to be more readily considered a good[I] freemium [/I]companion, it will have to complement rather than overlap the typical features of the AVs out there. Scope of UAC is another matter. I am sure most AVs keep an eye on at least their own registry entries and the autoruns, though the effectiveness of flagging malicious changes may vary. Heuristics and user-mode Keylogger protection are covered by a typical AV and a few reputed AVs do use Yara rule engine. It wouldn't be a surprise if they use and have improved on the use of existing Yara rules repository. Still they can be handy to flag suspicious files and initiate further check or an alert. Some other interesting mods could include harnessing VT results as you suggested earlier for a second check, and a few more secondary features that can be strongly marketed other than for calling it an "antilogger"... like VDS loves to be called a computer lock or an anti-exe with VT, sandbox, commandline verification and cloud whitelists ... I do think that it is a good program with a lot of potential if it wants to invite a freemium tag :) The not so common features like configurable VT-based rules, the AI engine, adding guarding of vulnerable apps maybe or maybe not, just showing results of cloud sandbox analysis of suspicious files like VDS did with cuckoo — could be paid. I am not saying integrate all of it. However, adding some of these will increase the USP of the product desirably. He'll have to expand the training of the AI engine with more datasets than the one initially used as seen in the link, to keep things relevant. He has apparently used supervised learning.Then, tuning via more validation datasets followed by test datasets. The amount of (correctly labeled) samples in the dataset is key for the model accuracy, so large representative datasets are needed for a good AI module. If it only checks on VT for suspicious files as suggested, the risk of flagging system files should not rise. And for the many new data that the app would confront throughout its use, an unsupervised learning model could become useful, and clustering could help with labeling there. That's next level and would require a steady support to development. Rather, the AV results from VT could be intuitively used if the list of detecting engines is shown (is it? I haven't checked. Will try soon). If it includes the ML engines of reupted AVs, cherry on the cake! I get your point you're keeping with a micro-fee. It could be justified. However, don't you think that average people tend to judge the value of protection also based on the fees - and a micro-fee might sound discouraging for a buyer per se? Marketing some unique points over an AV would more easily justify a slightly higher ask amount IMHO. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top