I read old post about this question but it is possible that a new malware can bypass Vbox ?
Yes.
Via various network flaws = vulnerabilities\client-host setup.
Don't use bridged networking.
Don't use network shares (just mentioning for sake of thoroughness).
Before run malwares, disable networking. Most simple solution.
or... just dump VM and use Shadow Defender.
In such architecture environment there's always a possible of slip/bypass but literally its a minimal chances, first of all to avoid any problems the default settings of network is NAT so it isolates the connection and does not have any ability to sneak on networks especially worms.
Have you tried Shadow Defender yet if not you get a 30 day free trial at this link. http://www.shadowdefender.com/
There are 2 ways to achieve VM escape with virtualbox.
The first is configuration errors, which others have mentioned above. The second, which is potentially far more serious is a vulnerability in VirtualBox itself. An example would be CVE-2014-0981, which allows malware in the VM to escape into the host system. However, you do not need to worry about such exploits because to the best of my knowledge no malware has such a capability. Not even APTs.
The first is configuration errors, which others have mentioned above. The second, which is potentially far more serious is a vulnerability in VirtualBox itself. An example would be CVE-2014-0981, which allows malware in the VM to escape into the host system. However, you do not need to worry about such exploits because to the best of my knowledge no malware has such a capability. Not even APTs.
Shadow defender is a nice addition, but it is also far from full-proof. If i recall correctly a year back there were issues reported about how Shadow Defender failed to protect against some advanced rootkits. Furthermore, although I have not tested it personally, I do not see any reason why kernel level exploits and malware are not able to bypass Shadow Defender. At this privilege level malware can unload most if not all security software and do whatever it wants.
Not saying it can't but have not seen any proof that it can either.
One solution would be to use Sandboxie in Shadow Defender (sandbox in sandbox)
In the video, the tester used Kaspersky TDSS Killer. TDSS picked up a remnant at the very end of Track 0. However, the tester did not realize it was a remnant and reported it as a complete rootkit by-pass.
Tony fixed this issue.
I'm not saying Shadow Defender is "bullet-proof." As in its current version there is no complete disk virtualization...which is a request submitted to the developer.
If there is any current vulnerability to malware with Shadow Defender then it is strictly limited to rootkits...and no testing has established this to be the case since Tony coded complete MBR virtualization. Based upon my experience nothing has, so far, gotten past it on my W8.1 system...and that's a lot of malwares.
However, if anything is going to handily defeat SD it is going to be an exploit and not a run-of-the-mill nasty.
I've been trying to track-down some samples of Zero Access/Sirefef and other rootkits for some testing. It's about time that the Shadow Defender 0 rootkit question is definitively answered: "Can rootkits bypass it or not?" And the tests need to be credible. There's no use in doing the testing if it isn't beyond reproach... like what happened to that unfortunate video author.
If anyone can be of assistance in providing W8 executables then it would be a great help.
Double-sandboxing will not prevent an exploit.
Bromium researches used Sandboxie inside a VM and the exploit still managed to pull off its dirty deed.
Never got by on my Windows 7 system either and i have tried very hard to breach it.
Sandboxie with Shadow Defender is no joke. It's actually a valid anti-crypto technique.We were just joking around about that.
What if you exclude files\folders in Shadow Mode (such as AV and all its data folder) and then run a cryptor. The only way to protect that excluded data from the cryptor is to laucnh them sandboxed using SBIE inside Shadow Mode.
See, now I thought you were Neo.
Additionally,
http://malwaretips.com/threads/comodo-firewall-8-2-beta-setup-and-very-brief-test.43613/
Post #1.
http://malwaretips.com/threads/comodo-firewall-8-2-beta-setup-and-very-brief-test.43613/
Post #1.
And of course there is Comodo Internet Security... just get those settings right.
My only problem with CIS is that there is a You Tube video by Cyber Review (Cyber Raiden) that shows malwares disables the sandbox.
Until that issue is fixed... really bad news.
Next 300+ bug fix.
I do like Comodo. Just poke fun.
Hehehehe... Yeah. PrivDog was a real screw-up. Instead use an off-line installer. No junk added to install.After Privdog i am not touching Comodo ever again period.
Just a heads-up.
Wrong, I was not talking about that video. I have seen it too, and I agree that there are plenty of inaccuracies in it. What I was talking about is that fundamentally, Shadow Defender still relies on OS security mechanisms to ensure the integrity of its function. However, at the kernel level you can access the hard disk sectors directly, thus bypassing SD. In 2009 one such malware appeared and at that point in time it could bypass such protections. If I have time I will dig through my sample collection and make a test.
Latest Threads
-
-
-
Chrome Chrome 79.0.3945.79 Stable Channel Update for Desktop- Started by Gandalf_The_Grey
- Replies: 0