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
Security
Video Reviews - Security and Privacy
Microsoft Defender- A Possible Future
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Andy Ful" data-source="post: 1016699" data-attributes="member: 32260"><p>I do not like the possibility of excluding the paths by the attacker, even if it is not commonly used in the wild against home users.</p><p>This method can invalidate AV protection, but it is hard to test how effective it could be in widespread (automated) attacks. There are some additional factors that must be taken into account:</p><p>1. It is usually easier and more efficient to use a new 0-day (morphed) variant, than creating a loader and finding an older malware (X.exe in the video) that can bypass the AV behavior-based protection.</p><p>2. We must be certain that the X.exe (older malware) can bypass the AV behavior-based protection. This can be tested, but the AV can learn during the test. So, the test can increase malware detection (by behavior).</p><p>3. After some time, the AV can behaviorally detect the initial malware loader, even if the X.exe is executed from the excluded folder.</p><p></p><p>In targeted attacks, the above points can be less important. So it would be interesting to test how efficient this method could be. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite109" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite130" alt="(y)" title="Thumbs up (y)" loading="lazy" data-shortname="(y)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Andy Ful, post: 1016699, member: 32260"] I do not like the possibility of excluding the paths by the attacker, even if it is not commonly used in the wild against home users. This method can invalidate AV protection, but it is hard to test how effective it could be in widespread (automated) attacks. There are some additional factors that must be taken into account: 1. It is usually easier and more efficient to use a new 0-day (morphed) variant, than creating a loader and finding an older malware (X.exe in the video) that can bypass the AV behavior-based protection. 2. We must be certain that the X.exe (older malware) can bypass the AV behavior-based protection. This can be tested, but the AV can learn during the test. So, the test can increase malware detection (by behavior). 3. After some time, the AV can behaviorally detect the initial malware loader, even if the X.exe is executed from the excluded folder. In targeted attacks, the above points can be less important. So it would be interesting to test how efficient this method could be. :) (y) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top