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
Inactive Support Threads
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
Security Statistics and Reports
Modern protection without signatures – comparison test on real threats (Advanced In The Wild Malware Test)
Message
<blockquote data-quote="MacDefender" data-source="post: 977672" data-attributes="member: 83059"><p>Yeah, traditional examples for consumer AVs include “behavior blocking” (monitoring Win32 API calls made by a process), as well as less exciting approaches like inspecting memory contents or network activity using a signature scanner. </p><p></p><p>The latter, in particular, was seen quite a bit for ESET in the Malware Hub. A lot of malware is broken into two stages…. The first stage is a highly obfuscated and difficult to detect stub that’s meant to fetch the real payload and help it evade detection. The second stage tends to be recycled from existing malware and contains a lot more complex code that’s difficult to hide from signature scanner. Though ESET detected almost everything upon static scan (level 2 or earlier), some of the detections were at runtime either thanks to the network scanning or looking at temporary files during execution.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="MacDefender, post: 977672, member: 83059"] Yeah, traditional examples for consumer AVs include “behavior blocking” (monitoring Win32 API calls made by a process), as well as less exciting approaches like inspecting memory contents or network activity using a signature scanner. The latter, in particular, was seen quite a bit for ESET in the Malware Hub. A lot of malware is broken into two stages…. The first stage is a highly obfuscated and difficult to detect stub that’s meant to fetch the real payload and help it evade detection. The second stage tends to be recycled from existing malware and contains a lot more complex code that’s difficult to hide from signature scanner. Though ESET detected almost everything upon static scan (level 2 or earlier), some of the detections were at runtime either thanks to the network scanning or looking at temporary files during execution. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top