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
Of LoLBins, 0 Days, and ESET (Part 2)
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Andy Ful" data-source="post: 1084094" data-attributes="member: 32260"><p>I think that there is too much talking about the Eset failure in both tests because Eset Internet Security was taken only as an example of a popular kind of protection. It can be summarized as follows:</p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"><strong>Detect only files or actions that are recognized as malicious.</strong></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"><strong>Keep the false positives rate very low.</strong></li> </ol><p>In organizations, the protection type represented by Eset is very popular. Simply, the problems with false positive detections can be more frequent and painful than malware infections. Furthermore, there are several editions of Eset. For example, Eset Protect Advanced can use ESET LiveGuard Advanced (sandboxing in the cloud) that could stop the attack. In the video, Eset Internet Security was tested which is a solution for home users. It is an open question whether the attack via Certutil LOLBin can be dangerous at home.</p><p></p><p>Microsoft can also use sandboxing, but it works differently. The file execution is suspended for a short time (10-60 seconds) and some malware can infect the system before the analysis in the sandbox is finished. So, blocking the popular methods can be reasonable for Microsoft, but not necessary for Eset Protect Advanced.</p><p>Microsoft Defender in the non-default settings can block several popular attack methods (mostly via ASR rules).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Andy Ful, post: 1084094, member: 32260"] I think that there is too much talking about the Eset failure in both tests because Eset Internet Security was taken only as an example of a popular kind of protection. It can be summarized as follows: [LIST=1] [*][B]Detect only files or actions that are recognized as malicious.[/B] [*][B]Keep the false positives rate very low.[/B] [/LIST] In organizations, the protection type represented by Eset is very popular. Simply, the problems with false positive detections can be more frequent and painful than malware infections. Furthermore, there are several editions of Eset. For example, Eset Protect Advanced can use ESET LiveGuard Advanced (sandboxing in the cloud) that could stop the attack. In the video, Eset Internet Security was tested which is a solution for home users. It is an open question whether the attack via Certutil LOLBin can be dangerous at home. Microsoft can also use sandboxing, but it works differently. The file execution is suspended for a short time (10-60 seconds) and some malware can infect the system before the analysis in the sandbox is finished. So, blocking the popular methods can be reasonable for Microsoft, but not necessary for Eset Protect Advanced. Microsoft Defender in the non-default settings can block several popular attack methods (mostly via ASR rules). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top