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
General Security Discussions
Protecting processes from injection via SetWindowsHookEx() ?
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Deleted member 65228" data-source="post: 730809"><p>Just so you are aware, device drivers which are unsigned and being loaded by the DSEFix should be "driverless", which means they will be hidden by default. Whoever invented the sample and is using DSEFix is probably doing this.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I was referring to generic signatures and you can combine these with a good memory scanner. I do not care for hash checksum either, they suck in my opinion.</p><p></p><p>Anyone can re-pack the sample but if you're scanning the memory dynamically, unless they have a bypass for your memory scanner, the signature will be matched in-memory after the unpacker engine has done its work with its loader.</p><p></p><p>You can also use behavioral monitoring techniques to develop protection against exploit attacks like these; this would be where appropriate use of memory patching could come into play.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Deleted member 65228, post: 730809"] Just so you are aware, device drivers which are unsigned and being loaded by the DSEFix should be "driverless", which means they will be hidden by default. Whoever invented the sample and is using DSEFix is probably doing this. I was referring to generic signatures and you can combine these with a good memory scanner. I do not care for hash checksum either, they suck in my opinion. Anyone can re-pack the sample but if you're scanning the memory dynamically, unless they have a bypass for your memory scanner, the signature will be matched in-memory after the unpacker engine has done its work with its loader. You can also use behavioral monitoring techniques to develop protection against exploit attacks like these; this would be where appropriate use of memory patching could come into play. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top