Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="RoboMan" data-source="post: 823428" data-attributes="member: 53544">It doesn&#039;t work like that, your debate is non-sense. Every industry works with tricky, good looking names. For example, we&#039;re used to the term antivirus, when we al know virus is just a type of malware and the correct terminology would be antimalware. We are also sold AI as an addition to security suites claiming their technology owns every technique known, when it&#039;s just the same old techniques with a cool name &quot;artificial intelligence&quot;, making us believe there&#039;s some kind of robotic non-human code able to eradicate malware. If we study terminology by its definition, most words in the industry would be nonsense, like sandbox, behaviour blocker, AI, even the proper definition of antimalware would mean that our program avoids malware, but that&#039;s just not true because it&#039;s not entirely perfect.What Andy means is clear and true, &quot;behaviour blocking&quot; as its whole, as a pattern identification is obsolote and can be easily bypassed, hence why vendors are migrating to newer technologies and implementing default-deny modules. Identificating patterns is a difficult job when each new piece of malware that&#039;s released changes it&#039;s evasion techniques. The future of cybersecurity does not rely upon static modules that can be easily learnt and avoided (databases, standard rules, behaviour blocking). I think that&#039;s the point of [USER=32260]@Andy Ful[/USER] and it&#039;s totally right.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="RoboMan, post: 823428, member: 53544"] It doesn't work like that, your debate is non-sense. Every industry works with tricky, good looking names. For example, we're used to the term antivirus, when we al know virus is just a type of malware and the correct terminology would be antimalware. We are also sold AI as an addition to security suites claiming their technology owns every technique known, when it's just the same old techniques with a cool name "artificial intelligence", making us believe there's some kind of robotic non-human code able to eradicate malware. If we study terminology by its definition, most words in the industry would be nonsense, like sandbox, behaviour blocker, AI, even the proper definition of antimalware would mean that our program avoids malware, but that's just not true because it's not entirely perfect. What Andy means is clear and true, "behaviour blocking" as its whole, as a pattern identification is obsolote and can be easily bypassed, hence why vendors are migrating to newer technologies and implementing default-deny modules. Identificating patterns is a difficult job when each new piece of malware that's released changes it's evasion techniques. The future of cybersecurity does not rely upon static modules that can be easily learnt and avoided (databases, standard rules, behaviour blocking). I think that's the point of [USER=32260]@Andy Ful[/USER] and it's totally right. [/QUOTE]

Verification