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
Security Statistics and Reports
Summary of the March edition of tests on virus samples from the Internet
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Andy Ful" data-source="post: 986212" data-attributes="member: 32260"><p>I think that waiting for a response from the cloud (longer than 0.01 sec) can strongly suggest proactive detection at any level (L1, L2, or L3). The problem can be how to measure this in the test. There can be random delays related to the Internet connection, cloud workload, etc. Also splitting the pre-execution detections into L1 and L2 does not help. It is possible that most of the L2 events start as L1 but end with a delay when the sample is copied. If so, then most L2 detections could be proactive, but still many proactive detections would be included in L1.</p><p>Furthermore, in some cases, the behavior-based detections can be done in a shorter time than 0.01 sec. It would be hard to distinguish signature detection in the cloud from behavior-based detection. It seems that the proper way would be getting the information directly from the detection name used by the concrete AV for the concrete sample. In some cases, additional information from the logs can be sufficient to recognize the proactive detection (like in the case of Comodo sandboxing). In the case of Defender, some proactive detections/blocks can be recognized by Event IDs (ASR rules have got ID = 1121).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Andy Ful, post: 986212, member: 32260"] I think that waiting for a response from the cloud (longer than 0.01 sec) can strongly suggest proactive detection at any level (L1, L2, or L3). The problem can be how to measure this in the test. There can be random delays related to the Internet connection, cloud workload, etc. Also splitting the pre-execution detections into L1 and L2 does not help. It is possible that most of the L2 events start as L1 but end with a delay when the sample is copied. If so, then most L2 detections could be proactive, but still many proactive detections would be included in L1. Furthermore, in some cases, the behavior-based detections can be done in a shorter time than 0.01 sec. It would be hard to distinguish signature detection in the cloud from behavior-based detection. It seems that the proper way would be getting the information directly from the detection name used by the concrete AV for the concrete sample. In some cases, additional information from the logs can be sufficient to recognize the proactive detection (like in the case of Comodo sandboxing). In the case of Defender, some proactive detections/blocks can be recognized by Event IDs (ASR rules have got ID = 1121). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top