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
Which security programs can detect and stop Metasploit's meterpreter shell?
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Trident" data-source="post: 1058643" data-attributes="member: 99014"><p>Traditional scanners only get the path of images/modules loaded in memory and then scan them on disk. In cases such as process hollowing and other in-memory threats/manipulations, this is not effective. Memory content scanning scans the actual code and in memory, it is already in its true form, all layers of obfuscation have been peeled.</p><p></p><p></p><p>The two technologies are very different, behavioural blocking monitors the usage of native Windows APIs (calls), file/ registry entries creation and others. For that, it installs kernel drivers and user-mode hooks. There may be some sharing of information between memory scanning and behavioural blocking but vendors are unlikely to disclose this information.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It’s useful for all types of malware where heavy obfuscation is used as other technologies such as static and dynamic analysis are prone to evasion.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I wouldn’t say it’s a major drawback but the product will inevitably be less effective against many types of threats.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Norton, Avast, AVG, Avira (with all AVs based on it) and I am not entirely sure if memory scanning is offered with the Bitdefender SDK. If it is not, then all BD-based AVs except G Data don’t have it.</p><p></p><p>Post edited as I originally misunderstood one of the questions.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Trident, post: 1058643, member: 99014"] Traditional scanners only get the path of images/modules loaded in memory and then scan them on disk. In cases such as process hollowing and other in-memory threats/manipulations, this is not effective. Memory content scanning scans the actual code and in memory, it is already in its true form, all layers of obfuscation have been peeled. The two technologies are very different, behavioural blocking monitors the usage of native Windows APIs (calls), file/ registry entries creation and others. For that, it installs kernel drivers and user-mode hooks. There may be some sharing of information between memory scanning and behavioural blocking but vendors are unlikely to disclose this information. It’s useful for all types of malware where heavy obfuscation is used as other technologies such as static and dynamic analysis are prone to evasion. I wouldn’t say it’s a major drawback but the product will inevitably be less effective against many types of threats. Norton, Avast, AVG, Avira (with all AVs based on it) and I am not entirely sure if memory scanning is offered with the Bitdefender SDK. If it is not, then all BD-based AVs except G Data don’t have it. Post edited as I originally misunderstood one of the questions. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top