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
Software
Security Apps
Microsoft Defender
Windows Defender disabled by malware
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Andy Ful" data-source="post: 938252" data-attributes="member: 32260"><p>I do not think that @[USER=86910]struppigel[/USER] missed anything and on the contrary, he understands well how such attacks were performed in the wild. This attack in the wild would not be a simple deactivation of the AV. Many AVs can recognize several other suspicious features (delivery method, using scripting, UAC bypass, code and executable for unpacking, code for payload execution, code for Defender Control execution, etc.) before the script might the chance to disable protection. From time to time it is probably possible to bypass the AV protection in this way (many AVs were disabled in the past). But this has more cons compared to pros. In the case of Defender, the Tamper protection makes it even less attractive.</p><p></p><p>Microsoft did not introduce Tamper Protection to prevent such attacks as a primary infection vector. The reason was preventing similar methods performed in the wild on already compromised systems for persistence and lateral movement. Simply, the disabled Defender protection is re-enabled by the system after some time.<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite130" alt="(y)" title="Thumbs up (y)" loading="lazy" data-shortname="(y)" /></p><p></p><p>Edit.</p><p>A similar misunderstanding is often related to DLL hijacking. This method is not used as a primary infection vector, too. It could be used, but this has currently more cons compared to pros. It is used in the wild on already compromised systems to make the attack more dangerous (UAC bypass, stealthy persistence, etc.).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Andy Ful, post: 938252, member: 32260"] I do not think that @[USER=86910]struppigel[/USER] missed anything and on the contrary, he understands well how such attacks were performed in the wild. This attack in the wild would not be a simple deactivation of the AV. Many AVs can recognize several other suspicious features (delivery method, using scripting, UAC bypass, code and executable for unpacking, code for payload execution, code for Defender Control execution, etc.) before the script might the chance to disable protection. From time to time it is probably possible to bypass the AV protection in this way (many AVs were disabled in the past). But this has more cons compared to pros. In the case of Defender, the Tamper protection makes it even less attractive. Microsoft did not introduce Tamper Protection to prevent such attacks as a primary infection vector. The reason was preventing similar methods performed in the wild on already compromised systems for persistence and lateral movement. Simply, the disabled Defender protection is re-enabled by the system after some time.(y) Edit. A similar misunderstanding is often related to DLL hijacking. This method is not used as a primary infection vector, too. It could be used, but this has currently more cons compared to pros. It is used in the wild on already compromised systems to make the attack more dangerous (UAC bypass, stealthy persistence, etc.). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top