Comparative of various technologies to protect systems against malware

Comparative of various technologies to protect systems against malware
Comparative of various
technologies to protect systems
against malware
incl. Behavior Blockers,
Host Based Intrusion Prevention Systems,
Sandboxing and Virtualization Technologies
Date: October 2006 (2006-10)
Last revision: 31th October 2006
Author: Andreas Clementi
Website:
http://www.av-comparatives.org
Malware Prevention Systems (October 2006)
–
Copyright (c) 2006 by Andreas Clementi
1. Introduction
Besides traditional Anti-Virus products, there are also products
with different approaches when it comes to protect your system
against harmful known and unknown malware. This test report will
introduce you a little bit in these systems and will try to show you
how effective they are. The following 9 products1 were tested:
™ BufferZone Home Pro
http://www.trustware.com
™ CyberHawk 1.2
http://www.novatix.com
™ DefenseWall HIPS 1.7.1
http://www.softsphere.com
™ GeSWall PE 2.5
http://www.gentlesecurity.com
™ Kaspersky Internet Security 6.0 http://www.kaspersky.com
™ PrevX 1 2.0
http://www.prevx.com
™ Safe'n'Sec Personal 2.5
http://www.safensoft.com
™ Sandboxie 2.62
http://www.sandboxie.com
™ ViGUARD Platinium 12
http://www.viguard.com
In contrast to traditional Anti-Virus software, where malware gets
detected on-access or on-demand (before you execute the malicious
file), those systems work in real-time, i.e. while you execute the
malicious file.
a) Behavior blockers / Host-based intrusion prevention systems: a
behavior blocker monitors the activity of programs and
operating system. If a program tries to do a potentially
harmful activity, the behavior blocker will stop the program
before it affects the system and ask you what to do: let the
program continue to execute or blocking the program. The
decision about blocking/allowing will in most cases be taken by
yourself, so you need to know what and when an action is
malicious or benign, otherwise it could even happen that you
compromise your system or legitimate programs functionality.
Depending on how sophisticated the rules of the behavior
blocker are, you will get few or many prompts from the program
when you e.g. try to run a legitimate application. Behavior
blockers have to find a deal between security and false alarms:
if they block anything, the false alarms might be high – if
they block only few actions, the false alarms / user prompts
are reduced. Traditional behavior blockers only warn you about
suspicious activities, they do not “detect” malware.
b) Sandboxing / Virtualization systems: a virtualization system
protects your system by running software in a simulated system
– a sandbox. Every harmful action that a malware does is done
in the simulated system and does not affect the real host
system files. They do not tell if an application is malicious
or not. Some of those virtualization tools will also ask you if
you want to let a program run in the sandbox or to add it to
the trusted applications list.
c) Access control policy: the difference between sandboxing and an
access control policy is that an access control policy does not
focus on the separation between sandbox and the host system,
but rather on the damage prevention, keeping as much links as
possible for usability reasons.
In any case, you will have to check those various systems on your PC
in order to evaluate if you like them or not.
1
ISS Proventia Desktop was also invited - but unfortuantly, the invitations remained unreplied.
2
Malware Prevention Systems (October 2006)
–
Copyright (c) 2006 by Andreas Clementi
2. Test-set
For testing those products, we executed the following malware and
looked if their malicious actions were blocked and/or if any system
was compromised. The following 40 actual spreading or new samples
were used for this test:
W32/Agent!8F38, W32/Agent!ABFB, W32/Agobot!ITW#401, W32/Alcra.B,
W32/Bagle!ITW#108, W32/Banker!A197, W32/Banwarum!ITW#3,
W32/Bobax!ITW#14, W32/Cablenet.A, W32/Feebs!ITW#25, W32/Gaobot!D517,
W32/Goldun.ER, W32/Gurong.A, W32/Hupigon!3914, W32/Kebede!ITW#1,
W32/Kidala.B, W32/Kipis.U, W32/Lineage!D188, W32/Locksky!ITW#18,
W32/Looked!ITW#7, W32/Mydoom.BD-mm, W32/Mytob!ITW#454,
W32/Mytob!ITW#475, W32/Mytob!ITW#498, W32/Nugache.A, W32/Polip.A,
W32/Rbot!4542, W32/Rbot!ITW#1751, W32/Rontokbro!ITW#5,
W32/Sdbot!B712, W32/Sdbot!ITW#1764, W32/Small!NBO,
W32/Stration!ITW#1, W32/Stration!ITW#7, W32/Tenga.A, W32/Tibs!7F84,
W32/Torvil.D, W32/Virut.A, W32/Womble!ITW#1, W32/Wootbot!2C7E.
3. Test results
Below the test results of the tested products:
BLOCKED: malicious behavior of the malware was blocked.
OS INTACT: the sandboxes prevented that the malware modified/accessed
the real system.
“OS INTACT”: the access control policy prevented that the malware
modified/accessed the real system, but the isolated malware processes
were not terminated.
MISSED: the program was not able to recognize the malicious activity
and/or to protect the system by blocking the malware.
BLOCKED: malware blocked in interactive mode but not in automatic mode.
3
Malware Prevention Systems (October 2006)
–
Copyright (c) 2006 by Andreas Clementi
4. Comments
(!) Please note the version numbers of the tested AV products: most
of those product versions were released very recently and are able
to detect more malicious activities than the previous versions. You
are urged to update to the newest program versions and to keep them
updated (updates to cover the misses in this test are in the
meantime already released).
BufferZone: All unknown programs are executed in the virtual
environment of BufferZone. Any malicious action is done within it,
leaving the real OS intact. With some few clicks, all programs that
are currently running within the BufferZone can be terminated and
the files inside the BufferZone removed. The interface is intuitive
also for non-experienced users. From BufferZone’s website (which
applies also to most other sandbox programs): „BufferZone does not
try to detect/block suspicious behavior. What it does is run
Internet programs (Web browsers, P2P, Instant Messaging) in an
environment where these programs (and their downloads + child
processes) do not affect the real file-system + registry. “
CyberHawk: is easy to install and to use, does not require
configuration
and
blocks/warns
about
potentially
dangerous
activities, protecting the system by most threats. It had 1 missed
sample. Detection of that kind of samples will be added in next
release of CyberHawk.
DefenseWall: is a sandbox HIPS which categories the files in
trusted/untrusted. Unknown files should be executed as untrusted.
DefenseWall allows to terminate the process and shows all files that
e.g. a malicious application created or added registry entries –
they can be removed from the system by using the Rollback function.
DefenseWall does not tell you if a file is malicious or not.
GeSWall: is an access control policy. Depending on which security
level is used, an action like e.g. isolation is done automatically
without pop-up’s. As there is no option to terminate processes of
isolated programs, they have to be killed manually, which could have
affect to the system performance if a user does not do it. Due that,
the user could receive tray notifications about which actions were
denied, but can not terminate isolated processes. Anyway, due to the
protection of auto-run settings and prevention of services/drivers
installation, those processes are alive until user logoff as the
system forces termination at this stage anyway and there are no
settings to schedule an execution. GeSWall can be used to isolate
critical applications, which may serve as entry points for the
attacks. These applications are browsers, e-mail, chat, P2P, IRC,
multimedia, viewers, etc. GeSWall isolates the "entry points" and
tracks down the files coming through these entry points, in order to
prevent damage. Actually, GeSWall is aware and can identify about 50
"entry point" applications for which it applies an isolation policy
with respect to their particular requirements. GeSWall consider all
present resources (files/registry/processes/etc.) as trusted and
prevents their modifications. The rules grant access for particular
resources required by individual applications. GeSWall protects
against modification of system resources, reading confidential
files, keylogging, prevents auto-run settings, etc.
4
Malware Prevention Systems (October 2006)
–
Copyright (c) 2006 by Andreas Clementi
KIS PDM: blocked all harmful actions and categorized them correctly
(e.g. Trojan.generic, Invader, etc.) and is able to rollback changes
made by the malware.
Prevx1: blocks malware based on its behavior and/or based on a list
of known malicious files. If an user runs a malicious file that is
not recognized based on its behavior or is not already included e.g.
in the user community database (for which you need to be online to
access it and use that capability), it will prompt the user what to
do with the file: if the user knows that the file is safe he can run
it, otherwise he is suggested to block the execution. Some users may
not be able to be 100% sure that a file is clean and therefore they
have to rely on software decision for that. Prevx contains also e.g.
nice monitoring tools to see how a program behaves and what it does.
PrevX has now fixed the detection for the 5 misses.
Safe’n’Sec: tells in detail what is going to happen if a suspicious
behavior is detected and lets in most cases the user decide what to
do further with the file (block it or execute it), but usually with
the strong suggest to block the actions and details about why (which
helps the user to take the correct decision.
Sandboxie: malicious applications executed in the sandbox remain in
the sandbox leaving the real system intact. As it does not tell to a
user whether a file run within the sandbox is doing something
malicious or not, it is maybe not ideal for every user, but a useful
tool to protect against malware that comes thru downloaded files and
email clients, browsers, file sharing clients, etc.
ViGuard: is a simple little program, which does it jobs: it alerts
you about dangerous programs based on their activities and blocks
them as such. Does not have any noticeable system impact. ViGuard
had a serious bug in the automatic mode (in which ViGuard was not
able to find 5 samples, but blocked them all in the interactive
mode), which has been patched in the meantime.
Note: the above comments are based on the opinions of the tester.
The tester strongly suggests to readers to try the above products in
order to build up their own opinion over the various tools.
5
Malware Prevention Systems (October 2006)
–
Copyright (c) 2006 by Andreas Clementi
5. Final notes
The technologies (behavior-blocker, HIPS, sandboxes, etc.) tested in
this comparative showed that most of them are able to protect very
well a system against malware, even if only a small set of various
actual malware was used for this test. Keep in mind that even those
products may not always be 100% foolproof (e.g. due bugs, „nonmonitored“ functions etc.) - or, if they would be, its use could be
time-consuming/annoying for the user.
The tested products should not be considered as a replacement to
Anti-Virus software – they should be used in addition to Anti-Virus
software. Many well-known AV products already include or will in
future
include
modules
like
behavior-blockers
or
similar
technologies, which will by the very last attempt/chance to detect
malware (as it works while the file is already being executed) if
all other detection mechanism in the AV software failed.
Results of Behavior-blockers / Sandboxes (which work on-execution)
can not be applied to results reached e.g. thru signature /
heuristic detection (which work usually on-demand and on-access).
While Anti-Virus products usually take the decision for the user
about the malignity of a file, behavior-blockers may warn the user
about suspicious activity and e.g. let the user take the verdict if
a file is malicious or if a file is benign/legitimate and does only
flag a false alert of the behavior-blocker. Even if nowadays most
behavior-blockers try to minimize the number of required user
interactivity, it will probably always remain target for false
alerts and possible user’s wrong decisions.
Beside that, we suggest readers to try those various products on
their PC’s, in order to evaluate the number of alerts they get
during their work, the additional system impact due the products and
if they like to work with such tools on their PC.
6. Copyright and Disclaimer
This publication is Copyright (c) 2006 by AV-Comparatives. Any use
of the results, etc. in whole or in part, is ONLY permitted after
the explicit written agreement of Andreas Clementi, prior to any
publication. AV-Comparatives and its testers cannot be held liable
for any damage or loss which might occur as result of, or in
connection with, the use of the information provided in this paper.
We take every possible care to ensure the correctness of the basic
data, but a liability for the correctness of the test results cannot
be taken by any representative of AV-Comparatives. We do not give
any guarantee of the correctness, completeness, or suitability for a
specific purpose of any of the information/content provided at any
given time. No one else involved in creating, producing or
delivering test results shall be liable for any indirect, special or
consequential damage, or loss of profits, arising out of, or related
to, the use or inability to use, the services provided by the
website, test documents or any related data.
Andreas Clementi, AV-Comparatives
6
(October 2006)
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertising