SE Labs

Posts tagged 'anti-virus'

Assessing next-generation protection

Malware scanning is not enough. You have to hack, too.

Latest report now online.
The amount of choice when trialling or buying endpoint security is at an all-time high. It has been 36 years since ‘anti-virus’ first appeared and, in the last five years, the number of companies innovating and selling products designed to keep Windows systems secure has exploded.
And whereas once vendors of these products generally used non-technical terms to market their wares, now computer science has come to the fore. No longer are we offered ‘anti-virus’ or ‘hacker protection’ but artificial intelligence-based detection and response solutions. The choice has never been greater, nor has the confusion among potential customers.
While marketing departments appear to have no doubt about the effectiveness of their product, the fact is that without in-depth testing no-one really knows whether or not an Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) agent can do what it is intended.

Internal testing is necessary but inherently biased: ‘we test against what we know’. Thorough testing, including the full attack chains presented by threats, is needed to show not only detection and protection rates, but response capabilities.

EventTracker asked SE Labs to conduct an independent test of its EDR agent, running the same tests as are used against some of the world’s most established endpoint security solutions available, as well as some of the newer ones.
This report shows EventTracker’s performance in this test. The results are directly comparable with the public SE Labs Enterprise Endpoint Protection (Oct – Dec 2018) report, available here.

Can you trust security tests?

Clear, open testing is needed and now available

Latest reports now online.

A year ago we decided to put our support behind a new testing Standard proposed by the Anti-Malware Testing Standards Organization (AMTSO). The goal behind the Standard is good for everyone: if testing is conducted openly then testers such as us can receive due credit for doing a thorough job; you the reader can gain confidence in the results; and the vendors under test can understand their failings and make improvements, which then creates stronger products that we can all enjoy.

The Standard does not dictate how testers should test. There are pages of detail, but I can best summarise it like this:

Say what you are going to do, then do it. And be prepared to prove it.

(Indeed, a poor test could still comply with the AMTSO Standard, but at least you would be able to understand how the test was conducted and could then judge its worth with clear information and not marketing hype!)

We don’t think that it’s unreasonable to ask testers to make some effort to prove their results. Whether you are spending £30 on a copy of a home anti-antivirus product or several million on a new endpoint upgrade project, if you are using a report to help with your buying decision you deserve to know how the test was run, whether or not some vendors were at a disadvantage and if anyone was willing and able to double-check the results.

Since the start of the year we put our endpoint reports through the public pilot and then, once the Standard was officially adopted, through the full public process. Our last reports were judged to comply with the AMTSO Standard and we’ve submitted these latest reports for similar assessment.

At the time of writing we didn’t know if the reports from this round of testing complied. We’re pleased to report today that they did. You can confirm this by checking the AMTSO reference link at the bottom of page three of this report or here.

If you spot a detail in this report that you don’t understand, or would like to discuss, please contact us via our Twitter or Facebook accounts.

SE Labs uses current threat intelligence to make our tests as realistic as possible. To learn more about how we test, how we define ‘threat intelligence’ and how we use it to improve our tests please visit our website and follow us on Twitter.

This test report was funded by post-test consultation services provided by SE Labs to security vendors. Vendors of all products included in this report were provided with early access to results and the ability to dispute details for free. SE Labs has submitted the testing process behind this report for compliance with the AMTSO Standard v1.0.

Our latest reports, for enterprise, small business and home users are now available for free from our website. Please download them and follow us on Twitter and/or Facebook to receive updates and future reports.

How well do email security gateways protect against targeted attacks?

Email security test explores how and when services detect and stop threats.

Latest report now online.

This new email protection test shows a wide variation in the abilities of the services that we have assessed.

You might see the figures as being disappointing. Surely Microsoft Office 365 can’t be that bad? An eight per cent accuracy rating seems incredible.

Literally not credible. If it misses most threats then organisations relying on it for email security would be hacked to death (not literally).

But our results are subtler than just reflecting detection rates and it’s worth understanding exactly what we’re testing here to get the most value from the data. We’re not testing these services with live streams of real emails, in which massive percentages of messages are legitimate or basic spam. Depending on who you talk to, around 50 per cent of all email is spam. We don’t test anti-spam at all, in fact, but just the small percentage of email that comprises targeted attacks.

In other words, these results show what can happen when attackers apply themselves to specific targets. They do not reflect a “day in the life” of an average user’s email inbox.

We have also included some ‘commodity’ email threats, though – the kind of generic phishing and social engineering attacks that affect everyone. All services ought to stop every one of these. Similarly, we included some clean emails to ensure that the services were not too aggressively configured. All services ought to allow all these through to the inbox.

So when you see results that appear to be surprising, remember that we’re testing some very specific types of attacks that happen in real life, but not in vast numbers comparable to spam or more general threats.

The way that services handle threats are varied and effective to greater or lesser degrees. To best reflect how useful their responses are, we have a rating system that accounts for their different approaches. Essentially, services that keep threats as far as possible from users will win more points than those who let the message appear in or near the inbox. Conversely, those that allow the most legitimate messages through to the inbox rate higher than those which block them without the possibility of recovery from a junk folder or quarantine.

If you spot a detail in this report that you don’t understand, or would like to discuss, please contact us via our Twitter or Facebook accounts.

SE Labs uses current threat intelligence to make our tests as realistic as possible. To learn more about how we test, how we define ‘threat intelligence’ and how we use it to improve our tests please visit our website and follow us on Twitter.
Our latest reports, for enterprisesmall business and home users are now available for free from our website. Please download them and follow us on Twitter and/or Facebook to receive updates and future reports.

Latest security tests introduce attack chain scoring

When is a security breach serious, less serious or not a breach at all?

Latest reports now online.

UPDATE (29/10/2018): This set of reports are confirmed to be compliant with AMTSO Standard v1.0 by the Anti-Malware Testing Standards Organization.


Our endpoint protection tests have always included targeted attacks.

These allow us to gauge how effectively anti-malware products, in use by millions of customers, can stop hackers from breaching your systems.

We penalise products heavily for allowing partial or full breaches and, until now, that penalisation has been the same regardless of how deeply we’ve been able to penetrate into the system. Starting with this report we have updated our scoring to take varying levels of ‘success’ by us, the attackers, into account.

The new scores only apply to targeted attacks and the scoring system is listed in detail on page eight of each of the reports.

If the attackers are able to gain basic access to a target, which means they are able to run basic commands that, for example, allow them to explore the file system, then the score is -1.

The next stage is to attempt to steal a file. If successful there is a further -1 penalty.

At this stage the attackers want to take much greater control of the system. This involves increasing their account privileges – so-called privilege escalation. Success here turns a bad situation worse for the target and, if achieved, there is an additional -2 penalty.

Finally, if escalation is achieved, certain post-escalation steps are attempted, such as running a key logger or stealing passwords. A final -1 penalty is imposed if these stages are completed, making possible scores for a breach range between -1 and -5 depending on how many attack stages are possible to complete.

We have decided not to publish exact details of where in the attack chain each product stands or falls, but have provided that detailed information to the companies who produce the software tested in this report and who have asked for it.

If you spot a detail in this report that you don’t understand, or would like to discuss, please contact us via our Twitter or Facebook accounts.

SE Labs uses current threat intelligence to make our tests as realistic as possible. To learn more about how we test, how we define ‘threat intelligence’ and how we use it to improve our tests please visit our website and follow us on Twitter.
Our latest reports, for enterprisesmall business and home users are now available for free from our website. Please download them and follow us on Twitter and/or Facebook to receive updates and future reports.

Detected, blocked, quarantined, cleaned?

2018q2-1157895

What happens when your choice of security software handles an attack?

Latest reports now online.

It should be simple. You’ve clicked on the wrong link, opened a malicious email or installed something inadvisable. A threat is now attacking your PC and it’s up to your choice of anti-malware product to handle things.

But what does it actually do under the hood?

Detection is important. The product should recognise that a threat exists, even if it can’t fully handle it. At least you can receive an alert and seek help (or an alternative anti-malware program!)
Blocking threats is also very important. Ideally the protection system will prevent the malware from running. Sometimes that doesn’t happen and the malware runs. In that case one hopes that the security software would recognise that bad things are happening and stop them. This is what we call ‘neutralisation’.

Following a neutralisation your computer might not be completely clean. There could be some rogue code still on your hard disk, possibly even on your Desktop. There might also be entries in the Registry and elsewhere that will try to run this code (or code that has been deleted or quarantined).
You probably want your system to be protected by having threats blocked and, in cases where they are not, that they be removed as fast as possible and all significant traces removed. We call this happy state ‘complete remediation’.

In SE Labs tests we measure all of these outcomes, including the worst one: compromise.

If you want to know how the different products tested in this report handled threats in detail, check out the Protection Details table and graph on page 10 of our reports. We don’t show details of which products completely remediated threats and which did not when neutralising but the Protection Ratings on page eight take these into account.

If you spot a detail in this report that you don’t understand, or would like to discuss, please contact us via our Twitter or Facebook accounts.

SE Labs uses current threat intelligence to make our tests as realistic as possible. To learn more about how we test, how we define ‘threat intelligence’ and how we use it to improve our tests please visit our website and follow us on Twitter.

Our latest reports, for enterprise, small business and home users are now available for free from our website. Please download them and follow us on Twitter and/or Facebook to receive updates and future reports.

Big Time Crooks

federal_bureau_of_investigation_seal-8620436
When an online scam becomes too successful, the results can be farcical.

In the movie Small Time Crooks, Woody Allen leads an inept gang of would-be robbers who rent a store next to a bank. They plan to tunnel into the vault. As a cover, Allen’s girlfriend (played by Tracey Ullman) sets up a cookie business in the store. Ullman’s business takes off, and to maintain the cover the gang must set up production facilities, hire staff, find distributors, and so on.

Why is this relevant? Well, rewind to 2002. The internet had already taken off in a big way and people were pouring online as new opportunities exploded into the public consciousness. Also exploding was cybercrime, as the internet presented a new breed of tech savvy crooks with their own set of opportunities. For one gang, an Allenesque adventure was about to begin.

Humble Beginnings
How many times have you browsed a web page that suddenly throws up an alarming warning that your computer is infected and the only thing that can save you is to immediately buy a special program or call a special number? If you’re up to date with system patches and use a reputable anti-virus solution, you’re rarely in danger from such sites these days.

It was not always so.

For millions of internet users back in the day, who were running without protection, the apparent authority of such “scareware” sites made them act. They downloaded free “anti-virus” software that infected them with real malware, they parted with real cash, and many also paid again to have their computers cleaned by professionals.

computer-health-alert-large-6338481Look through the history of scareware, and one company repeatedly appears: Innovative Marketing Inc (to give it the name used in US Federal Trade Commission paperwork but also known by a wide
range of other names). Innovative was registered in Belize in 2002. Despite the appearance of being a legitimate business, its initial products were dodgy: pirated music, porn and illicit Viagra, along with sales of “grey” versions of real anti-virus products.

After Symantec and McAfee both put pressure on the company to stop those software sales in 2003, Innovative tried to write its own. The resulting Computershield wasn’t effective as anti-virus protection, but the company sold it anyway as a defence against the MyDoom worm. Innovative aggressively marketed its new product, and according to press reports, it was soon raking in $1 million per month. As the threat from MyDoom receded, so too did profits.

The company initially turned to adware as a new revenue source. This enabled so-called “affiliates” to use malicious web sites to silently install the adware on vulnerable Windows computers. Getting victims to visit those sites was achieved by placing what looked like legitimate adverts on real sites. Click them, and you became infected. The affiliates then pocketed a fee of 10 cents per infection, but it’s through that Innovative made between $2 and $5 from sales of the advertised products.

Meanwhile, development of completely fake anti-virus software snowballed at the company’s Kiev office. A classic example is “XP Antivirus 2008”, though it also went by a large number of pseudonyms and evolved through many versions. A video of it trashing an XP machine can be found here. Its other major names include Winfixer, WinAntivirus, Drivecleaner, and SystemDoctor.

In many ways, Innovative’s scareware was, well, innovative. It disabled any legitimate protection and told you the machine was heavily infected, even going to the trouble of creating fake blue screens of death. At the time, some antivirus companies had trouble keeping up with the rate of development.

xp2bantivirus2b2008-7843602

Attempts to access Windows internet or security settings were blocked. The only way of “cleaning” the machine was to register the software and pay the fee. Millions of people did just that. The FTC estimates that between 2004 and 2008, the company and its subsidiaries raked in $163 million.

In 2008, a hacker with the handle NeoN found a database belonging to one of the developers, revealing that in a single week one affiliate made over $158,000 from infections.

The Problem of Success
Initially, Innovative used banks in Canada to process the credit card transactions of its victims, but problems quickly mounted as disgruntled cardholders began raising chargebacks. These are claims made to credit card companies about shoddy goods or services.

With Canadian banks beginning to refuse Innovative’s business, it created subsidiary companies to hide its true identity, and approached the Bank of Kuwait and Bahrain. Trouble followed, and in 2005 this bank also stopped handling Innovative’s business due to the high number of chargebacks. Eventually, the company found a Singaporean bank called DBS Bank to handle the mounting backlog of credit card transactions.

The only solution to the chargeback problem was to keep customers happy. So, in true Allenesque style, Innovative began to invest in call centres to help customers through their difficulties. It quickly opened facilities in Ukraine, India and the USA. Operatives would talk the customers through the steps needed for the software to miraculously declare their systems free of malware. It seems that enough customers were satisfied to allow the company to keep on raking in the cash.

But people did complain, not to the company but to the authorities. The FTC received over 3,000 complaints in all and launched an investigation. Marc D’Souza has been convicted of his role in the company and ordered to pay £8.2 million, along with his father who received some of the money. The case of Kristy Ross for her part in the scam is still going through the US courts, with lawyers arguing that she was merely an employee.

Several others, including Shaileshkumar “Sam” Jain and Bjorn Daniel Sundin, are still at large, and have had a $163 million judgement entered against them in their absence. Jain and Sundin remain on the FBI’s Most Wanted Cyber Criminal list with rewards for their arrests totalling $40,000.

shaileshkumar-p-jain-3887344 bjorn-daniel-sundin-8778038

An Evergreen Scam
Scareware is a business model that rewards creativity while skirting the bounds of legality. Unlike ransomware, where criminal gangs must cover their tracks with a web of bank accounts and Bitcoin wallets, scareware can operate quite openly from countries with under-developed law enforcement and rife corruption. However, the gap between scareware and ransomware is rapidly closing.

peteris-sahurovs-in-us-federal-court-for-cybercrime-5312054Take the case of Latvian hacker Peteris Sahurovs, AKA “Piotrek” AKA “Sagade”. He was arrested on an international arrest warrant in Latvia in 2011 for his part in a scareware scam, but he fled to Poland where he was subsequently detained in 2016.

He was extradited to the US and pled guilty in February this year to making $150,000 – $200,000.  US authorities claim the total made by Sahurovs’ gang was closer to $2 million. He’s due to be sentenced in June.

According to the Department of Justice, the Sahurovs gang set up a fake advertising agency that claimed to represent a US hotel chain. Once adverts were purchased on the Minneapolis Star Tribune’s website, they were quickly swapped out for ones that infected vulnerable visitors with their malware. This made computers freeze and produce pop-ups explaining that victims needed to purchase special antivirus software to restore proper functionality. This case is interesting as it shows a clear cross over from scareware to ransomware. All data on the machines was scrambled until the software was purchased.

The level of sophistication and ingenuity displayed by scareware gangs is increasing, as is their boldness. You have probably been called by someone from India claiming to be from Microsoft, expressing concern that your computer is badly infected and offering to fix it. Or they may have posed as someone from your phone company telling you that they need to take certain steps to restore your internet connection to full health. There are many variations on the theme. Generally, they want you to download software that confirms their diagnosis. Once done, you must pay them to fix the problem. This has led to a plethora of amusing examples of playing the attackers at their own game.

It’s easy to see the people who call you as victims of poverty with no choice but to scam, but string them along for a while and the insults soon fly. They know exactly what they’re doing, and from the background chatter on such calls, so do hundreds of others. Scareware in all its forms is a crime that continues to bring in a lot of money for its perpetrators and will remain a threat for years to come.

Are you buying solid protection or snake oil?

2018q1epp-9559512
Sometimes testers need to be tested too. We’re always up for a challenge!
Latest reports now online.
How do you know which security products to buy? Many rely on independent tests to help in the decision-making process. But how do you know if a test is any good or not?
The Anti-Malware Testing Standards Organization (AMTSO) has been working to create a Standard that will give you, the customer, some assurance that the test was conducted fairly.
Earlier this year AMTSO has been trying out its Standard, which it has been working on for many months. SE Labs is proud to be involved in this initiative and the testing for this report has been assessed for compliance with the Standard.
If that sounds a bit dry, what it means is that there are experimental rules about how a tester should behave and we have put ourselves up for judgment by AMTSO.
Did participating in this process change the way we worked? Yes, but not in the technical ways that we test. Instead we turned the testing world’s business model on its head.
Many testers charge vendors money to be tested. Some will test regardless, but charge money if the vendors want to see their results before publication (and have the opportunity to make requests for corrections).
We think that the dispute process should be free for all. SE Labs has not charged any vendor for its participation in this test and we provided a free dispute process to any vendor that requested it. In this way every vendor is treated as equally as possible, for the fairest possible test.

UPDATE (10th May 2018): We are extremely proud to announce that our 2018 Q1 reports have been judged compliant (PDF) with the AMTSO Draft Standard v6.1 – 2018-05-10.

If you spot a detail in this report that you don’t understand, or would like to discuss, please contact us via our Twitter or Facebook accounts.
SE Labs uses current threat intelligence to make our tests as realistic as possible. To learn more about how we test, how we define ‘threat intelligence’ and how we use it to improve our tests please visit our website and follow us on Twitter.
Our latest reports, for enterprise, small business and home users are now available for free from our website. Please download them and follow us on Twitter and/or Facebook to receive updates and future reports.

Predictably Evil

pmr-1176337

A common criticism of computer security products is that they can only protect against known threats. When new attacks are detected and analysed security companies produce updates based on this new knowledge. It’s a reactive approach that can provide attackers with a significant window of opportunity.

It’s why anti-virus has been declared dead on more than one occasion.

Latest report now online.

Security companies have, for some years, developed advanced detection systems, often labelled as using ‘AI’, ‘machine learning’ or some other technical-sounding term. The basic idea is that past threats are analysed in deep ways to identify what future threats might look like. Ideally the result will be a product that can detect potentially bad files or behaviour before the attack is successful.

(We wrote a basic primer to understanding machine learning a couple of years ago.)

So does this AI stuff really work? Is it possible to predict new types of evil software? Certainly investors in tech companies believe so, piling hundreds of millions of funding dollars into new start-ups in the cyber defence field.

We prefer lab work to Silicon Valley speculation, though, and built a test designed to challenge the often magical claims made by ‘next-gen’ anti-malware companies.

With support from Cylance, we took four of its AI models and exposed them to threats that were seen in well-publicised attacks (e.g. WannaCry; Petya) months and even years later than the training that created the models.

It’s the equivalent of sending an old product forward in time and seeing how well it works with future threats. To find out how the Cylance AI models fared, and to discover more about how we tested, please download our report for free from our website.

Follow us on Twitter and/ or Facebook to receive updates and future reports.

Hacked! Will your anti-malware protect you from targeted attacks?

2017q4-4717048

The news isn’t good. Discover your best options in our latest reports.

Latest reports now online.

Criminals routinely create ingenious scams and indiscriminate attacks designed to compromise the unlucky and, occasionally, foolish. But sometimes they focus on a specific target rather than casting a net wide in the hope of landing something interesting.

Targeted attacks can range from basic, like an email simply asking you to send some money to an account, through to extremely devious and technical. If you received an email from your accountant with an attached PDF or Excel spreadsheet would you open it?

Most would and all that then stands between them and a successful hack (because the email was a trick and contained a dodgy document that gives remote control to the attacker) is the security software running on their PC.

In this test we’ve included indiscriminate, public attacks that come at victims from the web and via email, but we’ve also included some devious targeted attacks to see how well-protected potential victims would be.

We’ve not created any new types of threat and we’ve not discovered and used ‘zero day’ attacks. Instead we took tools that are freely distributed online and are well-known to penetration testers and criminals alike. We used these to generate threats that are realistic representations of what someone could quite easily put together to attack you or your business.

The results are extremely worrying. While a few products were excellent at detecting and protecting against these threats many more were less useful. We will continue this work and report any progress that these companies make in improving their products.

Our latest reports, for enterprise, small business and home users are now available for free from our website. Please download them and follow us on Twitter and/or Facebook to receive updates and future reports.

100% Certifiable

food-hygiene-ratings-5244024

Whether you’re in the market for a car, hamburger or computer security product, certifications are useful. They don’t tell you how smooth the car drives, how tasty the sandwich is or how completely accurate the anti-virus software will be, but certifications indicate a general level of competence.

Latest reports now online.

In the UK new cars must be certified by the Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA), restaurants are checked for hygiene by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) and various independent testing organisations, including SE Labs, test IT security products for basic functionality.

A certification emphatically does not indicate the overall quality of a product, though. The FSA specifically states that, “The food hygiene rating is not a guide to food quality.” In other words, the food won’t make you ill, but you might not like it! Similarly, the VCA cares more about cars being made according to specification rather than how nice they look.

SE Labs has a range of available testing services. We consider certification to be the most basic type of testing. If a product claims to be able to detect malware then we can test that, but we don’t claim it can detect all types. For a higher level of understanding about a product’s capabilities so-called ‘real-world’ testing is necessary.

The report you are reading now is based on our more advanced testing, which exposes real products to live threats in a realistic environment, running on real computers on an internet-connected network.

But how can you be sure that we’re really doing that, and not just making up the figures or giving some products an unfair advantage? After all, some companies contribute financially to supporting the tests, while others do not.

To go some way to addressing this concern, as well as to improve generally and continue to evolve the business, SE Labs has achieved ISO 9001:2015 certification for “The Provision of IT Security Product Testing”. We think it’s fair for the testers to be tested and we’re very proud to have passed!
If you spot a detail in this report that you don’t understand, or would like to discuss, please contact us via our Twitter or Facebook accounts.

SE Labs uses current threat intelligence to make our tests as realistic as possible. To learn more about how we test, how we define ‘threat intelligence’ and how we use it to improve our tests please visit our website and follow us on Twitter.

Our latest reports, for enterprise, small business and home users are now available for free from our website. Please download them and follow us on Twitter and/or Facebook to receive updates and future reports.

About

SE Labs Ltd is a private, independently-owned and run testing company that assesses security products and services. The main laboratory is located in Wimbledon, South London. It has excellent local and international travel connections. The lab is open for prearranged client visits.

Contact

SE Labs Ltd
Hill Place House
55A High Street
Wimbledon
SW19 5BA

020 3875 5000

info@selabs.uk

Press