Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Application Security

2/13/2015
06:25 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Antivirus Tools Slow To Respond To New Threats, Another Study Confirms

A 10-month study of four scanning tools by Damballa highlights some familiar weaknesses.

A new study by security vendor Damballa hammers home yet again why companies that rely solely on antivirus technologies as a first line of defense against new malware threats are making a mistake.

Between January and October last year, the company tested four popular antivirus tools to see how quickly they would detect files that had already been identified as malicious by Damballa using its threat detection service.

On average, 70 percent of malware threats remained undetected by the AV products one hour after Damballa had identified them as malicious and 34 percent were able to slip past the AV products even 24 hours later. Seven percent of the malware products detected by Damballa did not have an AV signature a full month later and in some cases malware files remained undetected for more than six months.

For its study, Damballa says it systematically kept rescanning files that were missed by the AV tools to see how long it would take for the files to be detected as malicious. In the real world, each file would have been scanned just once, which means that a lot of malicious code is able to penetrate enterprise networks before AV tools are able to detect and block them.

As a vendor of a malware detection service, Damballa may have a stake in playing up deficiencies in AV technology. But concerns about the effectiveness of signature-based malware detection tools in blocking new threats are certainly not new.

In a similar exercise last year, malware researchers at Lastline Labs studied just how quickly AV tools could detect new malware threats. The researchers studied the tools for one full year and discovered that on any given day, new malware slips past 50 percent of virus scanners. Even after two months, one-third of all antivirus scanners failed to detect much of malware samples. Detection rates on average tended to increase sharply in about two weeks after a new malware sample is released suggesting a "common lag time" for antivirus vendors, Lastline had noted.

Over the period of the year-long study, not one antivirus scanner had a single day in which it caught every new malware sample, according to Lastline. The study showed that while antivirus technology is not dead, it is having an increasingly hard time keeping up with threats.

The numbers are disturbing considering the huge volume of malware threats hitting enterprise networks on a daily basis said Damballa CTO Brian Foster.

He pointed to recent research conducted by Ponemon Research on behalf of Damballa showing how businesses on average receive nearly 17,000 malware alerts each week or roughly 2,340 alerts daily. More than 80 percent of these alerts are typically filtered out as being unreliable or as false alerts and just about 4 percent of the alerts are actually investigated by security teams.

The sheer volume of potentially malicious files hitting enterprises daily and the relative slowness with which AV tools are able to spot these files puts enterprises at risk because it means malware is dwelling in their networks undetected for long periods, he said.

The massive intrusion at Target in 2013 is a prime example of this. The retailer has acknowledged that it could have prevented the intrusion had it paid more attention to the numerous alerts being generated by its malware detection systems. According to the company, its security team ignored the alerts on the assumption that the alerts were unreliable.

The shortcomings of signature-based antivirus tools have prompted security analysts to call for multilayered defenses to detect and block threats at the perimeter and inside the network. Though many consider AV products as inadequate against new threats they still advocate its use in blocking known threats.  However, companies should consider complementing the products with other approaches such as dynamic sample analysis and network anomaly detection, Lastline had noted.

Jai Vijayan is a seasoned technology reporter with over 20 years of experience in IT trade journalism. He was most recently a Senior Editor at Computerworld, where he covered information security and data privacy issues for the publication. Over the course of his 20-year ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
anon9140472277
50%
50%
anon9140472277,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/16/2015 | 10:17:16 AM
Antiviruses today say that normal programs are malicious
Antiviruses today say that normal programs are malicious, and say that Trojan files are ok. I saw scientific applications made in Visual Basic 6.0 that were included in the malware category (and that was not the case). It is a disgrace what is happening!

Do you know when your browser filter or your antivirus says: this file can harm your computer ? Well, people began to understand that these are false alarm signals. Because of this problem, no one trusts the browser filter and the antivirus (for a good reason). The problem arose from the moment VirusTotal appeared. All security companies take their files from there, and this is something totally wrong, because the files are uploaded by users like you and me ! Antivirusteams are like sheep, if one says that a file is suspect, then everyone says that the file is a virus or suspect. 

They do this so they don't lose the so-called "detection rate". That is why over ~90% of the files they detect as malware, they are in fact clean files, belonging to different legit software companies or belonging to you or me. So when your browser or antivirus tells you that the file "x" is infected, you should not listen to it. I've given up Google Chrome (mainly due to so called "malware" filters) and all antivirus software because these have told me that my programs (just compiled) were a threat to my computer. That is stupid, how can you interdict me to download my own statistical software because it might harm my computer ?!
How Attackers Infiltrate the Supply Chain & What to Do About It
Shay Nahari, Head of Red-Team Services at CyberArk,  7/16/2019
US Mayors Commit to Just Saying No to Ransomware
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  7/16/2019
The Problem with Proprietary Testing: NSS Labs vs. CrowdStrike
Brian Monkman, Executive Director at NetSecOPEN,  7/19/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Building and Managing an IT Security Operations Program
As cyber threats grow, many organizations are building security operations centers (SOCs) to improve their defenses. In this Tech Digest you will learn tips on how to get the most out of a SOC in your organization - and what to do if you can't afford to build one.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-12551
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-22
In SweetScape 010 Editor 9.0.1, improper validation of arguments in the internal implementation of the Memcpy function (provided by the scripting engine) allows an attacker to overwrite arbitrary memory, which could lead to code execution.
CVE-2019-12552
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-22
In SweetScape 010 Editor 9.0.1, an integer overflow during the initialization of variables could allow an attacker to cause a denial of service.
CVE-2019-3414
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-22
All versions up to V1.19.20.02 of ZTE OTCP product are impacted by XSS vulnerability. Due to XSS, when an attacker invokes the security management to obtain the resources of the specified operation code owned by a user, the malicious script code could be transmitted in the parameter. If the front en...
CVE-2019-10102
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-22
tcpdump.org tcpdump 4.9.2 is affected by: CWE-126: Buffer Over-read. The impact is: May expose Saved Frame Pointer, Return Address etc. on stack. The component is: line 234: "ND_PRINT((ndo, "%s", buf));", in function named "print_prefix", in "print-hncp.c". Th...
CVE-2019-10102
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-22
aubio 0.4.8 and earlier is affected by: null pointer. The impact is: crash. The component is: filterbank. The attack vector is: pass invalid arguments to new_aubio_filterbank. The fixed version is: after commit eda95c9c22b4f0b466ae94c4708765eaae6e709e.