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 ?!
Cybersecurity Team Holiday Guide: 2019 Gag Gift Edition
Ericka Chickowski, Contributing Writer,  12/2/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Navigating the Deluge of Security Data
In this Tech Digest, Dark Reading shares the experiences of some top security practitioners as they navigate volumes of security data. We examine some examples of how enterprises can cull this data to find the clues they need.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-19647
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-09
radare2 through 4.0.0 lacks validation of the content variable in the function r_asm_pseudo_incbin at libr/asm/asm.c, ultimately leading to an arbitrary write. This allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash) or possibly have unspecified other impact via crafted input.
CVE-2019-19648
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-09
In the macho_parse_file functionality in macho/macho.c of YARA 3.11.0, command_size may be inconsistent with the real size. A specially crafted MachO file can cause an out-of-bounds memory access, resulting in Denial of Service (application crash) or potential code execution.
CVE-2019-19642
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-08
On SuperMicro X8STi-F motherboards with IPMI firmware 2.06 and BIOS 02.68, the Virtual Media feature allows OS Command Injection by authenticated attackers who can send HTTP requests to the IPMI IP address. This requires a POST to /rpc/setvmdrive.asp with shell metacharacters in ShareHost or ShareNa...
CVE-2019-19637
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-08
An issue was discovered in libsixel 1.8.2. There is an integer overflow in the function sixel_decode_raw_impl at fromsixel.c.
CVE-2019-19638
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-08
An issue was discovered in libsixel 1.8.2. There is a heap-based buffer overflow in the function load_pnm at frompnm.c, due to an integer overflow.