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.

Vulnerabilities / Threats

Google Disputes Socially Engineered Malware Study

After IE9 beat Chrome on security in a report, Google says social engineering accounts for only 2% of malware found on the Web.

How Firesheep Can Hijack Web Sessions
(click image for larger view)
Slideshow: How Firesheep Can Hijack Web Sessions
In the wake of a report by an independent security testing lab that awarded top marks to Microsoft Internet Explorer 9 for its ability to stop socially engineered malware, Google fired back, alleging that such malware only accounts for 2% of malicious code found online.

That statistic comes via a new report from Google, "Trends in Circumventing Web-Malware Detection," that was compiled using four years' worth of data, gathered as part of its Safe Browsing initiative. According to Google, its Safe Browsing API, which provides a block list of suspected or known-bad URLs linked to malware and phishing attacks, results in about 3 million malware warnings daily to more than 400 million people. Firefox, Safari, and Chrome all make use of the data feed.

Google's publicizing of the report followed the release, earlier this week, of a study from independent security testing organization NSS Labs, which tested five browsers for their ability to stop socially engineered malware found in the wild. It awarded top marks to IE9, which it said successfully and quickly blocked almost 100% of all such threats, followed by Chrome (13.2%), Safari and Firefox (7.6%), and Opera (6.1%).

The Google researchers acknowledged that socially engineered malware is dangerous, and that its volume continues to increase. "Social engineering is a malware distribution mechanism that relies on tricking a user into installing malware. Typically, the malware is disguised as an antivirus product or browser plug-in," said two of the Google report's co-authors, Lucas Ballard and Niels Provos, part of the Google Security Team, in a blog post.

Even so, they said, "it's important to keep this growth in perspective--sites that rely on social engineering comprise only 2% of all sites that distribute malware."

In fact, according to their research, drive-by downloads are a much more common attack vector. In such exploits, "malicious pages install malware after exploiting a vulnerability in the browser or a plug-in," they said. Furthermore, attackers often exploit the latest vulnerabilities to help their attacks avoid detection. That said, "a prominent exception is the MDAC vulnerability which is present in most exploit kits," according to the researchers. (MDAC is a set of exploits that target ActiveX controls.)

NSS Labs appears to have predicted Google's criticism. "NSS Labs commends Google for adding some protection against socially engineered malware to Chrome," according to its report. "Further, we view the addition of this protection as evidence that even as Google's PR engine downplayed the findings of prior NSS Labs test reports, the Chrome engineering team was working hard to address this known deficiency."

While blocking socially engineered malware is important, the Google researchers emphasized that stopping Internet-borne malware in general is extremely difficult, owing to the many different ways in which computers can become infected. "The attack surface of the modern Web browser is quite large," said the Google researchers. "Web-based malware can target vulnerabilities in the browser itself, or against the myriad of plug-ins that extend the browser to handle, for example, Flash, Java applets, or PDF files. A vulnerability in any of these components may be leveraged to compromise the browser and the underlying operating system." Furthermore, malicious files can be introduced not just via compromised websites, but also through email and instant messages.

The Google research further highlights that no one defense mechanism alone will stop all malware attacks. In particular, the paper studied the four most prevalent defenses: "virtual machine client honeypots, browser emulator client honeypots, classification based on domain reputation, and antivirus engines."

According to the researchers, "our results show that none of these systems are effective in isolation." In addition, what works today may fail tomorrow, as there's an "arms race" between browser makers and attackers, who are "highly motivated and quickly adapt to technologies that try to protect users from their sites," they said.

At a full-day virtual event, InformationWeek and Dark Reading editors will talk with security experts about the causes and mistakes that lead to security breaches, both from the technology perspective and from the people perspective. It happens Aug. 25. Register now.


Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 7/6/2020
Ripple20 Threatens Increasingly Connected Medical Devices
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  6/30/2020
DDoS Attacks Jump 542% from Q4 2019 to Q1 2020
Dark Reading Staff 6/30/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Current Issue
How Cybersecurity Incident Response Programs Work (and Why Some Don't)
This Tech Digest takes a look at the vital role cybersecurity incident response (IR) plays in managing cyber-risk within organizations. Download the Tech Digest today to find out how well-planned IR programs can detect intrusions, contain breaches, and help an organization restore normal operations.
Flash Poll
The Threat from the Internetand What Your Organization Can Do About It
The Threat from the Internetand What Your Organization Can Do About It
This report describes some of the latest attacks and threats emanating from the Internet, as well as advice and tips on how your organization can mitigate those threats before they affect your business. Download it today!
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-07
An issue was discovered in Xen through 4.13.x, allowing Arm guest OS users to cause a hypervisor crash because of a missing alignment check in VCPUOP_register_vcpu_info. The hypercall VCPUOP_register_vcpu_info is used by a guest to register a shared region with the hypervisor. The region will be map...
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-07
An issue was discovered in Xen through 4.13.x, allowing x86 Intel HVM guest OS users to cause a host OS denial of service or possibly gain privileges because of insufficient cache write-back under VT-d. When page tables are shared between IOMMU and CPU, changes to them require flushing of both TLBs....
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-07
An issue was discovered in Xen through 4.13.x, allowing guest OS users to cause a host OS crash because of incorrect error handling in event-channel port allocation. The allocation of an event-channel port may fail for multiple reasons: (1) port is already in use, (2) the memory allocation failed, o...
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-07
An issue was discovered in Xen through 4.13.x, allowing Intel guest OS users to gain privileges or cause a denial of service because of non-atomic modification of a live EPT PTE. When mapping guest EPT (nested paging) tables, Xen would in some circumstances use a series of non-atomic bitfield writes...
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-07
An issue was discovered in Xen through 4.13.x, allowing x86 HVM guest OS users to cause a hypervisor crash. An inverted conditional in x86 HVM guests' dirty video RAM tracking code allows such guests to make Xen de-reference a pointer guaranteed to point at unmapped space. A malicious or buggy HVM g...