Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
AV-Comparatives: Enhanced Real-World Test 2019 – Enterprise
#1
Bug 
Quote:
[Image: avc-logo.png]

Introduction

Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) is a term commonly used to describe a targeted cyber-attack that employs a complex set of methods and techniques to penetrate information system(s). Different aims of such attacks could be stealing / substituting / damaging confidential information, or establishing sabotage capabilities, the last of which could lead to financial and reputational damage of the targeted organisations. Such attacks are very purposeful, and usually involve highly specialized tools. The tools employed include heavily obfuscated malicious code, the malicious use of benign system tools, and non-file-based malicious code.

In our “Enhanced Real-World Test”, we use hacking and penetration techniques that allow attackers to access internal computer systems. These attacks can be broken down into Lockheed Martin’s Cybersecurity Kill Chain, and seven distinct phases – each with unique IOCs (Indicators of Compromise) for the victims. All our tests use a subset of the TTP (Tactics, Techniques, Procedures) listed in the MITRE ATT&CK framework. A false alarm test is also included in the report.

The tests use a range of techniques and resources, mimicking malware used in the real world. Some examples of these are given here. We make use of system programs, in an attempt to bypass signature-based detection. Popular scripting languages (JavaScript, batch files, PowerShell, Visual Basic scripts, etc.) are used. The tests involve both staged and non-staged malware samples, and deploy obfuscation and/or encryption of malicious code before execution (Base64, AES). Different C2 channels are used to connect to the attacker (HTTP, HTTPS, TCP). Use is made of known exploit frameworks (Metasploit Framework, Meterpreter, PowerShell Empire, Puppy, etc.).

To represent the targeted system, we use fully patched 64-bit Windows 10 systems, each with a different AV product installed. In the enterprise test, the target user has a standard user account. In the consumer test, an admin account is targeted. For this reason and others (e.g. possibly different settings), the results of the Consumer Test should not be compared with those of the Enterprise Test.

Once the payload is executed by the victim, a Command and Control Channel (C2) to the attacker’s system is opened. For this to happen, a listener has to be running on the attacker’s side. For example, this could be a Metasploit Listener on a Kali Linux system. Using the C2 channel, the attacker has full access to the compromised system. The functionality and stability of this established access is verified in each test-case.

The test consists of 15 different attacks. In future tests, we plan to provide additional, more granular information, complexity and coverage in the public report. This test currently focuses on protection, not on detection. It is carried out completely manually.

AV Main-Test-Series vendors were given the opportunity to opt out of this test before the public test started, which is why not all vendors are included in this test.

Scope of the test

The Enhanced Real-World Test looks at how well the tested products protect against very specific targeted attack methods. It does not consider the overall security provided by each program, or how well it protects the system against malware downloaded from the Internet or introduced via USB devices. It should be considered as an addition to the Real-World Protection Test and Malware Protection Test, not a replacement for either of these. Consequently, readers should also consider the results of other tests in our Main-Test Series when evaluating the overall protection provided by any individual product. This test focuses on whether the security products protect against specific attack/exploitation techniques used in APTs. Readers who are concerned about such attacks should consider the consumer products participating in this test, whose vendors were confident of their ability to protect against these threats in the test. We expect more vendors to participate in next year’s test.
...
Full Report
[-] The following 1 user says Thank You to harlan4096 for this post:
  • dhruv2193
Reply
#2
Perfect results for Kaspersky, Eset and Bitdefender!!
[-] The following 1 user says Thank You to dhruv2193 for this post:
  • harlan4096
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
[-]
Welcome
You have to register before you can post on our site.

Username/Email:


Password:





[-]
Recent Posts
Advanced SystemCare PRO 17
Advanced SystemCare ...zevish — 10:04
How to install iOS 16 or iPadOS 16 publ...
IPhone X I Just buyi...thomasan — 08:30
Brave 1.65.114
Release Channel 1....harlan4096 — 06:53
Brave Search: Answer with AI takes over,...
Brave Search's new...harlan4096 — 06:33
Waterfox G6.0.12
Waterfox G6.0.12​ ...harlan4096 — 15:56

[-]
Birthdays
Today's Birthdays
avatar (47)oapedDow
avatar (40)Sanchowogy
Upcoming Birthdays
avatar (43)wapedDow
avatar (42)techlignub
avatar (41)Stevenmam
avatar (48)onlinbah
avatar (49)steakelask
avatar (43)Termoplenka
avatar (41)bycoPaist
avatar (47)pieloKat
avatar (41)ilyagNeexy
avatar (49)donitascene
avatar (49)Toligo
avatar (36)RobertUtelt

[-]
Online Staff
There are no staff members currently online.

>