Announcement

Collapse

Attention! Please read before posting news!

We at Rage3D require that news posts be formatted in a particular way, so before you begin contributing to the front page, we ask that you study the Rage3D News Formatting Guide first.

Thanks for reading!
See more
See less

Microsoft Security Essentials Not Vulnerable to Kernel Hook Attack

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Microsoft Security Essentials Not Vulnerable to Kernel Hook Attack

    Remember when Microsoft, Symantec and McAfee went at it because Microsoft wouldn't let them have kernel access for their Anti-Virus software? This was why:

    Microsoft Security Essentials (MSE), the software giant's free antimalware solution, is one of the few products that is not affected by the recently rediscovered method for disabling security software on Windows. MSE does not use SSDT hooks, so its real-time protection cannot be disabled via this method.

    When the report was first published, we noticed that MSE was not on the list of affected products and contacted Microsoft for clarification. "Microsoft is aware of research published by Matousec and we are investigating the issue," a Microsoft spokesperson told Ars. "Based on available information, we do not believe our products are affected due to the design of our real-time protection. We are working to confirm this."

    Microsoft said someone would get back to us, but we figured it would be quicker to go straight to the source. "As we assumed, MSE does not implement any hooks and hence it can not be attacked by KHOBE technique," a Matousec spokesperson told Ars. "It might be confusing when you read various media comments on KHOBE research that mention that all antivirus products are vulnerable, but they miss the most important thing, which is that only software that implements hooking can be vulnerable. Only some antivirus products implement hooks but many antivirus products do not use hooks at all. The major group of software that is affected are not antivirus products but HIPS [Host Intrusion Prevention System] software, behavior blockers, various Internet Security Suites with host protection features etc."

    Update: “Microsoft has worked directly with Matousec to confirm that Microsoft Security Essentials and Forefront Client Security products are not affected by their KHOBE research due to the design of our real-time protection,” a Microsoft spokesperson eventually followed up with.

    Microsoft insists that security companies avoid using kernel patches in their software. It would be therefore rather hypocritical of Microsoft to use such hooks. Furthermore, self-defense techniques, which are usually implemented using hooks, are not common part of Microsoft's solutions. It's worth noting that Microsoft listened to security vendors and in Windows Vista and Windows 7 implemented several new documented methods to let products include self-defense mechanisms. Unfortunately, there is nothing forcing vendors to use these new methods as their old hooking-based protection still works in new versions of Windows.

    This is why the list of products affected is so lengthy. Matousec is continuing to update the list, and at the time of publishing, there were 35 vulnerable products. This is another big win for MSE, which has received very positive feedback ever since its release.


    Source - Ars Technica
    Last edited by Android1; May 13, 2010, 09:50 AM.

    #2
    MSSE FTMFW!

    Good article.

    Forwarding this to lots of people.

    Comment


      #3


      I use the MSSE on this machine, and it's soon to get put onto the others.

      Oh and since the article and the source go through great pains to avoid linking to the table of naughty security software...

      3D EQSecure Professional Edition 4.2 VULNERABLE
      avast! Internet Security 5.0.462 VULNERABLE
      AVG Internet Security 9.0.791 VULNERABLE
      Avira Premium Security Suite 10.0.0.536 VULNERABLE
      BitDefender Total Security 2010 13.0.20.347 VULNERABLE
      Blink Professional 4.6.1 VULNERABLE
      CA Internet Security Suite Plus 2010 6.0.0.272 VULNERABLE
      Comodo Internet Security Free 4.0.138377.779 VULNERABLE
      DefenseWall Personal Firewall 3.00 VULNERABLE
      Dr.Web Security Space Pro 6.0.0.03100 VULNERABLE
      ESET Smart Security 4.2.35.3 VULNERABLE
      F-Secure Internet Security 2010 10.00 build 246 VULNERABLE
      G DATA TotalCare 2010 VULNERABLE
      Kaspersky Internet Security 2010 9.0.0.736 VULNERABLE
      KingSoft Personal Firewall 9 Plus 2009.05.07.70 VULNERABLE
      Malware Defender 2.6.0 VULNERABLE
      McAfee Total Protection 2010 10.0.580 VULNERABLE
      Norman Security Suite PRO 8.0 VULNERABLE
      Norton Internet Security 2010 17.5.0.127 VULNERABLE
      Online Armor Premium 4.0.0.35 VULNERABLE
      Online Solutions Security Suite 1.5.14905.0 VULNERABLE
      Outpost Security Suite Pro 6.7.3.3063.452.0726 VULNERABLE
      Outpost Security Suite Pro 7.0.3330.505.1221 BETA VERSION VULNERABLE
      Panda Internet Security 2010 15.01.00 VULNERABLE
      PC Tools Firewall Plus 6.0.0.88 VULNERABLE
      PrivateFirewall 7.0.20.37 VULNERABLE
      Security Shield 2010 13.0.16.313 VULNERABLE
      Sophos Endpoint Security and Control 9.0.5 VULNERABLE
      ThreatFire 4.7.0.17 VULNERABLE
      Trend Micro Internet Security Pro 2010 17.50.1647.0000 VULNERABLE
      Vba32 Personal 3.12.12.4 VULNERABLE
      VIPRE Antivirus Premium 4.0.3272 VULNERABLE
      VirusBuster Internet Security Suite 3.2 VULNERABLE
      Webroot Internet Security Essentials 6.1.0.145 VULNERABLE
      ZoneAlarm Extreme Security 9.1.507.000 VULNERABLE



      I bet the Avast and Avira fanboys are sweatin bullets right now...
      Last edited by gamefoo21; May 13, 2010, 12:45 PM.
      "Curiosity is the very basis of education and if you tell me that curiosity killed the cat, I say only that the cat died nobly." - Arnold Edinborough

      Heatware

      Comment


        #4
        With way sub-90% detection rate even on top 100, you might as well be not running anything at all and be 'protected' just as well.
        :: We are all the sum of our tears.
        :: Too little and the ground is not fertile and nothing can grow there.
        :: Too much and best of us is washed away.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by daPhoenix View Post
          With way sub-90% detection rate even on top 100, you might as well be not running anything at all and be 'protected' just as well.
          If you were offered a treatment that offered sub 90% chance of preventing a fatal disease, wouldn't you take it? Which if most effective is topic of worthy discussion, and seeing as there is a free, low-resource option that has at least one unique advantage over the competition it seems obvious to include it in any shortlist.

          Comment


            #6
            Where do you get way sub 90%? On VB100 for April they missed 1 from the wild list and have been awarded the VB100 before. I've seen McAfee and Norton fail over and over and over in real life. They ALWAYS get high scores on these so-called tests.

            Ever since switching all my clients to one of the free AV's out there like Avast or AVG and now MSE, I never get calls from them because they have virii. Granted, nothing is 100% fail-safe, but from my experience, MSE does a great job. It saved my butt yesterday and I was at a totally legit site that had been compromised.

            Comment


              #7
              How would malware use this vulnerability? I mean, what would a person have to do to get something happen to them? Is it as simple as visiting a site, or do I have to download something like a noob?
              Last edited by EfrainMan; May 13, 2010, 08:50 PM.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by gamefoo21 View Post


                I use the MSSE on this machine, and it's soon to get put onto the others.

                Oh and since the article and the source go through great pains to avoid linking to the table of naughty security software...






                I bet the Avast and Avira fanboys are sweatin bullets right now...

                As an AVAST user, not really. AVAST Corporate Edition when used on a remote server (Single host server for AV, which acts as a scanning hub for 100+ PCs) it also acts as a real-time TCP/UDP/ect.. scanner for any traffic that comes in. Whats great, is it is not allowed to write to the HDD of that machine except for updates for the VDB.

                So, Home Users of AVAST, you can worry. Corporate Edition owners, not so much.
                Be a pirate.

                Comment

                Working...
                X