Senin, 08 Juni 2009

Conficker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Conficker
Common name Conficker
Aliases
Classification Unknown
Type Computer worm
Subtype Computer virus

Conficker, also known as Downup, Downadup and Kido, is a computer wormMicrosoft Windows operating system that was first detected in November 2008.[1] The worm uses a combination of advanced malware techniques which has made it difficult to counter, and has since spread rapidly into what is now believed to be the largest computer worm infection since the 2003 SQL Slammer.[2] targeting the

Contents

[hide]

[edit] History

Name

The origin of the name Conficker is thought to be a portmanteau of the term "configure" with German word Ficker, which means "fucker."[3][4] On the other hand, Microsoft analyst Joshua Phillips described the name as a rearrangement of portions of the domain name trafficconverter.biz,[5] which was used by early versions to download updates.

Discovery

The first variant of Conficker, discovered in early November 2008, propagated through the Internet by exploiting a vulnerability in a network service (MS08-067) on Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows Server 2003, Windows Server 2008, and Windows Server 2008 R2 Beta.[6]. While Windows 7 may have been affected by this vulnerability, the Windows 7 Beta was not publicly available until January 2009. Although Microsoft released an emergency out-of-band patch[7] a large number of Windows PCs (estimated at 30%) remained unpatched as late as January 2009.[8] A second variant of the worm, discovered in December 2008, added the ability to propagate over LANs through removable media and network shares.[9] Researchers believe that these were decisive factors in allowing the worm to propagate quickly: by January 2009, the estimated number of infected computers ranged from almost 9 million[10][11][12] to 15 million.[13] Antivirus software vendor Panda Security[14] on October 23, 2008 to close the vulnerability, reported that of the 2 million computers analyzed through ActiveScan, around 115,000 (6%) were infected with Conficker.

Recent estimates of the number of infected computers have been more notably difficult because of changes in the propagation and update strategy of recent variants of the worm.[15]

Impact in Europe

Intramar, the French Navy computer network, was infected with Conficker on 15 January 2009. The network was subsequently quarantined, forcing aircraft at several airbases to be grounded because their flight plans could not be downloaded.[16]

The United Kingdom Ministry of Defence reported that some of its major systems and desktops were infected. The worm has spread across administrative offices, NavyStar/N* desktops aboard various Royal Navy warships and Royal Navy submarines, and hospitals across the city of Sheffield reported infection of over 800 computers.[17][18]

On 2 February 2009, the Bundeswehr, the unified armed forces of the Federal Republic of Germany reported that about one hundred of their computers were infected.[19]

A memo from the British Director of Parliamentary ICT informed the users of the House of Commons on 24 March 2009 that it had been infected with the worm. The memo, which was subsequently leaked, called for users to avoid connecting any unauthorized equipment to the network.[20]

On 29 May 2009, the University of Southampton's central Windows servers were affected by an outbreak of the virus, causing campus-wide disruption including software license control, corporate applications, student workstations, Internet access, and central notification of fire alarms. The computing department's systems had been patched, and thus not directly affected.

Operation

Although almost all of the advanced malware techniques used by Conficker have seen past use or are well-known to researchers, the worm's combined use of so many has made it unusually difficult to eradicate.[21] The worm's unknown authors are also believed to be tracking anti-malware efforts from network operators and law enforcement and have regularly released new variants to close the worm's own vulnerabilities.[22][23]

Five variants of the Conficker worm are known and have been dubbed Conficker A, B, C, D and E. They were discovered 21 November 2008, 29 December 2008, 20 February 2009, 4 March 2009 and 7 April 2009, respectively.[24][25]

Variant Detection date Infection vectors Update propagation Self-defense End action
Conficker A 2008-11-21
  • NetBIOS
    • Exploits MS08-067 vulnerability in Server service[23]
  • HTTP pull
    • Downloads from trafficconverter.biz
    • Downloads daily from any of 250 pseudorandom domains over 5 TLDs[26]

None

  • Updates self to Conficker B, C or D[27]
Conficker B 2008-12-29
  • NetBIOS
    • Exploits MS08-067 vulnerability in Server service[23]
    • Dictionary attack on ADMIN$[28] shares
  • Removable media
    • Creates DLL-based AutoRun trojan on attached removable drives[9]
  • HTTP pull
    • Downloads daily from any of 250 pseudorandom domains over 8 TLDs[26]
  • NetBIOS push
    • Patches MS08-067 to open reinfection backdoor in Server service[29][30]
  • Blocks DNS lookups
  • Disables AutoUpdate
  • Updates self to Conficker C or D[27]
Conficker C 2009-02-20
  • NetBIOS
    • Exploits MS08-067 vulnerability in Server service[23]
    • Dictionary attack on ADMIN$[28] shares
  • Removable media
    • Creates DLL-based AutoRun trojan on attached removable drives[9]
  • HTTP pull
    • Downloads daily from any of 250 pseudorandom domains over 8 TLDs[26]
  • NetBIOS push
    • Patches MS08-067 to open reinfection backdoor in Server service[29][30]
    • Creates named pipe to receive URL from remote host, then downloads from URL
  • Blocks DNS lookups
  • Disables AutoUpdate
  • Updates self to Conficker D[27]
Conficker D 2009-03-04 None
  • HTTP pull
    • Downloads daily from any 500 of 50000 pseudorandom domains over 110 TLDs[26]
  • P2P push/pull
    • Uses custom protocol to scan for infected peers via UDP, then transfer via TCP[31]
  • Blocks DNS lookups[32]
    • Does an in-memory patch of DNSAPI.DLL[32] to block lookups of anti-malware related web sites
  • Disables Safe Mode[32]
  • Disables AutoUpdate
  • Kills anti-malware
    • Scans for and terminates processes with names of anti-malware, patch or diagnostic utilities at one-second intervals[33]
  • Updates self to Conficker E[27]
Conficker E 2009-04-07
  • NetBIOS
    • Exploits MS08-067 vulnerability in Server service[34]
  • NetBIOS push
    • Patches MS08-067 to open reinfection backdoor in Server service
  • P2P push/pull
    • Uses custom protocol to scan for infected peers via UDP, then transfer via TCP[31]
  • Blocks DNS lookups
  • Disables AutoUpdate
  • Kills anti-malware
    • Scans for and terminates processes with names of anti-malware, patch or diagnostic utilities at one-second intervals[35]
  • Downloads and installs malware payload:
  • Removes self on 3 May 2009 (Does not remove accompanying copy of W32.Downadup.C) [37]

Initial infection

  • Variants A, B, C and E exploit a vulnerability in the Server Service on Windows computers, in which an already-infected source computer uses a specially-crafted RPC request to force a buffer overflow and execute shellcode on the target computer.[38] On the source computer, the worm runs an HTTP server on a port between 1024 and 10000; the target shellcode connects back to this HTTP server to download a copy of the worm in DLLsvchost.exe.[30] Variants B and later may attach instead to a running services.exe or Windows Explorer process.[23] form, which it then attaches to
  • Variants B and C can remotely execute copies of themselves through the ADMIN$ share on computers visible over NetBIOS. If the share is password-protected, a dictionary attack is attempted, potentially generating large amounts of network traffic and tripping user account lockout policies.[39]
  • Variants B and C place a copy of their DLL form on any attached removable media (such as USB flash drives), from which they can then infect new hosts through the Windows AutoRun mechanism.[9]

To start itself at system boot, the worm saves a copy of its DLL form to a random filename in the Windows system folder, then adds registry keys to have svchost.exe invoke that DLL as an invisible network service.[23]

Payload propagation

The worm has several mechanisms for pushing or pulling executable payloads over the network. These payloads are used by the worm to update itself to newer variants, and to install additional malware.

  • Variant A generates a list of 250 domain names every day across five TLDs. The domain names are generated from a pseudo-random number generator[23] seeded with the current date to ensure that every copy of the worm generates the same names each day. The worm then attempts an HTTP connection to each domain name in turn, expecting from any of them a signed payload.
    • Variant B increases the number of TLDs to eight, and has a generator tweaked to produce domain names disjoint from those of A.[23]
    • To counter the worm's use of pseudorandom domain names, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and several TLDregistries began in February 2009 a coordinated barring of transfers and registrations for these domains.[40] Variant D counters this by generating daily a pool of 50000 domains across 110 TLDs, from which it randomly chooses 500 to attempt for that day. The generated domain names were also shortened from 8-11 to 4-9 characters to make them more difficult to detect with heuristics. This new pull mechanism (which was disabled until April 1)[24][33] is unlikely to propagate payloads to more than 1% of infected hosts per day, but is expected to function as a seeding mechanism for the worm's peer-to-peer network.[26] The shorter generated names, however, are expected to collide with 150-200 existing domains per day, potentially causing a distributed denial of service attack (DDoS) on sites serving those domains.[41]
  • Variant C creates a named pipe, over which it can push URLs for downloadable payloads to other infected hosts on a local area network.[33]
  • Variants B, C and E perform in-memory patches to NetBIOS-related DLLs to close MS08-067 and watch for re-infection attempts through the same vulnerability. Re-infection from more recent versions of Conficker are allowed through, effectively turning the vulnerability into a propagation backdoor.[29]
  • Variants D and E create an ad-hoc peer-to-peer network to push and pull payloads over the wider Internet. This aspect of the worm is heavily obfuscated in code and not fully understood, but has been observed to use large-scale UDP scanning to build up a peer list of infected hosts and TCP for subsequent transfers of signed payloads. To make analysis more difficult, port numbers for connections are hashed from the IP address of each peer.[31][33]

Armoring

To prevent payloads from being hijacked, variant A payloads are first SHA1-hashed and RC4-encrypted with the 512-bit hash as a key. The hash is then RSA-signed with a 1024-bit private key.[30] The payload is unpacked and executed only if its signature verifies with a public key embedded in the worm. Variants B and later use MD6 as their hash function and increase the size of the RSA key to 4096 bits.[33]

Self-defense

Variant C of the worm resets System Restore points and disables a number of system services such as Windows Automatic Update, Windows Security Center, Windows Defender and Windows Error Reporting.[42] Processes matching a predefined list of antiviral, diagnostic or system patching tools are watched for and terminated.[43] An in-memory patch is also applied to the system resolver[33] DLL to block lookups of hostnames related to antivirus software vendors and the Windows Update service.

End action

Variant E of the worm was the first to use its base of infected computers for an ulterior purpose.[36] It downloads and installs, from a web server hosted in Ukraine, two additional payloads:[44]

  • Waledac, a spambot otherwise known to propagate through e-mail attachments.[45] Waledac operates similarly to the 2008 Storm worm and is believed to be written by the same authors.[46][47]
  • SpyProtect 2009, a scareware anti-virus product.[48]

Symptoms

Response

On 12 February 2009, Microsoft announced the formation of a technology industry collaboration to combat the effects of Conficker. Organizations involved in this collaborative effort include Microsoft, Afilias, ICANN, Neustar, Verisign, China Internet Network Information Center, Public Internet Registry, Global Domains International, Inc., M1D Global, America Online, Symantec, F-Secure, ISC, researchers from Georgia Tech, The Shadowserver Foundation, Arbor Networks, and Support Intelligence.[22][51]

From Microsoft

As of 13 February 2009, Microsoft is offering a $USD250,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the individuals behind the creation and/or distribution of Conficker.[52][53][54][55][56]

From registries

ICANN has sought preemptive barring of domain transfers and registrations from all TLD registries affected by the worm's domain generator. Those which have taken action include:

  • On 13 March 2009, NIC Chile, the .cl ccTLD registry, blocked all the domain names informed by the Conficker Working Group and reviewed a hundred already registered from the worm list.[57]
  • On 24 March 2009, CIRA, the Canadian Internet Registration Authority, locked all previously-unregistered .ca domain names expected to be generated by the worm over the next 12 months.[58]
  • On 30 March 2009, SWITCH, the Swiss ccTLD registry, announced it was "taking action to protect internet addresses with the endings .ch and .li from the Conficker computer worm."[59]
  • On 31 March 2009, NASK, the Polish ccTLD registry, locked over 7,000 .plDDoS attack to legitimate domains which happen to be in the generated set.[60] domains expected to be generated by the worm over the following five weeks. NASK has also warned that worm traffic may unintentionally inflict a
  • On 2 April 2009, Island Networks, the ccTLD registry for Guernsey and Jersey, confirmed after investigations and liaison with the IANA that no .gg.je names were in the set of names generated by the worm. or

Removal and detection

Microsoft has released a removal guide for the worm, and recommends using the current release of its Malicious Software Removal Tool[61] to remove the worm, then applying the patch to prevent re-infection.[62]

Third parties

Third-party anti-virus software vendors BitDefender,[63] Enigma Software,[64]ESET,[65] F-Secure,[66] Symantec,[67] Sophos,[68], Kaspersky Lab[69] and Trend Micro[70] have released detection updates to their products and are able to remove the worm.

Automated remote detection

On 27 March 2009, Felix Leder and Tillmann Werner from the Honeynet Project discovered that Conficker-infected hosts have a detectable signature when scanned remotely.[30] The peer-to-peer command protocol used by variants D and E of the worm has since been partially reverse-engineered, allowing researchers to imitate the worm network's command packets and positively identify infected computers en-masse.[71][72]

Signature updates for a number of network scanning applications are now available including NMap[73] and Nessus.[74]

US federal agencies

The United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (CERT) recommends disabling AutoRun to prevent Variant B of the worm from spreading through removable media. Prior to the

Jumat, 16 Januari 2009

Antivirus software

Antivirus software (or anti-virus) is computer software used to identify and remove computer viruses, as well as many other types of harmful computer software, collectively referred to as malware. While the first antivirus software was designed exclusively to combat computer viruses (hence "antivirus"), modern antivirus software can protect computer systems against a wide range of malware, including worms, phishing attacks, rootkits, and Trojans.

Contents

1 History

History

See also: Timeline of notable computer viruses and worms

There are competing claims for the innovator of the first antivirus product. Perhaps the first publicly-known neutralization of a wild PC virus was performed by Bernt Fix (also Bernd) in early 1987. Fix neutralized an infection of the Vienna virus.[1] [2] The first edition of Polish antivirus software mks_vir was released in 1987; the program was only available with a Polish interface. Autumn 1988 saw antivirus software Dr. Solomon's Anti-Virus Toolkit released by Briton Alan Solomon. Also in 1988 AIDSTEST and AntiVir were released. By December 1990, the market had matured to the point of nineteen separate antivirus products being on sale including Norton AntiVirus and VirusScan from McAfee.

Peter Tippett made a number of contributions to the budding field of virus detection.[citation needed] He was an emergency-room doctor who also ran a computer software company. He had read an article about the Lehigh virus and questioned whether they would have similar characteristics to biological viruses that attack organisms. From an epidemiological viewpoint, he was able to determine how these viruses were affecting systems within the computer (the boot-sector was affected by the Brain virus, the .com files were affected by the Lehigh virus, and both .com and .exe files were affected by the Jerusalem virus). Tippett’s company Certus International Corp. then began to create anti-virus software programs. The company was sold in 1992 to Symantec Corp, and Tippett went to work for them, incorporating the software he had developed into Symantec’s product, Norton AntiVirus.[citation needed]

Before Internet connectivity was widespread, viruses were typically spread by infected floppy disks; antivirus software started to be used, but was updated relatively infrequently. At that time it was said, correctly, that viruses could not be spread by the readable content of emails, although executable attachments were as risky as programs on floppy disks. Virus checkers essentially had to check executable files, and the boot sectors of floppy and hard disks. As Internet usage became common, initially by making a modem connection when desired, viruses spread through the Internet, facilitated by powerful macros in word processors such as Microsoft Word; hitherto "documents" could not spread infection, although programs could. Later email programs, in particular Microsoft Outlook Express and Outlook, became able to execute program code from within a message's text by simply reading the message, or even previewing its content. Virus checkers now had to check many more types of file. As broadband always-on connections became the norm and more and more viruses were released, it became essential to update virus checkers more and more frequently; even then, a new virus could spread widely before it was detected, identified, a checker update released, and virus checkers round the world updated.

A very uncommon use of the term "antivirus" is to apply it to benign viruses that spread and combated malicious viruses. This was common on the Amiga computer platform.[citation needed]

Identification methods

There are several methods which antivirus software can use to identify malware. Depending on the software, more than one method may be used.

Signature based detection is the most common method that antivirus software utilizes to identify malware. To identify viruses and other malware, antivirus software compares the contents of a file to a dictionary of virus signatures. Because viruses can embed themselves in existing files, the entire file is searched, not just as a whole, but also in pieces.

Malicious activity detection is another way to identify malware. In this approach, antivirus software monitors the system for suspicious program behavior. If suspicious behavior is detected, the suspect program may be further investigated, using signature based detection or another method listed in this section. This type of detection can be used to identify unknown viruses

Heuristic-based detection is used by more advanced antivirus software. Like malicious activity detection, heuristics can be used to identify unknown viruses. This can be accomplished in one of two ways; file analysis and file emulation. File analysis is the process of searching a suspect file for virus-like instructions. For example, if a program has instructions to format the C drive, antivirus software might further investigate the file. One downside to this approach is that the computer may run slow if every file is analyzed. File emulation is another heuristic approach. File emulation involves executing a program in a virtual environment and logging what actions the program performs. Depending on the actions logged, the antivirus software can determine if the program is malicious or not and then carry out the appropriate actions.

Signature based detection

Signature based detection is the most common method that antivirus software uses to identify malware. This method is somewhat limited by the fact that it can only identify known viruses, unlike other methods.

When antivirus software scans a file for viruses, it checks the contents of a file against a dictionary of virus signatures. A virus signature is the viral code. So, saying you found a virus signature in a file is the same as saying you found the virus itself. If a virus signature is found in a file, the antivirus software can take action to remove the virus. Antivirus software will usually perform one or more of the following actions; quarantining, repairing, or deleting. Quarantining a file will make it inaccessible, and is usually the first action antivirus software will take if a malicious file is found. Encrypting the file is a good quarantining technique because it renders the file useless.

Sometimes a user wants to save the content of an infected file (because viruses can sometimes embed themselves in files, called injection.) To do this, antivirus software will attempt to repair the file. To do this, the software will try to remove the viral code from the file. Unfortunately, some viruses might damage the file upon injection, which means repairing will fail.

The third action antivirus software can take against a virus is deleting it. If a file repair operation files, usually the best thing to do is to just delete the file. Deleting the file is necessary if the entire file is a virus.

Because new viruses are being created each day, the signature based detection approach requires frequent updates of the virus signature dictionary. To assist the antivirus software companies, the software may allow the user to upload new viruses or variants to the company. There, the virus can be analyzed and the signature added to the dictionary.

Signature-based antivirus software typically examines files when the computer's operating system creates, opens, closes, or e-mails them. In this way it can detect a known virus immediately upon receipt. System administrators can schedule antivirus software to scan all files on the computer's hard disk at a set time and date.

Although the signature based approach can effectively contain virus outbreaks in the right circumstances, virus authors have tried to stay a step ahead of such software by writing "oligomorphic", "polymorphic" and, more recently, "metamorphic" viruses, which encrypt parts of themselves or otherwise modify themselves as a method of disguise, so as to not match virus signatures in the dictionary.

An emerging technique to deal with malware in general is whitelisting. Rather than looking for only known bad software, this technique prevents execution of all computer code except that which has been previously identified as trustworthy by the system administrator. By following this "default deny" approach, the limitations inherent in keeping virus signatures up to date are avoided. Additionally, computer applications that are unwanted by the system administrator are prevented from executing since they are not on the whitelist. Since modern enterprise organizations have large quantities of trusted applications, the limitations of adopting this technique rests with the system administrators' ability to properly inventory and maintain the whitelist of trusted applications. Viable implementations of this technique include tools for automating the inventory and whitelist maintenance processes.

Suspicious behavior monitoring

The suspicious behavior approach, by contrast, does not attempt to identify known viruses, but instead monitors the behavior of all programs. If one program tries to write data to an executable program, for example, the antivirus software can flag this suspicious behavior, alert a user, and ask what to do.

Unlike the signature based approach, the suspicious behavior approach therefore provides protection against brand-new viruses that do not yet exist in any virus dictionaries. However, it can also sound a large number of false positives, and users may become desensitized to the warnings. If the user clicks "Accept" on every such warning, then the antivirus software obviously gives no benefit to that user. This problem has worsened since 1997[citation needed], since many more non-malicious program designs came to modify other .exe files without regard to this false positive issue.

Heuristics

Some more sophisticated antivirus software uses heuristic analysis to identify new malware. Two methods are used; file analysis and file emulation.

As described above, file analysis is the process by which antivirus software will analyze the instructions of a program. Based on the instructions, the software can determine whether or not the program is malicious. For example, if the file contains instructions to delete important system files, the file might be flagged as a virus. While this method is useful for identifying new viruses and variants, it can trigger many false alarms.

The second heuristic approach is file emulation. By the this approach, the target file is run in a virtual system environment, separate from the real system environment. The antivirus software would then log what actions the file takes in the virtual environment. If the actions are found to be damaging, the file will be marked a virus. But again, this method can trigger false alarms.

Virus removal tools

A virus removal tool is software for removing specific viruses from infected computers. Unlike complete antivirus scanners, they are usually not intended to detect and remove an extensive list of viruses; rather they are designed to remove specific viruses, usually more effectively than normal antivirus software. Examples of these tools include McAfee Stinger and the Microsoft Malicious Software Removal Tool (which is run automatically by Windows update). Many of these tools are available for free download.

These tools can sometimes do a better job of removing a specific virus than conventional antivirus software.

Issues of concern

Performance

Some antivirus software can considerably reduce performance. Users may disable the antivirus protection to overcome the performance loss, thus increasing the risk of infection. For maximum protection, the antivirus software needs to be enabled all the time — often at the cost of slower performance (see also software bloat).

Security

Antivirus programs can in themselves pose a security risk as they often run at the 'System' level of privileges and may hook the kernel - Both of these are necessary for the software to effectively do its job but it has a major downside. This can mean exploitation of the Antivirus program itself could lead to privilege escalation and create a severe security threat. Arguably, use of Antivirus software when compared to Principle of least privilege is largely ineffective when ramifications of the added software are taken into account.

When purchasing antivirus software, the agreement may include a clause that the subscription will be automatically renewed, and the purchaser's credit card automatically billed, at the renewal time without explicit approval. For example, McAfee requires one to unsubscribe at least 60 days before the expiration of the present subscription.[3] Norton Antivirus also renews subscriptions automatically by default. [4]

Some antivirus programs are actually spyware masquerading as antivirus software. It is best to double-check that the antivirus software which is being downloaded is actually a real antivirus program.[5]

Anti-virus manufacturers have been criticised for fear mongering by exaggerating the risk that virus pose to consumers.[6]

If an antivirus program is configured to immediately delete or quarantine infected files (or does this by default), false positives in essential files can render the operating system or some applications unusable.[7]

System related issues

It is important to note that one should not have more than one memory-resident antivirus software solution installed on a single computer at any given time. Otherwise, the computer may be crippled.[8] It is sometimes necessary to temporarily disable virus protection when installing major updates such as Windows Service Packs or updating graphics card drivers.[9] Active antivirus protection may partially or completely prevent the installation of a major update.

Mobile devices

Viruses from the desktop and laptop world have either migrated to, or are assisted in their dispersal by mobile devices. Antivirus vendors are beginning to offer solutions for mobile handsets. These devices present significant challenges for antivirus software, such as processor constraints, memory constraints, and definitions and new signature updates to these mobile handsets.

Mobile handsets are now offered with a variety of interfaces and data connection capabilities. Consumers should carefully evaluate security products before deploying them on devices with a small form factor.

Solutions that are hardware-based, perhaps USB devices or SIM-based antivirus solutions, might work better in meeting the needs of mobile handset consumers. Technical evaluation and review on how deploying an antivirus solution on cellular mobile handsets should be considered as scanning process might impact other legitimate applications on the handheld.

SIM-based solutions with antivirus integrated on the small memory footprint might provide a basic solution to combat malware/viruses in protecting PIM and mobile user data. Solutions based on USB and Flash memory allow the user to swap and use these products with a range of hardware devices.

Effectiveness

Studies in December 2007 have shown that the effectiveness of Antivirus software is much reduced from what it was a few years ago, particularly against unknown or zero day threats. The German computer magazine c't found that detection rates for these threats had dropped to a frightening 20% to 30%, as compared to 40% to 50% only one year earlier. At that time only one product managed a detection rate above 50%.[10]

The problem is magnified by the changing intent of virus authors. Some years ago it was obvious when a virus infection was present. The viruses of the day, written by amateurs, exhibited destructive behavior or popped-up screen messages. Modern viruses are often written by professionals, financed by criminal organizations.[11] It is not in their interests to make their viruses or crimeware evident, because their purpose is to create botnets or steal information for as long as possible without the user realizing this; consequently, they are often well-hidden. If an infected user has a less-than-effective antivirus product that says the computer is clean, then the virus may go undetected.

Traditional antivirus software solutions run virus scanners on schedule, on demand and some run scans in real time. If a virus or malware is located the suspect file is usually placed into a quarantine to terminate its chances of disrupting the system. Traditional antivirus solutions scan and compare against a publicised and regularly updated dictionary of malware otherwise known as a blacklist. Some antivirus solutions have additional options that employ an heuristicwhitelisting, this technology first checks if the file is trusted and only questioning those that are not.[12]wisdom of crowds, antivirus solutions backup other antivirus techniques by harnessing the intelligence and advice of a community of trusted users to protect each other. By providing these multiple layers of malware protection and combining them with other security software it is possible to have more effective protection from the latest zero day attack and the latest crimeware than previously was the case with just one layer of protection. engine which further examines the file to see if it is behaving in a similar manner to previous examples of malware. A new technology utilised by a few antivirus solutions is With the addition of

Alternatives to Antivirus software

Beside antivirus software, virus infection prevention can be achieved by other means such as implementing a network firewall, or utilizing system virtualization. However, only antivirus software is designed specifically to prevent from known virus infections.

Network Firewall

Network firewalls prevent unknown programs and Internet processes from having access to the system protected; they are not antivirus systems as such, and make no attempt to identify or remove anything, but protect against infection, and limit the activity of any malicious software which is present by blocking incoming or outgoing requests on certain TCP/IP ports. Hence, it is designed to deal with broader system threats that come from network connections into the system.

System Virtualization

This method of prevention is done by virtualizing the working system. By doing so, the actual system prevents itself from being altered by any infection attempt made by viruses. In fact, it prevents from any alteration attempts to the whole system under virtualization. Such as the virtualization is, without any antivirus software the virtual system can still be infected and consequent damages or malicious actions the virus is meant to cause will still occur. But as soon as the system is shut down and restarted, all the changes and damages previously done to the virtual system will be reset. This way, the system is protected as well as the virus is removed. However, any damages to unprotected (or unvirtualized) data (usually another data drive/volume or data on the network connected to the system) will remain. So will the malicious effects it has caused such as data theft or the like.

See also

Notes