![]() |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hello,
This one : h***://<removed>/virus/picture-14.exe Bitdefender, KAV, MacAfee and Panda received a sample on 0515 like NOD32 and other AVers. KAV adds it to its DB 2 hours later, Bitdefender 8 hours later. MacAfee and Panda today. NOD32 doesnot detect it even with advanced heuristic till now. Regards, No links on this forum to malware--Ron Last edited by ronjor : May 17th, 2005 at 10:06 AM. Reason: modifiy link |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Please refrain from posting urls pointing to malicious files here. If you find a suspicious file not detected by NOD32 send it to samples@eset.com for further analysis. Also, bear in mind the following:
1. No AV scanner detects 100% of all threats in the world 2. Many other AV scanners flag also corrupted and non-functional files as infected PS: the url doesn't seem to work now |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
As you may see, I altered the URL before posting and if you replace *** by ttp, it 's still working and of course I sent a sample to samples@eset.com like to the other AVers 2 days ago. 1. Of course (see Cohen theoreme ) . The question is why some other AVers are more reactive than ESET.2. This one is no false positive nor corrupted and fully functional as you could see if you run or decompile the sample I sent to you or d/l from the rebuild address ![]() |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hello,
Now with DB 1.1100 the malware is detected. KAV detected it 2 hours after sample submission. NOD32 after 4 days... No other comment |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
It's been said numerous times here that Eset picks up signatures on a per-need basis. Worms and in-the-wild malware has the highest priority.
|
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
|
Thank You Marcos
![]()
__________________
1. The Truth is always right. 2. Every Truth is supported in agreement by every Truth. 3. If the facts would persuade you otherwise, see 1. Willtech Clean viruses free |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
FYI it's a worm ![]() |
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
|
FYI... its a trojan
|
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
It is a worm with backdoor Trojan functionality, like a lot of worms nowadays.... When first run the worm copies itself to the Windows system folder as MSNMSGRS.EXE and is run at Windows start up awaiting for commands from a remote attacker Do you mean as this worm install a backdoor it should not be considered as important for an AV/AT to detect it and protect its customers as soon as possible if they happend to get a sample ? Would it be more important in your opinion to detect a simple worm without armfull payload but just spreading in a larger scale ? |
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
|
I think what ESET are saying is that it is an IRC bot so needs USER intervention to activate and spread and they prioritize the worms that spread without user intervention and those that will infect the greatest number of people first
In an ideal world every sample would be analysed and include within minutes of being submitted, just as in the ideal world, you ring your doctor for an appointment, see him 5 minutes later and walk away cured, after one injection or pill, it just doesn't happen and you wait to see the doctor according to the priority of the illness
__________________
Derek My website http://www.thespykiller.co.uk For help with spyware & hijacking |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Hello, As most virus, trojans and other malwares, you have to click on the PE to activate it of course All the recent worms and virus do require user intervention, no recent malwares on an up to date Windows OS can activate itself without user action. The fact that it"s an IRC bot does not mean you have to run IRC to activate it ![]() What is surprising is that NOD32 is renowned for its strong heuristic and it did not catch it with advanced heuristic. Other products catched it heuristically without updating their DB. Surprising too : it takes 3 updates between submission and adding a simple sig in the DB. Also strange, no answer, even automatic after sample submission. It does not look very professional from a simple customer point of view : I knew it was a backdoor when submitting, it took me 2 minutes to verify by myself ![]() Does not seem to be "high priority" this last days for AVers, very few adding in the DBs. I know KAV is often first on the ball, but other products where updated the day after, NOD32 4 days after : that's a bad point for ESET whatever they may say about their so called priorities... |
|
#12
|
||||
|
||||
|
I will be interested to read any further discussions on this matter, I was an avid user and promoter of Nod32 once, but several instances turned me away from them and this is another example.On three occassions I forwarded a file that Kav had detected but Nod had not, I had zero feedback, and it took, on one occassion, three emails to get a response that it indeed was an infected file.
I fear they, as a company, may be resting on their laurels and believing their own hype. It is a shame, as they have the technology to 'take over the world' in an a/v stance but they seem to be more concerned polishing their VB100 awards than reacting to0 new and in the wild threats. Please prove me wrong.
__________________
A proud member of Wilders since March 2002 Last edited by Tinribs : May 18th, 2005 at 05:34 PM. |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I run both NOD32 and KAV on different machines. Seems to me KAV is starting to get behind more and more in adding detections that other AVs detect. Last piece of malware found was Trojan.DragonBot in aimbot.exe, detected by: Code:
__________________
Stan Gunn http://charterpipelinentx.net/ http://pub122.ezboard.com/fcharterpipeline9613frm1 Last edited by LowWaterMark : May 18th, 2005 at 09:51 PM. Reason: reduced long post contents to a scroll block |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yep, we've got hundreds (if not thousands) of samples detected only by NOD32 that all other AV/AS/AT have missed. But this is not the right thread for comparing NOD32 vs other AV.
|
|
#15
|
||||
|
||||
|
Do you also keep the examples detected by other a/v firms before Nod32 does? if so can we have a list?
My only example I can go on does entail the three files I provided via Marco and Jan that were (all of a sudden ) detected several days after |I admitted them, and still with zero email response until I went through wilders
__________________
A proud member of Wilders since March 2002 |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
My purpose is not to compare AV, I like and run NOD32 but to understand why a simple variant of a well known worm is not detected by advanced heuristic, why it takes so long to add a sig in the DB and why no feedback after a sample submission ? After all, I don't care about this malware, even without AV it could not infect me and even if I infected myself purposely I could clean up manually in a breeze ![]() I do think the biggest problem about NOD32 is communication with their users and never admitting that as any other product it's not perfect. |
|
#17
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
We wouldn't dare to insult your intelligence with such a claim !!!" -->HERE<--
__________________
1. The Truth is always right. 2. Every Truth is supported in agreement by every Truth. 3. If the facts would persuade you otherwise, see 1. Willtech Clean viruses free |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
They should be able to send an automatic answer, shouldn't they ? Quote:
Nobody but Viguard from TEGAM claimed such a stupidity and it is no antivirus but a blocker... BTW, saying there are other priorities than protecting against a worm installing a trojan backdoor : sneak oil too :-D Read my post : I don't say NOD32 should detect all malwares, I wonder why they don't add a sig faster and why advanced heuristic does not detect a simple variant of a well know worm. |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Just because it didn't detect this specific IRC Bot with their AH, I would still have to say that NOD32's advance heuristic is one of the best and provides some significan zero-hour detection over some of the other AVs. I suppose one could single out any AV and then show they were a bit slow on the uptake for some specific threat at times.
__________________
Stan Gunn http://charterpipelinentx.net/ http://pub122.ezboard.com/fcharterpipeline9613frm1 |
|
#20
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I have to admit that even an automatic response to submissions would be welcomed - at least then people know it has been recieved. I don't know what else specifically ESET had on their plate at the time but I'm glad that they have a system for prioritising the adding signatures - even if it doesn't always work out perfectly. I'm glad they have a specific intent to provide the best possible protection. ![]()
__________________
1. The Truth is always right. 2. Every Truth is supported in agreement by every Truth. 3. If the facts would persuade you otherwise, see 1. Willtech Clean viruses free |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
There is a system for automatic and manual submission of samples in v. 2.50. After a file has been submitted successfully, a record will appear in the Event log.
|
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
Its under early warning/Advanced, it gives you an option for Nod32 to ask if you want to submit the sample or submit the sample without asking.
|
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Seems to me but didn't check that's for submitting suspected files found by NOD32 and/or in quarantine. This file was not suspected by NOD32 => I sent it from Outlook. |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
That still doesn't confirm or acknowledge that ESET got the file.......only that it was sent by the user. How difficult would it be to have the submission email address send back an autoreply? Thousands of folks do it........why can't ESET?
|
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
The message a file has been submitted to Eset for analysis appears in the log after the server has confirmed receipt of the file.
|
| « Previous Thread | Next Thread » |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|