Cylance Launches Next-Gen Endpoint Security for Consumers

Leave it to Cylance "to hook" their endpoint offerings. Wouldn't expect anything else from the outfit.

http://www.securityweek.com/cylance-launches-next-gen-endpoint-security-consumers

 

I am not sure what your point is. This is for current endpoint companies using Cylance. It only makes sense that they would offer this. I know a ton of companies that allow their employees to access there networks from home computers. Which could infect the company.
They are not targeting all normal home users.

 

Symantec does the same thing for their corp. and gov. endpoint customers. The difference is they don't charge extra for it

 

+1 , you shouldn't pay to add endpoints. Cylance is more BS than ever; and now with the appearance of AI malware, i will love to see the result

 

What I meant is that employees of corp. and gov. organizations that use Symantec Endpoint can install same on their home PC's w/o additional charge to the organization. This also includes the employee's immediate family members devices in the same household.

 

Cylance will be launching a home-user version of CylancePROTECT to the general public in 2018. They are going after the home-user market. This move is the first part of their home-user version rollout.

 

I was using CylancePROTECT all last year and I am a home user. Maybe they are taking out one of their partners.

CylancePROTEC​

 

yes i know. I used SEP before.

 

They are making changes to the product specifically for home-users. MalwareManaged is bust for home users. Cybrforce is the only channel seller that remains.

 

And so this new product will no longer be managed online with Cylance policies? It will be completely controlled by the home user?

 

From the infos I have been given the home-user will have no control whatsoever.

 

Think along the lines of AV products with a behavior blocker that can't be configured by the user. I really expect a high FP ratio with the home version since the user will not be able to override Cylance's probabilistic determination threshold which I suspect is around 90%.

 

Sounds very exciting, I believe AI should be used as an addition to AV's based on signatures, I mean why not. I don't know why guest is being so skeptical.

This sounds less exciting. I also wonder if it needs to be connected to the cloud or not, if so it would be a deal breaker.

 

One of their ongoing claims is that no cloud connection is required. That is the basis of the "after-holiday" test they formulated with one of the test labs. A user that returns from a 7-day holiday during which the PC was turned off during the 7 days is fully protected immediately upon turning the system on - no cloud connection required. They state their mathematical algorithms require no networking.

 

I'm betting its a pure signatureless BB AV system. No cloud - and this is hardly next generation AV technology.

 

Because im skeptical already about AVs, next gen stuff are just AVs with better algorithms, so the issue is still the same to me.
Since they need to "analyze" the code and give a response positive or negative, they will eventually get bypassed, i prefer deny-default solutions; no stress, block all because i want it.

 

Signature-based AV is kind of a backup. I mean it works as long as it can identify and contain a known threat. Its useless to counter a zero day threat.

 

These programs called Next-Gen is a lie.

 

So if you develop a Next-Gen program and sells it I'm suppose to call that a lie too, right?

 

Yes, I'm also skeptical about AV's but not because of their detection rates. And the end of the day it's always cool to have a product that tries to identify malware via signature and/or heuristics.

It hasn't got anything to do with default deny, you can't compare the two, at least not when exploits are not involved. Fact of the matter is, when you download some app, you never really know if it's malware or not, that's why I ended up with HIPS/BB. They don't care about if a tool is legit or not, they will always alert about possibly dangerous or non-common behavior.

 

That sounds good to me. But I'm sure there must be some form of user control. For example if Cylance generates a false positive, which is probably their biggest problem from what I've read. You surely must be able to make a white-list. Let's see if they can really pull this off, and convince consumers they are better than current security suites. Or perhaps they can market themselves as an addition to consumer AV's.

 

That's also my assessment of them.

As I have stated a couple of times in Wilders, AV vendors will "in mass" shift to the AI algorithms when "the test of time" has shown them superior to signature detection. Maintaining a constant updated database of signatures is a costly process and any business will want to reduce costs as long as existing product quality can be maintained.

 

when i download a soft, i check its hash checksum on the vendor site , then compare it to the installer one (via Hashtab) , if my installer hash isn't the same, i dont install
I dont need any AV to give a me result, i just manually do what AVs do , and it is free.

 

So do you check the firmware update from MS after separately downloading it to make sure the hash checksum is ok or do you trust that the downloading from the developer site should be ok? As you are aware the firmware can be a separate download besides the automatic download.

 

i trust nothing, in the past Linux Mint download server was hacked, the legit installer was replaced by one containing a rootkit, thousands downloaded and installed it; luckily it was spotted very early, some guys surely checked the hash and saw the fraud.
I do the same, i download > i check > compare > and act depending the result.
also i have a good understanding of my system behavior, since it is a static system, i can feel when something is acting unusually.