K9 Web Protection w/Malware Rules?

Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by Mayahana, Jan 7, 2015.

  1. 142395

    142395 Guest

    Could you at least show what this browser was?
    k9 usually block all bypass attempt, and it worked at least with IE, Chrome, Fx, Dragon, and old Opera (12.x) on Win7x64.
    If that is true, it can be bug or such.
    Though it seems they surely combine some known blacklist, their reputation system is their own. Some webmaster reported that they saw some bots from Bluecoat just like Trend once did. And "suspicious" detection don't rely on known blacklist, but probably by heuristics and reputation.
    I don't see much need to enable Hacking category. Those website just provides potentially harmful software but it can't harm you unless the site is compromised or you misuse those hacking tools. If those sites were compromised it will be listed in Spyware/Malware sources or Suspicious as those categorization is not exclusive, IOW one website can have multiple category assigned.
     
  2. @142395 That is what I thought also, but in the 'test' trend compared it together with the malware category, that is why I said 'suggest'.
     
  3. Mayahana

    Mayahana Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2014
    Posts:
    2,220
    I agree, I think 'hacking' should be added because of a potential of hacking products, and websites actually being 'questionable'.
     
  4. NormanF

    NormanF Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    Posts:
    2,882
    If you wall off Internet domains that host and distribute malware, that's pretty good enough already.

    In the unlikely event a malicious payload is dropped or injected from a safe website, your security software should be able to stop the process from running.
     
  5. Mayahana

    Mayahana Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2014
    Posts:
    2,220
    Not entirely true. A lot of domains don't normally host malware, but become hijacked, and then host it. If simply walling off the most common ones was a enough then any old host file or UTM config would fix it without any updates. That's not the case. The best solution IMO is a combination of URL/IP listings, and Fingerprint/DNA, something like Trend, and now AhnLab's are doing. That way you have the database, and then additional protection from the DNA of malware authors and website traits themselves.
     
  6. NormanF

    NormanF Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    Posts:
    2,882
    Phishblock lists all the hosts URLS of all known malware sites and blocks them at the source. If K-9 is the primary layer of protection, Phishblock can make it even stronger.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.