Kaspersky Patents Hardware-Based Antivirus

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Thankful, Feb 15, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Thankful

    Thankful Savings Monitor

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2005
    Posts:
    3,736
    Location:
    New York City
  2. xxJackxx

    xxJackxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    4,050
    Location:
    USA
    Looks interesting. I guess time will tell if it is useful.
     
  3. Chubb

    Chubb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2005
    Posts:
    1,967
    Great to see innovations from Kaspersky.
     
  4. Zombini

    Zombini Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Posts:
    469
    Classic example of a ridiculous patent where you harden the windows but leave the front door open.

    The most critical portion of the solution, the signature update process is running on the host machine outside of the device :rolleyes: So much for a hardened AV.
     
  5. aigle

    aigle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    11,047
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia/ Pakistan
    an AV running with its own processor and ram. I don't see any thing revolutionary.
     
  6. kwismer

    kwismer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2008
    Posts:
    240
    i don't see anything revolutionary either. in fact, i have my doubts whether the patent is even valid. prior art being the problem at hand, thunderbyte had av hardware back in the early 90's.

    i also recall a company called komoku, funded in part by the us government, had anti-'rootkit' hardware (the article suggests the reason for putting av in hardware was to counter 'rootkits').

    so what i think we have here is yet another example of the broken patent system.
     
  7. format_c

    format_c Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    Posts:
    116
    cool thing, I'm sure everyone must buy dedicated CPU for KAV to don't slow down too weak 4-cores i7 based system. :D
     
  8. Nebulus

    Nebulus Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2007
    Posts:
    1,582
    Location:
    European Union
    Like most of the software related patents, this patent brings nothing new. And, yes, you remember correctly, thunderbyte DID have hardware AV in the 90's :)
     
  9. Meriadoc

    Meriadoc Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Posts:
    2,642
    Location:
    Cymru
    Awarded to Oleg Zaitsev - AVZ developer.
     
  10. Pleonasm

    Pleonasm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Posts:
    1,201
  11. kwismer

    kwismer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2008
    Posts:
    240
    actually it's not that similar at all. the symantec example you're referencing is a hardware appliance. not unlike a firewall appliance, it's a complete computer that sits in a rack with other similar appliances and servers. 3rd parties can (and have) make scanner appliances - it's just a dedicated box.

    this av hardware, on the other hand, is almost certainly on a card that goes inside an individual computer - it sounds like it sits between the harddisk and the bus.
     
  12. Pleonasm

    Pleonasm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Posts:
    1,201
    Note, however, that the Kaspersky device is described as “an actual separate computer running an embedded AV application” with “its own CPU and memory.” Whether the form factor is a card or an external box, the similarity to the old Symantec concept seems high -- except, as previously noted, that the focus is on the individual PC.
     
  13. kwismer

    kwismer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2008
    Posts:
    240
    modern video cards have their own cpus and memory too - that doesn't really make them computers.
     
  14. AvinashR

    AvinashR Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2009
    Posts:
    2,060
    Location:
    New Delhi Metallo β-Lactamase 1
    Let see how this technology protect users...
     
  15. Pleonasm

    Pleonasm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Posts:
    1,201
    Kwismer, it’s a matter of perspective. My only point is that the underlying thrust of the Kaspersky patent seems to be essentially a recycling and reapplication of an old idea from a corporate environment to a personal PC environment. Yes, of course, there are differences. But, fundamentally, my viewpoint is that the level of true innovation for the Kaspersky patent appears to be fairly low.

    Unlike Symantec’s Integrated Gateway Security Appliance, my understanding is that the Kaspersky device doesn’t actually exist -- and, it may never exist. If Symantec abandoned the concept of a hardware-based anti-virus device years ago, they may have learned a lesson that Kaspersky is yet to discover. Time will tell.
     
  16. kwismer

    kwismer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2008
    Posts:
    240
    there are many gateway scanning appliances - i'm not sure if symantec abandoned theirs or why they would.

    that said, they are similar only in a very abstract sense. thunderbyte's hardware av and komoku's copilot (hardware based anti-'rootkit' card) are closer analogs.

    whichever way you slice it, though, i think we agree that kaspersky is not covering new ground here.
     
  17. YeOldeStonecat

    YeOldeStonecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2005
    Posts:
    2,345
    Location:
    Along the Shorelines somewhere in New England
    The Symantec Internet Security appliance isn't even related to the KAV product at all.

    The Symantec Internet Security appliance is simply a Unified Threat Management gateway appliance, of which there are many many other different brands, Cisco, Juniper, Sonicwall, Fortinet, Netgear, DLink, Linksys/Cisco, (many others)..as well as open sourced ones....Untangle, Endian , ClarkConnect, ClearOS, etc. There are basically edge firewall appliances that run on x86 hardware, have a NIC (or 2)..and scan all HTTP and SMTP/POP/FTP traffic for malware. Thus protection from threats coming in through web based traffic.

    They're used as an added layer of protection, not to replace an antivirus on the local desktop/server.
     
  18. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    I assume a device of this sort would require its own device drivers. The potential benefits are that one would require less kernel patching (or none at all), thereby possibly completely bypassing technologies like PatchGuard. Also, a hardware-based product means the termination of the scanner modules will be impossible unless one manages to corrupt the driver or the hardware.

    With some modifications, it could actually be made to work for network access too.

    However, I think this is not commercially viable, simply because of the lack of a target market. The product will be too expensive for home/SMB use, and large businesses already have gateway appliances in place (on top of regular AV/AS/Anti-whatever applications and filters of all sorts).
     
  19. kmr1685

    kmr1685 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Posts:
    62
    " (on top of regular AV/AS/Anti-whatever applications and filters of all sorts)."

    one offtopic: i really like this line especially anti-whatever word. i think this is going to be technology of tommorow ;)
     
  20. steve1955

    steve1955 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Posts:
    1,384
    Location:
    Sunny(in my dreams)Manchester,England
    Love some of the posts in this thread:-not only is everybody now a expert on AV technology but they are now experts regarding patent law!:-If it wasn't a "new idea" and just built on past ideas believe me a patent wouldn't have been granted:-when you apply you have to prove it is "new"
     
  21. xxJackxx

    xxJackxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    4,050
    Location:
    USA
    Maybe someday hardware based AV will be a microchip from different vendors that plugs into a little slot on an SSD. Or maybe I just gave away an idea for someone else to patent. o_O
     
  22. kwismer

    kwismer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2008
    Posts:
    240
    in a perfect world you'd be right, but we don't live in a perfect world. there are many examples of patents that have been issued that shouldn't have been. in some cases those patents have been subsequently invalidated upon review. the fact that there is an official process for revoking patents shows that the phenomenon of bad patents is well known.

    as for proving something is new - think about how you do that. you have to prove that no one ever came up with the idea before. do you know what they say about proving a negative? it can't be done.
     
  23. steve1955

    steve1955 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Posts:
    1,384
    Location:
    Sunny(in my dreams)Manchester,England
    A patent will not be granted unless proof of the idea being new is absolute,it will be given a "pending" status and can be challenged and rescinded if any doubt exists,and don't worry if any other ant-malware company thought it used any of their ideas they would be in there like a shot! ideas that do not have to have been patented but timeline proof is needed to prove the idea has been "stolen"
    In fact a "granted" patent can be revoked if such a challenge is brought with proof to back it
     
  24. kwismer

    kwismer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2008
    Posts:
    240
    just to highlight the internal inconsistencies in your own statement:
    1) a patent will only be granted if accompanied by absolute proof of newness
    2) a granted patent can be revoked if newness can be proven false

    if newness can be proven false, then the absolute proof of newness needed to grant the patent in the first place wasn't so absolute after all.

    (this is ignoring the fact that i mentioned earlier about proving newness being impossible, since it reduces to proving a negative)
     
  25. steve1955

    steve1955 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Posts:
    1,384
    Location:
    Sunny(in my dreams)Manchester,England
    subsequently proven to be not a new idea,sorry:-by a third party coming forward with timeline proof:even you can challenge this patent if you have proof(which you seem to think you have)that it is only advance on past ideas and not new,even if you're not the owner of the original idea,but that makes proving the timeline,unless very much earlier,a little complex unless you have access to records of the original developers notes:-if this idea is at all related to the ones already mentioned in this thread then no way would a patent have been granted as these things are pretty common knowledge:-do you think symantec would sit on their hands and let this happen unless of course only members of wilders forum have heard of this patent and the rest of the anti-malware community have yet to hear about it?
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.