Secure Banking 1.1

While the v1.1 changelog mentions 'Weniger "False Positives" von Anti-Viren-Programmen' / less FP's by AV progs, a hypothetical site which hypothetically tests files against 40+ hypothetical AV's, still gives a hypothetical 13/44 score.

The Secure Banking dev asks for help at protecus.de; 'Btw. ich würde mich sehr über mithilfe bei diesem Projekt freuen! (Website/Werbung/Coding)' link.
He would not only gladly receive help with his website and advertising but also coding.
And perhaps reporting FP's?

 

Unfortunately my coding is not what it used to be, but i suppose he could team up with PE Guard.

 

Thought i'd try & see what it does Uploaded it 1st to VT



SecureBanking - Installer.exe = Result: 0/43 (0.0%)

SecureBanking.exe = Result: 20/43 (46.5%)

sbservice.exe = Result: 28/43 (65.1%)

SecureBanking.dll = Result: 18/43 (41.9%)

Funny installer ?



Wanted out via



Also tried to connect to 178.63.25.142 = -www.securebanking.bplaced.net



Had to allow several ProcessGuard prompts in German, & i also got a LOT of error messages in German, & ultimately it failed to install ?

From their www via google.com/translate

Here's my feedback

 

Google Translate algorithm distorts the original text into something extremely fishy.
A more proper translation would be;
"Secure banking is an application that can reliably detect different Trojans (Zeus, SpyEye, Carberp, ...) on your system."
No arguments about whether the prog is valid or not but Google Translate is in this case.

 

VIPRE doesn't like securebanking...

 

Hitman Pro context scan says sbservice.exe is malware.
Looks like WOT had this one right.

 

It usually does.

 

Since it's used quite a lot, there will be many false positives as well.

Also, AVs aren't perfect either. Has anyone actually analysed the behaviour of this program?

 

Jep, but i wont comment it in detail as long as the analysis as protecus and TB are running... So far, nothing which was not mentioned by the builder..

 

False positives and imperfection...
Two ever-present conditions associated with most security software.
Anyone who doesn't know this, and account for this, might as well have a blindfold on.
I view WOT and AVs as indicators.
Never do I consider either of them to be the last word.

 

Exactly. There is always the possibility for false negatives and false positives.

From the WOT ratings, I feel the site should be commended for its excellent Child Safety.

 

Yeah, i would like someone to go in deep with the software, but i guess that might be too much to ask

 

i tested version 1.0 and it failed
now tested it again with 1.1 and here what i have found :

first off, three executed files for defending and 2 files for detailed(one for the date of version)
it starts with injecting securebanking.dll into explore process and runs sbservice for monitoring when wanted processes run for detecting malicious activities
now it looks for only 2 names of processes to monitor (IE and FF) so google and other browsers are out of this game

then i had to try it in action so i run zeus bot and then run FF IE and SR and u can see the result in attachments

as long i dont understand german, i can say that it just alarms you if there is trojan but cant help you to defend or to make secure banking as its name claims

one more thing, i noticed that there was a connection to server5.bplaced.net but when i did whois i didnt find this server in the list
PS : i guess it doesnt matter since it just connects for making sure that u have latest version ^^

 

@ Baserk

Thanks for the translation info

@ SUPERIOR

Thanks for the extra testing Well at least it alarmed you there was a Trojan, which is better than nothing Needs more work by the sound of it.

 

@CloneRanger
your welcome, btw the version u were testing is 1.0 maybe u could give v1.1 another try

 

@ SUPERIOR

Thanks for the invite, but i think i'll pass

 

Oh well, then it's kinda crappy as of now

 

Why? It's designed to detect banking trojans and that's what it did