Online Virus / Malware News

It looks like some of the recent success in taking down Zeus-using cybercriminals is coming to the United States. The FBI has recently announced that it has charged as many as 60 people and has arrested 10 as part of a global cyberfraud scam. Summaries of the incident can be found here, here, and here.

Zeus is one of the nastiest and most persistent pieces of malware we deal with. It steals banking logons, can act as a bot, and recently started targeting mobile devices, as well. Recently one of our McAfee Labs researchers, Chintan Shah, posted an excellent blog on the inner mechanisms of the Zeus Crimeware Toolkit; his article is definitely worth a read. You can also listen to a great AudioParasitics podcast episode in which my podcast-partner-in-crime Jim Walter and I discuss Zeus (also called Spy-Agent.bw).

If you are running any of our DAT-based security technologies and they are up to date, you are already enjoying excellent coverage against Zeus.

———- UPDATE October 1 —————

It now seems that Ukrainian authorities have taken action against individuals with suspected involvement in the Zeus cybercrime and money laundering network. The Ukrainian contingent seems to be associated with the more technical aspects of the infrastructure. Read detailed accounts here and here.

Let’s keep those arrests and takedowns coming and take back our Internet!

During the last six years, botnets have become one of the biggest threats to security professionals, businesses, and consumers. We at McAfee Labs have just released more information about how cybercriminals can use common social networks and common web applications, such as Twitter and XMPP-enabled applications like Google Talk, to take over a user’s computer.

As Web 2.0 services evolve, so do the efforts of botnet writers. They are rapidly adopting new technologies to increase the sophistication of their attacks. We have identified the following trends in botnets and social media:

• Twitter-controlled bots are the most prevalent example of using social media to receive and execute bot commands
• KreiosC2, though a proof-of-concept research tool, effectively demonstrates how LinkedIn and other social networks and applications can be used to control a botnet
• Protocol standards such as XMPP, used for authentication, presence, and messaging, can also be used by cybercriminals to communicate with botnets and execute malicious attacks

The dangers from controlling a bot or botnet through an application such as Twitter cannot be understated. Using widely adopted and deployed applications like Twitter to control a botnet effectively allows the attacker to hide in plain site by using an application or website that is allowed on most desktops worldwide. There’s nothing to it: Log into a Twitter account from a variety of Twitter applications (I’ll use TwitScoop) and send an update:

Then we send our command:

It really is as simple as that: decentralized, application-based control of one or many bots. Don’t try this at home: I ran this exercise from a private Twitter account with only one follower (my other Twitter account) in a research environment, so there was no danger!

The McAfee Labs research team has released a report that examines TwitterBots, KreiosC2, and XMPP as examples of how cybercriminals can use social networks as the new platform for botnet command, control, and attack.

During the last six years, botnets have become one of the biggest threats to security professionals, businesses and consumers. We at McAfee Labs have just released more information about how cybercriminals can use common social networks and common web applications, such as Twitter and XMPP-enabled applications like Google Talk to take over a user’s computer.

As Web 2.0 services evolve, so do the efforts of botnet writers. They are rapidly adopting new technologies to increase the sophistication of their attacks. We have identified the following trends in relation to botnets and social media:

-Twitter controlled bots are the most prevalent example of using social media to receive and execute bot commands
-KreiosC2, though a proof-of concept research tool, effectively demonstrates how LinkedIn and other social networks and applications can be used to control a botnet
-Protocol standards like XMPP, used for authentication, presence and messaging, can also be used by cybercriminals to communicate with botnets and execute malicious attacks

The danger’s from controlling a bot or botnet through an application like Twitter cannot be understated. Using WIDELY adopted and deployed applications like Twitter to control a botnet effectively allows the attacker to hide in plain site by using an application or website that is allowed on most desktops worldwide. It is as simple as logging into one’s Twitter account from a variety of Twitter applications (I’ll use TwitScoop) and sending an update:

Then we send our command…..

It really is as simple as that – decentralized, application-based control of one or many bots. BTW – This was done from a private Twitter account with only 1 follower (my other Twitter account) in a research environment so there was no danger!

Our research team has released a whitepaper that examines TwitterBots, KreiosC2 and XMPP as examples of how cybercriminals can use social networks as the new platform for botnet command, control and attack.

Today, McAfee released a report based on a survey of more than 1,000 decision-makers about the use of Web 2.0 technology for business. The report reveals some interesting results (for example, who would have thought the United States is among the countries with the lowest adoption rate, and Germany is the country with the most companies not having policies governing the use of Web 2.0 in place?) and the unsurprising finding that security concerns are the greatest hindrance to adopting Web 2.0 and social networking.

Business leaders worldwide see the value of Web 2.0 in supporting productivity and driving new revenue, but they remain deeply concerned about security threats associated with deploying the technology. The survey of decision-makers in 17 countries found that half of businesses were concerned about the security of Web 2.0 applications such as social media, microblogging, collaborative platforms, web mail, and content-sharing tools. 60 percent were concerned about loss of reputation as a result of Web 2.0 misuse. Six out of ten organizations have already suffered losses averaging US$2 million, for a collective loss of more than US$1.1 billion in security-related incidents last year. Brazil, Spain, and India led in adoption of Web 2.0 technology for business, while adoption was lowest in Canada, Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom.

The report, “Web 2.0: A Complex Balancing Act–The First Global Study on Web 2.0 Usage, Risks and Best Practices,” was commissioned by McAfee and authored by faculty affiliated with the Center for Education and Research in Information Assurance and Security (CERIAS) at Purdue University in Indiana, examines the drivers for Web 2.0 and social networking use in business, and assesses their benefits and risks. Overall, the research highlights that although organizations see the potential value of Web 2.0 tools, decision makers continue to debate whether or how to allow employee usage of the technology in the workplace. “Web 2.0 technologies are impacting all aspects of the way businesses work,” said George Kurtz, chief technology officer for McAfee. “As Web 2.0 technologies gain popularity, organizations are faced with a choice: They can allow them to propagate unchecked, they can block them, or they can embrace them and the benefits they provide while managing them in a secure way.”

Key Report Findings:

• Web 2.0 adoption rates vary across countries. Overall, Web 2.0 adoption rates are high, reaching 90 percent or above in Brazil, Spain, and India. Adoption is lowest in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada.
• New revenue streams are the highest driver of Web 2.0 adoption. Three out of four organizations reported that expanded use of Web 2.0 technologies creates new revenue streams, while 40 percent said the tools have boosted productivity and enhanced effective marketing strategies.
• Security is the leading concern. Half of respondents named security as their primary concern for Web 2.0. One-third identified fear of security issues as the main reason Web 2.0 applications are not used more widely in their businesses. Companies’ top four perceived threats from employee use of Web 2.0 are malicious software (35 percent), viruses (15 percent), overexposure of information (11 percent), and spyware (10 percent).
• Reputation damage is the biggest business consequence. Sixty percent of companies reported that the most significant consequence from inappropriate Web 2.0 and social media usage is loss of reputation, brand, clients, or confidence. One-third of respondents reported unplanned investments related to workarounds related to social media in the workplace. Fourteen percent of organizations reported litigation or legal threats caused by employees disclosing confidential or sensitive information, with more than 60 percent of those threats caused by social media disclosures.
• Many businesses block Web 2.0 rather than put policies in place. Worldwide, 13 percent of organizations block all Web 2.0 activity, while 81 percent restrict the use of at least one Web 2.0 tool because they are concerned about security. Yet almost one-third of organizations reported that they do not have any social media policy in place. A quarter of organizations monitor how staff use social media and 66 percent have introduced social media policies, 71 percent of which use technology to enforce them.

Executives and industry experts who contributed to the research agreed that successful organizational use of Web 2.0 is a complex balancing act. Enterprises must analyze business challenges and opportunities while mitigating the risks and ensure staff training and robust technologies are in place to avoid cyberattacks.

“Web 2.0 and social networking technologies can be used effectively for business,” said Eugene H. Spafford, founder and Executive Director of CERIAS. “But to reap the benefits of Web 2.0, organizations must be proactive about understanding and managing the challenges. That involves putting the right policies in place, and deploying the technology that can enforce those policies.”

McAfee will host a webcast, “Bridging the Web 2.0 Security Gap,” on October 6 at 2 p.m. Eastern time, with Chenxi Wang of Forrester Research. This webcast will cover a recent Forrester Web 2.0 security trends study commissioned by McAfee. The session will help educate enterprise users on protecting their businesses while successfully using Web 2.0 technologies.

“Web 2.0: A Complex Balancing Act–The First Global Study on Web 2.0 Usage, Risks and Best Practices” is available for download at www.mcafee.com.

The Zeus botnet has been in the wild since 2007 and it is among the top botnets active today. This bot has an amazing and rarely observed means of stealing personal information–by infecting users’ computers and capturing all the information entered on banking sites. Apart from stealing passwords, this bot has variety of methods implemented for stealing identities and controlling victims’ computers.

Over the years Zeus has been released in a lot of versions, adding or changing functionality, and is highly flexible in its configuration. So this is just a snapshot of one version (1.2.7.19), giving an overview of its functionality.

In the first part of this blog I will disclose the process involved in building and distributing a Zeus botnet in the wild. In the second part, I will discuss how Zeus captures personal information by injecting code dynamically, and finally I’ll offer some thoughts on command and control.

Zeus serves as a heads up for all those who believe that banking transactions on HTTPS can never be intercepted.

Zeus builder toolkit

I’ve been busy researching how Zeus is built and distributed in the wild. It has been a pretty high-profile botnet since it was discovered, due to its high rate of infections. During our research activity I was able to get hold of a Zeus builder toolkit. It was priced at US$700 to $1,500 then; a few months later, a free version of this toolkit was public.

Building and Configuring Zeus Bot

The process of building and configuring the Zeus bot requires just a couple of steps.

Step 1)  Configuration specification:

Specifying all the static configuration parameters in the configuration file.



The “edit config” button will allow you to enter various parameters to control the botnet as  described below.

timer_logs : Time interval to upload the logs to server
timer_stats : Time interval to upload infection statistics to server
url_config : Server URL for fetching the config file
url_compip : Server URL for reporting the victim
encryption_key : Encryption key to encrypt config file
url_loader : URL for fetching latest version of the zeus.exe
url_server : Command and control server
file_webinjects: This parameter is the file name containing HTML web injection code.
AdvancedConfigs : URL for fetching the backup config file
WebFilters : Contains the masked list of URLs that should be monitored for capturing login credentials.
WebDataFilters: Contains the list of URLs that should be monitored for specific string matches. If patterns such as “Passw” or “login” is matched, data is captured and sent to C&C server, e.g., http://mail.rambler.ru/*” “passw;login”
WebFakes: URLs that should be redirected to the fake websites

TANGrabber:

Step 2) Building an encrypted configuration file

Let’s have a look what happens when we press the “Build config” button. The toolkit will build the final encrypted configuration file with an option to save it. This configuration file is then uploaded by the bot master on the C&C server.

Step 3) Building the bot executable

The bot master can build the Zeus executable with the “Build loader” button option.

Zeus Network Communications

When the bot is executed in a virtual machine, initially it communicates over HTTP and sends a GET request to the command and control server to retrieve the configuration file. The server replies with the requested configuration file. This request is made repeatedly on the basis of the timer value configured in the configuration file.

The bot sends the information of the infected computer to the control server according to the “url_server” parameter specified in the configuration file.

One interesting observation

Upon closer analysis of the Zeus network communications, we have come across an interesting similarity between the GET response from the server and the next POST request sent by the bot.

For sample 1:

For sample 2:

As observed above, we see this similarity in the initial part of the GET response from the server and the POST request from the bot, starting at the third byte after the HTTP header ends. We have made similar observations with the older versions of the Zeus bot. This consistent trait is something we can use to implement generic detection for this bot on a network gateway!

HTML injection on SSL-secured banking transactions

As banking websites evolved, they have added an extra layer of security to mitigate keystroke-logging attacks. On the other hand, continuously evolving malwares have also come out with new techniques to bypass these security measures and steal login credentials. Password-stealing botnets such as Zeus now use HTML code-injection techniques, whereby a bot on the infected computer injects HTML code into the legitimate web pages of the banking site to request additional personal information not required during the transactions. This lures the users into inputting more credentials than required. They are captured by the bot and posted to the Zeus bot masters command and control server.

Before injecting into HTML pages, the targeted site looks like this:

After injecting into HTML pages, same targeted site looks like this:

This shows even forms that are supposed to be HTTPS encrypted can be manipulated by a bot to entice the user into typing arbitrary amounts of personal information, which can be captured (using key logging) and sent off to the C&C master.

Heuristic detection for web injection activity:

Another technique that can be used is detecting the difference in the HTML form fields.  The idea is to detect the change in the number of HTML form fields while accessing the banking site and when the data is posted on the server. This can be detected on the Network gateway. In the case of Zeus, as the banking sites are accessed over HTTPS, the perimeter device needs to be armed with SSL man-in-the-middle functionality to detect this form of network traffic.

Intercepting mouse clicks and capturing virtual keyboard screenshots

Banking websites have come up with the virtual keyboard technique to mitigate the keystroke-logging attacks. Zeus counterattacks this security feature by capturing the screenshots on each mouse click. Each click will be intercepted and a screenshot captured that will be sent to the drop server which is then combined sequentially to extract the entered password as shown below.

Analysis of the decrypted configuration file

Once a machine is infected with the Zeus bot, you can use the Zeus decoder tool available here to decrypt the encrypted config file.

Let‘s take a look at the decrypted config file. We see the HTML injection code that this bot has added into it.

http://172.16.230.183/bt.exe

http://172.16.230.183/gate.php

!*.microsoft.com/*

!http://*myspace.com*

https://www.gruposantander.es/*

!http://*odnoklassniki.ru/*

!http://vkontakte.ru/*

@*/login.osmp.ru/*

@*/atl.osmp.ru/*

https://banking.*.de/cgi/ueberweisung.cgi/*

*&tid=*

*&betrag=*

https://internetbanking.gad.de/banking/*

KktNrTanEnz

https://www.citibank.de/*/jba/mp#/SubmitRecap.do

SYNC_TOKEN=*

https://www.mybank.com/loginform.asp

(Fake banking URL that I added while building the config file.)

HTML injection code in the config file:

Following is the abbreviated list of banking sites targeted by this bot; it’s found in the decrypted configuration file.

https://online.wellsfargo.com/signon*

https://www.paypal.com/*/webscr?cmd=_account

https://www.paypal.com/*/webscr?cmd=_login-done*

https://www#.usbank.com/internetBanking/LoginRouter

https://easyweb*.tdcanadatrust.com/servlet/*FinancialSummaryServlet*

https://www#.citizensbankonline.com/*/index-wait.jsp

https://onlinebanking.nationalcity.com/OLB/secure/AccountList.aspx

https://www.suntrust.com/portal/server.pt*parentname=Login*

https://www.53.com/servlet/efsonline/index.html*

https://web.da-us.citibank.com/*BS_Id=MemberHomepage*

https://onlineeast#.bankofamerica.com/cgi-bin/ias/*/GotoWelcome

https://online.wamu.com/Servicing/Servicing.aspx?targetPage=AccountSummary

https://onlinebanking#.wachovia.com/myAccounts.aspx?referrer=authService

https://resources.chase.com/MyAccounts.aspx

https://bancaonline.openbank.es/servlet/PProxy?*

https://extranet.banesto.es/*/loginParticulares.htm

https://banesnet.banesto.es/*/loginEmpresas.htm

https://empresas.gruposantander.es/WebEmpresas/servlet/webempresas.servlets.*

https://www.gruposantander.es/bog/sbi*?ptns=acceso*

https://www.bbvanetoffice.com/local_bdno/login_bbvanetoffice.html

https://www.bancajaproximaempresas.com/ControlEmpresas*

https://www.citibank.de*

https://probanking.procreditbank.bg/main/main.asp*

https://ibank.internationalbanking.barclays.com/logon/icebapplication*

https://ibank.barclays.co.uk/olb/x/LoginMember.do

https://online-offshore.lloydstsb.com/customer.ibc

https://online-business.lloydstsb.co.uk/customer.ibc

https://www.dab-bank.com*

http://www.hsbc.co.uk/1/2/personal/internet-banking*

https://www.nwolb.com/Login.aspx*

https://home.ybonline.co.uk/login.html*

https://home.cbonline.co.uk/login.html*

https://welcome27.co-operativebank.co.uk/CBIBSWeb/start.do

https://welcome23.smile.co.uk/SmileWeb/start.do

https://www.halifax-online.co.uk/_mem_bin/formslogin.asp*

This toolkit comes with a control panel installation that is typically used to track the botnet infections. This is a PHP application that can be run on a web server along with the other required database software (MYSQL). It also enables the attacker to remotely control and send commands to the victims’ computers.

I opened one of the scripts that came with this toolkit and I found the bot can be given the following commands:

$_COMMANDS_LIST = array

(

‘reboot‘ => ‘Reboot computer.’,

‘kos‘ => ‘Kill OS.’,

‘shutdown‘ =>  ‘Shutdown computer.’,

‘bc_add [service] [ip] [port]‘ => ‘Add backconnect for [service] using server witn address [ip]:[port].’,

‘bc_del [service] [ip] [port]‘ => ‘Remove backconnect for [service] (mask is allowed) that use connection to [ip]:[port] (mask is allowed).’,

‘block_url [url]‘   => ‘Disable access to [url] (mask is allowed).’,

‘unblock_url [url]‘ => ‘Enable access to [url] (mask is allowed).’,

‘block_fake [url]‘   => ‘Disable executing of HTTP-fake/inject with mask [url] (mask is allowed).’,

‘unblock_fake [url]‘ => ‘Enable executing of HTTP-fake/inject with mask [url] (mask is allowed).’,

‘rexec [url] [args]‘   => ‘Download and execute the file [url] with the arguments [args] (optional).’,

‘rexeci [url] [args]‘ => ‘Download and execute the file [url] with the arguments [args] (optional) using interactive user.’,

‘lexec [file] [args]‘ => ‘Execute the local file [file] with the arguments [args] (optional).’,

‘lexeci [file] [args]‘ => ‘Execute the local file [file] with the arguments [args] (optional) using interactive user.’,

‘addsf [file_mask...]‘ => ‘Add file masks [file_mask] for local search.’,

‘delsf [file_mask...]‘ => ‘Remove file masks [file_mask] from local search.’,

‘getfile [path]‘ => ‘Upload file or folder [path] to server.’,

‘getcerts’ => ‘Upload certificates from all stores to server.’,

‘resetgrab’ => ‘Upload to server the information from the protected storage, cookies, etc.’,

‘upcfg [url]‘ => ‘Update configuration file from url [url] (optional, by default used standard url)’,

‘rename_bot [name]‘ => ‘Rename bot to [name].’,

‘getmff’ => ‘Upload Macromedia Flash files to server.’,

‘delmff’ => ‘Remove Macromedia Flash files.’,

’sethomepage [url]‘ => ‘Set homepage [url] for Internet Explorer.’

We found an interesting feature of this toolkit during the botnet building process: If the bot master accidently infects his own computer, he can remove the botnet with the “Remove spyware from this system” button. Too bad that command isn’t available to Zeus’ victims.

A new phishing scam is targeting users of the Electronic Federal Tax Payment System (EFTPS), a free service provided by the U.S. Department of the Treasury since 1996. The recent fraudulent format uses an email message that claims to be a rejected tax payment and directs users to a fake website for additional information. Remember, don’t ever provide any personal or financial information to unsolicited email messages.

Our research found a set of these fraudulent websites created on September 12. All the URLs are associated with the same IP address and in the same country.

The scam message:
Subject:
Your EFTPS Tax Payment ID has been rejected.

Body:
Report ID: ***. Your Federal Tax Payment ID: *** has been rejected. Return Reason Code R## – The identification number used in the Company Identification Field is not valid. Please, check the information and refer to Code R##  to get details about your company payment in transaction contacts section: http://www.eftps*******7.com/contacts

If you receive one of these messages claiming to be from the EFTPS or IRS, don’t open it or click any link. It’s safer to manually type the URL (web address) instead of clicking a link. To verify whether a government or financial institution is trying to contact you, call that agency. You’ll find useful tips for avoiding phishing scams in this McAfee publication.

Over the weekend I had the chance to put some work into my lowbie dwarf paladin named Boulderbrain. I was at the Stormwind bank minding my own business when I suddenly get this whisper:

Now normally I simply ignore most whispers I get in-game (other times I simply don’t notice them) but this one caught my attention. Zooming in I think you will see why:

This message is telling me that Blizzard suspects my account of using third-party tools to cheat and would I go to their website, login, and check my account settings. In actuality this is an “attacker” pretending to be a Blizzard GameMaster, and the website itself is a phishing site:

This particular fake was hosted on an IP address that had a pretty questionable report. (HINT, HINT use our SiteAdvisor browser plug in!) World of Warcraft has millions of users worldwide, making attacks and techniques like this very common. Many players (myself included) have taken the additional step of using two-factor authentication (commonly called 2FA or simply tokens), which can add an additional layer of protection to your logon credentials:

The addition of the 2FA pin makes it extremely difficult to break into or pop the account itself. (It’s like adding a secondary token to your bank logon.) OK, now granted I got the free Core Hound pup with it, but it also has a sweet iPhone app that generates the 2FA code!

Now what were those third-party apps the original phish may have alluded to? Bots most likely. As anyone who follows this blog is aware, bots refer to robots, usually malicious in nature, but they simply automate tasks. Some of the more popular bots for World of Warcraft are farming and leveling bots. They are designed for pretty much what you would guess: They automate the “farming” of a variety of materials (later sold for in-game gold) or even honor (honor points can be used to purchase in-game items). These bots can also automate the process of leveling your character. Some examples:

and also:

Should your account be found to be using any of these, it will get banned–as it violates Blizzard’s terms of service. Credential and logon theft is one of the biggest areas of malware we at McAfee Labs deal with on a daily basis. Make sure you stay updated, properly configured and be cautious of in-game messages!

And level-up old school–the account you save may be your own!

Two weeks ago, I posted a blog entry talking about the counterfeiting of legal documents. I have received many comments and requests for further data related to this type of fraud from various Eastern Europe countries, France, and even the United States. Aside from journalists, for whom it is their job, many people have contacted or attempted to contact me. Most of them were curious and friendly, but others flooded my mailbox:

The first request was for the URLs of the websites that provide the services. At McAfee, like at most of our competitors, we almost never disclose dangerous URLs apart from researchers in the business and law enforcement agencies. And in many cases we also employ some internal testing to avoid infection or compromise. When I wrote my blog entry, that URL was safe (no malware, no iframe), but this can change, especially if their owners know it will be visited by many inquisitive people.

The next question was that of the counterfeiters nationalities. No doubt they are Russian speakers.

Another request was related to the abundance of these offers. The site I visited actually contained a competitor blacklist with a dozen or so “disreputable” companies. As they were all restricted to drivers licenses, I carried on further investigations on the passport field. It was not difficult to find other offers with more attractive prices: less than US$1,000 instead of the US$4,000-$5,000 asked by the first one.

In this last offer, I noted the availability of diplomatic passports (price on demand).

If you are not a Google search ninja, you can just check YouTube. There, various well-phrased searches can direct you to the online shop you are looking for:

And regarding the payment methods? It seems they all prefer Western Union, but they are not very talkative on this subject. You have first to contact them via anonymous mailing services. (They specify: “no ICQ, no SMS, no phone call.”) However, I discovered another offer, with details about how to place an order.

At last, some people wished to know if these sites offered other materials or services. Some of them sell carding equipment to read/write magnetic cards, but the prices were exorbitant. They quoted between US$9,000 and $11,000; yet many of these devices can be found on Amazon or eBay for $500! Proving the relevance of our previous advice regarding what you toss into your household trash, one site offers fake French EDF (national electricity company) and British Telecom utility bills for £10. (In Europe, we frequently use these documents to prove our residency or proof of address.)

Even the envelope is supplied! Seemingly unimportant pieces of paper can interest today’s cybercriminals.

Yesterday we discovered a new Zeus campaign.

Most of the messages associated with the new spam campaign are linked to the Asprox botnet. This time, the focus is on FedEx. Most of the attachments start with either FedExDoc[randomnumbers].exe or FedExInvoice[randomnumbers].exe. Those attachments are recognized as the Bredolab Trojan, which will download the Zeus component.

This Zeus variant has a control host on hxxp://x5vsm5.ru, but also downloads from hxxp://trachsel.biz.

The targets of these samples are a large number of banks outside the United States. We still see common U.S. targets…

• Citibank
• Comerica
• USBank
• WellsFargo

and also some banks from Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and South America…

• Neue Bank (Liechtenstein)
• Arab Bank
• MyBank (Taiwan)
• BHI Bank (United Kingdom)
• NPBS (United Kingdom)
• Banco de Sabadell (Spain)

as well as several other banks.

Watch out for Zeus’ going global.

The Anti-Malware engine is a critical and core piece of the McAfee anti-malware solutions. As with any core technology, the engine must be rock-solid stable, fast, and functionally rich.

A new McAfee Labs whitepaper outlines these engine technologies and values, covering both endpoint and gateway uses. Beyond introductions to malware detection methodologies–ranging from exact detection to heuristics, and technologies from exploit detection to cloud-based detection, the new paper especially outlines McAfee’s approach to Cooperative Anti-Malware on Endpoint and Gateway. “Cooperative” in this case refers to the added value of combining anti-malware on the endpoint and on the gateway: a true defense-in-depth strategy in action.

In this defense-in-depth implementation we have engine technologies that are optimized for the endpoint and the gateway, respectively, and both are connected through our Global Threat Intelligence back-end, or “cloud.” This combination allows strict enforcement and the highest proactive catch rates at the network perimeter, keeping the majority of threats outside of your network, and effectively and accurately protecting the desktops in an enterprise as well.

Download and read it now!