Video Screencast Help
Search Video Help Close Back
to help
New in the Rewards Catalog: Vouchers for "Symantec Technical Specialist" and "Symantec Certified Specialist" exams.

Symantec losing the battle with Rogue AV Software

Updated: 21 May 2010 | 19 comments
tekkid's picture
+3 5 Votes
Login to vote

I'm once again knee deep in a Rogue Antivirus issue that is not being detected by Symantec Endpoint protection (latest service pack, maintenance release, definitions).   Of course I've ticked off the responsible admin duties of submitting the sample to Symantec, Virus Total, and a few other location and surprise (not) most other companies detect the samples in some form or fashion.   I have all the bells and whistles configured AV, Antispyware, TruActive Threat Protection, Application Control, Tamper Protection, and Network Threat Protection.   I'll give Symantec credit in that NTP prevented additional files from being downloaded by the samples in question, but if it can see the traffic, why can't SEP combine it's varied technologies to block the source of the threat?  

Symantec, help me out with the top level overview of the software.    Traditional AV detects known viruses contained in a antivirus definition and/or through heuristic analysis.   If that fails or is absent, then TruActive Threat Protection should catch the threat if it "looks or acts like a virus."   Let's call that, if you will, "extended heuritics."   If that fails, then all we have left is Network Threat Protection to prevent malicous traffic from said samples.   Am  I missing something?  

Comments

sedlerj1's picture
19
Aug
2009
1 Vote -1
Login to vote

I've heard similar issues

I've heard similar issues where a lot of the spyware isn't found, as opposed to actual viruses. 
 
 
JGamblin's picture
18
Aug
2009
0 Votes 0
Login to vote

I don't have any answers but

I don't have any answers but I just want to say that I am fighting the same battle of SEP letting FAKE AV on to my machines.  It has gotten really bad and I would love it if they came up with a good fix.

cnimmer's picture
18
Aug
2009
0 Votes 0
Login to vote

I've seen some rogue AV

I've seen some rogue AV suites out there, and they're probably hard to catch and prevent because lots of them don't act like viruses (i.e. they don't lock you out of your system, delete files, log keystrokes, etc.)  They just sit there doing nothing, popping up fake alerts, hoping that you'll pay them money to fix the issues.  I'm guessing that the malicious ones are more easily detected. 

Jeremy Dundon's picture
18
Aug
2009
10 Votes +10
Login to vote

The missing variables.

1. User Education.

a. Show your users what SEP and SEP alerts look like and instruct them not to click any other 'Virus Alerts'.
b. Look in the internet history to see what sites they were going to around the time of infection, I bet you find sites you dont want your employees going to on company time.


2. Patch your browser (Internet Explorer especially.)

In the rare case where the fake antivirus was not installed via the end user clicking on a cleverly designed popup an unpatched browser is to blame.

tekkid's picture
18
Aug
2009
2 Votes 0
Login to vote

We conduct user education

We conduct user education classes with regard to this.   Getting basic computer users to stop, goto the task bar, select task manager, navigate to the service tab, showing them to sort by image name and to end all iexplorer.exe  isn't as easy as you think. 

We stay up-to-date with IE security patches and the computer in question is up-to-date.   

JGamblin's picture
18
Aug
2009
2 Votes -2
Login to vote

I am sorry...

Sorry but that is a Cop Out.

If there were no bugs and every ones users were at security administrators intelligence there would be no need for any AV. We do our part of our "security onion" and we are just looking for symatnec to step up on the rouge AV.

If you need I can post my update logs and the emails I sent to my users telling them not to belive pop ups if that will help symantec figure out how to stop it.

Just an FYI.... Malware Bytes finds and removes the Fake AV everytime.

Scuba Steve's picture
18
Aug
2009
3 Votes +3
Login to vote

Another possible solution

Another possible solution could be to bump up your heuristics detection to maximum. There is a newer technology that has been implemented with this level of detection that has proven to be very beneficial in other customer's environments.

To do this you will need to edit your av policy, and go to file system auto-protect,
Then click on the "Advanced Scanning and Monitoring" button.
At the bottom change your bloodhound heuristic detection to maximum from the default.

*EDIT* I would like to also add that this may lead to more false positives though.

tekkid's picture
18
Aug
2009
0 Votes 0
Login to vote

Before I contacted Symantec

Before I contacted Symantec with the submission, I moved the computer into a test group that had maximum heuristics enabled as I did the last time this happened.    It did not detect it unfortunately.

How long does it take for Gold Support response?   It's been over 6 hours now and I haven't heard back from anybody.   Should I call into Support as well?   The tracking numbers are 12405115, 12404807 respectively.

teiva-boy's picture
18
Aug
2009
0 Votes 0
Login to vote

 Yes calling support with

 Yes calling support with those numbers will help you find out the status of your submission

There is an online portal, save yourself the long hold times. Create ticket online, then call in with ticket # in hand :-) http://mysupport.symantec.com "We backup data to restore, we don't backup data just to back it up."

mhanson's picture
19
Aug
2009
1 Vote +1
Login to vote

Browser drive-by infections

One user infected yesterday with Personal AV (pav.exe) from a drive by infection. SEP 11 had no clue there was an infection. Did a manual scan and then SEP found several things but not PAV. Ran spybot and it found this infection.

My question is other than patched browsers (is there such a thing?) what can we do to prevent drive by infections? As noted above advanced heuristics does not seem to be the answer either.

I am not real happy with SEP 11 but it is probably as good as the other big names out there.

Thank you.

Mike

JGamblin's picture
19
Aug
2009
0 Votes 0
Login to vote

We were picking up Personal

We were picking up Personal AV on 411.com and Whitepages.com over the last couple of days. We had to end up blocking those two site.

I would also suggest using something like Black Hole DNS.

http://www.malwaredomains.com/

It has helped us a lot.

mhanson's picture
19
Aug
2009
0 Votes 0
Login to vote

Thanks for the information on

Thanks for the information on 411 and whitepages.  I am at an .edu and so we do not filter traffic which I know makes things a lot more difficult.

I appreciate the input though.

Mike

tekkid's picture
19
Aug
2009
0 Votes 0
Login to vote

I think the answer lies in

I think the answer lies in Application Device and Control System Lockdown feature (whitelisting).   I just don't think it's mature enough product for incorporating into an existing IT infrastructure.   If you were starting a new company and started with a fresh, clean template of server and client systems, it would be easy to implement the lockdown features using the tools currently available IN SEPM.    Integrating it in after the fact would require more tools, filters, reports, etc. within SEPM.  

Thomas K's picture
19
Aug
2009
0 Votes 0
Login to vote

tekkid, You should have

tekkid,

You should have received an email from Security Response. Submission #12405115 was found to be Trojan.Fakeavlert,
and 12404807 was found to be Downloader.Misleadapp.

Trojan.Fakeavlert was addressed in Rapid Release Sequence 99441

Downloader.Misleadapp was addressed in Rapid Release Sequence 99436

Regards,
Thomas

tekkid's picture
19
Aug
2009
0 Votes 0
Login to vote

Thomas - Thank you for the

Thomas -

Thank you for the update.  I tested and the rapid release definitions worked and removed the files from the affected computers.   I want to kick myself because I found two more files that weren't detected.   I have re-submitted those and am waiting for new definitions.

Thomas K's picture
19
Aug
2009
0 Votes 0
Login to vote

I'm happy to hear the RR

I'm happy to hear the RR definitions cleaned your infected systems.. Please keep us updated on your latest submissions.

Best regards,
Thomas

zer0's picture
20
Aug
2009
0 Votes 0
Login to vote

Sounds like you have all your

Sounds like you have all your end users setup with admin priveleges?
Is that right?

Very hard to stop rogue app installs in this instance.

I usually run a rapid release SEPM for dealing with zer0 day stuff.
When you have your suspicions about systems you just moved them over to the rapid release group and they get the absolute newest defs available.

Z

Peterpan's picture
20
Aug
2009
0 Votes 0
Login to vote

If you already submit the

If you already submit the virus defintion to security response team, you will expect the result within the day, and if the file is a virus get the latest update or RR then perform a full scan in that PC

:-)

tekkid's picture
20
Aug
2009
1 Vote +1
Login to vote

Cycletech: All four files

Cycletech:

All four files are being detected by Symantec now.   Looks like each submission took about a 24 hour turn around.  

Zer0:

It's about a 60 / 40 mix.   60 percent are normal users w/o admin rights.   40 percent have software that won't work w/o admin rights.   Most of those apps are on the Windows Hall of Shame website (not sure if that site is still around or not).    Clarification, the FakeAV software never install, the setup files made it  to the user's temp directory and attempted to download additional files from a remote site which was blocked by SEP IPS on the computer in question. 

--------------------------

Looking back, the situation worked ok -- this time.   The lack of admin rights, up-to-date security patches, and multi-layered approach (AV,IPS) protected our company's data residing on the PC in question.     Feedback for Symantec...   I'd like to see better heuristic detection/protection technology and more development work on the Application Device and Control side of things so it would be easier to start whitelisting applications.