Android Security Apps Continue to Improve in Latest AV-Test Report. They include Ahnlab V3 Mobile. Five apps showed false positives and warned AV-Test against using safe. Detection(s) are confirmed false positive This driver is part of the Process Hacker tool, which is a completely open source and is a widely known & trusted tool for developers. According to a statement from Microsoft, the unmodified, original versions of the software are not a threat, but the false positive occurs because some viruses use. 03 Smart Scanning and Minimizing False Positive. Fast and efficient scanning based on the white list. Fast scanning time. Minimize false positives by using various criteria. 04 Various OS Support. Full support for 64bit OS. Full support for Windows 10. The current test AhnLab V3 Mobile Security 3.1 for Android (202901) from July 2020 of AV-TEST, the leading international and independent service provider for antivirus software and malware. BioniX Wallpaper false positive 1 time warning BioniX Wallpaper false positive 1 time warning By Report, June 25, 2014 in File. AhnLab-V3 20140625 AntiVir.

• Ahnlab V3 Lite Windows 10
• Ahnlab V3 Internet Security 8.0
• Ahnlab V3 Report False Positive Results
• V3 Ahnlab Free Download
• Ahnlab V3 Lite
• Ahnlab V3 Report False Positive Test
• Ahnlab V3 Report False Positive Form

Rule Category

FILE-EXECUTABLE -- Snort detected traffic targeting vulnerabilites that are found in or delivered through executable files, regardless of platform. In those instances, Snort is able to correct traffic that has been altered.

Ahnlab V3 Lite Windows 10

Alert Message

Minitool partition wizard 9 1. FILE-EXECUTABLE Portable Executable multiple antivirus evasion attempt

Rule Explanation

The Microsoft EXE file parser in AhnLab V3 Internet Security 2011.01.18.00, Emsisoft Anti-Malware 5.1.0.1, Ikarus Virus Utilities T3 Command Line Scanner 1.1.97.0, and Panda Antivirus 10.0.2.7 allows remote attackers to bypass malware detection via an EXE file with a 19040010 character sequence at a certain location. NOTE: this may later be SPLIT into multiple CVEs if additional information is published showing that the error occurred independently in different EXE parser implementations.Impact:CVSS base score 4.3CVSS impact score 2.9CVSS exploitability score 8.6confidentialityImpact NONEintegrityImpact PARTIALavailabilityImpact PARTIALDetails:Ease of Attack:

What To Look For

I’ve covered the impact that automated detection systems have on false positives in the past. Hispasec, the makers of VirusTotal, also talked about this issue in their blog post aptly named Antivirus Rumorology. More recently Kaspersky conducted an experiment during a press conference and showed a bunch of journalists how these false positives roll over from one vendor engine to the next. Of course being journalists, they only took home the message “AV copies each other and mostly us” as is shown in the articles published covering the event . Even though the objective of the experiment was put under scrutiny, the fact remains that this is an industry-wide problem and no single vendor is immune to its effects, not even Kaspersky as we will see.

As some of the regular readers of this blog will probably remember, in March 2010 we published a “PandaCloudTestFile.exe” binary file to test the connectivity of Panda products with its cloud-scanning component, Collective Intelligence. This “PandaCloudTestFile.exe” is a completely harmless file that only tells the Panda products to query the cloud. Our cloud-scanning servers have been manually configured to detect this file as malicious with the only objective of showing the end user that the cloud-scanning component of his/her product are working correctly.

Initially this file was only detected by Panda as Trj/CI.A (a Collective Intelligence detection) and Symantec’s Insight (noting that this is not a very common file, even though treating reputation alone as “suspicious” is by itself grounds enough for debate — maybe another future post).

Ahnlab V3 Internet Security 8.0

Panda 10.0.2.2 2010.03.10 Trj/CI.A
Symantec 20091.2.0.41 2010.03.11 Suspicious.Insight

A few days later came the first problematic detection, this time from Kaspersky, who detected the “PandaCloudTestFile.exe” with a signature, specifically calling it a Bredolab backdoor. I call this detection problematic as it is clearly not a suspicious detection nor a reputation signature. It is also clearly an incorrect detection as the file in itself is not related in any way to Bredolab. Soon we will see why this Kaspersky signature is problematic.

Kaspersky 7.0.0.125 2010.03.20 Backdoor.Win32.Bredolab.djl

In the next few days some other AV scanners started detecting it as well, in many cases with the exact same Bredolab name.

McAfee+Artemis 5930 2010.03.24 Artemis!E01A57998BC1
Fortinet 4.0.14.0 2010.03.26 W32/Bredolab.DJL!tr.bdr
TheHacker 6.5.2.0.245 2010.03.26 Backdoor/Bredolab.dmb
Antiy-AVL 2.0.3.7 2010.03.31 Backdoor/Win32.Bredolab.gen
Jiangmin 13.0.900 2010.03.31 Backdoor/Bredolab.bmr
VBA32 3.12.12.4 2010.03.31 Backdoor.Win32.Bredolab.dmb

Ahnlab V3 Report False Positive Results

In the month that follows (April 2010) a bunch of new engines started detecting it, mostly as the Bredolab name we are now familiar with, although some new names started appearing as well (Backdoor.generic, Monder, Trojan.Generic, etc.).

a-squared 4.5.0.50 2010.04.05 Trojan.Win32.Bredolab!IK
AhnLab-V3 2010.04.30.00 2010.04.30 Backdoor/Win32.Bredolab
AVG 9.0.0.787 2010.04.30 BackDoor.Generic12.BHAD
Ikarus T3.1.1.80.0 2010.04.05 Trojan.Win32.Bredolab
CAT-QuickHeal 10.00 2010.04.12 Backdoor.Bredolab.djl
TrendMicro 9.120.0.1004 2010.04.03 TROJ_MONDER.AET
Sunbelt 6203 2010.04.21 Trojan.Win32.Generic!BT
VBA32 3.12.12.4 2010.04.02 Backdoor.Win32.Bredolab.dmb
VirusBuster 5.0.27.0 2010.04.17 Backdoor.Bredolab.BLU

And to top it all off, during this month of May 2010 the following engines started detecting “PandaCloudTestFile.exe” as well. Here we can also even see a “suspicious” detection, probably the only one out of all of them that could make any sense.

Authentium 5.2.0.5 2010.05.15 W32/Backdoor2.GXIM
F-Prot 4.5.1.85 2010.05.15 W32/Backdoor2.GXIM
McAfee 5.400.0.1158 2010.05.05 Bredolab!j
McAfee-GW-Edition 2010.1 2010.05.05 Bredolab!j
Norman 6.04.12 2010.05.13 W32/Suspicious_Gen3.CUGF
PCTools 7.0.3.5 2010.05.14 Backdoor.Bredolab
TrendMicro-HouseCall 9.120.0.1004 2010.05.05 TROJ_MONDER.AET
ViRobot 2010.5.4.2303 2010.05.05 Backdoor.Win32.Bredolab.40960.K

It is worth noting that consumer products have other technologies included in their products, such as white-listing and digital certificate checks, which could cause the file to not be detected on the consumer endpoint, but the fact that there is a signature for such file is a good indicator that it will probably be detected on the endpoint.

V3 Ahnlab Free Download

So why am I writing about all this? First of all, to emphasize the point I tried to make in the past that automated systems have to be maintained, monitored, tuned and improved so that more in-depth analysis is done through them and not rely so much on “rumorology”.

Ahnlab V3 Lite

Secondly, to show that this is an industry-wide problematic that results from having to deal with tens of thousands of new malware variants per day, and no vendor is immune to it. What matters at the end of the day is that the automated systems are supervised and improved constantly to avoid false positives.

Ahnlab V3 Report False Positive Test

I can certainly understand why vendors point to their signatures being “rolled over” to other AV engines, but these same vendors should also take care so that they do not become the source of these “false positive rumors” in the first place.

Ahnlab V3 Report False Positive Form

UPDATE June 3rd, 2010: Reading Larry’s post over at securitywatch, it seems Kaspersky has reacted quickly and has removed their signature for the PandaCloudTestFile.exe file. Thanks Larry & Kaspersky!