Home > Information Security Magazine > Features > Product review: Seven integrated endpoint security products
EMAIL THIS
Information Security Magazine

  CURRENT ISSUE  

  FEATURES  

  COLUMNS  

  HOT PICK & PRODUCT REVIEWS  

  ARCHIVES  

  SUBSCRIBE/RENEW  
 

Product review: Seven integrated endpoint security products
by Ed Skoudis & Matt Carpenter
Issue: Nov 2007
printer-friendly
< PREV PAGE   |   1  |   2  |   3  |   4  |   5  |   6  |   7  |   8  |   9  |   10  |   11  |   12  |   13  |   14  |   15  |   NEXT PAGE  >

Our second test measured how well each product defended listening services on the protected system, particularly services associated with Windows networking. We attempted to exploit both the MSRPC DCOM buffer overflow flaw (MS03-026) and the LSASS buffer overflow issue (MS04-011). To add some variety to this network service testing, we attempted each exploit with both a standard command shell payload and the Metasploit Meterpreter shell, a more sophisticated and often harder-to-detect attack that provides specialized remote shell access running from within an exploited process. Our client-side and server-side testing relied on Metasploit Framework version 3.0, using all default settings except for the HTTP port for browser exploits, which we changed from 80 and 8080 to another number to simulate an attacker who tricks a client into clicking on a link with a port number in it.

Our third test was designed to look at how each vendor could defend against zero-day exploits of third-party applications. We created our own network-listening program with a buffer overflow flaw, and wrote som...



e code to exploit it to give remote command-shell access on the target machine.

Overall, eEye performed best in detecting exploits. It was the clear leader in identifying client-side attacks, alerting on all of our tests, but by default did not block; it simply displayed the alert "Application Protection: Suspicious System Call." This default behavior could be altered to block such exploits, as a global switch applied to all such suspicious system-call detection. While blocking is the goal, concern over false-positive blocks makes eEye's default setting reasonable.

eEye successfully stopped all service exploits. However, in the process of blocking the MSRPC DCOM exploit, it killed the svchost.exe process, which made our Windows machines reboot themselves within 60 seconds. It is generally considered better to kill an exploited process rather than run the attacker's code, but re-booting could result in loss of valuable data.

eEye detected and alerted on our zero-day exploit; when we tweaked the configuration to an action of "Terminate Process," it blocked as well.


< PREV PAGE   |   1  |   2  |   3  |   4  |   5  |   6  |   7  |   8  |   9  |   10  |   11  |   12  |   13  |   14  |   15  |   NEXT PAGE  >





TechTarget Security Media
Information Security View this month\\'s issue and subscribe today.
Information Security Decisions Apply online for free conference admission.
SearchSecurity.com
HomeNewsMagazineMultimediaWhite PapersLearningAdviceTopicsEventsAbout Us

About Us  |  Contact Us  |  For Advertisers  |  For Business Partners  |  Site Index  |  RSS
TechTarget provides technology professionals with the information they need to perform their jobs - from developing strategy, to making cost-effective purchase decisions and managing their organizations' technology projects - with its network of technology-specific websites, events and online magazines.

TechTarget Corporate Web Site  |  Media Kits  |  Site Map




All Rights Reserved, Copyright 2003 - 2009, TechTarget | Read our Privacy Policy
  TechTarget - The IT Media ROI Experts