Re:Cyber Scarecrow, making your computer look 'scary' to mal...
by saagarjha on Tuesday June 18, 2024 @04:51AM
(#40715455)
Not by much. Probably less effort than you're putting in trying to avoid the malware, so it's a net loss.
Re:Cyber Scarecrow, making your computer look 'scary' to mal...
by xiphias2 on Tuesday June 18, 2024 @05:13AM
(#40715569)
The more scarecrow is installed, the easier it gets for real security researchers to hide from these checks and detect viruses. So actually the dynamic helps security research.
Re:Cyber Scarecrow, making your computer look 'scary' to mal...
by saagarjha on Tuesday June 18, 2024 @07:59AM
(#40716747)
That's not how this works.
Re:Cyber Scarecrow, making your computer look 'scary' to mal...
by oefrha on Tuesday June 18, 2024 @05:09AM
(#40715544)
“Sophisticated” detection can be as simple as checking rss and pcpu, the bullshit decoy processes probably aren’t wasting a lot of CPU and RAM, otherwise might as well run the real things; if they are, well, just avoid, who cares. So no, it’s not going to meaningfully complicate anything.
Re:Cyber Scarecrow, making your computer look 'scary' to mal...
by curtisblaine on Tuesday June 18, 2024 @05:27AM
(#40715649)
Wouldn't that be more fragile though? CPU usage is not constant in time, so if - again - you're not sophisticated enough, you get more false negatives / positives, depending on which side of the heuristic you err.
Re:Cyber Scarecrow, making your computer look 'scary' to mal...
by oefrha on Tuesday June 18, 2024 @05:45AM
(#40715755)
This is only useful for dragnet malware targeting the masses, where false positives/negatives have low impact to begin with. High value targets can run the real programs if this is proven to have any effect — the average corporate IT can approve some more bloat for security, no problem. Also, you take a sample.
But more sophisticated detection means bigger payload (making the malware easier to detect) and more complexity (making the malware harder to make / maintain), so mission accomplished.