Test your AV with a sample .js javascript file. Will your AV let you run it?


Recommended Posts

After the news story on the front page about New ransomware variant coded entirely on Javascript, exploits macros

 

I decided to do a test.

 

The EICAR anti-malware test file was developed by the European Institute for EICAR. The EICAR test file is a legitimate DOS program that is detected as malware by anti-virus software. When the test file runs successfully (if it is not detected and blocked), it prints the message "EICAR-STANDARD-ANTIVIRUS-TEST-FILE!".

X5O!P%@AP[4\PZX54(P^)7CC)7}$EICAR-STANDARD-ANTIVIRUS-TEST-FILE!$H+H*

Pasted it into notepad and saved it as hello.js

 

Then double clicked on Hello.js on the desktop and got this prompt

 

Capture.JPG.b767027a7445b81bac9ca6acc16d

 

So try it yourself and post your result of your Antivirus.

 

if it runs you should see a Microsoft JScript Compilation error

 

 

 

 

I imagine most AV software wouldn't care, as it's clearly not malicious code that's going to trigger any of their heuristic scanning. There's not going to be any signatures that match such a simple and harmless script either. This is basically a useless test.

  On 21/06/2016 at 18:26, DaveLegg said:

I imagine most AV software wouldn't care, as it's clearly not malicious code that's going to trigger any of their heuristic scanning. There's not going to be any signatures that match such a simple and harmless script either. This is basically a useless test.

Expand  

Because the AV is relying on it's signatures to detect what's going to run inside the .js file, as a good rule of thumb an AV should stop and prompt you if you are sure you want to run the JS file.

A good AV will not detect this file as malicious. The file is NOT malicious, so any prompts are false positives, which confuse users and affect productivity in the workplace.

 

This thread should be deleted to avoid confusion.

 

  On 21/06/2016 at 18:45, er0n said:

A good AV will not detect this file as malicious. The file is NOT malicious, so any prompts are false positives, which confuse users and affect productivity in the workplace.

 

This thread should be deleted to avoid confusion.

Expand  

I kind of like the fact that my AV "Secureaplus" prompts me about any js file, period.  If the AV you've described hasn't gotten the definition file yet, it allows it to run,. When are regular users needing to run js files on the desktop?

  On 21/06/2016 at 18:51, warwagon said:

 

I kind of like the fact that my AV "Secureaplus" prompts me about any js file, period.  If the AV you've described hasn't gotten the definition file yet, it allows it to run,. When are regular users needing to run js files on the desktop?

Expand  

That's not the point.

 

MOST people aren't security-savvy enough to know whether they should allow the file to run or not. Most scripts will be legitimate so the user will have to approve them in order to do what they want. They end up with alert-fatigue and will probably just approve everything.

 

MOST AVs have the ability to configure detection prompts for scripts or even unknown files.

 

Your posts suggests that your hello world script is a legitimate test for the effectiveness of an AV. Which it is certainly not!

 

Edit: And if you're convinced that users don't need to run these scripts, just disable the ability to execute them in Windows https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee198684.aspx

  On 21/06/2016 at 18:50, er0n said:

Don't waste your time!

 

Expand  

I actually decided to use the eicar test text instead and see what would happen. That was always caught as soon as I saved it as a .js file.

  On 21/06/2016 at 20:04, purrcher said:

I actually decided to use the eicar test text instead and see what would happen. That was always caught as soon as I saved it as a .js file.

Expand  

Great! Good job!

  On 21/06/2016 at 20:04, purrcher said:

I actually decided to use the eicar test text instead and see what would happen. That was always caught as soon as I saved it as a .js file.

Expand  

http://www.eicar.org/download/eicar.com.txt

  On 21/06/2016 at 20:09, xendrome said:
Expand  

basically. What I did was I opened Notepad++ and pasted the sniped from http://www.eicar.org/86-0-Intended-use.html and then tried saving it as a ,js file.

This is well known by all antivirus products, and is nothing new. Of course they're going to catch it! If they didn't, then I'd be worried! Therefore, this thread is like a midget without an index finger....short and pointless.

Running Kaspersky Total Security, and the moment I save the file, it disappears, no error, but I tried it three times with explorer open in the background and it seems kaspsersky deleted it right away.

ClamAV on Linux picks it up.  If I recall correctly though, the EICAR test file should get picked up by just about any antivirus regardless of what you name it or what extension you give it, as long as that string of text is the first line of the file.

Screenshot from 2016-06-23 21:53:20.png

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Google Chrome is ending support for two ancient versions of Android by Usama Jawad Google Chrome is the most used browser right now, with the competition trailing far behind. What browser you use typically ends up being a matter of preference and familiarity, but all vendors are trying to one-up each other as they vy for more market share. Recently, Google claimed that Chrome is now faster than ever while Microsoft boasted that Edge is better at ad-blocking than Google's offering. Regardless of all these factors, Chrome commands a significant market share, even on legacy systems. Now, Google has announced that it is ending support for Chrome on two legacy versions of Android. In a brief blog post, Google has announced that it is dropping support for Chrome on Android 8 Oreo and Android 9 Pie with the upcoming version 139 of the browser expected to release on August 5. Right now, the current stable version of Chrome is 137, which means that Chrome 138 will be the last version of the browser to support these legacy operating systems. In practice, this means that Chrome will require Android 10.0 or above on mobile platforms in order to receive further updates. While the browser will continue working on older versions of Android, they will not receive updates, which means that they'll be left insecure and vulnerable to cybersecurity threats. As expected, Google has recommended that users on older systems should migrate to at least Android 10 in order to continue receiving updates on Chrome. While the company hasn't explicitly stated a reason behind its decision, it likely has to do with the dwindling user base of these old versions of Android and Google's ambitions to get more people to upgrade to newer versions of its mobile operating system. It's important to note that Android 8 was released in August 2017 and received its final security patch in October 2021. Meanwhile, Android 9 was rolled out to the public in August 2019 and netted its final update in January 2022. So in retrospect, Google has already been offering Chrome support for these legacy versions long after they hit end-of-support themselves.
    • I use two of these in RAID0 for video games and other things, together they are capable of 2.8 million IOPS and 15 GB/s on Gen4. At this price, 4 TB of Gen4 is faster and less expensive than a single 2 TB Gen5 NVMe, not to mention easier to cool off. Highly recommend.
    • that is a normal sign in, they just put in a dumb location to try to hide it... and yes I think the whole MS account by default is BS too, the first question should be do you want an online profile or a local one
    • From our past comments, it looks like some ppl are defo enjoying these stories.
    • You are missing the point, we should not have to do that. Should have a do you want an MS account option on the normal sign in.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      tesla maxwell earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Dedicated
      Camlann earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Week One Done
      fredss earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Dedicated
      fabioc earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Week One Done
      GoForma earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      632
    2. 2
      Michael Scrip
      224
    3. 3
      ATLien_0
      219
    4. 4
      +FloatingFatMan
      142
    5. 5
      Xenon
      134
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!