Skip to main content

UC Berkeley chooses Firewire's "Virtual Victim" approach


When UC Berkeley learned of the FireEye 4200 appliance and its virtual victim machine security approach, a solution to their wireless security concerns was in sight. The University deployed FireEye 4200’s alongside the central wireless controllers to offer accurate, agent-less network malware control protecting the internal EECS network against zero-day, targeted malware that sought to take remote control over university and student computing resources.

In particular, FireEye offered

- Targeted malware security
- A network-based security approach
- Reliable, automated quarantines
- Easy deployment, use, & management

FireEye specializes on preventing self-propagating malware from spreading throughout the internal network. The FireEye Attack Confirmation Technology (FACT) engine uses virtual victim machines to analyze real-time network traffic flows pinpointing targeted malware and remote control attacks–all without relying on signatures or IT forensic analysis. The FACT engine enables the FireEye 4200’s unparalleled ability to accurately identify malicious attacks, including targeted attacks that seek to compromise and take over remote control of computing assets.


Interesting approach, this FACT technology. Take a look at it here.



This blog is carrying the news
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Security: VMware Workstation 6 vulnerability

vulnerable software: VMware Workstation 6.0 for Windows, possible some other VMware products as well type of vulnerability: DoS, potential privilege escalation I found a vulnerability in VMware Workstation 6.0 which allows an unprivileged user in the host OS to crash the system and potentially run arbitrary code with kernel privileges. The issue is in the vmstor-60 driver, which is supposed to mount VMware images within the host OS. When sending the IOCTL code FsSetVoleInformation with subcode FsSetFileInformation with a large buffer and underreporting its size to at max 1024 bytes, it will underrun and potentially execute arbitrary code. Security focus
Post a Comment
Read more

OS Virtualization comparison: Parallels' Virtuozzo vs the rest

Virtuozzo's main differentiators versus hypervisors center on overhead, virtualization flexibility, administration and cost. Virtuozzo requires significantly less overhead than hypervisor solutions, generally in the range of 1% to 5% compared with 7% to 25% for most hypervisors, leaving more of the system available to run user workloads. Customers can also virtualize a wider range of applications using Virtuozzo, including transactional databases, which often suffer from performance problems when used with hypervisors. On the administration side, customers need to manage, maintain and secure just a single OS instance, while the hypervisor model requires customers to manage many OS instances. Of course, the hypervisor vendors have worked hard to automate much of this process, but it still requires more effort to manage and maintain multiple operating systems than a single instance. Finally, OS virtualization with Virtuozzo has a lower list price than the leading hypervisor for comme...
Post a Comment
Read more