MRG Effitas Online Banking / Browser Security
Certification Project – Q3 2017
Level 1

MRG Effitas Online Banking/Browser Security Certification Project Q3 2017

Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 3

Executive summary.........................................................................................................................3
Certification ................................................................................................................................................. 4

The purpose of this report ..............................................................................................................5
Tests employed............................................................................................................................................ 7

Security Applications Tested ...........................................................................................................8
Samples used in the In-the-Wild real financial malware test ............................................................8
Test Results .................................................................................................................................................. 9

Q3 2017 In-the-Wild real financial malware test results ...................................................................9Q3 2017 Real Botnet test results ................................................................................................... 10
Q3 2017 Simulator test results ...................................................................................................... 12
Detailed Description of the Tests ............................................................................................................ 13

In-the-Wild real financial malware test ......................................................................................... 13
Botnet test ................................................................................................................................... 13
Simulator Test – API hooking test (HTTPSendRequestW) ............................................................... 13
Appendix 1 ................................................................................................................................................. 14

Methodology Used in the Q3 2017 Online Banking Certification – In-the-Wild Test ........................ 14
Methodology Used in the Q3 2017 Online Banking Certification – Real Botnet Test ........................ 14
Methodology Used in the Q3 2017 Online Banking Certification – Simulator Test ........................... 16

Copyright 2017 Effitas Ltd.
This article or any part of it must not be published or reproduced without the consent of the copyright holder.

2

MRG Effitas Online Banking/Browser Security Certification Project Q3 2017

Introduction
MRG Effitas has published an Online Banking Browser Security Report every year for the last four years. Since 2013,that single report has been replaced by quarterly assessments. This report is the assessment for Q3 2017.
Whilst this report sits in much the same space as our previous reports, it employs a range of much moresophisticated assessments that result in an extremely accurate level of efficacy assessments, so much so that we now
award quarterly certifications to products that meet specific assessment criteria.
MRG Effitas provides two levels of testing: Level 1, where we simply test a vendor’s product and provide a reportfor that quarter’s assessment, and Level 2 (which includes Level 1), where we liaise with the vendors during testing
and alert them to any issues found with their technology and provide all engineering and technical support required
for them to counter these issues. The purpose of Level 2 participation is that it serves as an external QA service forvendors, helping them improve the efficacy of their product. Level I and II reports are published separately.
This is a Level 1 report.

Executive summary
This Certification Programme can also serve as educational material for average users as it raises awareness about
financial malware and all the dangers that face users when they do online banking, use online payment services suchas PayPal, or use any form of online shopping.
It should be noted that financial malware earned its name because, in most cases, it attempts to grab the user nameand password from places that are used for online transactions. Another thing financial malware can do is steal login
credentials from popular social networking websites such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc.
When conducting these tests we tried to simulate normal user behaviour. We are aware that a “Real World” test
cannot be conducted by a team of professionals inside a lab because we understand how financial malware works,
how it attacks and how such attacks could be prevented. Simulating normal user behaviour means that we paid
special attention to all alerts given by security applications. A pass was given only when alerts were straightforward
and clearly suggested that malicious action should be blocked.
We tested a group of internet security suits and anti-financial fraud applications. With internet security suits it isvery important to note that the best choice for an average user is to keep things very simple and for the productnot to present many popup alerts or questions.
Out of eighteen products we tested, eight managed to pass all two stages of the test (simulators are not part of thecertification anymore). Out of those eight applications, two were dedicated anti-financial fraud product (Quarri
POQ and Surfright HitmanPro.Alert), and the others were internet security suites.
From these eight products, only five, Avira Internet Security, ESET Internet Security, F-Secure SAFE, Kaspersky
Internet Security, Quarri POQ, passed all tests, including the simulator tests.

Copyright 2017 Effitas Ltd.
This article or any part of it must not be published or reproduced without the consent of the copyright holder.

3

MRG Effitas Online Banking/Browser Security Certification Project Q3 2017

Certification
In order to attain MRG Online Banking / Browser Security Certification, a product must pass the ITW and Botnet
test during the quarter. Applications that meet this specification will be given certification for that quarter.
MRG Effitas Online Banking Browser Security Certification for Q3 2017 is awarded to the following products:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Avira Internet Security
ESET Internet Security
F-Secure SAFE
Kaspersky Internet Security
Panda Internet Security
Quarri POQ
Surfright HitmanPro.Alert
Symantec Norton Security

Copyright 2017 Effitas Ltd.
This article or any part of it must not be published or reproduced without the consent of the copyright holder.

4

MRG Effitas Online Banking/Browser Security Certification Project Q3 2017

The purpose of this report
Since its inception in 2009, MRG Effitas has strived to differentiate itself from traditional testing houses by having its
primary focus on providing “efficacy assessments” and not just performing “tests”.
Traditionally, testing of security software has centred about measuring product ability to detect malware. In thethreat landscape of today and that of the foreseeable future, detection, although important, should not be the primary
metric.
Malware, for some time now, has been engineered for one primary purpose: to generate revenue for cyber criminals.
Global cybercrime was set to generate higher revenues than almost any other crime by the end of 2014 and wasregarded by some national governments as a bigger threat than nuclear war.1
In continuing to generate revenues, cybercriminals have two primary objectives:
1.

To ensure the crimeware they use is exceptionally stealthy, so as to evade detection by security products
and thereby enable it to reside on the victim’s device, performing its function for as long as possible;

2.

To capture as much confidential and valuable information on the user and the enterprise as possible.
Commonly, the most valuable data harvested from users will be logon credentials or passwords enteredinto browsers during online banking sessions or other ecommerce activities, and the most valuable data
harvested from companies is intellectual property, business plans and customer information.

It is well evidenced that crimeware is particularly difficult to detect. Once it has infected a system, it is unlikely to be
detected for some time, possibly days or weeks in some cases. In such instances, the victim system is exposed tothe threat of data exfiltration by the crimeware. Remediation or detection after exfiltration has occurred commonly
has low value as the victim’s private banking credentials are likely to have been stolen, although sometimes it can
prevent further damage.
In 2010, MRG Effitas began reverse engineering financial malware to create simulators that employ the same “Manin the Browser” attacks as the in-the-wild code, and so were for the first time able to determine whether securebrowsers were capable of preventing data exfiltration. This was so revolutionary that in 2012 the BBC based a TV
programme on our work – BBC Click, “The Man in the Browser”.
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUnZMwXCkyw
Why do we use simulators? We have been asked this question countless times in the past and we always answer
such questions with the following:
Simulators are used in every industry and sector, including aerospace, automotive, law enforcement, the military andfinance. Nobody questions the validity of using simulators in these sectors as it is a well-known fact that simulators
improve performance.
There are two major types of simulators, one that is used to teach students (e.g. pilots) and the other to simulate
various types of attacks (e.g. military). This is exactly why MRG Effitas decided to start creating simulators. By
developing test tools we try to simulate attacks that may not be as prevalent at present but may become more soin the future (which can be just around the corner). Simulators can point out potential weaknesses in products and1

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2285740/cyber-crime-is-a-bigger-threat-than-nuclear-war-ukgovernment-warns
Copyright 2017 Effitas Ltd.
This article or any part of it must not be published or reproduced without the consent of the copyright holder.

5

MRG Effitas Online Banking/Browser Security Certification Project Q3 2017

even use new types of attacks that can be useful for developers as they can learn about these from a testing lab,rather than from their users when an attack of this type occurs in the wild.
All the attack methods implemented by our simulators are valid and could be used or are being used by certain typesof less prevalent malware. It should be noted that high prevalence results if a known type of malware is used in large
scale attacks. However, as highlighted before, some malware attacks cannot be used in large scale attacks, but theoutcome can be even more lucrative than with the highly prevalent ones.
Although employing these reverse engineering techniques to create simulators was revolutionary, MRG Effitas neverstands still and always continues to innovate. As of Q3 2017, the Online Banking / Browser Security Certification
Programme includes the use of real, fully operational botnets such as ZeuS, SpyEye, Gozi, Tepfer, etc., as part ofefficacy assessment.
For the certification programme, MRG Effitas has chosen IBM as its technology partner. The use of IBM’s unique
SoftLayer cloud computing technology has enabled MRG Effitas to create complete botnets which exactly model
those in the wild, whilst ensuring they are contained in secure lab conditions and pose no threat to the public.
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_sd-RKnkrQ&feature=youtu.be
Cat and Mouse Game: It is no secret that when it comes to financial malware, vendors have a lot of work on theirhands. Bad guys use various techniques to evade detection and even build special modules in “Builders” to disablecertain applications. Luckily, so far developers have been able to respond to these “enhancements” swiftly.
Nowadays, most of the financial malware is based on the leaked source code of the most notorious Banking Trojan
ZeuS. Another source code that is publicly available is the Carberp code. It should be noted that Carberp is an evenmore advanced and more sophisticated piece of financial malware than ZeuS.
While these are the best known and most prevalent pieces of financial malware, we notice a rise in new and moresophisticated financial malware that may not be targeting users globally, but is more regional and created to target
specific groups of users, organizations or banks.
For all that we mention in this report, it is imperative for us to spread awareness about these threats among all userlevels. Browser security software is becoming more necessary than ever before and this is not limited to Windows
users only, given that financial malware is cross-platform and attacks mobile phone users too. It is very important tomention this because more and more advertisements encourage users to use their mobile phones for payments andeven use phones as credit cards. We strongly believe that this should not be done without the awareness about
possible dangers in conducting such transactions.
Products that pass all tests during a quarter will receive the MRG Effitas certification for secure online banking.
In providing these quarterly certifications, the MRG Effitas Online Banking / Browser Security Certification
Programme is the de facto standard by which security vendors, financial institutions and other corporations can attainthe most rigorous and accurate determination of a product’s efficacy against current financial malware attacks.

Copyright 2017 Effitas Ltd.
This article or any part of it must not be published or reproduced without the consent of the copyright holder.

6

MRG Effitas Online Banking/Browser Security Certification Project Q3 2017

Tests employed
In this assessment (Q3 2017) we ran the following tests:
In-the-Wild Real Financial Malware Test
In total, 80 live ITW samples were used. The tests were performed using financial malware only, including, inter alia,
the following: ZeuSv1/v2 clones, SpyEye, Dridex, Gozi
Botnet Test
MRG Effitas is proud to present the world’s first real, public botnet test. In this test, we acquired leaked builders
from real financial malware (ZeusVM/KINS, SpyEye, TinyNuke, etc.), created the droppers and configured the C&C
servers in the safe SoftLayer environment. Because this test uses real financial malware, where data exfiltration canbe tested as it happens in the wild, the test efficiently maps the real-world threats users face today. These builders
and droppers are available to everyone for free, thus the threats provide an entry level for criminals and are common
threats in the wild.
Simulator Test –API hooking test (HTTPSendrequestW)
Financial malware developers always find new ways to bypass current protection technologies. However, thetraditional way is to do so via the API hooking technique. This technique is a two-step process. First, the malware
injects itself into the browser process, then hooks (redirects) the API calls, where the password can be found in abuffer passed to the function as a parameter. After a successful attack, the attacker can either extract passwords,
session cookies, credit card/CVV numbers from the web sessions, or inject html forms into the web sessions (e.g.
credit card number and CVC/CVV code), because the TLS encryption takes place after the API calls. The purposeof testing with simulators is that the simulator is unknown to the security solution and thus it won’t detect thesimulator using traditional AV methods, which are known to be bypassed easily. This test measures the protection
capabilities against zero day threats.
A note on simulators
After a successful attack, the attacker can either extract passwords, session cookies and/or credit card/CVV numbers
from the web sessions, or inject html forms into the web sessions (e.g. credit card number and CVC/CVV code),
because the SSL encryption takes place after the API calls. The purpose of testing with simulators is that the simulator
is unknown to the security solution and thus it will not detect the simulator using traditional AV methods, which are
known to be bypassed easily. This test measures the protection capabilities against zero day threats.

Copyright 2017 Effitas Ltd.
This article or any part of it must not be published or reproduced without the consent of the copyright holder.

7

MRG Effitas Online Banking/Browser Security Certification Project Q3 2017

Security Applications Tested
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

avast! Internet Security 17.8.2318
AVG Internet Security 17.8.3036
Avira Internet Security 15.0.33.24
Bitdefender Internet Security 2018 22.0.12.161
ESET Internet Security 11.0.154.0
F-secure SAFE 17.0
G-Data Internet Security 25.4.0.2
Kaspersky Internet Security 18.0.0.405 (d)McAfee Internet Security 16.0.3

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Panda Internet Security 17.0.1
Quarri POQ
SurfRight HitmanPro.Alert 3.7.20
Symantec Norton Security 22.11.0.34
ThreatTrack Vipre Internet Security 10.1.4.33
Trend Micro Maximum Security 12.0.1153
Watchdog Online Security Pro 2.74.205.150
Webroot SecureAnywhere 9.0.18.44
Zemana AntiLogger 2.74.204.150

Samples used in the In-the-Wild real financial malware test
Sample selection is of fundamental importance to this and all similar tests. In the case of the Online Banking / Browser
Security Certification – In-the-Wild Test, all samples used are “live” and “in the wild”, by which we mean they are
residing at the URLs selected or created by the cybercriminals and they are not from a time lagged ITW list. As
these are live ITW samples, they represent current zero day threats that can present an issue with sample
verification. There is no effective and reliable way to verify samples before testing that does not introduce possible
artificial sample submission or delay, so all verification is conducted after testing. Tests performed using samples thatare later proven to be invalid are excluded from the results. The type of samples used is decided by MRG Effitas on
the basis of a mixture of criteria, cantering about key relevancies:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Prevalence – they are widespread and so represent the most common threats.
Growth – they may be few now, but our research shows they are rapidly expanding.
Innovation – they employ innovative techniques to counter security measures.
It is malware having financial motives, by either stealing login credentials, initiating transactions, or doing
web injects.

In total, 80 live ITW samples were used. The tests were conducted using financial malware only, including mostly
ZeuS Dridex, Gozi clones.

Copyright 2017 Effitas Ltd.
This article or any part of it must not be published or reproduced without the consent of the copyright holder.

8

Test Results
The tables below show the results of testing in the Online Banking / Browser Security Certification Programme.

Q3 2017 In-the-Wild real financial malware test results
The table below shows the results of testing using In-the-Wild real financial malware.

Q3 2017 Real Botnet test results
The table below shows the results of testing using real financial malware.

MRG Effitas Online Banking/Browser Security Certification Project Q3 2017

During the tests we witnessed many problems with endpoint protection systems. Following is a non-exhaustive listof problems:
•

•

•

•
•
•

•

•

With some sample, we witnessed multiple times that although the AV was able to detect the malware atboot time, the quick scan after installation failed to detect the sample. And because the AV did not enforce
or recommend a reboot, the sample remained active.
Inconsistent behaviour/block: Some vendors failed to protect the user in the first test, but protected theuser after the first test. During the first test, the protected browser usually crashed and was restarted
automatically. If the user was protected 4 times from 5 attempts, we marked these as transient failures andthe products were marked as having passed.
Missing alert: Some vendors detected the threat during the security product installation, but failed to warn
the user about the detected and removed threat. However, the detailed AV log revealed the threat
detection and removal.
Missing log and alert: Some vendors detected the threat during the security product installation, but failed
to warn the user about the detected and removed threat, and even the detailed AV log was empty.
Some vendors would have failed the test without the mandatory restart in the test methodology. These
vendors had not suggested or enforced any restart after product installation or threat removal.
Some vendors detected the threat and removed the malware from the file system, but the threat was notremoved from the memory. After threat removal, the security product did not suggest any restart to theuser. This was marked as a fail, as users tend to use the OS without restarting for weeks.
Some safe browsers are using browser types that are not targeted by financial malware. As a result, even if
the malware was running in the background and without any active protection, these browsers passed thetest.
A vendor detected all three malware samples, and gave the option to block the threat. Still, it did notprevent the malware from stealing login credentials.

Copyright 2017 Effitas Ltd.
This article or any part of it must not be published or reproduced without the consent of the copyright holder.

11

MRG Effitas Online Banking/Browser Security Certification Project Q3 2017

Q3 2017 Simulator test results
The table below shows the results of testing using the malware simulator.

Copyright 2017 Effitas Ltd.
This article or any part of it must not be published or reproduced without the consent of the copyright holder.

12

MRG Effitas Online Banking/Browser Security Certification Project Q3 2017

Detailed Description of the Tests
In-the-Wild real financial malware test
For a detailed description of the In-the-Wild financial malware test, please read the methodology.

Botnet test
Builders and webserver components of the financial malware ZeusVM/KINS, Citadel and SpyEye, etc. have been
leaked in previous years. We used these leaked builders to build our in-house C&C malware network. The C&C
servers are operated at the cloud provider SoftLayer in a safe environment, thus the whole infrastructure is as close
to real financial malware as possible, simulating attackers either buying resources at cloud providers or hacking
legitimate websites and placing the C&C server there.
By operating the C&C server in our environment, we could determine with 100% certainty whether data exfiltration
had really occurred or not. The builders and droppers were not modified/obfuscated/encrypted in any way otherthan by default in the builder.

Simulator Test – API hooking test (HTTPSendRequestW)
Financial malware developers always find new ways to bypass current protection technologies. However, thetraditional way is to do so via the API hooking technique. This technique is a two-step process. First, the malware
injects itself into the browser process, then hooks (redirects) the API calls, where the password can be found in abuffer passed to the function as a parameter. After a successful attack, the attacker can either extract passwords,
session cookies, credit card/CVV numbers from the web sessions, or inject html forms into the web sessions (e.g.
credit card number and CVC/CVV code), because the TLS encryption takes place after the API calls. The purposeof testing with simulators is that the simulator is unknown to the security solution and thus it won’t detect thesimulator using traditional AV methods, which are known to be bypassed easily. This test measures the protection
capabilities against zero day threats. This test used inline hooking method to hook either the HTTPSendrequestWor the EncryptMessage Windows API calls. These calls contain clear-text data before TLS encryption.

Copyright 2017 Effitas Ltd.
This article or any part of it must not be published or reproduced without the consent of the copyright holder.

13

MRG Effitas Online Banking/Browser Security Certification Project Q3 2017

Appendix 1
Methodology Used in the Q3 2017 Online Banking Certification – In-the-Wild Test
1.
2.
3.
4.

5.

6.

7.

8.
9.

Windows 10 PRO 64 bit operating system is installed on a virtual machine, all updates are applied and third
party applications installed and updated according to our “Average Endpoint Specification”.
An image of the operating system is created.
A clone of the imaged systems is made for each of the security applications to be used in the test.
An individual security application is installed using default settings on each of the systems created in 3 andthen, it is updated and shut down. If the installer has the option to participate in cloud protection, or PUA
protection, all of these are enabled.
Testing is conducted by:a. Starting the relevant snapshot and let it run for 5-10 minutes to auto update the virus definitions
before moving on to next step.
b. Downloading the sample using Internet Explorer to the desktop, the browser is kept running,
conducting a context menu scan or, where unavailable, a system scan, and then executing thesample.
A test is deemed to have been passed based on the following criteria:
a. The security application blocks the URL where the sample is located, thus preventing its download.
b. The security application detects the sample whilst it is being downloaded to the desktop.
c. The security application detects the sample during the context or system scan.
d. The security application detects the sample when it is executed according to the following criteria:
i. It identifies the sample as being malicious and either automatically blocks it or pauses its
execution, advises the user not to execute it and awaits user input.
e. The security application blocks the malware from stealing the password from the browser.
A test is deemed to have been failed based on the following criterion:
a. The security application fails to detect the sample under condition 6a, 6b, 6c, 6d or 6e, and themalware is able to steal passwords from the browser.
Testing is conducted with all systems having internet access.
Each individual test for each security application is performed from a unique IP address. All security
applications are fully-functional unregistered versions or versions registered anonymously, with noconnection to MRG Effitas.

Methodology Used in the Q3 2017 Online Banking Certification – Real Botnet Test
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

6.
7.

Windows 10 PRO 64 bit operating system is installed on a virtual machine, all updates are applied and third
party applications installed and updated according to our “Average Endpoint Specification”.
An image of the operating system is created.
Real ZeuS, TinyNuke and SpyEye, etc. droppers are installed onto clean systems without protection, thus
simulating a pre-infected state.
A clone of the imaged systems is made for each of the security applications to be used in the test.
An individual security application is installed using default settings on each of the systems created in 5 andthen, where applicable, it is updated and shut down. If the installer has the option to participate in cloudprotection, or PUA protection, all of these are enabled.
A clone of the system as it is at the end of 5 is created, and the system is started.
Each real financial malware test is conducted by:a. Starting a new instance of Internet Explorer (or the Safe Browser) and navigating to a financial
website. Where the security application offers a secured or dedicated banking browser, this is
Copyright 2017 Effitas Ltd.
This article or any part of it must not be published or reproduced without the consent of the copyright holder.

14

MRG Effitas Online Banking/Browser Security Certification Project Q3 2017used. If the security application is designed to protect Internet Explorer, only that component will
be tested.
b. Text is entered into the Account login page of the financial website using the keyboard, or using avirtual keyboard if the application under test provides such functionality, and then the “log in”
button is pressed.
8. A test is deemed to have been passed (marked as a green checkbox) based on the following criteria:
a. The security application detects the real financial malware when the security application is
installed, and a mandatory scan is made.
b. The security application detects the real financial malware when it is executed according to thefollowing criteria:
i. It identifies the real financial malware as being malicious and either automatically blocks
it or postpones its execution, warns the user that the file is malicious and awaits user
input.
ii. It identifies the real financial malware as suspicious or unknown and gives the option to
run in a sandbox or safe restricted mode, and, when run in this mode, it meets thecriterion c or d below.
c. The security application prevents the real financial malware from capturing and sending the logon
data to the MRG results page, whilst giving no alerts or giving informational alerts only.
d. The security application intercepts the action of the real financial malware and displays warnings
and user action input requests that are clearly different from those displayed in response tolegitimate applications, when they are executed or installed on that system.
9. A test is deemed to have been failed (marked as a red cross) based on the following criteria:
a. The security application fails to detect the real financial malware and then:i. The security application fails to prevent the real financial malware from capturing andsending the logon data to the MRG results page location (malware C&C server), and gives
no alert or provides informational alerts only.
ii. The security application intercepts the action of the real financial malware but displays
warnings and user action input requests that are indistinguishable in meaning from those
displayed in response to legitimate applications, when they are executed or installed onthat system.
b. The security application identifies the malware and gives the option to run in a sandbox or safe
restricted mode, and, when run in this mode, it:i. Fails to prevent the real financial malware from capturing and sending the logon data to
the MRG results page or local store, and gives no alert or provides informational alerts
only.
ii. Displays warnings and user action input requests that are indistinguishable in meaningfrom those displayed in response to legitimate applications, when they are executed or
installed on that system.
10. Testing is conducted with all systems having internet access.
11. Each individual test for each security application is conducted from a unique IP address.
12. All security applications are fully-functional unregistered versions or versions registered anonymously, withno connection to MRG Effitas.
Because we did not use 0-day malware in this test, but 1-2 years old or even older malware versions, when a security
application provided both traditional AV engines and safe browser solutions, the security application was tested in
two modes. In the first mode, all protections were turned on and the safe browser was used. In the second mode,
Copyright 2017 Effitas Ltd.
This article or any part of it must not be published or reproduced without the consent of the copyright holder.

15

MRG Effitas Online Banking/Browser Security Certification Project Q3 2017

the AV engine was turned off by either putting the malware on the exclusion list or disabling the AV engine itself.
The safe browser was still used for this test. Thus, the second test simulated malware which bypassed traditional
AV engines, and only the safe browser was there as the last line of defence to protect the banking session.

Methodology Used in the Q3 2017 Online Banking Certification – Simulator Test
1.
2.
3.
4.

5.
6.
7.

8.

9.

Windows 10 PRO 1 64 bit operating system is installed on a virtual machine, all updates are applied andthird party applications installed and updated according to our “Average Endpoint Specification”.
An image of the operating system is created.
A clone of the imaged systems is made for each of the security applications to be used in the test.
An individual security application is installed using default settings on each of the systems created in 3 andthen, where applicable, it is updated. If restart is recommended by the application (visible to the user), thesystem is restarted. If the installer has the option to participate in cloud protection, or PUA protection, allof these are enabled.
A clone of the system as it is at the end of 4 is created, and the system is started.
The simulator is started onto the clean systems with protection installed.
Each simulator test is conducted by:a. Starting a new instance of Internet Explorer (or the safe browser) and navigating to a financial
website https://www.paypal.com/en/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_login-submit. Where the security
application offers a secured or dedicated banking browser, this is used. If the security application
is designed to protect Internet Explorer, only that component is going to betested. https://www.paypal.com/en/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_login-submit
b. Trying to inject the simulator into the browser process.
c. Text is entered into the Account login page of the financial website using the keyboard, or using avirtual keyboard if the application under test provides such functionality, and then the “log in”
button is pressed.
A test is deemed to have been passed (marked as a green checkbox) based on the following criteria:
a. The security application detects the malware simulator when it is executed according to thefollowing criteria:
i. It identifies the simulator as being malicious and either automatically blocks it or
postpones its execution, warns the user that the file is malicious and awaits user input.
ii. It identifies the simulator as suspicious or unknown and gives the option to run in a
sandbox or safe restricted mode, and, when run in this mode, it meets the criterion c
below.
b. The security application prevents the simulator from injecting itself into the browser process.
c. The security application does not allow the hooking/redirection of the API calls, or even withsuccessful hooking, the password cannot be captured from the browser.
A test is deemed to have been failed (marked as a red x) based on the following criteria:
a. The security application fails to detect the simulator and then:i. The security application fails to prevent the simulator from injecting itself into thebrowser process, and gives no alert or provides informational alerts only.
ii. The security application allows the hooking/redirection of the API calls, and the password
can be captured from the browser.
b. The security application identifies the simulator as malware or unknown and gives the option to
run in a sandbox or safe restricted mode, and, when run in this mode, it:i. Fails to prevent the simulator from injecting itself into the browser process, and gives noalert or provides informational alerts only.
Copyright 2017 Effitas Ltd.
This article or any part of it must not be published or reproduced without the consent of the copyright holder.

16

MRG Effitas Online Banking/Browser Security Certification Project Q3 2017

ii. The security application allows the hooking/redirection of the API calls, and the password
can be captured from the browser.
10. Testing is conducted with all systems having internet access.
11. Each individual test for each security application is conducted from a unique IP address.
12. All security applications are fully-functional unregistered versions or versions registered anonymously, withno connection to MRG Effitas.

Copyright 2017 Effitas Ltd.
This article or any part of it must not be published or reproduced without the consent of the copyright holder.

17