3 ms·
> On device scanning did not exist before apple Virus scanners scan on devices. Practically all big brand commercial scanners nowadays scan and check findings
by throw87454 5y ago
> On device scanning did not exist before apple
Virus scanners scan on devices. Practically all big brand commercial scanners nowadays scan and check findings on-the-fly online.
That said, Microsoft ships Defender since XP or so. Apple has some basic malware scanning since Catalina where it compares hashes of executables.
Facebook checks hashes of pictures sent in messages against hashes of abuse picture since years.
> Their hashing algorithm by nature of being a hashing algorithm will have collisions.
Yes and no. You'll probably not find any collision in a SHA-3 hash. Quite likely you won't even encounter a SHA-1 collision. But this Neural Hash? It's been published since this short amount of time and already such a collision is being presented.
As a user I probably don't want Viruses, Ransomware or anything with comparable destructiveness on my computer. But at the same time the implementation should be rock-solid and user-controllable. That's a no-brainer for anything sha-based but for Neural Hash it isn't.
- Jtsummers 5y agoVirus scanners do not normally report to some authority. That is an important distinction. For personal (that is, not corporate owned or provisioned) devices this creates a blurring of lines that used to be clearer. If these scans warned you that the content was questionable and quarantined it with an option for you to release it on your own review, it would be truly analogous to antivirus software. However, that's not what's happening. I think a lot of the arguments against are overstating certain elements and often ignoring others (like that there are two manual reviews before anything goes to law enforcement), but we can't go in the other direction to defend the system either. It is not like existing on-device scanning solutions that are meant to protect (by some definition) the user or the device.