Why does FinalAV Security not need to maintain black-lists of known malware signatures?
Our security framework is radically different from traditional anti-virus. Let’s compare it with the security of a bricks and mortar club. The traditional method used by the legacy anti-virus company is the equivalent of keeping a list of all the known troublemakers and thieves. When someone tries to get into the club, the security guard will check the list. If the name is there, the person will not be allowed into the club, otherwise they will be allowed without any limitation. This needs the ‘black list’ of criminals to be up to date. Any new criminal who is still unknown to the authorities will get in just fine.
The FinalAV Security approach is to check the identity of everyone trying to get into the club. If they produce a legitimate passport, they will be allowed in. Reason being that if they do anything malicious inside the club, we can trace and arrest them. If they do not produce a passport, they will still be allowed in (we respect the presumption of innocence) but with limitations (for instance, no permission to drink alcohol or to carry metallic objects into the building). Passports are a globally recognised way to identify people, and we do not need to maintain any updated list. Obviously anyone planning to create trouble is unlikely to want to identify themselves.
In the technology world the equivalent of a passport is a ‘digital signature’, which uniquely identifies the software developer that created an application and signed it. Not surprisingly, hackers do not tend to digitally sign their malware, as that would allow law enforcement agencies to track them and bring them to justice.