English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Recent advances in anti-malware technologies have steered the securityindustry away from maintaining vast signature databases and into newer defencetechnologies such as behaviour blocking, application whitelisting and others.Most would agree that the reasoning behind this is to keep up with the armsrace established between malware writers and the security community almostthree decades ago. Still, malware writers have not as yet created newparadigms. Indeed, malicious code development is still largely limited to codepattern changes utilizing polymorphic and metamorphic engines, as well asexecutable packer and wrapper technologies. Each new malware instance retainsthe exact same core functionality as its ancestor and only alters the way itlooks. What if, instead, malware were able to change its function or behaviourautonomously? What if, in the absence of human intervention, computer virusesresembled biological viruses in their ability to adapt to new defencetechnologies as soon as they came into effect? In this paper, we will providethe theoretical proof behind malware implementation that closely modelsDarwinian evolution.

Darwin inside the machines: Malware evolution and the consequences for computer security