Protecting devices against cyber threats requires understanding where the real risks lie. Attack vectors have changed in nature: phishing remains dominant, but fileless intrusion techniques and the exploitation of tools already present on machines complicate detection. Comparing protective measures based on their effectiveness against each type of threat allows for prioritizing efforts instead of multiplying tools without coherence.
Comparative effectiveness of protective measures against common threats
Not all security measures are equal when facing each category of attack. The table below cross-references the main cyber threats identified in 2024 with the protections that most directly neutralize them.
Recommended read : How to Optimize Your Online Sports Viewing Experience?
| Threat | Most effective measure | Complementary measure | Main limitation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Phishing / social engineering | Passkeys or multi-factor authentication (MFA) | Email filtering | Does not protect if the user provides physical access |
| Ransomware | Regular offline backups | Antivirus with behavioral detection | Backup is useless if connected to the network at the time of the attack |
| Fileless attack | Restriction of system tools (PowerShell, WMI) | Advanced process logging | A traditional signature-based antivirus detects nothing |
| Exploitation of known vulnerabilities | Automatic updates applied within 48 hours | Network segmentation | Late patches leave an exposure window |
| Data theft on mobile | Unified endpoint management (MDM/UEM) | Native storage encryption | Without separation of work/personal, data remains exposed |
This table highlights a point often underestimated: an antivirus alone covers only a fraction of current threats. Protection relies on a stack of targeted measures, each tailored to a specific attack vector.
To compare available antivirus solutions and identify the one that fits your setup, Viruslab offers detailed analyses by threat type and operating system.
See also : Admission Process in Rouen Schools: How to Prepare Your Application?
Fileless attacks: why traditional antivirus is no longer sufficient
Fileless attacks exploit components already installed on the machine (PowerShell, WMI scripts, Office macros) instead of dropping a malicious executable. No suspicious file appears on the disk, making signature-based detection nearly impossible.
This type of intrusion poses a direct challenge to traditional cybersecurity suites. An antivirus that only scans downloaded or copied files misses the attack.
Restricting system tools to reduce the attack surface
The most effective measure is to limit the execution of PowerShell and system scripts to only those administrator accounts that need it. On Windows, group policies (GPO) can block PowerShell for standard users without affecting the normal operation of the machine.
Enabling advanced process logging (Sysmon or native Windows logs) provides visibility into executed commands. Abnormal behavior, such as a PowerShell process launched from a Word document, then triggers an actionable alert.
- Disable macro execution by default in downloaded Office files, unless explicitly validated by the user
- Configure PowerShell in “Constrained Language” mode on machines that do not need advanced scripts
- Enable logging of PowerShell script blocks to trace suspicious commands afterward
These measures reduce the attack surface without additional software costs. They require initial configuration and then operate seamlessly.
Passkeys and multi-factor authentication: what changes for phishing
Phishing remains the primary intrusion vector, as it targets the human link. Passwords, even complex ones, remain vulnerable as soon as a user enters them on a fraudulent page.
Passkeys eliminate this risk by removing the reusable secret. Instead of transmitting a password, the device generates a pair of cryptographic keys linked to the legitimate site. A phishing page cannot intercept the authentication, as the private key never leaves the terminal.
Gradual deployment of passkeys in 2024
Major ecosystems (Apple, Google, Microsoft) have integrated native support for passkeys into their operating systems. The most widely used password managers also support them.
However, many online services do not yet offer this option. The realistic strategy is to enable passkeys wherever possible and maintain traditional multi-factor authentication (MFA), ideally through a TOTP app rather than SMS, on other accounts.
MFA via SMS remains vulnerable to SIM swapping, a technique in which an attacker obtains a duplicate of the victim’s SIM card to receive verification codes. Authentication apps (TOTP) or physical FIDO2 keys eliminate this risk.
Mobile device protection: MDM management and usage separation
Smartphones and tablets concentrate both professional and personal data, often without partitioning. Native storage encryption, enabled by default on iOS and Android, protects data in case of physical theft. It does not protect against a malicious application installed voluntarily.
Unified endpoint management (MDM/UEM) allows for enforcing security rules remotely: forced updates, application whitelisting, remote wiping in case of loss. For professionals, profile separation (a work container isolated from the rest of the phone) prevents a compromised personal application from accessing work data.
- Enable full storage encryption (verified by default on recent devices, to be checked on older models)
- Install operating system updates within days of their release, not weeks
- Use a separate work profile (Android Enterprise or Apple Business Manager) to isolate professional data
- Configure remote wiping via the organization’s MDM solution or via native functions (Find My iPhone, Find My Device)
The effectiveness of these measures depends on their systematic application. A single unmanaged device in a professional network is enough to create an exploitable entry point.
Device protection in 2024 no longer relies on a single tool but on a combination of measures tailored to each attack vector. Passkeys reduce exposure to phishing, restricting system tools blocks fileless attacks, and centralized mobile management fills a blind spot that antivirus does not cover. Each layer of protection compensates for a limitation of the previous one.