MetaDefender Email Security™
Prevent Email-Borne Attacks
Gain advanced protection against phishing, malware and exploits that bypass traditional email security defenses.
Email Threat Landscape
87%
of spear phishing attacks bypass perimeter security (CISA Analysis).
88%
of malware designed to evade sandbox detection.
66%
of all malware evades signature-based detection.
Prevent Zero-Day Malware
with OPSWAT’s Multiscanning Technology
Detection of malware with heuristics & ML, using up to 10 anti-malware engines for Cloud & up to 30 for On-premises deployments.
Reduces false positives with multiple engines
99.20%* detection rate for top 10,000 threats
*On-premises deployment only
Protect Against Zero-Day Exploits
with OPSWAT’s Deep Content Disarm and Reconstruction (CDR)
Detects and neutralizes hidden threats that bypass standard defenses
1K+ files verified against spoofed & complex attacks
180+ file types checked & protected
Defend Against Phishing Attacks
with OPSWAT’s Real-Time Anti-Phishing Technologies
99.98% detection rate for spam and phishing attacks
Time-of-Click analysis for link reputation checks using 30+ online sources
Multilayered detection with advanced heuristics & machine learning algorithms
Protect Against Unknown Malware
with OPSWAT’s Real-Time Adaptive Sandbox
Analysis completed in 7 seconds
10x faster than a Traditional Sandbox
Dynamically detect malicious behavior inline
Prevent Data Leakage
with OPSWAT’s Proactive Data Loss Prevention Technology
110+ supported file types
Automatically redact identified sensitive information
Supports PHI and PII in Digital Imaging & Communications in Medicine (DICOM)
Prevent Zero-Day Malware
with OPSWAT’s Multiscanning Technology
Detection of malware with heuristics & ML, using up to 10 anti-malware engines for Cloud & up to 30 for On-premises deployments.
Reduces false positives with multiple engines
99.20%* detection rate for top 10,000 threats
*On-premises deployment only
Protect Against Zero-Day Exploits
with OPSWAT’s Deep Content Disarm and Reconstruction (CDR)
Detects and neutralizes hidden threats that bypass standard defenses
1K+ files verified against spoofed & complex attacks
180+ file types checked & protected
Defend Against Phishing Attacks
with OPSWAT’s Real-Time Anti-Phishing Technologies
99.98% detection rate for spam and phishing attacks
Time-of-Click analysis for link reputation checks using 30+ online sources
Multilayered detection with advanced heuristics & machine learning algorithms
Protect Against Unknown Malware
with OPSWAT’s Real-Time Adaptive Sandbox
Analysis completed in 7 seconds
10x faster than a Traditional Sandbox
Dynamically detect malicious behavior inline
Prevent Data Leakage
with OPSWAT’s Proactive Data Loss Prevention Technology
110+ supported file types
Automatically redact identified sensitive information
Supports PHI and PII in Digital Imaging & Communications in Medicine (DICOM)
Choose Your Deployment
MetaDefender for Email Exchange Server
Advanced email security protection for critical infrastructures that prefer on-premises deployment via MTA & Transport Rules
MetaDefender for Microsoft 365
Advanced email security protection for cloud-based Microsoft email via Graph API
Stopping Email Threats with Market-Leading Technology
OPSWAT’s proven, globally trusted, award-winning, and market-leading technology prevents file-borne malware from entering and propagating into your critical environments.
“Because we deployed Deep CDR into the email channel, they [the bank] are very confident to say that there is almost a 95% reduction of malware from the email channel.”
Lambert LinInformation Security Consultant“OPSWAT helps us prevent [files that could contain] malware from getting into the network.”
Tobias MüllerTechnical Engineering Team Leader,
Luzerner Psychiatrie AG"During this evaluation process, OPSWAT’s MetaDefender Email Security stood out as the ideal solution due to its Multiscanning technology, seamless integration capabilities, and great user experience."
Guy ElmalemIT and Cyber Infrastructure Manager, Hapool Insurance
Recommended Resources
FAQs
Zero-day Malware
- A single anti-malware or next-gen antivirus engines can have a detection rate ranging from 6% to 70%.
- This means a significant portion of new or sophisticated malware variants can slip through undetected, as no single engine can catch all threats.
- Traditional anti-malware solutions primarily rely on signature-based detection, which requires prior knowledge of malware signatures.
- New or unknown malware, often referred to as zero-day threats, do not have existing signatures. This makes them invisible to systems that solely depend on signature matching for detection.
- Many anti-malware solutions focus on detection-based prevention, which waits for a threat to manifest before taking action.
- This approach is less effective against sophisticated attacks that can evade initial detection, underscoring the need for more proactive, behavior-based prevention strategies that can identify and mitigate threats before they execute.
- The response time to a new malware outbreak can vary significantly among antivirus vendors, depending on their location, market focus, and the efficiency of their threat analysis systems.
- Vendors focusing on specific regions or markets might prioritize threats prevalent in those areas, leading to delayed or inadequate responses to emerging threats elsewhere. This can result in windows of vulnerability where new malware can spread undetected in regions or sectors not prioritized by the vendor.
Zero-day Exploits
- Zero-day exploits are previously unknown vulnerabilities that haven't been publicly disclosed or patched. Since they are new, security solutions don't have prior knowledge or signatures to detect them.
- This makes it extremely challenging for traditional email security solutions to identify and block these threats as they rely heavily on databases of known threats
- Attackers continuously evolve their methods, creating variants of exploits that can bypass known security measures.
- Polymorphic and metamorphic malware change their code or appearance to evade signature-based detection, making it difficult for static security solutions to keep up.
- Once a zero-day exploit is discovered, there is a critical window between its recognition and the deployment of a patch or update to security solutions.
- This delay provides a window of opportunity for attackers to exploit the vulnerability, and during this time, email security solutions may remain vulnerable.
Anti-spam & Anti-phishing
- Phishers frequently use algorithms to create new, unique URLs for each attack, making it challenging for static feeds to keep up with these constantly changing addresses.
- Since static feeds rely on pre-identified lists of malicious URLs, they often fail to recognize these newly generated URLs in real-time.
- Attackers craft domains that closely mimic legitimate ones, tricking users and evading detection. For example, using 'g00gle.com' instead of 'google.com'.
- Static domain feeds may not identify these deceptive domains as threats if they haven't been previously recorded or are slightly altered from known malicious sites.
- Phishing websites are often set up quickly and taken down just as fast, existing only for a short duration to avoid detection.
- Traditional static feeds, which are updated at regular intervals, may not include these ephemeral domains in their lists quickly enough, allowing phishers to exploit this delay.
- Phishing often involves social engineering tactics that manipulate users into divulging sensitive information or clicking malicious links without raising suspicion.
- These tactics exploit human psychology rather than technical vulnerabilities, making them difficult for traditional URL feeds to detect based on domain reputation alone.
- Phishing attacks can bypass traditional security measures by using methods that don't rely on recognizable malicious code or patterns.
- Attackers may use legitimate-looking content and websites that pass through static filters, only revealing their malicious intent once the user interacts with them.
- Attackers use various techniques to hide the true destination of a URL, such as using URL shorteners, embedding URLs in files, or employing JavaScript for redirection.
- These techniques can obscure the malicious nature of a link, making it harder for static feeds to identify the threat based on the URL alone.
Unknown Malware
- Traditional sandboxes cannot be deployed inline (directly within the data flow), meaning they operate separately from the primary network traffic.
- This separation can lead to delays in detecting and responding to threats, as files need to be redirected to the sandbox for analysis, which is not always feasible in real-time operations.
- Analyzing each file can take several minutes in a traditional sandbox. This extended analysis time can be a significant bottleneck, especially in environments where large volumes of data are processed.
- The delay in analysis can result in slower response times to emerging threats, potentially allowing malicious activities to proceed undetected.
- Traditional sandboxes often rely on a 'golden image' – a clean, controlled environment against which files are tested.
- However, if the golden image is not regularly updated or does not accurately represent the actual operating environment, sandbox analysis can miss context-specific threats or produce false negatives.
- Sophisticated malware can detect when it is being analyzed in a sandbox environment and alter its behavior to evade detection.
- Techniques like delayed execution, recognizing virtualized environments, or checking for human interaction can allow malware to remain dormant in the sandbox, only to activate once deployed in the real environment.
- When emails are analyzed offline in traditional sandboxes, zero-day and unknown malware that doesn't match any known signatures or patterns remains a significant threat.
- These malware types are particularly dangerous because they are not yet recognized by security databases and can easily evade detection until they are identified and analyzed, by which time they may have already caused damage or breached systems.
Data Leakage
- Identifying sensitive data within emails can be complex, especially when dealing with large volumes of information or unstructured data.
- Without advanced techniques like data fingerprinting or machine learning, traditional solutions may fail to recognize all forms of sensitive data, leading to potential leaks.
- As regulations evolve and become more stringent (e.g., GDPR, HIPAA), the requirements for protecting sensitive data become more complex.
- Keeping up with these changes and ensuring compliance can be challenging, especially for organizations without sophisticated data loss prevention (DLP) strategies.
- Accidental or intentional actions by insiders can lead to data leaks. Employees might mistakenly send sensitive information to the wrong recipient or fall victim to phishing attacks.
- Solutions that solely focus on external threats may not adequately address the risk of insider threats or human error, which are significant contributors to data leaks.
