Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
11/07/2026 2:01 pm
TL;DR: Legacy antivirus relies on signatures and file-based detection, which leaves gaps against polymorphic, fileless, and human-operated attacks that can start with compromised credentials or RCE, according to SentinelOne. EDR shifts the control plane toward runtime visibility, response, and hunting, making endpoint telemetry and automation more important than static blocking.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by SentinelOne: EDR versus antivirus and why endpoint detection matters
Questions worth separating out
Q: What breaks when security teams rely on antivirus alone for endpoint protection?
A: Antivirus breaks down when attacks do not present as stable files on disk.
Q: Why do compromised credentials make endpoint attacks harder to stop?
A: Compromised credentials let attackers behave like legitimate users or admins, which reduces the value of file-based detection.
Q: How do security teams know whether EDR is actually improving containment?
A: Look for evidence that the platform can connect related actions into one attack story and interrupt them before impact.
Practitioner guidance
- Test detection against fileless execution paths Build validation scenarios that use PowerShell, in-memory execution, and living-off-the-land binaries so you can see whether the endpoint control detects behaviour rather than just files.
- Correlate endpoint alerts with identity events Join endpoint telemetry with privileged account activity, remote access logs, and failed authentication patterns so compromised credentials are visible in the same investigation stream as process creation and network activity.
- Measure containment at the endpoint Verify whether malicious actions are stopped locally before encryption or exfiltration begins, rather than only flagged after cloud-side analysis.
What's in the full article
SentinelOne's full article covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Practical comparison points for moving from signature-based antivirus to behavioural endpoint detection in real environments.
- Operational guidance on using story-based correlation to reconstruct malicious activity across browser, script, and encryption events.
- Discussion of active response timing and why local mitigation matters more than delayed cloud-side analysis.
- Considerations for deployment, compatibility, and integration across a mixed endpoint estate.
👉 Read SentinelOne’s analysis of why EDR outperforms antivirus on modern endpoint threats →
EDR versus antivirus: are your endpoint controls keeping up?
Explore further
11/07/2026 2:11 pm
Signature-era controls no longer match endpoint attack reality. Antivirus still matters as a blocking layer for known malware, but it cannot be the primary control model for environments where execution happens through scripts, memory, and legitimate administrative tools. Modern endpoint defence has to assume that the malicious file may never be the decisive signal. The practical conclusion is that detection strategy must shift from file identity to behavioural evidence.
A question worth separating out:
Q: What is the difference between passive EDR and active EDR in practice?
A: Passive EDR collects telemetry and raises alerts for analysts to investigate. Active EDR uses local automation to stop malicious behaviour on the endpoint while the attack is still unfolding. The practical difference is whether containment depends on human triage or happens at machine speed before encryption, exfiltration, or persistence can complete.
👉 Read our full editorial: EDR versus antivirus: why endpoint visibility now matters
