So true……. = D

Ah, but you forgot the most important component of all. User education! :D

Thanks Steven . It was a good, and at the same time an interesting response. Just a thought, but a possible solution to counter these scenarios, could be a closer entrusted cooperation between Av industries and manufacturers of usb firmware chips, in usb devices. Mmmh, but I guess it would, or could lead to other kind of vulnerabilities if av industry and manufacturers is entangled too much in each other. No easy solutions =). I also wonder, in what degree does the Av industry actually research in new “alternative tools” to mitigate unknown threats. In my perspective it seems that things is more or less stuck, in the three key components, signatures – firewall- behavior blocker.

Good question. As far as we know, right now BadUSB is just a proof-of-concept. No malware has been spotted in the wild yet, so there’s no way to directly test it. It is likely that Behavior Blocker would block the malicious actions of such a malware, and prevent the infection of a computer by an infected USB device. The problem, though, is that the malicious code is
located on the firmware chip of the device, which is not a location Emsisoft or any
other AV for that matter, has access to.

That means that Emsisoft can prevent infection of the computer, but it can’t clean the infected USB device. Not yet at least…