Threat Intelligence

2/15/2017
12:00 PM
Paul Shomo
Paul Shomo
Commentary
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail vvv
50%
50%

What To Do When All Malware Is Zero-Day

The industry needs new methods to fingerprint malware in order to determine who's behind breaches, and what can be done to stop them.

Cybersecurity is built, at least in part, on fingerprinting and cataloging malware. Polymorphic malware has always existed, but the recent proliferation of do-it-yourself builders, which allow novice hackers to easily create unique crimeware, is sending ripples through the threat intelligence industry.

The primary method of identifying malware has always been file hashing. A file hash is produced through a mathematic operation that creates a unique fingerprint for files, allowing security vendors to compare a suspicious sample against known files from the past.

The weakness of the file hash is that if even a single byte changes, the hash value changes too. The ease of building "zero-day" hash variations killed the old antivirus industry, which relied too heavily on looking up hashes in signature databases. Today's detection industry has already adjusted to polymorphic malware. Instead of using hashes, modern detection products monitor malware behavior on the endpoint or in sandboxes, or utilize machine learning to look inside files and recognize similarities to known malware.

In today's detection industry, one should think of hashing as more of a shortcut to locate the easy stuff, or rule out known good files (whitelisting). It's also a data transfer shortcut: one can avoid moving an entire file across the network or into the cloud by instead sending a small hash value, and then query it against a hash database.

While detection products have adjusted, file hashes are still used in categorizing malware, sharing intelligence, and working backward to figure out who your adversary is, referred to as attribution. Herein lies a growing problem.

Threat Intel to Know Your Enemy and Predict Behaviors
Humans are habitual creatures who do not get up in the morning each day and learn an entirely new set of tools and a way of operating. They fall into a pattern of "Tools, Tactics, and Procedures," or TTPs. TTPs can also be used to profile and predict hacker behaviors. Because TTPs include the tendency for hackers to reuse malware for multiple targets, there is value in organizations comparing their suspicious samples with others across the industry.

For example, upon locating a file sample in your organization, a researcher might want to tap into threat intel to identify the type and family of malware and learn of its behavior and capabilities. Thus, the workflow of threat intelligence usage is often, "I have malware with this hash; who else has seen it?" But what happens when the proliferation of uniquely hashed malware is so great they are all unique to your organization? This erodes the collaborative value of threat intel.

It would be extreme to say the threat intelligence industry has lost its value. Intelligence also includes correlating malware behavior as well as URLs and IP addresses of command and control servers beaconed to by malware. Additionally all malware will never be unique; there are cases such as advanced persistent threats designed to sit on networks for many months, which — if their files are completely unique — would draw the attention of infosec personnel.

Yet there is a definite trend the industry is seeing toward increasing amounts of malware uniqueness. The 2015 Verizon DBIR Report, when commenting on the hashes of malware, proclaimed in capital letters that "Seventy to ninety percent OF MALWARE SAMPLES ARE UNIQUE." Last year, Verizon doubled down on this stating, "We first wanted to reaffirm what we found last year regarding the uniqueness of hashes." 2017's DBIR Report claims that in data sets that it monitors, 99% of malware files are replaced by uniquely hashed binaries within 58 seconds of appearing.

The industry needs methods to classify malware, to determine who's behind breaches, and what can be done to stop them. File hashing certainly appears to becoming less useful to accomplish these aims. It's time to adjust our thinking.

Editor's Note: This is the first of a two-part series. Next week's installment, Why We Need To Reinvent How We Catalogue Malware, will discuss how hackers have become adept at producing uniquely hashed malware, and what can be done, if anything, to classify this new ocean of unique cyberthreats.

Related Content:

 

Paul Shomo is a senior technical manager for third party technologies at OpenText. A veteran of cybersecurity, Paul Shomo has spent more than 15 years as a software engineer with experience working in security and forensics, networking, and storage. Paul has spent several ... View Full Bio
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
The Year in Security 2018
This Dark Reading Tech Digest explores the biggest news stories of 2018 that shaped the cybersecurity landscape.
Flash Poll
How Enterprises Are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How Enterprises Are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
Data breach fears and the need to comply with regulations such as GDPR are two major drivers increased spending on security products and technologies. But other factors are contributing to the trend as well. Find out more about how enterprises are attacking the cybersecurity problem by reading our report today.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2018-20735
PUBLISHED: 2019-01-17
** DISPUTED ** An issue was discovered in BMC PATROL Agent through 11.3.01. It was found that the PatrolCli application can allow for lateral movement and escalation of privilege inside a Windows Active Directory environment. It was found that by default the PatrolCli / PATROL Agent application only...
CVE-2019-0624
PUBLISHED: 2019-01-17
A spoofing vulnerability exists when a Skype for Business 2015 server does not properly sanitize a specially crafted request, aka "Skype for Business 2015 Spoofing Vulnerability." This affects Skype.
CVE-2019-0646
PUBLISHED: 2019-01-17
A Cross-site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability exists when Team Foundation Server does not properly sanitize user provided input, aka "Team Foundation Server Cross-site Scripting Vulnerability." This affects Team.
CVE-2019-0647
PUBLISHED: 2019-01-17
An information disclosure vulnerability exists when Team Foundation Server does not properly handle variables marked as secret, aka "Team Foundation Server Information Disclosure Vulnerability." This affects Team.
CVE-2018-20727
PUBLISHED: 2019-01-17
Multiple command injection vulnerabilities in NeDi before 1.7Cp3 allow authenticated users to execute code on the server side via the flt parameter to Nodes-Traffic.php, the dv parameter to Devices-Graph.php, or the tit parameter to drawmap.php.