Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Attacks/Breaches

Google Researcher Unpacks Rare Android Malware Obfuscation Library

Analysis exposes the lengths malware authors will go to in order to protect their code from disassembly and reverse engineering.

A malware sample that had code in all the wrong places piqued Maddie Stone's curiosity. So she dug into the sample and emerged many hours later with a description of a complex anti-analysis library that threat actors are using to, among other things, give new life to old threats.

"I came across this app that had a native code library, which is not that common in the Android security space where I was doing the malware analysis," says Stone, a security engineer for Google Android security. "It was strange compared to all the other ones I've looked at before — nothing looked where it should have been." 

As she dug deeper and deeper into the code, Stone became more interested because of the novelty of the defense mechanisms. "I found that this was actually a brand new anti-analysis library being used by a few large malicious campaigns in the Android ecosystem," she says. And it wasn't just new — it was very complex.

[See Stone's session, Unpacking the Packed Unpacker: Reverse Engineering an Android Anti-Analysis Native Library on Thursday, August 9 at Black Hat USA.]

"They're using four groups of techniques for about 45 different checks. And if a single one of them fails then the application exits," Stone says. The rigorous checking mechanism means that the threat actors are willing to miss out on an expanded attack surface if it means keeping their code out of the hands of defenders.

Stone, who will present her findings next week at Black Hat USA in Las Vegas, describes the defense architecture as a "wedding cake" because there are many layers to the defense. The first is aimed at thwarting human analysts, the second at humans using automated systems, and the third autonomous systems running alone.

"They're really trying to hedge their bets and ensure that there's no way, shape, or form that they could be run in an emulator or debugger, and that if I reverse engineer and am going to take the time to disassemble them, it's really going to take a lot of work," she says.

What malware is so valuable that it warrants delivering with such an advanced mechanism? Stone says that one of the primary campaigns she's seen uses this library to re-launch Chamois, a Trojan that Google engineers were able to shut down in 2017. The attackers haven't tried to get back into Play, but are depending on users willing to side-load software to gain entry to a particular Android phone, she says.

As with side-loading itself, the individual mechanisms used in this malware family aren't novel or unique; the novelty comes from the sheer volume and combination of techniques used to protect the payload.

"We're seeing a lot more of both native and Java obfuscation and trying to cloak themselves and prevent any sort of dynamic analysis of the application," Stone says. "As there's no longer this low, low hanging fruit for security, the malware authors have to continue developing more robust schemes." 

The priorities shown in the mechanisms are a reflection, Stone says, of the value of the investment malware represents. Malware development and reverse engineering are each forms of asymmetric warfare, each side trying to force the other to invest more and more to counter their own efforts.

"As the Android platform security mechanisms have continued to grow in how our detection pipeline will be able to catch more things, they're trying to do anything they can to get around the automated detection, because that's what so many different malware detectors are using now," she says.

Related Content:

 

Black Hat USA returns to Las Vegas with hands-on technical Trainings, cutting-edge Briefings, Arsenal open-source tool demonstrations, top-tier security solutions and service providers in the Business Hall. Click for information on the conference and to register.

Curtis Franklin Jr. is Senior Editor at Dark Reading. In this role he focuses on product and technology coverage for the publication. In addition he works on audio and video programming for Dark Reading and contributes to activities at Interop ITX, Black Hat, INsecurity, and ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
The Problem with Proprietary Testing: NSS Labs vs. CrowdStrike
Brian Monkman, Executive Director at NetSecOPEN,  7/19/2019
How Attackers Infiltrate the Supply Chain & What to Do About It
Shay Nahari, Head of Red-Team Services at CyberArk,  7/16/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Building and Managing an IT Security Operations Program
As cyber threats grow, many organizations are building security operations centers (SOCs) to improve their defenses. In this Tech Digest you will learn tips on how to get the most out of a SOC in your organization - and what to do if you can't afford to build one.
Flash Poll
The State of IT Operations and Cybersecurity Operations
The State of IT Operations and Cybersecurity Operations
Your enterprise's cyber risk may depend upon the relationship between the IT team and the security team. Heres some insight on what's working and what isn't in the data center.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-10102
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-22
The Linux Foundation ONOS 1.15.0 and ealier is affected by: Improper Input Validation. The impact is: The attacker can remotely execute any commands by sending malicious http request to the controller. The component is: Method runJavaCompiler in YangLiveCompilerManager.java. The attack vector is: ne...
CVE-2019-10102
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-22
Frog CMS 1.1 is affected by: Cross Site Scripting (XSS). The impact is: Cookie stealing, Alert pop-up on page, Redirecting to another phishing site, Executing browser exploits. The component is: Snippets.
CVE-2019-10102
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-22
Ilias 5.3 before 5.3.12; 5.2 before 5.2.21 is affected by: Cross Site Scripting (XSS) - CWE-79 Type 2: Stored XSS (or Persistent). The impact is: Execute code in the victim's browser. The component is: Assessment / TestQuestionPool. The attack vector is: Cloze Test Text gap (attacker) / Corrections ...
CVE-2019-9959
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-22
The JPXStream::init function in Poppler 0.78.0 and earlier doesn't check for negative values of stream length, leading to an Integer Overflow, thereby making it possible to allocate a large memory chunk on the heap, with a size controlled by an attacker, as demonstrated by pdftocairo.
CVE-2019-4236
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-22
A IBM Spectrum Protect 7.l client backup or archive operation running for an HP-UX VxFS object is silently skipping Access Control List (ACL) entries from backup or archive if there are more than twelve ACL entries associated with the object in total. As a result, it could allow a local attacker to ...