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

2/12/2007
05:15 AM
Connect Directly
Google+
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

New Method Traps 'Fast' Worms

Penn State researchers devise new technique for ID, prevention of worm attacks

Researchers at Penn State University have launched a startup to sell their new antivirus and anti-worm technologies. The recently formed Day Zero Systems first plans to sell to antivirus companies the new technology it has developed for identifying and blocking worms.

The Proactive Worm Containment (PWC) approach developed by the researchers is supposed to augment traditional signature-based worm and virus detection, as well as so-called rate-limiting technology. The researchers have applied for a provisional patent for PWC, which uses anomaly detection, not signatures. It looks at packet rate, frequency of connections, and the diversity of connections, and it can find and detain a worm within milliseconds of a cyber attack.

Peng Liu, associate professor of information sciences and technology at Penn State and the lead researcher on the PWC project, acknowledges that anomaly detection isn't new. But the difference with PWC, he says, is it doesn't generate false positives -- it releases legitimate hosts that get temporarily quarantined. "The novelty of PWC is that it can unblock those mistakenly contained hosts very quickly," he says. "Others cannot do this."

Existing rate-limiting technology just slows infected hosts, he notes. And PWC can also find worms that are hiding out in memory because it doesn't just scan the disk, he says. "Our technology detects every packet going out of the network."

But security experts say PWC is just another spin on anomaly detection, which has failed to catch on due to its quirks and resource-intensive nature.

"There are literally hundreds of anomaly models that all look great on paper. But as soon as you deploy them in a real enterprise setting, you find thousands of idiosyncrasies that set the anomaly model off," says Thomas Ptacek, a security researcher with Matasano Security. A proxy server, for instance, would set off any rate and diversity of connection anomaly.

And anomaly detection is not exactly new: Arbor Networks, Lancope, and Mazu have offered this technology for several years, he notes.

Randy Abrams, director of technical education for AV company Eset, says his company today uses heuristics along with signatures. "The shortcoming of the Penn State approach is that a worm can compromise the system before invoking its replication routine," Abrams says. "This means additional backdoors, spyware, rootkits, and other malware can be installed on the computer. It would be when the worm enters a fast replication phase that the Penn State technology kicks in.

"It sounds like a reasonable layer in a defense, but it targets one specific part of the problem."

Few "clever" worm detection and containments schemes see the light of day, notes Matasano's Ptacek. For one thing, enterprises don't want to deploy technology that blocks traffic. "Any time a packet is dropped, the enterprise not only wants to know why it was dropped, but also to have been able to predict [it]."

Secondly, worm detection schemes require manpower, he says. "Every worm detection scheme so far requires at least one full-time person to tune and maintain." And finally, he says, "fast" worms aren't a big priority today. "We haven't seen a serious fast worm outbreak in years, and I think enterprises have more pressing problems right now."

But Liu says most worms are fast worms, statistically. "Also, the damaging worms are all fast worms." The technology could miss slow-spreading worms, but those would probably be caught by signatures or other technologies, says Liu.

The idea is for the PWC to be included as an add-on in AV products or firewalls, for instance, he says.

— Kelly Jackson Higgins, Senior Editor, Dark Reading

  • Matasano Security LLC
  • ESET Kelly Jackson Higgins is the Executive Editor of Dark Reading. She is an award-winning veteran technology and business journalist with more than two decades of experience in reporting and editing for various publications, including Network Computing, Secure Enterprise ... View Full Bio

    Comment  | 
    Print  | 
    More Insights
  • Comments
    Oldest First  |  Newest First  |  Threaded View
    COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
    Dark Reading Staff 9/25/2020
    Hacking Yourself: Marie Moe and Pacemaker Security
    Gary McGraw Ph.D., Co-founder Berryville Institute of Machine Learning,  9/21/2020
    Startup Aims to Map and Track All the IT and Security Things
    Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  9/22/2020
    Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
    White Papers
    Video
    Cartoon
    Current Issue
    Special Report: Computing's New Normal
    This special report examines how IT security organizations have adapted to the "new normal" of computing and what the long-term effects will be. Read it and get a unique set of perspectives on issues ranging from new threats & vulnerabilities as a result of remote working to how enterprise security strategy will be affected long term.
    Flash Poll
    How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
    How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
    The COVID-19 pandemic turned the world -- and enterprise computing -- on end. Here's a look at how cybersecurity teams are retrenching their defense strategies, rebuilding their teams, and selecting new technologies to stop the oncoming rise of online attacks.
    Twitter Feed
    Dark Reading - Bug Report
    Bug Report
    Enterprise Vulnerabilities
    From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
    CVE-2020-15208
    PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
    In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, when determining the common dimension size of two tensors, TFLite uses a `DCHECK` which is no-op outside of debug compilation modes. Since the function always returns the dimension of the first tensor, malicious attackers can ...
    CVE-2020-15209
    PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
    In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, a crafted TFLite model can force a node to have as input a tensor backed by a `nullptr` buffer. This can be achieved by changing a buffer index in the flatbuffer serialization to convert a read-only tensor to a read-write one....
    CVE-2020-15210
    PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
    In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, if a TFLite saved model uses the same tensor as both input and output of an operator, then, depending on the operator, we can observe a segmentation fault or just memory corruption. We have patched the issue in d58c96946b and ...
    CVE-2020-15211
    PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
    In TensorFlow Lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, saved models in the flatbuffer format use a double indexing scheme: a model has a set of subgraphs, each subgraph has a set of operators and each operator has a set of input/output tensors. The flatbuffer format uses indices f...
    CVE-2020-15212
    PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
    In TensorFlow Lite before versions 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, models using segment sum can trigger writes outside of bounds of heap allocated buffers by inserting negative elements in the segment ids tensor. Users having access to `segment_ids_data` can alter `output_index` and then write to outside of `outpu...