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
    Threaded  |  Newest First  |  Oldest First
    7 Tips for Infosec Pros Considering A Lateral Career Move
    Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  1/21/2020
    For Mismanaged SOCs, The Price Is Not Right
    Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  1/22/2020
    Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
    White Papers
    Video
    Cartoon Contest
    Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
    Latest Comment:   It's a PEN test of our cloud security.
    Current Issue
    IT 2020: A Look Ahead
    Are you ready for the critical changes that will occur in 2020? We've compiled editor insights from the best of our network (Dark Reading, Data Center Knowledge, InformationWeek, ITPro Today and Network Computing) to deliver to you a look at the trends, technologies, and threats that are emerging in the coming year. Download it today!
    Flash Poll
    How Enterprises are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
    How Enterprises are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
    Organizations have invested in a sweeping array of security technologies to address challenges associated with the growing number of cybersecurity attacks. However, the complexity involved in managing these technologies is emerging as a major problem. Read this report to find out what your peers biggest security challenges are and the technologies they are using to address them.
    Twitter Feed
    Dark Reading - Bug Report
    Bug Report
    Enterprise Vulnerabilities
    From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
    CVE-2014-9720
    PUBLISHED: 2020-01-24
    Tornado before 3.2.2 sends arbitrary responses that contain a fixed CSRF token and may be sent with HTTP compression, which makes it easier for remote attackers to conduct a BREACH attack and determine this token via a series of crafted requests.
    CVE-2015-1525
    PUBLISHED: 2020-01-24
    audio/AudioPolicyManagerBase.cpp in Android before 5.1 allows attackers to cause a denial of service (audio_policy application outage) via a crafted application that provides a NULL device address.
    CVE-2015-1530
    PUBLISHED: 2020-01-24
    media/libmedia/IAudioPolicyService.cpp in Android before 5.1 allows attackers to execute arbitrary code with media_server privileges or cause a denial of service (integer overflow) via a crafted application that provides an invalid array size.
    CVE-2015-2688
    PUBLISHED: 2020-01-24
    buf_pullup in Tor before 0.2.4.26 and 0.2.5.x before 0.2.5.11 does not properly handle unexpected arrival times of buffers with invalid layouts, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (assertion failure and daemon exit) via crafted packets.
    CVE-2015-2689
    PUBLISHED: 2020-01-24
    Tor before 0.2.4.26 and 0.2.5.x before 0.2.5.11 does not properly handle pending-connection resolve states during periods of high DNS load, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (assertion failure and daemon exit) via crafted packets.