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.

Risk

2/15/2008
03:45 AM
50%
50%

Tech Insight: Analyze This Malware

When you want to know what it is and where it came from, you've got a range of choices

No matter how you measure it, malware is proliferating at unprecedented levels.

Last month, PandaLabs and AV-Test each joined the lists of vendors and researchers reporting massive malware growth in 2007. PandaLabs says it now receives an average of over 3,000 new strains of malware every day. AV-Test saw an increase from 973,000 unique malware samples in 2006 to almost 5.5 million in 2007. (See Malware Quietly Reaching 'Epidemic' Levels.)

If generic malware weren’t enough of a concern, determined attackers will create -- or pay someone to create -- custom malware written specifically to target financial institutions, government agencies, and other enterprises rich with sensitive information. The sensitive nature of these targets may prevent them from using online antivirus scanners like VirusTotal and malware sandboxes like Anubis and CWSandbox.

And to make matters worse, there are easy-to-use remote-access Trojan creation tools like Shark that can "hide" from virtual machines and sandboxes, making analysis next to impossible.

How can your organization analyze new malware or unknown binaries? The easiest option is to outsource the analysis to a company like Mandiant or HBGary. But such services can be expensive, and the turnaround time may not be quick enough to assist with internal investigations.

Another approach is to do the analysis in-house, using static or dynamic analysis. Static analysis involves using tools to analyze the actual file without ever executing it. Dynamic analysis, often called behavioral analysis, involves running the malware and observing its behavior.

During static analysis, simple utilities such as “strings” on Unix-based systems or BinText from Foundstone for Windows, can be used to view text within the file to help determine its intent. Detailed analysis of malware can reveal URLs, IP addresses, and locations within the Microsoft Registry, which may help you get a clue as to the file’s purpose.

Unfortunately, the majority of today’s malware is run through packers (compression) and crypters (encryption). You may end up with virtually no extractable text to analyze, leaving you with no clues except perhaps which packer and crypter were used.

Dynamic analysis requires at least one computer (either physical or virtual) that can run the malware, allowing it to be observed both at the system level and the network layer. System utilities such as Sysinternal’s Process Monitor and TCPView can be used to monitor file activity, registry changes, network port usage, and changes in running processes.

To obtain the same level of information, static analysis requires the use of advanced tools like IDA Pro or HBGary Inspector to examine and disassemble the file, tracing the flow of the executable to determine what it does. While extremely powerful, static analysis can be very time consuming and requires specialized knowledge of reverse engineering that most IT shops don't have.

Static analysis techniques don’t suffer from virtual environment (sandbox) checks within the malware, but dynamic analysis efforts may be affected to the point that the malware will change its behavior to appear benign or simply not run. Realizing this problem, Joe Stewart, senior security researcher for SecureWorks, came up with the idea of a sandnet and created The Reusable Unknown Malware Analysis Network (TRUMAN) for analyzing malware in a closed environment using physical machines.

In TRUMAN, one host is used as the controller that records and responds to all network traffic, essentially emulating the Internet and any services the malware expects to see. For more information about sandnets, check out the video of Stewart's presentation at Shmoocon 2006 as well as KoreLogic's Tyler Hudack's "Burying Your Head in the Sandnet" session at the recent Computer Forensics Show in Washington, D.C.

Both static and dynamic analysis can be very effective at determining the features and intent of malware. Which one you use will depend on how you view each technique's pros and cons, as well as the situation in which the malware was discovered. When time is of the essence, use dynamic analysis as part of the triage process to determine what needs to be done first. Then proceed with static analysis to be sure that nothing was missed.

Have a comment on this story? Please click "Discuss" below. If you'd like to contact Dark Reading's editors directly, send us a message.

  • Mandiant
  • Microsoft Corp. (Nasdaq: MSFT)
  • Panda Security
  • SecureWorks Inc.

    Comment  | 
    Print  | 
    More Insights
  • Comments
    Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
    Commentary
    How SolarWinds Busted Up Our Assumptions About Code Signing
    Dr. Jethro Beekman, Technical Director,  3/3/2021
    News
    'ObliqueRAT' Now Hides Behind Images on Compromised Websites
    Jai Vijayan, Contributing Writer,  3/2/2021
    News
    Attackers Turn Struggling Software Projects Into Trojan Horses
    Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  2/26/2021
    Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
    White Papers
    Video
    Cartoon Contest
    Write a Caption, Win an Amazon Gift Card! Click Here
    Latest Comment: This comment is waiting for review by our moderators.
    Current Issue
    2021 Top Enterprise IT Trends
    We've identified the key trends that are poised to impact the IT landscape in 2021. Find out why they're important and how they will affect you today!
    Flash Poll
    How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
    How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
    Recent breaches of third-party apps are driving many organizations to think harder about the security of their off-the-shelf software as they continue to move left in secure software development practices.
    Twitter Feed
    Dark Reading - Bug Report
    Bug Report
    Enterprise Vulnerabilities
    From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
    CVE-2019-18629
    PUBLISHED: 2021-03-04
    Xerox AltaLink B8045/B8055/B8065/B8075/B8090 and C8030/C8035/C8045/C8055/C8070 multifunction printers with software releases before 101.00x.099.28200 allow an attacker to execute an unwanted binary during a exploited clone install. This requires creating a clone file and signing that file with a com...
    CVE-2019-18628
    PUBLISHED: 2021-03-04
    Xerox AltaLink B8045/B8055/B8065/B8075/B8090 and C8030/C8035/C8045/C8055/C8070 multifunction printers with software releases before 101.00x.099.28200 allow a user with administrative privileges to turn off data encryption on the device, thus leaving it open to potential cryptographic information dis...
    CVE-2021-21331
    PUBLISHED: 2021-03-03
    The Java client for the Datadog API before version 1.0.0-beta.9 has a local information disclosure of sensitive information downloaded via the API using the API Client. The Datadog API is executed on a unix-like system with multiple users. The API is used to download a file containing sensitive info...
    CVE-2021-27940
    PUBLISHED: 2021-03-03
    resources/public/js/orchestrator.js in openark orchestrator before 3.2.4 allows XSS via the orchestrator-msg parameter.
    CVE-2021-21312
    PUBLISHED: 2021-03-03
    GLPI is open source software which stands for Gestionnaire Libre de Parc Informatique and it is a Free Asset and IT Management Software package. In GLPI before verison 9.5.4, there is a vulnerability within the document upload function (Home > Management > Documents > Add, or /front/documen...