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.

Threat Intelligence

2/22/2017
10:30 AM
Paul Shomo
Paul Shomo
Commentary
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail vvv
50%
50%

Why We Need To Reinvent How We Catalogue Malware

One obvious trend: crimeware technologies that come with simple user consoles and functionality to create unique binaries at the click of a button.

To understand how the bad guys have become so adept at producing the flood of uniquely hashed malware, we need to look at what our adversaries have been doing the past few years.

Why go back in history? Because software takes years to spread through society according to an "adoption curve." Despite its unconventional path from programmer to user, malware follows this same multi-year curve before it pops up on our radar. Take today’s ransomware headlines, Mario Vuksan, CEO of ReversingLabs points out, "Ransomware has been around for a long time, and it's just exploded the last two years."

No Magic in Building Zero Days
A black hat programmer in possession of malware's source code always has the option to make slight alterations and build new binaries with unique hash values. The variants created through custom builds are referred to as part of a malware family, because they come from common source code. Many times cybercriminals adept at programming make their living selling these builds in online crime markets.

To really see the decline of file hashing, we need to step back in time to look at tools that have lowered the bar for those lacking source code and programming savvy to create polymorphic malware. A simple example would be packing tools.

Packers allow the insertion of malware into existing binaries, creating a distinct executable with a unique hash that runs malicious code. Anyone who can run a command line utility can pack executables even without owning any source code.

New Malware "Families" Produce Unique Children, Lots of Children
Possibly the most obvious trend leading to the proliferation of zero-day binaries are those crimeware technologies which come with simple user consoles, and include builder functionality that create unique binaries at the click of a button.

Our industry loves to come up with creative names for malware categories. Remote Access Trojans (RATs), or C2 Trojans (Command and Control Trojan) as they're more commonly called now, caused a lot of trouble for government agencies in 2014 and 2015. The PlugX RAT, for example, lead to the historic theft of 18 million classified identities from OPM. To give you a little feel for the C2 Trojan adoption curve, PlugX was first discovered six years prior, in 2008.

While PlugX's UI is Chinese, the Gh0st RAT console pictured below is another Trojan which caused havoc. It has a UI remarkably similar to PlugX, except in English. Gh0st includes everything a novice needs to own their enemy including a "Create" button that produces unique Trojan files in about a second. Using this console, it's actually impossible to create a Trojan binary with a known hash; building zero days is the standard workflow within the UI.

With malware this easy to use, why would your adversaries ever reuse malware files with a known fingerprint?  Image Source: Paul Shomo

With malware this easy to use, why would your adversaries ever reuse malware files with a known fingerprint?
Image Source: Paul Shomo

Why We Should Identify Malware Families
In days past an analyst could look through threat intel to see overlapping intelligence where a given hacking crew hit their organization and other victims using the same malware hashes. Today, how do you track your malware sample back to a crew of bad actors who work off a common code base, or use common builders if they use uniquely hashed malware against all their victims? With all the zero-day malware, URLs and network communications are probably better used for attribution.

Malware reverse-engineers can manually deconstruct binaries back to their source code to identify familial DNA. But while rapid hashing of binary instances have been a mainstay of malware identification, no automated method to classify familial DNA has emerged.

Recognizing Polymorphic Malware
Builds of variants may morph their file hashes with small changes. Yet since a malware family centers around source code which defines common capabilities, sections of binaries holding this functionality remain constant across all their children.

Some vendors are able to recognize malware by noticing sections of binary files implementing functionality rather than hashing the entire file. As Tomislav Pericin, chief software architect at ReversingLabs noted, polymorphic malware can’t be correlated "based on hashing all the bits of the file anymore, that's why we developed our own algorithms to say these files are functionally similar" and thus part of a malicious family.

We're seeing examples of companies innovating new ways to detect polymorphic variants with partial hashing algorithms. Maybe in the future vendors will extend these approaches to cataloging families for threat intelligence, and as aides to attribution.

It won't happen overnight, this task is bigger than just the threat intelligence vendors. We’d have to see the industry as a whole move towards standardized ways to classify malware's familial DNA.

This is the second in a two-part series on the slow death of malware fingerprinting. You can click on What To Do When All Malware Is Zero-Day? to read the first installment.

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
Survivalindeed
100%
0%
Survivalindeed,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/23/2017 | 9:04:50 AM
All this free info here...
Thanks Mate What  A Great Information God Bless
97% of Americans Can't Ace a Basic Security Test
Steve Zurier, Contributing Writer,  5/20/2019
How Security Vendors Can Address the Cybersecurity Talent Shortage
Rob Rashotte, VP of Global Training and Technical Field Enablement at Fortinet,  5/24/2019
TeamViewer Admits Breach from 2016
Dark Reading Staff 5/20/2019
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
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-7068
PUBLISHED: 2019-05-24
Adobe Acrobat and Reader versions 2019.010.20069 and earlier, 2019.010.20069 and earlier, 2017.011.30113 and earlier version, and 2015.006.30464 and earlier have an use after free vulnerability. Successful exploitation could lead to arbitrary code execution .
CVE-2019-7069
PUBLISHED: 2019-05-24
Adobe Acrobat and Reader versions 2019.010.20069 and earlier, 2019.010.20069 and earlier, 2017.011.30113 and earlier version, and 2015.006.30464 and earlier have a type confusion vulnerability. Successful exploitation could lead to arbitrary code execution .
CVE-2019-7070
PUBLISHED: 2019-05-24
Adobe Acrobat and Reader versions 2019.010.20069 and earlier, 2019.010.20069 and earlier, 2017.011.30113 and earlier version, and 2015.006.30464 and earlier have an use after free vulnerability. Successful exploitation could lead to arbitrary code execution .
CVE-2019-7071
PUBLISHED: 2019-05-24
Adobe Acrobat and Reader versions 2019.010.20069 and earlier, 2019.010.20069 and earlier, 2017.011.30113 and earlier version, and 2015.006.30464 and earlier have an out-of-bounds read vulnerability. Successful exploitation could lead to information disclosure.
CVE-2019-7072
PUBLISHED: 2019-05-24
Adobe Acrobat and Reader versions 2019.010.20069 and earlier, 2019.010.20069 and earlier, 2017.011.30113 and earlier version, and 2015.006.30464 and earlier have an use after free vulnerability. Successful exploitation could lead to arbitrary code execution .