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.

Vulnerabilities / Threats

7/22/2015
01:50 PM
Connect Directly
Google+
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Researchers Enlist Machine Learning In Malware Detection

No sandbox required for schooling software to speedily spot malware, researchers will demonstrate at Black Hat USA.

In 100 milliseconds or less, researchers are now able to determine whether a piece of code is malware or not -- and without the need to isolate it in a sandbox for analysis.

Welcome to the age of machine learning as a tool for more efficiently detecting malware, via so-called "deep learning" techniques. Researchers have built a special machine learning tool module that employs static analysis of a piece of code to quickly spot -- and ultimately, stop -- malware infections. A pair of researchers plans to demonstrate live at Black Hat USA next month just how this approach can spot malware from live malware feeds.

Matt Wolff, chief data scientist at Cylance, says his team is applying deep learning--a more granular subset of machine learning--to malware detection by training the software via legitimate files and malicious ones, and teaching the application/algorithm which is which. The application then can take files it's never seen before and spot malware, he says.

It uses a static analysis approach. When you run malware to test it, the malware has a window "to fight back before you can stop it," Wolff says. "We don't run it [the malware], so the malware doesn't have a chance. And it's fast," he says, faster than sandboxing and analyzing malware.

The concept of employing machine learning and deep learning to malware detection isn't really new, but it's been only over the past few years that it's become more realistic to deploy, thanks to cloud-based computing options making the cost of big-data computing more affordable. You don't have to build a data center of hundreds of machines anymore; you can rent the necessary processing power for machine learning.  "Advances in processors, memory, etc., lend themselves to help make these techniques more powerful," Wolff says. "We don't see anyone [else] applying algorithms to … malware detection" yet, he says.

"The main premise behind machine learning is matching patterns. When you look at malware, you may not see any patterns. But when you look at a half of a billion samples, there may be tons of patterns that are relatively easy to discern," he says. "The goal of this model is to find these patterns."

A typical malware characteristic would be the ability for the code to use functions that capture and log keystrokes, for example.

Machine/deep learning is especially helpful in staying atop the increasingly polymorphic nature of malware. "If a malware author two months later comes up with a new [variant], there's a high probability the module you wrote is going to detect that. It has a predictive capability," Wolff says.

With the mountains of malware generated daily, the need for a more automated and intelligent method to learn, adapt, and catch malware is crucial. Cylance has some one- to 2 petabytes of data in its data set for machine learning: "We typically have a few hundred CPUs running for days to process and work through the data, and weeks and months running and training the machines to learn these things," Wolff says. It takes hundreds of gigabytes of memory, CPUs and "big machines," he says.

The machine learning-based method for now is all about detection. It's up to the security analyst or other tools to decide what to do next with the newly discovered malicious code, he says.

A deep learning system could ultimately replace today's existing malware detection tools, Wolff says. "A machine learning engine is more effective" than a signature-based engine, he says.

Wolff and his colleague Andrew Davis, a machine learning scientist at Cylance, will feed their deep-learning module some fresh meat malware live during their talk at Black Hat, called "Deep Learning on Disassembly."  "We'll … see what it catches," says Wolff.

[Register now for Black Hat USA.]

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
 

Recommended Reading:

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...