Slashdot Mirror
Researchers Use Machines To Analyze Malware
Krishna Dagli writes to mention a Register article about a mechanical process for analyzing malware. Using an automated system, researchers are able to more accurately classify the often randomly-named bots and viruses that plague us. From the article: "The researchers modeled a piece of malicious software as the series of actions that the software takes at the operating system level. Referred to as 'events' in a paper written by Lee and anti-malware program team manager Jigar Mody, the actions can include data copying, changing registry keys and opening network connections. The researchers then trained a recognition engine using an adaptive clustering algorithm - similar to self-organising maps - and classified a previously unseen subset of malware using the trained system. Using more clusters typically resulted in better classification. When the software samples were classified based on 100 events, accuracy fell below 80 per cent, while classification based on 500 and 1,000 events typically has accuracy rates above 90 per cent."
Obviously solutions like this will be the way of the future, combined with a finer grained permission system. I just hope you can manually exempt programs. For example bittorrent opens a lot of network connections, and copies a lot of data around; I could see a tool such as this reasonably coming to the conclusion that it was malware. I am also curious if their system could defeat a rootkit, which will do its best to hide its activity and existence almost completely from the system.
Philosophy.
Does this new classification method really have any advantages for the average user? I'm sure most people just want to keep their systems malware-free, and could care less about the names of the individual threats.
Now instead of obscure names like W32/worm.169/06A they can give them meaningful names like W32/fucks.your.harddrive.and.emails.itself.to.all. your.friends.169/06A.
I think the program is bugged, it keeps telling me that something called Windows is malware.
That's the most attractive option for the big malware prevention/removal companies, and is the most likely scenario in the near future.
The opportunity this type of forensic analysis creates though, is that it exposes and classifies the methods the malware uses to insinuate itself into the host operating system. That means OS vendors can analyse the failure points of their products and harden them against the malware. At the moment, the two key problems with malware removal are
If you minimise the number of places where programs can start at boot time and make any auto-starting program clearly visible and easily removable, for example, you will have made it easier for users to block or remove an infection and have reduced the motive for crackers to write the malware in the first place.It's also an example of why an OS vendor who also sells malware tools has such a dangerous conflict of interests.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Is it worth having a core just to do background tasks like this?
Since multicore systems are starting to take off, perhaps there should be a method for applications to flag themselves as 'supporting', and then have a seperate lower power core dedicated to 'supporting' applications such as AV, system monitors etc?
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
Researchers Use Machines To Analyze Malware
as opposed to punch cards?
Attempts at classifying malware automatically have been around for a number of years. Trouble is: 90% isn't good enough--it's too many false alarms. You need something that works almost perfectly in order to deploy it on real machines.
Maybe it could be trained to categorize my socks?
and classified a previously unseen subset of malware using the trained system
automated systems determined that the new worm, W32.setup/install.exe is the most prevalent ever, due to the success of its social-engineering attack vector.
"...bots and viruses that plague us" What's this "us" shit Kemosabe? I've never experienced any bots and/or viruses in the past 5 years or more. What kinda system are you running that has this affliction?
If I didn't have absolutely NOTHING to do, I wouldn't be here.
After reading 12 of the 17 page MS document I shake my head... Some malware do not run properly in VM. Some packers are known to detect VM environment and prevent the file from normal execution. What about smarter polymorphs which change and adapt not to mention their analysis', tests, etc., did not include a full scope of what malware targets: "Runtime environment simulation is still primitive. For example, we have not implemented Instant Messaging or P2P applications/servers." Couple this with: "The biggest benefit is more rapid response to complex threats. As the synergy between viruses, Trojans, worms, rootkits and exploits grows, waiting for a solution becomes more dangerous." And lest I forget "This two-part article series looks at how cryptography is a double-edged sword: it is used to make us safer, but it is also being used for malicious purposes within sophisticated viruses. Part two continues the discussion of armored viruses and then looks at a Bradley worm - a worm that uses cryptography in such a way that it cannot be analyzed. (source). So what happens when malware writers get a clue and start creating their own forms of crypto to hide their actions. For any company to create a product whether its hardware or software based, they'd only be lying to a degree about their ability to detect complex threats no matter what engine their malware snoopers were using.
Infiltrated dot Net
Internet Security Systems already provides a product that does this called "Proventia Desktop". Whenever the user tries to run a program, it first boots a virtual machine, runs the program, looks at all these behaviors (opening connections, setting itself as the Run entry in the registry, etc.). When the right combination of behaviors are detected, it marks it as malware and refuses to run it in the real machine. The entire process takes as much time as it would for anti-virus to scan it. It's about 99% effective, which means that it catches almost all 0-day viruses, but it will occasionally let something through (which is why you should probably also have traditional anti-virus as well).
The point is, however, that malware mostly (ab)uses perfectly legal system instructions.
Therefore, whatever it is that will be running in people's backgrounds, it will have to have a heuristic algorithm and monitor every single system activity.
To abuse the good old car analogy, it's as if more and more safety measures were introduced in cars instead of teaching people to drive safely.
Wait, where was I going with that one?
Anyway, I do not want (at the times when I'm using Windows) another program which will protect me some of the time and hog resources all of the time.
But to discuss one of your points:
Now, that I can't really agree with.People mostly do not write malware as a programming exercise or 'because they can'. /. meme goes, 4) Profit!!!1one
The romantic days of great hackers seem to be long past.
The reason people do write malware is, as
You may make it more difficult, but as long as the motive is plain and simple profit, the motive will remain.
Ignore this signature. By order.
Back in the days when Macs had viruses (yes they do exist or existed), I was using a program called Gatekeeper. Instead of knowing about certain virus it monitored system activity and alerted you when virus type activity was happening. You the user would either deny or grant the action.
So given my experience with GateKeeper, the ideas of this malware detection seem obvious. Why did it take this long to apply these ideas to windows malware? Is the problem commerical anti-virus software? They prefer you to keep paying for updates, instead to shut down potential malware until they software knows about it?
Brought to you by Team SPAM! where we believe: "Information in the noise!"