Security Experts:

Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

SecurityWeekSecurityWeek

Endpoint Security

Looking for Malware in All the Wrong Places?

Anti-virus products scan for malware in two ways. They look for sequences of bits that are found in programs that are known to be “evil” (but which are not commonly found in “good” programs). And they run programs in sandboxes and look for known malicious actions. The first approach only catches known malware instances, while the second can also catch variants of these. Still, many malware agents slip through the cracks undetected…

Anti-virus products scan for malware in two ways. They look for sequences of bits that are found in programs that are known to be “evil” (but which are not commonly found in “good” programs). And they run programs in sandboxes and look for known malicious actions. The first approach only catches known malware instances, while the second can also catch variants of these. Still, many malware agents slip through the cracks undetected… until the rules of the anti-virus programs are updated, that is. It is a constant battle between the attackers and the defenders.

Instead of looking for known patterns – whether they’re patterns of instructions and data, or patterns of actions — wouldn’t it be great if we could look for anything that is malicious?

That may sound like a pipe dream. Not to me. Let me tell you why. But first, let’s agree about a couple of points.

1) When you scan for malware, there are three and only three things it can do. It can:

  • Be active in RAM, maybe trying to interfere with the detection algorithm.
  • Not be active in RAM, but store itself in secondary storage (where it obvious cannot interfere with the detection algorithm).
  • Erase itself.

2) Any program – good or evil – that wants to be active in RAM has no choice but to take up some space in RAM. At least one byte, right?

Assume now that we have a detection algorithm that runs in kernel mode, and that swaps out everything in RAM. Everything except itself. Well, malware may interfere, of course, as it often does, and remain in RAM. But if we know how big RAM is, we know how much space should be free. Assume we write pseudo-random bits over all this supposedly free space. Again, a malware agent could refuse to be overwritten. It could store those random bits somewhere else instead… like in secondary storage.

Then, let us compute a keyed hash of the entire memory contents — both our detection program and all the random bits. Here is what could happen: If there is no malware in RAM, the results will be as expected. An external verifier checking this would tell us that the scanned device is clean. Or there could be malware in RAM, and the checksum would be wrong. The external verifier would notice this and conclude that the device must be infected.

Thirdly, malware could divert the read requests to the place in secondary storage where it stored the random bits meant for the space it occupies. That would result in the right checksum… but also in a delay. This delay could be detected by and external verifier, which would then conclude that the device is infected.

Why a delay, you ask? Because secondary storage is slower than RAM. Especially if the reads and writes are ordered in a manner that intentionally causes huge delays if they are diverted to flash, hard drives, etc.

All we need is the help of an external verifier that knows how much RAM a device we want to protect has, and how fast its processor is. And ways to avoid latency variance when we measure the time to compute the checksum. This argument tells us a few interesting things. We can guarantee detection of malware. And that includes zero-day attacks and root kits. We can even guarantee that we will detect malware that infected a device before we installed our detection program. Think about it.

Written By

Click to comment

Daily Briefing Newsletter

Subscribe to the SecurityWeek Email Briefing to stay informed on the latest threats, trends, and technology, along with insightful columns from industry experts.

Join this webinar to learn best practices that organizations can use to improve both their resilience to new threats and their response times to incidents.

Register

Join this live webinar as we explore the potential security threats that can arise when third parties are granted access to a sensitive data or systems.

Register

Expert Insights

Related Content

Cybercrime

The changing nature of what we still generally call ransomware will continue through 2023, driven by three primary conditions.

Cybercrime

No one combatting cybercrime knows everything, but everyone in the battle has some intelligence to contribute to the larger knowledge base.

Cybercrime

A recently disclosed vBulletin vulnerability, which had a zero-day status for roughly two days last week, was exploited in a hacker attack targeting the...

Malware & Threats

Threat actors are increasingly abusing Microsoft OneNote documents to deliver malware in both targeted and spray-and-pray campaigns.

CISO Strategy

Varied viewpoints as related security concepts take on similar traits create substantial confusion among security teams trying to evaluate and purchase security technologies.

Malware & Threats

A vulnerability affecting IBM’s Aspera Faspex file transfer solution, tracked as CVE-2022-47986, has been exploited in attacks.

Malware & Threats

Microsoft plans to improve the protection of Office users by blocking XLL add-ins from the internet.

Cybercrime

More than 3,800 servers around the world have been compromised in recent ESXiArgs ransomware attacks, which also include an improved process.