Advertisement

Quincy: Detecting Host-Based Code Injection Attacks in Memory Dumps

  • Thomas BaraboschEmail author
  • Niklas Bergmann
  • Adrian Dombeck
  • Elmar Padilla
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10327)

Abstract

Malware predominantly employs code injections, which allow to run code in the trusted context of another process. This enables malware, for instance, to secretly operate or to intercept critical information. It is crucial for analysts to quickly detect injected code. While there are systems to detect code injections in memory dumps, they suffer from unsatisfying detection rates or their detection granularity is too coarse. In this paper, we present Quincy to overcome these drawbacks. It employs 38 features commonly associated with code injections to classify memory regions. We implemented Quincy for Windows XP, 7 and 10 and compared it to the current state of the art, Volatility’s malfind as well as hollowfind. For this sake, we created a high quality data set consisting of 102 current representatives of code injecting malware families. Quincy improves significantly upon both approaches, with up to 19.49% more true positives and a decrease in false positives by up to 94,76%.

Keywords

Malware Memory forensics Host-Based Code Injection Attacks Machine learning 

References

  1. 1.
    The Portable Freeware Collection. http://www.portablefreeware.com. Accessed 24 Apr 2017
  2. 2.
    YARA. https://plusvic.github.io/yara/. Accessed 24 Apr 2017
  3. 3.
    scikit-learn (2016). http://scikit-learn.org. Accessed 24 Apr 2017
  4. 4.
    VirusTotal. https://www.virustotal.com. Accessed 24 Apr 2017
  5. 5.
    Barabosch, T., Bergmann, N., Dombeck, A., Padilla, E.: Quincy Project Site. https://net.cs.uni-bonn.de/wg/cs/staff/thomas-barabosch/. Accessed 24 Apr 2017
  6. 6.
    Barabosch, T., Eschweiler, S., Gerhards-Padilla, E.: Bee master: detecting host-based code injection attacks. In: Dietrich, S. (ed.) DIMVA 2014. LNCS, vol. 8550, pp. 235–254. Springer, Cham (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-08509-8_13 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barabosch, T., Gerhards-Padilla, E.: Host-based code injection attacks: a popular technique used by malware. In: Malicious and Unwanted Software (MALCON) (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bergstra, J., Bengio, Y.: Random search for hyper-parameter optimization. J. Mach. Learn. Res. (JMLR) 13, 281–305 (2012)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Breiman, L.: Random forests. Mach. Learn. 45, 5–32 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Breiman, L., Friedman, J., Stone, C.J., Olshen, R.A.: Classification and Regression Trees. CRC Press, Boca Raton (1984)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Freund, Y., Schapire, R.E.: A desicion-theoretic generalization of on-line learning and an application to boosting. In: Vitányi, P. (ed.) EuroCOLT 1995. LNCS, vol. 904, pp. 23–37. Springer, Heidelberg (1995). doi: 10.1007/3-540-59119-2_166 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Friedman, J.H.: Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine. Ann. Stat. 29, 1189–1232 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Genuer, R., Poggi, J.-M., Tuleau-Malot, C.: Variable selection using random forests. Pattern Recognit. Lett. 31(14), 2225–2236 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Geurts, P., Ernst, D., Wehenkel, L.: Extremely randomized trees. Mach. Learn. 63, 3 (2006)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Griffin, K., Schneider, S., Hu, X., Chiueh, T.: Automatic generation of string signatures for malware detection. In: Kirda, E., Jha, S., Balzarotti, D. (eds.) RAID 2009. LNCS, vol. 5758, pp. 101–120. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-04342-0_6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Guyon, I., Weston, J., Barnhill, S., Vladimir, V.: Gene selection for cancer classification using support vector machines. Mach. Learn. 46, 389–422 (2002)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lindorfer, M., Kolbitsch, C., Milani Comparetti, P.: Detecting environment-sensitive malware. In: Sommer, R., Balzarotti, D., Maier, G. (eds.) RAID 2011. LNCS, vol. 6961, pp. 338–357. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-23644-0_18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lyda, R., Hamrock, J.: Using entropy analysis to find encrypted and packed malware. Secur. Priv. (S&P) (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Microsoft: Microsoft Malware Classification Challenge (BIG 2015) (2015). https://www.kaggle.com/c/malware-classification. Accessed 24 Apr 2017
  20. 20.
    Monnappa, K.A.: Detecting deceptive process hollowing techniques using hollowfind volatility plugin (2016). https://cysinfo.com/detecting-deceptive-hollowing-techniques/. Accessed 24 Apr 2017
  21. 21.
    Nappa, A., Rafique, M.Z., Caballero, J.: The MALICIA dataset: identification and analysis of drive-by download operations. Int. J. Inf. Secur. 1–19 (2014)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Oracle: VirtualBox. https://www.virtualbox.org. Accessed 24 Apr 2017
  23. 23.
    Ortega, A.: Pafish. https://github.com/a0rtega/pafish. Accessed 24 Apr 2017
  24. 24.
    Pék, G., Lázár, Z., Várnagy, Z., Félegyházi, M., Buttyán, L.: Membrane: a posteriori detection of malicious code loading by memory paging analysis. In: Askoxylakis, I., Ioannidis, S., Katsikas, S., Meadows, C. (eds.) ESORICS 2016. LNCS, vol. 9878, pp. 199–216. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-45744-4_10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rossow, C., Dietrich, C.J., Grier, C., Kreibich, C., Paxson, V., Pohlmann, N., Bos, H., Van Steen, M.: Prudent practices for designing malware experiments: status quo and outlook. In: Security and Privacy (SP) (2012)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    van Dantzig, M., Heppener, D., Frank Ruiz, Y.K., Hu, Y.Z., de Jong, E., de Mik, K., Haagsma, L.: Ponmocup - a giant hiding in the shadows (2015). https://foxitsecurity.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/foxit-whitepaper_ponmocup_1_1.pdf. Accessed 24 Apr 2017
  27. 27.
    Volatility Foundation: The Volatility Framework (2015). http://www.volatilityfoundation.org. Accessed 24 Apr 2017
  28. 28.
    White, A., Schatz, B., Foo, E.: Integrity verification of user space code. In: Digital Forensic Research Workshop (DFRWS) (2013)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Willems, C., Holz, T., Freiling, F.: Toward automated dynamic malware analysis using cwsandbox. In: Proceedings of the 28th Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P) (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Barabosch
    • 1
    Email author
  • Niklas Bergmann
    • 1
  • Adrian Dombeck
    • 1
  • Elmar Padilla
    • 1
  1. 1.Fraunhofer FKIEBonnGermany

Personalised recommendations