Classification of Malware Network Activity

  • Gilles Berger-Sabbatel
  • Andrzej Duda
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 287)

Abstract

In the previous work, we have designed and implemented a platform with tools for capturing malware, running botnets in a controlled environment, analyzing their interactions with a botmaster, testing methods and techniques for mitigating botnet nuisance, and eventually disrupting them. We have used the platform to gather a large number of malware and observe its network activity.

In this paper, we present an approach to malware classification based on the observation of the malware communication behavior. First, we show that traditional methods based on antivirus tools are not suitable for classification. Then, we define the method based on observing the communication pattern of executing malware. We report on the classification results obtained with the proposed method. Unlike classification done by existing antivirus tools, the proposed method results in selective and consistent classification.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bailey, M., Oberheide, J., Andersen, J., Mao, Z.M., Jahanian, F., Nazario, J.: Automated Classification and Analysis of Internet Malware. In: Kruegel, C., Lippmann, R., Clark, A. (eds.) RAID 2007. LNCS, vol. 4637, pp. 178–197. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berger-Sabbatel, G., Duda, A.: Analysis of Malware Network Activity. In: Dziech, A., Czyżewski, A. (eds.) MCSS 2011. CCIS, vol. 149, pp. 207–215. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berger-Sabbatel, G., Korczyński, M., Duda, A.: Architecture of a Platform for Malware Analysis and Confinement. In: Proc. MCSS 2010: Multimedia Communications, Services and Security, Cracow (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Caglayan, A., Toothaker, M., Drapaeau, D., Burke, D., Eaton, G.: Behavioral analysis of fast flux service networks. In: Proceedings of the 5th Annual Workshop on Cyber Security and Information Intelligence Research: Cyber Security and Information Intelligence Challenges and Strategies, CSIIRW 2009, pp. 48:1–48:4. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carsten, W., Holz, T., Freiling, F.: Toward automated dynamic malware analysis using cwsandbox. IEEE Security and Privacy 5, 32–39 (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fedynyshyn, G., Chuah, M.C., Tan, G.: Detection and Classification of Different Botnet C&C Channels. In: Calero, J.M.A., Yang, L.T., Mármol, F.G., García Villalba, L.J., Li, A.X., Wang, Y. (eds.) ATC 2011. LNCS, vol. 6906, pp. 228–242. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Leder, F., Werner, T., Martini, P.: Proactive botnet countermeasures - an offensive approach. Technical report, Institute of Computer Science IV, University of Bonn, Germany (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nazario, J., Holz, T.: As the net churns: Fast-flux botnet observations. In: 3rd International Conference on Malicious and Unwanted Software, Fairfax, pp. 24–31 (October 2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gilles Berger-Sabbatel
    • 1
  • Andrzej Duda
    • 1
  1. 1.Grenoble Institute of TechnologyCNRS Grenoble Informatics Laboratory UMR 5217 681Saint Martin d’Hères CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations