Searching for just a few words should be enough to get started. If you need to make more complex queries, use the tips below to guide you.
Article type: Research Article
Authors: Li, Hongchenga; b | Huang, Jianjuna; b; * | Liang, Bina; b | Shi, Wenchanga; b | Wu, Yifanga; b | Bai, Shileia; b
Affiliations: [a] School of Information, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China | [b] Key Laboratory of DEKE, Renmin University of China, MOE, China. E-mails: owenlee@ruc.edu.cn, hjj@ruc.edu.cn, liangb@ruc.edu.cn, wenchang@ruc.edu.cn, lizhiwuyi@ruc.edu.cn, baishilei@ruc.edu.cn
Correspondence: [*] Corresponding author. E-mail: hjj@ruc.edu.cn.
Abstract: Injecting malicious code into benign programs is popular in spreading malware. Unfortunately, for detection, the prior knowledge about the malware, e.g., the behavior or implementation patterns, isn’t always available. Our observation shows that the logic of the host program is normally unclear to parasitic malware developers, resulting in very few interactions between the host and the payloads in lots of parasitic malware. Thus we can expose the injected part by grouping the code based on the interactive relations. Particularly, we partition a target program into modules, extract the relations, cluster the modules and further inspect the outliers to identify such malware. In this paper, we design a two-stage code clustering-based approach to detecting two representative types of malware, the UEFI rootkits and the piggybacked Android applications. Parasitic malware is reported when (1) any outlier in a UEFI firmware shows a relatively long distance to the largest cluster, or (2) the largest outlier distance exceeds zero in an Android application, i.e., multiple cluster exist after re-clustering outliers. We evaluate the approach on 35 pairs of benign/infected UEFI samples we do our best to get and achieve an overall F1 score. of 100%. Applying the learned threshold to 50 other benign firmwares, we identify them without false positives. In addition, our evaluation on 1079 pairs of Android applications, shows an F1 score of 90.66% when the third-party libraries are eliminated and a score of 87.36% if we keep the popular third-party libraries, demonstrating the effectiveness of the approach.
Keywords: Parasitic malware, outlier, code clustering, UEFI rootkit, piggybacked Android application
DOI: 10.3233/JCS-191313
Journal: Journal of Computer Security, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 157-189, 2020
IOS Press, Inc.
6751 Tepper Drive
Clifton, VA 20124
USA
Tel: +1 703 830 6300
Fax: +1 703 830 2300
sales@iospress.com
For editorial issues, like the status of your submitted paper or proposals, write to editorial@iospress.nl
IOS Press
Nieuwe Hemweg 6B
1013 BG Amsterdam
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 20 688 3355
Fax: +31 20 687 0091
info@iospress.nl
For editorial issues, permissions, book requests, submissions and proceedings, contact the Amsterdam office info@iospress.nl
Inspirees International (China Office)
Ciyunsi Beili 207(CapitaLand), Bld 1, 7-901
100025, Beijing
China
Free service line: 400 661 8717
Fax: +86 10 8446 7947
china@iospress.cn
For editorial issues, like the status of your submitted paper or proposals, write to editorial@iospress.nl
如果您在出版方面需要帮助或有任何建, 件至: editorial@iospress.nl