pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 1709.08753 · v1 · submitted 2017-09-25 · 💻 cs.CR

Recognition: unknown

Automated Behavioral Analysis of Malware A Case Study of WannaCry Ransomware

Authors on Pith no claims yet
classification 💻 cs.CR
keywords ransomwareanalysismalwareambientlogswannacrydatafeatures
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

Ransomware, a class of self-propagating malware that uses encryption to hold the victims' data ransom, has emerged in recent years as one of the most dangerous cyber threats, with widespread damage; e.g., zero-day ransomware WannaCry has caused world-wide catastrophe, from knocking U.K. National Health Service hospitals offline to shutting down a Honda Motor Company in Japan[1]. Our close collaboration with security operations of large enterprises reveals that defense against ransomware relies on tedious analysis from high-volume systems logs of the first few infections. Sandbox analysis of freshly captured malware is also commonplace in operation. We introduce a method to identify and rank the most discriminating ransomware features from a set of ambient (non-attack) system logs and at least one log stream containing both ambient and ransomware behavior. These ranked features reveal a set of malware actions that are produced automatically from system logs, and can help automate tedious manual analysis. We test our approach using WannaCry and two polymorphic samples by producing logs with Cuckoo Sandbox during both ambient, and ambient plus ransomware executions. Our goal is to extract the features of the malware from the logs with only knowledge that malware was present. We compare outputs with a detailed analysis of WannaCry allowing validation of the algorithm's feature extraction and provide analysis of the method's robustness to variations of input data\textemdash changing quality/quantity of ambient data and testing polymorphic ransomware. Most notably, our patterns are accurate and unwavering when generated from polymorphic WannaCry copies, on which 63 (of 63 tested) anti-virus (AV) products fail.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.