Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Enhancing Malware Fingerprinting through Analysis of Evasive Techniques

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2503.06495 v1 pith:MXVOPH4S submitted 2025-03-09 cs.CR

Enhancing Malware Fingerprinting through Analysis of Evasive Techniques

classification cs.CR
keywords malwarefingerprintingevasionsectionsdetectionmethodsmillionsection
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

As malware detection evolves, attackers adopt sophisticated evasion tactics. Traditional file-level fingerprinting, such as cryptographic and fuzzy hashes, is often overlooked as a target for evasion. Malware variants exploit minor binary modifications to bypass detection, as seen in Microsoft's discovery of GoldMax variations (2020-2021). However, no large-scale empirical studies have assessed the limitations of traditional fingerprinting methods on real-world malware samples or explored improvements. This paper fills this gap by addressing three key questions: (a) How prevalent are file variants in malware samples? Analyzing 4 million Windows Portable Executable (PE) files, 21 million sections, and 48 million resources, we find up to 80% deep structural similarities, including common APIs and executable sections. (b) What evasion techniques are used? We identify resilient fingerprints (clusters of malware variants with high similarity) validated via VirusTotal. Our analysis reveals non-functional mutations, such as altered section numbers, virtual sizes, and section names, as primary evasion tactics. We also classify two key section types: malicious sections (high entropy >5) and camouflage sections (entropy = 0). (c) How can fingerprinting be improved? We propose two novel approaches that enhance detection, improving identification rates from 20% (traditional methods) to over 50% using our refined fingerprinting techniques. Our findings highlight the limitations of existing methods and propose new strategies to strengthen malware fingerprinting against evolving threats.

discussion (0)

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