Proceedings of the 4th Program Protection and Reverse Engineering Workshop 2014
DOI: 10.1145/2689702.2689704
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Framework for Understanding Dynamic Anti-Analysis Defenses

Abstract: Malicious code often use a variety of anti-analysis and antitampering defenses to hinder analysis. Researchers trying to understand the internal logic of the malware have to penetrate these defenses. Existing research on such anti-analysis defenses tend to study them in isolation, thereby failing to see underlying conceptual similarities between different kinds of anti-analysis defenses. This paper proposes an information-flow-based framework that encompasses a wide variety of anti-analysis defenses. We illust… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
(44 reference statements)
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…If the guard is protected with interleaved self-checksumming code [5], a successful tampering requires removing all the selfchecksumming code at the same time, of which the chance is very low without sophisticated analysis. Existing approaches on identifying such code generally require using dynamic analysis and taint analysis together [23]. Empirically, the time required to tamper each guard is not negligible.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…If the guard is protected with interleaved self-checksumming code [5], a successful tampering requires removing all the selfchecksumming code at the same time, of which the chance is very low without sophisticated analysis. Existing approaches on identifying such code generally require using dynamic analysis and taint analysis together [23]. Empirically, the time required to tamper each guard is not negligible.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Using overlapped self-checksumming code can further increase the strength of protection. However, it can be defeated by carefully detecting and removing them [23] or exploring the vulnerabilities [29] of execution environment.…”
Section: B Limitation Of Anti-reverse Engineeringmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A recent survey on 36 research papers on dynamic analysis techniques [38] pointed out that the common shortcomings of dynamic analysis techniques are the problematic and somewhat obscure assumptions regarding the use of execution-driven datasets, and the lack of details and motivation on the security precautions that have been taken during the experimental phase. Moreover, recent malware is shipped with dynamic anti-analysis defenses that hide the malicious behaviour in the case a dynamic analysis environment is detected [36] and the lack of code coverage, as dynamic analysis is not designed to explore all or, at least, multiple execution paths of an executable [32]. Static analysis.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Since the provided test cases are likely to be incomplete, parts of the app's behavior are not discovered. These approaches are susceptible to a variety of anti-debugging and anti-monitoring defenses [190,172,176,210,178,64,136,114,97,90] as well as time bombs or logic bombs [95], which further decrease their efficacy. Furthermore, dynamic approaches are tedious and time consuming, as exhaustive execution of apps can take a substantial amount of time.…”
Section: Research Gapmentioning
confidence: 99%