Jarhead Analysis and Detection of Malicious Java Applets Johannes Schlumberger, Christopher Kruegel,...
-
Upload
abel-mcgee -
Category
Documents
-
view
222 -
download
4
Transcript of Jarhead Analysis and Detection of Malicious Java Applets Johannes Schlumberger, Christopher Kruegel,...
JarheadAnalysis and Detection of Malicious Java AppletsJohannes Schlumberger, Christopher Kruegel, Giovanni Vigna
University of California
Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (ACSAC) (December, 2012)
Reporter: 鍾怡傑 2013/03/25
Outline INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND Java applet
Java exploits
JARHEAD SYSTEM OVERVIEW
FEATURE DISCUSSION Obfuscation
Behavior
EVALUATION Manually Dataset
Wepawet Dataset
POSSIBLE EVASION
CONCLUSIONS
INTRODUCTION
We address the problem of malicious Java applets, a problem on the rise that is currently not well addressed by existing work.
Jarhead uses static analysis and machine learning techniques to identify malicious Java applets.
INTRODUCTION
Drive-by download attacks
Social engineering attacks
INTRODUCTION
Signature-based detection avoidable by obfuscation
Honeyclients need vulnerable software combination Java plugin version
Java version
Browser and OS version
BACKGROUND-Java applet
Java bytecode + application files
Commonly bundled as Jar-archive
Embedded in web pages
Executed by web browsers in sandboxed JVM
Optional digital signature disables sandbox
Developed in the 90ies for mobile code
Superseded by CSS, JavaScript, Flash, . . .
Modern browsers still support Applets
Next
Jar-archive
Embedded in web pages
<applet code="xxxx.class” archive="test.jar" width="550" height="150"><param name="bgcolor" value="255,255,255"><param name="font" value=" 新明細體 "></applet>
Digital Signature
https://chrometerm.appspot.com
BACKGROUND-Java exploits
Users unaware of Java applets
Plugins default enabled
Plugins out of date
Multiple vulnerabilities in the JVM or Java library
JARHEAD SYSTEM OVERVIEW
Detector for malicious Java applets Static
Reliable
Accurate
Fast
Offline
Robust
Low maintenance
Analyzed large number of samples
Detected previously unknown exploits
How does Jarhead work?
1. Unpack
2. Disassemble
3. Statically extract feature set
4. Classification
5. Result
Why statically?
1. Partial exploits can not be analyzed dynamically
2. Resistant to fingerprinting/evasion
3. Independent of Environment (JVM/Java version, OS,. . . )
4. 100% Code coverage
FEATURE DISCUSSION
General metrics (size in bytes, . . . )
Obfuscation
Code metrics
String obfuscation
Active code obfuscation
Behavior
Interaction with security-critical components
Download and execute
Jar Content
Known vulnerable functions
42 features total
Obfuscation
Code metrics
We collect a number of simple metrics that look at the size of an applet, i.e., the total number of instructions and the number of lines of disassembled code, its number of classes, and the number of functions per class.
Cyclomatic complexity is a complexity metric for code, computed on the control flow graph (CFG).
To find semantically useless code, we measure the number of dead local variables and the number of unused methods and functions.
String obfuscation
Strings are heavily used by both benign and malicious applets.
The reason for string obfuscation is to defend against signature-based systems.
For the length feature, we determine the length of the shortest and longest string in the pool as well as the average length of all strings.
Active Code Obfuscation
To counter code analysis techniques that check for the invocation of known vulnerable library functions within the Java library, malicious applets frequently use reflection.
To detect such activity, we count the absolute number of times reflection is used in the bytecode to instantiate objects and to call functions.
We check if the Java.io.Serializablejava.lang.Object or java.lang.Class interface.
we check if the JavaScript interface is used.
Behavior
Interaction with security-critical components
Several vulnerabilities in different versions of the Sun Java plugin have led to exploits that bypass the sandboxing mechanisms. Runtime class
System class
ClassLoader class
Download and execute
For a successful exploit, it is necessary to execute a file after it has been downloaded.
Java.net.URL objects
Sockets
Write files
spawn a new process
Jar Content
The number of files in the Jar that are not Java class files(media files, images, . . . ).
Binary machine code in the archive.(executable or library)
The total size of the Jar archive in bytes
Known vulnerable functions
MidiSystem.getSoundbank()
javax.management.remote.rmi.RMIConnectionImpl()
MIDlet
The combination of functions is MidiSystem.getSequencer, and Sequencer.addControllerEventListener
javax.management.MBeanServer interface
Obfuscation features
Cyclomatic complexity
Semantically useless code (dead variables, unused functions, . . . )
Percentage of non-ASCII strings
Length and number of Strings
Use of Reection
Dynamic code loading
Invocation of JS interpreter
Behavioral features
Interaction with Runtime
Interaction with System Security Manager
Check for extensions of the ClassLoader
Use of URLs, FileStreams, . . .
Ability to spawn process
SMS-send functionality
Call to known vulnerable functions
Top ten features
Merit Attribute Type0.398 gets_parameters behavior0.266 functions_per_class obfuscation0.271 no_of_instructions obfuscation0.257 gets_runtime behavior0.254 lines_of_disassembly obfuscation0.232 uses_file_outputstream behavior0.22 percent_unused_methods obfuscation0.211 longest_string_char_cnt obfuscation0.202 mccabe_complexity_avg obfuscation0.197 calls_execute_function behavior
EVALUATION
Manually collected (2,854 samples) Applet collection sites
http://echoecho.com
http://javaboutique.internet.com (http://www.jguru.com/)
Malware research community site
http://filex.jeek.org
Security site
http://www.malwaredomainlist.com
Web crawl
Wepawet (1,551 samples) https://wepawet.iseclab.org/
Manually Dataset
Virustotal found 1,721 (82.1%) of the files to be benign and 374 (17.9%) to be malicious
Virustotal has actually misclassified 61 (2.9%) applets. 34 (1.6%) benign applets as malicious
27 (1.3%) malicious applets as benign
The classifier only misclassified a total of 11 (0.5%) samples. The false positive rate was 0.2% (4 applets)
The false negative rate was 0.3% (7 applets)
Comparison of Jarhead and Virustotal misclassifications
Virustotal (42 AVs) Jarhead (10x cross-val.)
False pos. 1.6% 0.2%
False neg. 1.3% 0.3%
Wepawet Dataset
The authors of Wepawet provided us with 1,551 Jar files.
Virustotal found 413 (32.4%) applets to be benign and 862 (67.6%) applets to be malicious. 86 (6.7%) samples 59 (4.6%) malicious applets as benign
27 (2.1%) benign applets as malicious.
We found a total misclassification count of 21 (1.6%) The false positive rate was 0.9% (12 applets)
The false negative rate was 0.7% (9 applets)
Jarhead’s performance on the Wepawet dataset
Original classifier 10x cross validated
False positives 2.1% 0.9%
False negatives 4.6% 0.7%
POSSIBLE EVASION
It is possible to use the Java native interface (JNI) to execute native code on the machine. This is not covered by our analysis.
Malicious behavior is distributed among multiple applets within a single page
A completely new class of exploits or vulnerabilities could bypass our detection either
CONCLUSIONS
We address the quickly growing problem of malicious Java applets by building a detection system based on static analysis and machine learning.
We also deployed our system as a plugin for the Wepawet system, which is publicly accessible.
In the future, we plan to improve our results by using more sophisticated static analysis techniques to achieve even higher accuracy.
Thank you. . .any Questions?