News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Investigating a malware sample which sometimes fails to b... by userbinator on Saturday September 24, 2016 @08:28PM (#12573249)
By taking anti-anti-VM and anti-anti-sandbox measures, obviously ;-)

A stock VM is extremely easy to detect because most VM software today doesn't even try to make it look like a physical machine (e.g. would a physical machine have hardware named "VMware virtual SVGA"?), but there are certainly patches you can do to change this, often at the cost of performance. (The 80-20 rule applies: the majority of software won't notice the difference and making the VM "perfect" to cater to the rest becomes increasingly difficult.) And a sandbox lets you control to varying degress of precision the exact environment an application sees.

Besides, these researchers presumably know reverse-engineering. They can just inspect the malware for such checks and force them to go the way they want.

Re:Investigating a malware sample which sometimes fails to b... by dogma1138 on Saturday September 24, 2016 @08:54PM (#12573327)
You underestimate the complexity of malware these days.

Obfuscated to hell, encrypted blocks, tons of loops and rabbit holes that can lead you to dead ends, in addition to malware being more of a bootstrap these days than a self contained application which means it will download additional modules based on the configuration of the machine it has infected and what the mothership tells it to do.

While this might be considered anecdotal I've seen malware that would detect a VM and not disable itself but would pretty bog standard run of the mill post infection modules and perform pretty bog standard post infection tasks (registry entries, auto-run, register a service etc.).

These things are intended to "fool" the researcher into both not understanding the malware and missing its purpose completely and to create false signatures for the file paths, registry entries and binaries all while thinking they've done a great job and call it a day.

The checks that malware does is way beyond simply looking for the usual signs it goes way above dmidecode or systeminfo | grep "insert_hypervisor_name_here".

I've seen malware trying to do a full dump of the bios, access the TPM, try to call various API's that won't really work well in a VM like directx 11, try to get DMA access to various devices, do some timing analysis on IRQ stuff, access the SUPERIO/BIOS functionality for controlling the fans and check if it can control them and what effects it has on the thermals, enumerate how many USB devices are connected pretty much anything you can think off.

So overall I'm pretty amused by the fact that "counting the amount of documents" is considered a "novel evasion technique", it might not even be an evasion technique but just a simple check if this PC is worth infecting or not. I've seen quite a few cryptolockers infect a machine and only encrypt everything once a certain milestone of "valuable documents" has been reached, some really nasty/cynical ones wait for dates like holidays etc. and wait until you fill your machine with 1000's of photos, or wait for the end of the financial year and wait for you to fill it with tax returns and accounting docs.

P.S. The cream of the crop isn't malware that is designed to attack users/endpoints, but malware designed to attack servers, so in this case you have to be able to come up with a pretty clever heuristic and or statistical models to figure out if you are running in a researcher's VM or inside a valid target ;)

Re:Investigating a malware sample which sometimes fails to b... by goatsi on Saturday September 24, 2016 @09:39PM (#12573465)
At least one malware crew even setup a specific C&C server for researchers. The malware still would install correctly if detected a VM but it would use a different domain generation algorithm that would connect to a completely different infrastructure than the one used for regular infections. This is very difficult to notice as the behavior is no different than what you would expect from a regular infection. http://malware.dontneedcoffee.com/2016/04/bedepantiVM.html
Re:Investigating a malware sample which sometimes fails to b... by ago on Sunday September 25, 2016 @01:40AM (#12574128)
It would be really nice to have physical hardware that identifies the same as the VMware / VirtualBox hardware.
Re:Investigating a malware sample which sometimes fails to b... by aurelianito on Sunday September 25, 2016 @09:17AM (#12575180)
It is even easier to just do your work on a VM. If malware actually does not work on a VM you are instantaneously protected.
Re:Investigating a malware sample which sometimes fails to b... by leksak on Sunday September 25, 2016 @04:04AM (#12574403)
Seems like a pretty decent anti-malware approach! Make my machine appear to be a sandboxed machine -> get left alone.