DOCSLIB.ORG

You Can Type, but You Can't Hide: a Stealthy GPU-Based Keylogger

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
You Can Type, but You Can't Hide: a Stealthy GPU-Based Keylogger You Can Type, but You Can’t Hide: A Stealthy GPU-based Keylogger Evangelos Ladakis,* Lazaros Koromilas,* Giorgos Vasiliadis,* Michalis Polychronakis,† Sotiris Ioannidis* *Institute of Computer Science, Foundation for Research and Technology—Hellas, Greece †Columbia University, USA {ladakis, koromil, gvasil, sotiris}@ics.forth.gr, [email protected] ABSTRACT keystrokes passed through the hooked function call. Although Keyloggers are a prominent class of malware that harvests kernel-level keyloggers are more sophisticated and stealthy sensitive data by recording any typed in information. Key- than user-level keyloggers, they heavily rely on kernel code logger implementations strive to hide their presence using modifications, and thus can be detected by kernel integrity rootkit-like techniques to evade detection by antivirus and and code attestation tools [25, 26]. other system protections. In this paper, we present a new In this paper, we present how malware can tap the general- approach for implementing a stealthy keylogger: we explore purpose computation capability of modern graphics proces- the possibility of leveraging the graphics card as an alterna- sors to increase the stealthiness of keylogging. By instructing tive environment for hosting the operation of a keylogger. the GPU to carefully monitor via DMA the physical page The key idea behind our approach is to monitor the system’s where the keyboard buffer resides, a GPU-based keylogger keyboard buffer directly from the GPU via DMA, without can record all user keystrokes and store them in the memory any hooks or modifications in the kernel’s code and data space of the GPU. An important property of our keylogger is structures besides the page table. The evaluation of our pro- that it does not rely on any kernel modifications besides alter- totype implementation shows that a GPU-based keylogger ing the page table, and uses a small code snippet that needs can effectively record all user keystrokes, store them in the to run just once from kernel context to acquire the physical memory space of the GPU, and even analyze the recorded address of the keyboard buffer. This code is completely stan- data in-place, with negligible runtime overhead. dalone, does not require any hooks or other modifications, and is completely removed after it accomplishes its task. The physical address of the keyboard buffer is then used by 1. INTRODUCTION the GPU to monitor all user keystrokes directly via DMA, Keyloggers are one of the most serious types of malware through the direction of a user-level controller process. that surreptitiously log keyboard activity, and typically exfil- We have implemented and evaluated our prototype GPU- trate the recorded data to third parties [12]. Despite signifi- based keylogger for Linux and the 32-bit x86 architecture. cant research and commercial efforts [16,17,21,22], keyloggers The results of our evaluation demonstrate the efficiency and still pose an important threat of stealing personal and finan- effectiveness of GPUs for capturing short-lived data from the cial information [1]. Keyloggers can be implemented as tiny host memory, while keeping the CPU and GPU utilization hardware devices [2,3], or more conveniently, in software [4]. at minimal levels, in our case about 0.1%. Software keyloggers can be implemented either at the user The main contributions of this work are: or kernel level. User-level keyloggers generally use high-level • We present the first (to the best of our knowledge) APIs to monitor keystrokes. For example, Windows provides GPU keylogger, capable of monitoring all keystroke the GetAsyncKeyState function to determine whether a events and storing them in the GPU memory. key is pressed or not at the time the function is called, and whether the key was pressed after a previous call. User-space • We have experimentally evaluated our GPU-based key- keyloggers, while easy to write, are also relatively easy to logger and demonstrate that it can be used effectively detect, using hook-based techniques [28]. In contrast, kernel and efficiently for capturing all keystroke events. By level keyloggers run inside the OS kernel and record all data carefully scheduling the GPU kernel invocations, the originating from the keyboard. Typically, a kernel level keylogger can capture all keystroke events without af- keylogger hooks specific system calls or driver functions. The fecting the proper rendering of the graphics and with injected malicious code is programmed to capture all user minimal overhead. 2. BACKGROUND Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for General-purpose computing on graphics processing units personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are has drastically evolved during the last few years. Historically, not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies the GPU has been used for handling 2D and 3D graphics bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, to rendering, effectively offloading the CPU from these compu- republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific tationally intensive operations. Driven to a large extent by permission and/or a fee. EuroSec’13 April 14 2013, Prague, Czech Republic the ever-growing video game industry, graphics processors Copyright 2013 ACM 978-1-4503-2120-4/13/04 ...$15.00. have been constantly evolving, increasing both in compu- tational power and in the range of supported operations and functionality. Meanwhile, programmers began exploring GPU kernel module ways for enabling their applications to take advantage of the code massively parallel architecture of modern GPUs. Standard graphics APIs such as OpenGL and DirectX, do 4 start 3 manipulate 2 keylogger page table entries not expose much of the underlying computational capabilities scan pages that graphics hardware can provide. Data and variables have locate to be mapped to graphics objects, while algorithms must be controller buffer memory expressed as pixel or vertex shaders. The Compute Unified process 1 scanner Device Architecture (CUDA) introduced by NVIDIA [20] is a significant advance, exposing several hardware features that Figure 1: Temporary and permanent components 1 are not available via the graphics API. CUDA consists of a of the keylogger. Gray denotes bootstrapping oper- minimal set of extensions to the C language and a runtime ations, while black denotes monitoring functions. library that provides functions to control the GPU from the host, as well as device-specific functions and data types. trator privileges. In other words, depending on its purpose, At the top level, an application written for CUDA consists GPU-assisted malware can run successfully even under user of a serial program running on the CPU, and a parallel part, privileges, making it more robust and deployable. called a kernel, that runs on the GPU. A kernel, however, can only be invoked by a parent process running on the CPU. As 3. GPU-BASED KEYLOGGING a consequence, a kernel cannot be initiated as a stand-alone In this section we present in detail the design of a proof- application, and it strongly depends on the CPU process of-concept keylogger implemented on the GPU. Instead of that invokes it. Each kernel is executed on the device as relying on rootkit-like techniques, such as hooking system many different threads organized in thread blocks. Thread functions and manipulating critical data structures, our key- blocks are executed by the multiprocessors of the GPU in logger monitors the contents of the system’s keyboard buffer parallel. In addition to program execution, CUDA also directly from the GPU. provides appropriate functions for data exchange between One of the primary challenges of this design is how to the host and the device. All I/O transactions are performed locate the memory address of the keyboard buffer, as (i) via DMA over the PCI Express bus. DMA enables the GPU the keyboard buffer is not exported in the kernel’s symbol to trasfer data directly—without any CPU involvement—to table, making it not accessible directly by loadable modules, and from the host memory, using a dedicated DMA engine. and (ii) the memory space allocated for data structures is Typically, the GPU can only access specific memory regions, different after every system boot or after unplugging and allocated by the operating system. plugging back in the device. Typically, loadable modules Given the great potential of general-purpose computing allocate memory dynamically, hence object addresses are not on graphics processors, it is only natural to expect that necessarily the same after a system reboot. In addition, the malware authors would attempt to tap the powerful features OS can apply certain randomization algorithms to hinder an of modern GPUs to their benefit [24, 32]. The ability to attacker that tries to predict an object’s address. execute general purpose code on the GPU opens a whole new To overcome the randomized placement of the keyboard window of opportunity for malware authors to significantly buffer, the attacker has to scan the whole memory. As a raise the bar against existing defenses. Existing malicious consequence, our GPU-based keystroke logger consists of code analysis systems primarily support x86 code, while two main components: (i) a CPU-based component that current virus scanning tools cannot detect malicious code is executed once, at the bootstrap phase, with the task of stored in separate device memory and executed on a processor locating the address of the keyboard buffer in main memory, other than the CPU. In addition, the majority of security and (ii) a GPU-based component that monitors, via DMA, researchers are not familiar with the execution environment the keyboard buffer and records all keystroke events. Figure1 and the instruction set of graphics processors. displays the bootstrapping (gray) and monitoring (black) A GPU-assisted malware binary contains code destined to components of the system, along with the sequence of their run on different processors.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Trojan Vs Rat Vs Rootkit Mayuri More1, Rajeshwari Gundla2, Siddharth Nanda3 1U.G
    IJRECE VOL. 7 ISSUE 2 (APRIL- JUNE 2019) ISSN: 2393-9028 (PRINT) | ISSN: 2348-2281 (ONLINE) Trojan Vs Rat Vs Rootkit Mayuri More1, Rajeshwari Gundla2, Siddharth Nanda3 1U.G. Student, 2 Senior Faculty, 3Senior Faculty SOE, ADYPU, Lohegaon, Pune, Maharashtra, India1 IT, iNurture, Bengaluru, India2,3 Abstract - Malicious Software is Malware is a dangerous of RATs completely and prevent confidential data being software which harms computer systems. With the increase leaked. So Dan Jiang and Kazumasa Omote researchers in technology in today’s days, malwares are also increasing. have proposed an approach to detect RAT in the early stage This paper is based on Malware. We have discussed [10]. TROJAN, RAT, ROOTKIT in detail. Further, we have discussed the adverse effects of malware on the system as III. CLASSIFICATION well as society. Then we have listed some trusted tools to Rootkit vs Trojan vs Rat detect and remove malware. Rootkit - A rootkit is a malicious software that permits a legitimate user to have confidential access to a system and Keywords - Malware, Trojan, RAT, Rootkit, System, privileged areas of its software. A rootkit possibly contains Computer, Anti-malware a large number of malicious means for example banking credential stealers, keyloggers, antivirus disablers, password I. INTRODUCTION stealers and bots for DDoS attacks. This software stays Nowadays, this world is full of technology, but with the hidden in the computer and allocates the remote access of advantages of technology comes its disadvantages like the computer to the attacker[2]. hacking, corrupting the systems, stealing of data etc. These Types of Rootkit: malpractices are possible because of malware and viruses 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Adware-Searchsuite
    McAfee Labs Threat Advisory Adware-SearchSuite June 22, 2018 McAfee Labs periodically publishes Threat Advisories to provide customers with a detailed analysis of prevalent malware. This Threat Advisory contains behavioral information, characteristics and symptoms that may be used to mitigate or discover this threat, and suggestions for mitigation in addition to the coverage provided by the DATs. To receive a notification when a Threat Advisory is published by McAfee Labs, select to receive “Malware and Threat Reports” at the following URL: https://www.mcafee.com/enterprise/en-us/sns/preferences/sns-form.html Summary Detailed information about the threat, its propagation, characteristics and mitigation are in the following sections: Infection and Propagation Vectors Mitigation Characteristics and Symptoms Restart Mechanism McAfee Foundstone Services The Threat Intelligence Library contains the date that the above signatures were most recently updated. Please review the above mentioned Threat Library for the most up to date coverage information. Infection and Propagation Vectors Adware-SearchSuite is a "potentially unwanted program" (PUP). PUPs are any piece of software that a reasonably security- or privacy-minded computer user may want to be informed of and, in some cases, remove. PUPs are often made by a legitimate corporate entity for some beneficial purpose, but they alter the security state of the computer on which they are installed, or the privacy posture of the user of the system, such that most users will want to be aware of them. Mitigation Mitigating the threat at multiple levels like file, registry and URL could be achieved at various layers of McAfee products. Browse the product guidelines available here (click Knowledge Center, and select Product Documentation from the Support Content list) to mitigate the threats based on the behavior described in the Characteristics and symptoms section.
    [Show full text]
  • Crimeware on the Net
    Crimeware on the Net The “Behind the scenes” of the new web economy Iftach Ian Amit Director, Security Research – Finjan BlackHat Europe, Amsterdam 2008 Who Am I ? (iamit) • Iftach Ian Amit – In Hebrew it makes more sense… • Director Security Research @ Finjan • Various security consulting/integration gigs in the past – R&D – IT • A helping hand when needed… (IAF) 2 BlackHat Europe – Amsterdam 2008 Today’s Agenda • Terminology • Past vs. Present – 10,000 feet view • Business Impact • Key Characteristics – what does it look like? – Anti-Forensics techniques – Propagation methods • What is the motive (what are they looking for)? • Tying it all up – what does it look like when successful (video). • Anything in it for us to learn from? – Looking forward on extrusion testing methodologies 3 BlackHat Europe – Amsterdam 2008 Some Terminology • Crimeware – what we refer to most malware these days is actually crimeware – malware with specific goals for making $$$ for the attackers. • Attackers – not to be confused with malicious code writers, security researchers, hackers, crackers, etc… These guys are the Gordon Gecko‟s of the web security field. The buy low, and capitalize on the investment. • Smart (often mislead) guys write the crimeware and get paid to do so. 4 BlackHat Europe – Amsterdam 2008 How Do Cybercriminals Steal Business Data? Criminals’ activity in the cyberspace Federal Prosecutor: “Cybercrime Is Funding Organized Crime” 5 BlackHat Europe – Amsterdam 2008 The Business Impact Of Crimeware Criminals target sensitive business data
    [Show full text]
  • SMM Rootkits
    SMM Rootkits: A New Breed of OS Independent Malware Shawn Embleton Sherri Sparks Cliff Zou University of Central Florida University of Central Florida University of Central Florida [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT 1. INTRODUCTION The emergence of hardware virtualization technology has led to A rootkit consists of a set of programs that work to subvert the development of OS independent malware such as the Virtual control of an Operating System from its legitimate users [16]. If Machine based rootkits (VMBRs). In this paper, we draw one were asked to classify viruses and worms by a single defining attention to a different but related threat that exists on many characteristic, the first word to come to mind would probably be commodity systems in operation today: The System Management replication. In contrast, the single defining characteristic of a Mode based rootkit (SMBR). System Management Mode (SMM) rootkit is stealth. Viruses reproduce, but rootkits hide. They hide is a relatively obscure mode on Intel processors used for low-level by compromising the communication conduit between an hardware control. It has its own private memory space and Operating System and its users. Secondary to hiding themselves, execution environment which is generally invisible to code rootkits are generally capable of gathering and manipulating running outside (e.g., the Operating System). Furthermore, SMM information on the target machine. They may, for example, log a code is completely non-preemptible, lacks any concept of victim user’s keystrokes to obtain passwords or manipulate the privilege level, and is immune to memory protection mechanisms.
    [Show full text]
  • Trojans and Malware on the Internet an Update
    Attitude Adjustment: Trojans and Malware on the Internet An Update Sarah Gordon and David Chess IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center Yorktown Heights, NY Abstract This paper continues our examination of Trojan horses on the Internet; their prevalence, technical structure and impact. It explores the type and scope of threats encountered on the Internet - throughout history until today. It examines user attitudes and considers ways in which those attitudes can actively affect your organization’s vulnerability to Trojanizations of various types. It discusses the status of hostile active content on the Internet, including threats from Java and ActiveX, and re-examines the impact of these types of threats to Internet users in the real world. Observations related to the role of the antivirus industry in solving the problem are considered. Throughout the paper, technical and policy based strategies for minimizing the risk of damage from various types of Trojan horses on the Internet are presented This paper represents an update and summary of our research from Where There's Smoke There's Mirrors: The Truth About Trojan Horses on the Internet, presented at the Eighth International Virus Bulletin Conference in Munich Germany, October 1998, and Attitude Adjustment: Trojans and Malware on the Internet, presented at the European Institute for Computer Antivirus Research in Aalborg, Denmark, March 1999. Significant portions of those works are included here in original form. Descriptors: fidonet, internet, password stealing trojan, trojanized system, trojanized application, user behavior, java, activex, security policy, trojan horse, computer virus Attitude Adjustment: Trojans and Malware on the Internet Trojans On the Internet… Ever since the city of Troy was sacked by way of the apparently innocuous but ultimately deadly Trojan horse, the term has been used to talk about something that appears to be beneficial, but which hides an attack within.
    [Show full text]
  • Rootkits, Part 1 of 3: the Growing Threat
    White Paper | April 2006 Rootkits, Part 1 of 3: The Growing Threat www.mcafee.com White Paper | 2006 Page Table of Contents Key Findings 3 Abstract 3 A Brief History of Stealth Malware (a.k.a. Rootkits) 3 Rootkits, Malware, and Controversy 4 Rootkit Technology Trends 5 Works Cited 7 www.mcafee.com White Paper | 2006 Page Key Findings netstat, ls, and passwd. Because these same tools could be used by an attacker to hide any trace of intrusion, the term 1. In just three short years, the use of stealth techniques in rootkit became associated with stealth. When these same malicious software (malware) has grown by more than strategies were applied to the Windows environment, the 600 percent. rootkit name transferred with them. Today, rootkit is a term . From 000 to 005, rootkit complexity grew by more commonly used to describe malware—such as Trojans, than 400 percent, and year-over-year, Q1 2005 to 2006, worms, and viruses—that actively conceals its existence complexity has grown by more than 900 percent. and actions from users and other system processes. The share of Linux-based techniques has gone from The practice of hiding malware from the prying eyes of a high of roughly 71 percent of all malware stealth users and security products dates back to the very first PC 1 components in 001 to a negligible number in virus, Brain, which was released in 1986. Brain escaped 005, while the number of Windows®-based stealth detection by intercepting PC boot-sector interrogations and components has increased by ,00 percent in the same redirecting the read operations to elsewhere on the disk.
    [Show full text]
  • An Adaptive Multi-Layer Botnet Detection Technique Using Machine Learning Classifiers
    applied sciences Article An Adaptive Multi-Layer Botnet Detection Technique Using Machine Learning Classifiers Riaz Ullah Khan 1,* , Xiaosong Zhang 1, Rajesh Kumar 1 , Abubakar Sharif 1, Noorbakhsh Amiri Golilarz 1 and Mamoun Alazab 2 1 Center of Cyber Security, School of Computer Science & Engineering, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu 611731, China; [email protected] (X.Z.); [email protected] (R.K.); [email protected] (A.S.); [email protected] (N.A.G.) 2 College of Engineering, IT and Environment, Charles Darwin University, Casuarina 0810, Australia; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +86-155-2076-3595 Received: 19 March 2019; Accepted: 24 April 2019; Published: 11 June 2019 Abstract: In recent years, the botnets have been the most common threats to network security since it exploits multiple malicious codes like a worm, Trojans, Rootkit, etc. The botnets have been used to carry phishing links, to perform attacks and provide malicious services on the internet. It is challenging to identify Peer-to-peer (P2P) botnets as compared to Internet Relay Chat (IRC), Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) and other types of botnets because P2P traffic has typical features of the centralization and distribution. To resolve the issues of P2P botnet identification, we propose an effective multi-layer traffic classification method by applying machine learning classifiers on features of network traffic. Our work presents a framework based on decision trees which effectively detects P2P botnets. A decision tree algorithm is applied for feature selection to extract the most relevant features and ignore the irrelevant features.
    [Show full text]
  • What Are Kernel-Mode Rootkits?
    www.it-ebooks.info Hacking Exposed™ Malware & Rootkits Reviews “Accessible but not dumbed-down, this latest addition to the Hacking Exposed series is a stellar example of why this series remains one of the best-selling security franchises out there. System administrators and Average Joe computer users alike need to come to grips with the sophistication and stealth of modern malware, and this book calmly and clearly explains the threat.” —Brian Krebs, Reporter for The Washington Post and author of the Security Fix Blog “A harrowing guide to where the bad guys hide, and how you can find them.” —Dan Kaminsky, Director of Penetration Testing, IOActive, Inc. “The authors tackle malware, a deep and diverse issue in computer security, with common terms and relevant examples. Malware is a cold deadly tool in hacking; the authors address it openly, showing its capabilities with direct technical insight. The result is a good read that moves quickly, filling in the gaps even for the knowledgeable reader.” —Christopher Jordan, VP, Threat Intelligence, McAfee; Principal Investigator to DHS Botnet Research “Remember the end-of-semester review sessions where the instructor would go over everything from the whole term in just enough detail so you would understand all the key points, but also leave you with enough references to dig deeper where you wanted? Hacking Exposed Malware & Rootkits resembles this! A top-notch reference for novices and security professionals alike, this book provides just enough detail to explain the topics being presented, but not too much to dissuade those new to security.” —LTC Ron Dodge, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • FINFISHER: Finspy PC 4.10 Release Notes
    FinSpy / Release Notes FINUSB SUITE 1 SPECIFICATIONS FINFISHER: FinSpy PC 4.10 Release Notes FinSpy / Release Notes FINUSB SUITE 2 SPECIFICATIONS Copyright 2012 by Gamma Group International, UK Date 2012-06-18 Release information Version Date Author Remarks 1.0 2010-05-27 ah Initial version 1.1 2010-05-31 ht Add change log 1.2 2010-06-28 ht New format 1.3 2011-11-13 lh FinSpy 3.10 Release 1.4 2012-02-15 lh FinSpy 4.00 Release 1.5 2012-03-26 Lh FinSpy 4.01 Hot Fix Release 1.6 2012.06.16 Lh FinSpy 4.10 Release FinSpy / Release Notes FINUSB SUITE 3 SPECIFICATIONS Table of Content 1 Overview ............................................................................................................................................... 4 2 ChangeLog ............................................................................................................................................. 5 3 Limitations............................................................................................................................................. 6 FinSpy / Release Notes FINUSB SUITE 4 SPECIFICATIONS 1 OVERVIEW FinSpy is designed to help Law Enforcement and Intelligence Agencies to remotely monitor computer systems and get full access to: . Online Communication: Skype, Messengers, VoIP, E-Mail, Browsing and more . Internet Activity: Discussion Boards, Blogs, File-Sharing and more . Stored Data: Remote access to hard-disk, deleted files, crypto containers and more . Surveillance Devices: Integrated webcams, microphones and more . Location: Trace computer system and monitor locations FinSpy / Release Notes FINUSB SUITE 5 SPECIFICATIONS 2 CHANGELOG Version 4.10 Component Change Description FinSpy Target WebCam Module The old video module which contained two sub Windows (design change) modules: webcam and screen was split in two new modules. The availability and functionality of the old video module will stay unchanged for old targets. The new targets will be able only to handle the new split modules.
    [Show full text]
  • Malware Detection and Analysis: Challenges and Research Opportunities
    1 Malware Detection and Analysis: Challenges and Research Opportunities Zahid Akhtar Department of Network and Computer Security, State University of New York Polytechnic Institute, USA. Email: [email protected] Malwares are continuously growing in sophistication and hobbyists and cyber-offenders trying to show their ability numbers. Over the last decade, remarkable progress has been by causing havoc and to steal information potentially for achieved in anti-malware mechanisms. However, several pressing monetary gains, respectively. They are popularly known as issues (e.g., unknown malware samples detection) still need to be addressed adequately. This article first presents a concise hackers, black hats and crackers, and could be external/internal overview of malware along with anti-malware and then sum- menace, industrial spies or foreign governments. Malwares marizes various research challenges. This is a theoretical and can be used to change or erase data from victim computers, perspective article that is hoped to complement earlier articles to collect confidential information, or to hijack systems in and works. order to attack other devices, send spams, host and share illicit contents, bring down servers, penetrate networks, and cripple critical infrastructures. I. INTRODUCTION Consequently, a broad range of tools and schemes have Use of personal computers and mobile devices coupled been devised to detect and mitigate malware attacks [1]. Anti- with internet has now become integral part of everyday life. malware systems thwart malwares by determining whether This ubiquity of high interconnectivity has prompted many given program has malign intent or not [4]. Despite great serious privacy and security menaces as well as different advancement of malware defense techniques and their inces- other malicious activities.
    [Show full text]
  • Root out Rootkits
    White Paper Root Out Rootkits An inside look at McAfee® Deep Defender Table of Contents Rootkits: Rotten Code in the Core 3 Rootkits cloak and disable defenses 3 Designed to conceal a payload 4 Meet Koutodoor and TDSS 4 Rootkits Dodge Detection 5 Win at Rootkit Limbo 5 McAfee Deep Defender with McAfee DeepSAFE take out kernel-mode malware 5 Updates the cloud 6 McAfee VirusScan Enterprise can remove related malware 6 Inside the Detection and Scanning Functions 7 Real-time visibility into memory 7 Scenarios 7 Clean installation 7 A phishing attack 9 A rootkit in residence 10 Conclusion 11 2 Root Out Rootkits Researchers discover an average of 2,000 rootkits each day, according to McAfee® McAfee Labs has identified: • ™ More than 2.8 million Labs . Rootkits are an increasingly common form of malware built explicitly to unique rootkits hide malicious code. Once installed, a rootkit conceals itself and looks innocent to • 180,000 new rootkits traditional file-based scans. The longer it stays hidden, the more damage the rootkit each quarter • 2,000 new rootkits per day can do, especially when rootkits conceal secondary malware components, a common line of attack. To prevent the rootkit from installing and cloaking itself and related malware, McAfee has invented endpoint detection more sophisticated than malware signatures and operating-system level heuristics. This paper describes how McAfee Deep Defender moves endpoint security beyond the operating system. McAfee Deep Defender gets hardware assistance from Intel and uses a privileged early load position to uncloak, block, and remove the kernel-mode activities of stealthy rootkits.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 19 Windows Rootkits a Game Of
    CHAPTER 19 WINDOWS ROOTKITS A GAME OF “HIDE AND SEEK” Sherri Sparks, Shawn Embleton, and Cliff Zou School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816, USA E-mail: {ssparks, sembleton, czou}@cs.ucf.edu Rootkits are a type of malware that attempt to hide their presence on a system, typically by compromising the communication conduit between an Operating System and its users. In this chapter, we track the evolution of rootkits and the techniques used to defend against them from the earliest rootkits to highly advanced, present day rootkits capable of exploiting processor virtualization extensions and infecting the BIOS. 1. Introduction Despite all of the popular press surrounding malicious code like viruses and worms, until the past few years rootkits had remained a relatively hidden threat. If one were asked to classify viruses and worms by a single defining characteristic, the first word to come to mind would probably be replication. In contrast, the single defining characteristic of a rootkit is stealth. Viruses reproduce, but rootkits hide. They hide by compromising the communication conduit between an Operating System and its users. A rootkit can be defined as “a set of programs which patch and trojan existing execution paths within the system”.1 Before delving into the low-level technical details, it is helpful to view the problem at a higher level of abstraction. Most modern Operating Systems are based upon the concept of a layered architecture. A layered architecture attempts to divide a computer system into hierarchal groups of related components that communicate according to predefined sets of rules, or interfaces.2 At the highest level of abstraction, we can divide a system into three layers: users, Operating System (OS), and hardware.
    [Show full text]