Jump to content
Tuts 4 You

Binary Code Obfuscations in Prevalent Packer Tools


Teddy Rogers
 Share

About This File

Security analysts' understanding of the behavior and intent of malware samples depends on their ability to build high-level analysis products from the raw bytes of program binaries. Thus, the first steps in analyzing defensive malware are understanding what obfuscations are present in real-world malware binaries, how these obfuscations hinder analysis, and how they can be overcome. To this end, we present a thorough examination of the obfuscation techniques used by the packer tools that are most popular with malware authors [Bustamante 2008]. Though previous studies have discussed the current state of binary packing [Yason 2007], anti-debugging [Falliere 2007], and anti-unpacking [Ferrie 2008a] techniques, there have been no comprehensive studies of the obfuscation techniques that are applied to binary code. While some of the individual obfuscations that we discuss have been reported independently, this paper consolidates the discussion while adding substantial depth and breadth to it.

We describe obfuscations that make binary code difficult to discover (e.g., control-transfer obfuscations, exception-based control transfers, incremental code unpacking, code overwriting); to accurately disassemble into instructions (e.g., ambiguous code and data, disassembler fuzz-testing, non-returning calls); to structure into functions and basic blocks (e.g., obfuscated calls and returns, call-stack tampering, overlapping functions and basic blocks); to understand (e.g., obfuscated constants, calling-convention violations, chunked control-flow, do-nothing code); and to manipulate (e.g., self-checksumming, anti-relocation, stolen-bytes techniques). We also discuss techniques that mitigate the impact of these obfuscations on analysis tools such as disassemblers, decompilers, instrumenters, and emulators. This work is done in the context of our project to build tools for the analysis [Jacobson et al. 2011; Rosenblum et al. 2008] and instrumentation [Bernat and Miller 2011; Hollingsworth et al. 1994] of binaries, and builds on recent work that extends these analyses to malware binaries that are highly defensive [Bernat et al. 2011; Roundy and Miller 2010].

We begin by describing the methodology and tools we used to perform this study. We proceed to a taxonomy of the obfuscation techniques, along with current approaches to dealing with these techniques, and conclude by presenting statistics and observations on the various obfuscation techniques and tools.

 Share


User Feedback

Recommended Comments

There are no comments to display.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...