skip to main content
10.1145/1755688.1755705acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesasia-ccsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Preventing drive-by download via inter-module communication monitoring

Published:13 April 2010Publication History

ABSTRACT

Drive-by download attack is one of the most severe threats to Internet users. Typically, only visiting a malicious page will result in compromise of the client and infection of malware. By the end of 2008, drive-by download had already become the number one infection vector of malware [5]. The downloaded malware may steal the users' personal identification and password. They may also join botnet to send spams, host phishing site or launch distributed denial of service attacks.

Generally, these attacks rely on successful exploits of the vulnerabilities in web browsers or their plug-ins. Therefore, we proposed an inter-module communication monitoring based technique to detect malicious exploitation of vulnerable components thus preventing the vulnerability being exploited. We have implemented a prototype system that was integrated into the most popular web browser Microsoft Internet Explorer. Experimental results demonstrate that, on our test set, by using vulnerability-based signature, our system could accurately detect all attacks targeting at vulnerabilities in our definitions and produced no false positive. The evaluation also shows the performance penalty is kept low.

References

  1. S. Bandhakavi, P. Bisht, P. Madhusudan, and V. N. Venkatakrishnan. Candid: preventing sql injection attacks using dynamic candidate evaluations. In CCS '07: Proceedings of the 14th ACM conference on Computer and communications security, pages 12--24, New York, NY, USA, 2007. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. L. Beijing Rising International Software Co. Internet security report for china mainland, 2009 h1. http://it.rising.com.cn/new2008/News/NewsInfo/2009-07-21/1248160663d53890.shtml, November 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. P. Bisht and V. N. Venkatakrishnan. XSS-GUARD: Precise dynamic prevention of cross-site scripting attacks. In Detection of Intrusions and Malware, and Vulnerability Assessment, volume 5137 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 23--43. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. D. Brumley, J. Newsome, D. Song, H. Wang, and S. Jha. Towards automatic generation of Vulnerability-Based signatures. In Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pages 2--16. IEEE Computer Society, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. M. Cruz. Most abused infection vector. http://blog.trendmicro.com/most-abused-infection-vector/, December 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. W. Cui, M. Peinado, H. J. Wang, and M. E. Locasto. Shieldgen: Automatic data patch generation for unknown vulnerabilities with informed probing. In SP '07: Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pages 252--266, Washington, DC, USA, 2007. IEEE Computer Society. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. D. Dagon, G. Gu, C. P. Lee, and W. Lee. A taxonomy of botnet structures. Computer Security Applications Conference, Annual, 0:325--339, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. M. Daniel, J. Honoroff, and C. Miller. Engineering heap overflow exploits with javascript. In WOOT '08: Proceedings of the 2nd USENIX Workshop on Offensive Technologies, July 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. O. Day, B. Palmen, and R. Greenstadt. Reinterpreting the DisclosureDebate for web infections. In Managing Information Risk and the Economics of Security, pages 1--19. Springer US, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. W. Dormann and D. Plakosh. Vulnerability detection in activex controls through automated fuzz test. http://www.cert.org/archive/pdf/dranzer.pdf, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. J. R. Douceur, J. Elson, J. Howell, and J. R. Lorch. Leveraging legacy code to deploy desktop applications on the web. In OSDI '08: Proceedings of the 8th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, December 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. B. Dutertre and L. D. Moura. The yices smt solver. Technical report, SRI International, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. M. Egele, P. Wurzinger, C. Kruegel, and E. Kirda. Defending browsers against drive-by downloads: Mitigating heap-spraying code injection attacks. In DIMVA '09: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Detection of Intrusions and Malware, and Vulnerability Assessment, July 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. B. Feinstein and D. Peck. Caffeine monkey: Automated collection, detection and analysis of malicious javascript. http://mirror.fpux.com/HackerCons/BlackHat_2007/BlackHat/Presentations/Feinstien_and_Peck/Whitepaper/bh-usa-07-feinstien_and_peck-WP.pdf, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. C. Grier, S. Tang, and S. T. King. Secure web browsing with the op web browser. Security and Privacy, IEEE Symposium on, 0:402--416, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. W. G. J. Halfond and A. Orso. Amnesia: analysis and monitoring for neutralizing sql-injection attacks. In ASE '05: Proceedings of the 20th IEEE/ACM international Conference on Automated software engineering, pages 174--183, New York, NY, USA, 2005. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. W. G. J. Halfond, A. Orso, and P. Manolios. Using positive tainting and syntax-aware evaluation to counter sql injection attacks. In SIGSOFT '06/FSE-14: Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on Foundations of software engineering, pages 175--185, New York, NY, USA, 2006. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. G. Inc. Google safe browsing api. http://code.google.com/apis/safebrowsing/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. C. Kanich, C. Kreibich, K. Levchenko, B. Enright, G. M. Voelker, V. Paxson, and S. Savage. Spamalytics: an empirical analysis of spam marketing conversion. In CCS '08: Proceedings of the 15th ACM conference on Computer and communications security, pages 3--14, New York, NY, USA, 2008. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. U. C. S. Lab. Wepawet. http://wepawet.iseclab.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. D. Moore, C. Shannon, D. J. Brown, G. M. Voelker, and S. Savage. Inferring internet denial-of-service activity. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst., 24(2):115--139, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. T. Moore and R. Clayton. An empirical analysis of the current state of phishing attack and defence. In WEIS '07: Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop on the Economics of Information Security, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Mozilla. Spidermonkey (javascript-c) engine. http://www.mozilla.org/js/spidermonkey/, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. J. Nazario. Phoneyc: A virtual client honeypot. In LEET '09: Proceedings of the 1st Usenix Workshop on Large-Scale Exploits and Emergent Threats. USENIX Association, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. A. Nguyen-Tuong, S. Guarnieri, D. Greene, J. Shirley, and D. Evans. Automatically hardening web applications using precise tainting. In Security and Privacy in the Age of Ubiquitous Computing, volume 181 of IFIP International Federation for Information Processing, pages 295--307. Springer Boston, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. T. Pietraszek and C. V. Berghe. Defending against injection attacks through context-sensitive string evaluation. In Recent Advances in Intrusion Detection, volume 3858 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 124--145. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. J. Pincus and B. Baker. Beyond stack smashing: Recent advances in exploiting buffer overruns. IEEE Security and Privacy, 2(4):20--27, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. M. Polychronakis, K. G. Anagnostakis, and E. P. Markatos. Emulation-based detection of non-self-contained polymorphic shellcode. In Recent Advances in Intrusion Detection, volume 4637 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 87--106. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. M. Polychronakis, K. G. Anagnostakis, and E. P. Markatos. Network-level polymorphic shellcode detection using emulation. Journal in Computer Virology, 2(4):257--274, February 2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. T. H. Project. Know your enemy: Malicious web servers, August 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. N. Provos, P. Mavrommatis, M. A. Rajab, and F. Monrose. All your iframes point to us. In Security '08: Proceedings of the 17th Usenix Security Symposium, pages 1--15, Berkeley, CA, USA, 2008. USENIX Association. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. N. Provos, D. McNamee, P. Mavrommatis, K. Wang, and N. Modadugu. The ghost in the browser analysis of web-based malware. In HotBots'07: Proceedings of the first conference on First Workshop on Hot Topics in Understanding Botnets, pages 4--4, Berkeley, CA, USA, 2007. USENIX Association. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. P. Ratanaworabhan, B. Livshits, and B. Zorn. Nozzle: A defense against heap-spraying code injection attacks. In Security '09: Proceedings of the 18th USENIX Security Symposium, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. C. Reis, J. Dunagan, H. J. Wang, O. Dubrovsky, and S. Esmeir. Browsershield: Vulnerability-driven filtering of dynamic html. ACM Trans. Web, 1(3):11, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Secunia. 2008 report. http://secunia.com/gfx/Secunia2008Report.pdf, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. R. Sekar. An efficient black-box technique for defeating web application attacks. In NDSS '09: Proceedings of the 16th Annual Network & Distributed System Security Symposium, San Diego, CA, Februry 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. M. Sharif, A. Lanzi, J. Giffin, and W. Lee. Automatic reverse engineering of malware emulators. Security and Privacy, IEEE Symposium on, 0:94--109, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. A. Sotirov. Heap feng shui in javascript. http://www.phreedom.org/research/heap-feng-shui/heap-feng-shui.html, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. R. Steenson and C. Seifert. Capture-hpc client honeypot / honeyclient. https://projects.honeynet.org/capture-hpc/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Z. Su and G. Wassermann. The essence of command injection attacks in web applications. In POPL '06: Conference record of the 33rd ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages, pages 372--382, New York, NY, USA, 2006. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. T. Toth and C. Kruegel. Accurate buffer overflow detection via abstract pay load execution. In Recent Advances in Intrusion Detection, volume 2516 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 274--291. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. W3Counter. Global web stats. 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. H. J. Wang, C. Grier, A. Moshchuk, S. T. King, P. Choudhury, and H. Venter. The multi-principal os construction of the gazelle web browser. In Security '09: 19th USENIX Security Symposium, August 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. H. J. Wang, C. Guo, D. R. Simon, and A. Zugenmaier. Shield: vulnerability-driven network filters for preventing known vulnerability exploits. SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev., 34(4):193--204, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Y.-M. Wang, D. Beck, X. Jiang, R. Roussev, C. Verbowski, S. Chen, and S. T. King. Automated web patrol with strider honeymonkeys: Finding web sites that exploit browser vulnerabilities. In Proceedings of the Network and Distributed System Security Symposium, NDSS 2006, San Diego, California, USA, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Y.-M. Wang, R. Roussev, C. Verbowski, A. Johnson, M.-W. Wu, Y. Huang, and S.-Y. Kuo. Gatekeeper: Monitoring auto-start extensibility points (aseps) for spyware management. In LISA '04: Proceedings of the 18th USENIX conference on System administration, pages 33--46, Berkeley, CA, USA, 2004. USENIX Association. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. J. Wolf. Heap spraying with actionscript. http://blog.fireeye.com/research/2009/07/actionscript_heap_spray.html, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. B. Yee, D. Sehr, G. Dardyk, J. B. Chen, R. Muth, T. Ormandy, S. Okasaka, N. Narula, and N. Fullagar. Native client: A sandbox for portable, untrusted x86 native code. In Proceedings of the 30th IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. J. Zhuge, T. Holz, C. Song, J. Guo, X. Han, and W. Zou. Studying malicious websites and the underground economyon the chinese web. In Managing Information Risk and the Economics of Security, pages 1--20. Springer US, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Preventing drive-by download via inter-module communication monitoring

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        ASIACCS '10: Proceedings of the 5th ACM Symposium on Information, Computer and Communications Security
        April 2010
        363 pages
        ISBN:9781605589367
        DOI:10.1145/1755688

        Copyright © 2010 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 13 April 2010

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        ASIACCS '10 Paper Acceptance Rate25of166submissions,15%Overall Acceptance Rate418of2,322submissions,18%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader