skip to main content
10.1145/3564746.3587004acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesacm-seConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Conti Ransomware Development Evaluation

Published:12 June 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

The world has been witnessing an increase in malware attacks in recent years. Specifically, ransomware attacks, where attackers lock or encrypt victims' files and ask for a ransom to unlock or decrypt the files and restore the device's state. Ransomware dark market has become very profitable, and its cybercriminals make millions of dollars in revenue. One of the most active ransomware attacks in recent years is Conti ransomware. It works under a ransomware-as-a-service (RaaS) business model. The first beta version of Conti ransomware was seen in October 2019, and its first known attack was reported in July 2020 and has been operational since then. In this paper, we track the development of Conti ransomware, categorize its samples, and compare their features to understand its success and efficiency, which made it top the charts in terms of revenue and the number of attacks. First, we collect many Conti ransomware samples from its beta version to the latest known release. Then we analyze them in an isolated environment and categorize them into seven versions based on their release date and feature similarities. Finally, for each version, we list its features and the previous version's addition, deletion, and/or modification with our reasoning for these changes. This research shows that although Conti started as a beta version with minimal ransomware features, it gradually added new features or modified existing ones through the adoption of continuous development and delivery. For example, API hashing, API run-time loading, and efficient encryption mechanism area are all features added over time and have yet to exist in their earlier releases.

References

  1. Lawrence Abrams. 2020. Ryuk Successor Conti Ransomware Releases Data Leak Site. BleepingComputer. https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/ryuk-successor-conti-ransomware-releases-data-leak-siteGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Ali Ahmed Mohammed Ali Alwashali, Nor Azlina Abd Rahman, and Noris Ismail. 2021. A Survey of Ransomware as a Service (RaaS) and Methods to Mitigate the Attack. In 2021 14th International Conference on Developments in eSystems Engineering (DeSE). IEEE, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates, 92--96. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Saleh Alzahrani, Yang Xiao, and Wei Sun. 2022. An Analysis of Conti Ransomware Leaked Source Codes. IEEE Access 10 (2022), 100178--100193. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Brian Baskin. 2020. Tau Threat Discovery: Conti Ransomware. https://blogs.vmware.com/security/2020/07/tau-threat-discovery-conti-ransomware.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Drew Batchelor. 2018. PATHISDIRECTORYW function. Microsoft. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/shlwapi/nf-shlwapi-pathisdirectorywGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Drew Batchelor, Michael Satran, Mike Jacobs, and David Coulter. 2020. About Restart Manager - WIN32 Apps. Microsoft. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/rstmgr/about-restart-managerGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Eduardo Berrueta, Daniel Morato, Eduardo Magaña, and Mikel Izal. 2019. A Survey on Detection Techniques for Cryptographic Ransomware. IEEE Access 7 (2019), 144925--144944. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Chainalysis Team. 2022. Crypto Crime Trends for 2022: Illicit Transaction Activity Reaches All-Time High in Value, All-Time Low in Share of All Cryptocurrency Activity. The Chainalysis 2022 Crypto Crime Report 2022. Chainalysis Inc, New York, NY, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Catalin Cimpanu. 2020. Conti Ransomware Uses 32 Simultaneous CPU Threads for Blazing-fast Encryption. https://www.zdnet.com/article/conti-ransomware-uses-32-simultaneous-cpu-threads-for-blazing-fast-encryptionGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. CISA, FPI, and HHS. 2020. Alert (AA20-302A). https://www.cisa.gov/uscert/ncas/alerts/aa20-302aGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. DarkTracker. 2019. Intelligence Report on Ransomware Gangs on the Darkweb. DarkTracker. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MI8Z2tBhmqQ5X8Wf_ozv3dVjz5sJOs-3Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Jason Gerend. 2022. Volume Shadow Copy Service. Microsoft. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/storage/file-server/volume-shadow-copy-serviceGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Andrew Ivanov. 2019. The Digest "Crypto-Ransomware". Blogger. https://id-ransomware.blogspot.com/2019/11/conti-ransomware.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Youngjoon Ki, Eunjin Kim, and Huy Kang Kim. 2015. A Novel Approach to Detect Malware Based on API Call Sequence Analysis. International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks 11, 6 (2015), 659101. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/659101 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Edward Kost. 2021. What is Ransom ware as a Service (RaaS)? the Dangerous Threat to World Security: Upguard. UpGuard. https://www.upguard.com/blog/what-is-ransomware-as-a-serviceGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Nir Kshetri and Jeffrey Voas. 2017. Do Crypto-Currencies Fuel Ransomware? IT Professional 19, 5 (2017), 11--15. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. NCC Group. 2021. The Highlights, Trends, and Learnings from 2021's Threat Landscape. Annual Threat Monitor 2021 2021. NCC Group, Austin, TX, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Kris Oosthoek, Jack Cable, and Georgios Smaragdakis. 2022. A Tale of Two Markets: Investigating the Ransomware Payments Economy. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Proton. 2021. Proton Mail. Proton. https://proton.me/mailGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Joshua Saxe and Konstantin Berlin. 2015. Deep Neural Network Based Malware Detection Using Two Dimensional Binary Program Features. In 2015 10th International Conference on Malicious and Unwanted Software (MALWARE). IEEE, Fajardo, PR, USA, 11--20. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Rusydi Umar, Imam Riadi, and Ridho Surya Kusuma. 2021. Analysis of Conti Ransomware Attack on Computer Network with Live Forensic Method. IJID (International Journal on Informatics for Development) 10, 1 (Jun. 2021), 53--61. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Reini Urban. 2021. Smhasher/MurmurHash2. GitHub. https://github.com/rurban/smhasher/blob/4db9ed2dc7/MurmurHash2.cppGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Steve Whims. 2021. WMIC - WIN32 Apps. Microsoft. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/wmisdk/wmicGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Javier Yuste and Sergio Pastrana. 2021. Avaddon Ransomware: An In-depth Analysis and Decryption of Infected Systems. Computers & Security 109 (2021), 102388. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Conti Ransomware Development Evaluation

    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 Other conferences
      ACM SE '23: Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Southeast Conference
      April 2023
      216 pages
      ISBN:9781450399210
      DOI:10.1145/3564746

      Copyright © 2023 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 the author(s) 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: 12 June 2023

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      ACM SE '23 Paper Acceptance Rate31of71submissions,44%Overall Acceptance Rate178of377submissions,47%
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)131
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)9

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader