Tag Archives: nuance detection

Revisiting Nuance Detection

Posted on by
Reply
The core of nuance detection is to extend alerting capabilities into finding situations that specifically should not exist, and if they happen, would indicate a significant security failure. A simple, elegant example would be a motion sensor on a safe in your home, combined with something like your home alarm system.
 
A significant failure state would be for the motion sensor inside the safe to trigger while the home alarm system is set in away mode. When the alarm is in away mode, there should be no condition that triggers motion inside the safe. If motion is detected, anytime, you might choose to alert in a minor way. But, if the alarm is set to away mode, you might signal all kinds of calamity and flashing lights, bells and whistles, for example.
 
This same approach can apply to your network environment, applications or data systems. Define what a significant failure state looks like, and then create detection and alerting mechanisms, even if conditional, for the indicators of that state. It can be easy. 
 
I remember thinking more deeply about this for the first time when I saw Marcus Ranum give his network burglar alarm speech at Defcon, what seems like a 1000 years ago now. That moment changed my life forever. Since then, I have always wanted to work on small detections. The most nuanced of fail states. The deepest signs of compromise. HoneyPoint™ came from that line of thinking, albeit, many years later. (Thanks, Marcus, you are amazing! BTW.) 🙂
 
I’ve written about approaches to it in the past, too. Things like detecting web shells, detection in depth techniques and such. I even made some nice maturity and deployment models.
 
This month, I will be revisiting nuance detection more deeply. Creating some more content around it, and speaking about it more openly. I’ll also cover how we have extended HoneyPoint with the Handler portion of HoneyPoint Agent. in order to fully support event management and data handling into your security alerting systems from basic scripts and simple tools you can create yourself. 
 
Stay tuned, and in the meantime, drop me a line on Twitter (@lbhuston) and let me know more about nuance detections you can think of or have implemented. I’d love to hear more about it. 

Quick PHP Malware vs AV Update

Posted on by
Reply

It’s been a while since I checked on the status of PHP malware versus anti-virus. So, here is a quick catch up post. (I’ve been talking about this for a while now. Here is an old example.)

I took a randomly selected piece of PHP malware from the HITME and checked it out this afternoon. Much to my surprise, the malware detection via AV has gotten better.

The malware I grabbed for the test turned out to be a multi-stage PHP backdoor. The scanner thought it was exploiting a vulnerable WordPress installation. 

I unpacked the malware parts into plain text and presented both the original packed version from the log and the unpacked version to VirusTotal for detection testing. As you know, in the past, detection of malware PHP was sub single digits in many cases. That, at least to some extent has changed. For those interested, here are the links to see what was tripped.

Decoded to plain text vs Encoded, as received

As you can see, decoded to plain text scored a detection of 44% (19/43), which is significantly improved from a year or so ago. Additionally, excitingly, undecoded, the attack in raw form triggered a detection rate of 30% (13/44)! The undecoded result is HUGE, given that the same test a year or so ago often yielded 0-2% detection rates. So, it’s getting better, just SLOWLY.

Sadly though, even with the improvements, we are still well below half (50%) detection rates and many of the AV solutions that fail to catch the PHP malware are big name vendors with commercial products that organizations running PHP in commercial environments would likely be depending on. Is your AV in the missing zone? If so, you might want to consider other forms of more nuanced detection. 

Now, obviously, organizations aren’t just depending on AV alone for detection of web malware. But, many may be. In fact, a quick search for the dropped backdoor file on Google showed 58,800 systems with the dropped page name (a semi-unique indicator of compromise). With that many targets already victim to this single variant of PHP backdoors, it might be worth checking into if you are a corporate PHP user.

Until next time, take a look around for PHP in your organization. It is a commonly missed item in the patch and update cycles. It also has a pretty wide security posture with a long list of known attack tools and common vulnerabilities in the coding patterns used by many popular products. Give any PHP servers you have a deeper inspection and consider adding more detection capability around them. As always, thanks for reading and stay safe out there!