Google highlights trouble in detecting web-based malware

No one system is effective in detecting increasingly complex malicious software, the company said

Google issued a new study on Wednesday detailing how it is becoming more difficult to identify malicious websites and attacks, with antivirus software proving to be an ineffective defense against new ones.

The company's engineers analyzed four years worth of data comprising 8 million websites and 160 million web pages from its Safe Browsing service, which is an API (application programming interface) that feeds data into Google's Chrome browser and Firefox and warns users when they hit a website loaded with malware.

Google said it displays 3 million warnings of unsafe websites to 400 million users a day. The company scans the Web, using several methods to figure out if a site is malicious.

"Like other service providers, we are engaged in an arms race with malware distributors," according to a blog post from Google's security team.

That detection process is becoming more difficult due to a variety of evasion techniques employed by attackers that are designed to stop their websites from being flagged as bad, according to the report.

The company uses a variety of methods to detect dangerous sites. It can test a site against a "virtual machine honeypot," which is a virtual machine that visits a website and notes its behavior. It also uses browser emulators for the same purpose, which record an attack sequence. The browser emulator is an HTML parser and a modified open-source JavaScript engine.

Other methods include ranking a website by reputation based on its hosting infrastructure, and another line of defense is antivirus software.

One of the ways hackers get around VM-based detection is to require the victim to perform a mouse click. Many sites are rigged to automatically deliver an exploit and execute an attack if an unpatched software program is found.

Google describes it as a kind of social engineering attack, since the malicious payload appears only after a person interacts with the browser. Google is working around the issue by configuring its virtual machines to do a mouse click.

Browser emulators can be confused by attacks when the malicious code is scrambled, a method known as obfuscation. Since the browser emulator isn't a real browser, it won't necessarily execute the obfuscated JavaScript code in the same way as a real browser. The only explanation for the more complex JavaScript is that it is designed to halt emulated browsers and make manual analysis of the code more difficult, the engineers wrote.

Google is also encountering "IP cloaking," where a malicious website will refused to serve harmful content to certain IP ranges, such as those known to be used by security researchers. In August 2009, Google found that some 200,000 sites were using IP cloaking. It forces researchers to scan the sites from IP ranges that are "unknown by the adversary," the report said.

Antivirus software programs rely on signatures as one method to detect attacks. But the engineers wrote that the software often missed code that has been "packed," or compressed in a way that it is unrecognizable but will still execute.

Since it can take time for AV vendors to refine their signatures and remove ones that cause false positives, the delay allows the malicious content to stay undetected.

"While AV vendors strive to improve detection rates, in real time they cannot adequately detect malicious content," the Google researchers wrote. "This could be due to the fact that adversaries can use AV products as oracles before deploying malicious code into the wild."

The study was authored by Moheeb Abu Rajab, Lucas Ballard, Nav Jagpal, Panayiotis Mavrommatis, Daisuke Nojiri, Niels Provos and Ludwig Schmidt.

Send news tips and comments to jeremy_kirk@idg.com

Join the newsletter!

Or

Sign up to gain exclusive access to email subscriptions, event invitations, competitions, giveaways, and much more.

Membership is free, and your security and privacy remain protected. View our privacy policy before signing up.

Error: Please check your email address.

Tags malwareGoogleintrusionExploits / vulnerabilities

Keep up with the latest tech news, reviews and previews by subscribing to the Good Gear Guide newsletter.

Jeremy Kirk

IDG News Service
Show Comments

Most Popular Reviews

Latest Articles

Resources

PCW Evaluation Team

Tom Pope

Dynabook Portégé X30L-G

Ultimately this laptop has achieved everything I would hope for in a laptop for work, while fitting that into a form factor and weight that is remarkable.

Tom Sellers

MSI P65

This smart laptop was enjoyable to use and great to work on – creating content was super simple.

Lolita Wang

MSI GT76

It really doesn’t get more “gaming laptop” than this.

Jack Jeffries

MSI GS75

As the Maserati or BMW of laptops, it would fit perfectly in the hands of a professional needing firepower under the hood, sophistication and class on the surface, and gaming prowess (sports mode if you will) in between.

Taylor Carr

MSI PS63

The MSI PS63 is an amazing laptop and I would definitely consider buying one in the future.

Christopher Low

Brother RJ-4230B

This small mobile printer is exactly what I need for invoicing and other jobs such as sending fellow tradesman details or step-by-step instructions that I can easily print off from my phone or the Web.

Featured Content

Don’t have an account? Sign up here

Don't have an account? Sign up now

Forgot password?