NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/comp/virus/4869

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-07 | 5.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!yale.edu!jvnc.net!netnews.upenn.edu!netnews.cc.lehigh.edu!news
From: [e-mail] (Vesselin Bontchev)
Newsgroups: comp.virus
Subject: How to measure polymorphism?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 6 Jan 93 21:21:12 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Lines: 120
Approved: [e-mail]

Hello, everybody!

There are already two polymorphic engines available (MtE and TPE) and
we are going to see more and more polymorphic viruses in the future.
An interesting question arises - how to determine how polymorphic a
virus is? How to determine which of two viruses is "more polymorphic"?
In other words - how to measure polymorphism in an objective way?

There are several ways one could think about:

1) Determining the total number of different instance that a
particular virus can take. Obviously, a virus that can take 6
different appearances (V-Sign) is less polymorphic than a virus that
can take 65,536 (Cascade).

Unfortunately, this does not work. First, for some viruses it is
almost impossible (well, at least too difficult) to count the total
number of appearances. Nobody has succeeded yet to determine the exact
number of different decryptors that MtE can generate.

Second, a variably encrypted virus with the following decryptor

        mov    si,code_end
        mov    cx,code_length
        mov    ax,key
    decode:
        xor    word ptr [si],ax
        jmp    short skip

    garbage    db    ?

    skip:
        dec    si
        dec    si
        loop    decode

where the byte 'garbage' can take any value is not very polymorphic,
regardless that the number of possible decryptors is 256. If we change

    garbage    db    ?

to

    garbage    dw    ?

this will mean that the number of possible decryptors is 65,536, but
the virus is not more polymorphic...

2) The second idea is to divide the polymorphisms is classes. Class 0
means no polymorphism, class 1 means variable encryption with constant
decryptor, class 2 means variable encryption with a decryptor that can
be detected by a wildcard scan string, class 3 is a virus that cannot
be detected even with a wildcard string. E.g., Vienna (class 0) is
less polymorphic than Cascade (class 1), which is less polymorphic
than Suomi (class 2), which is less polymorphic than V2P2 (class 3).

Unfortunately, this is not good enough. First, what to do with viruses
that use a limited set of decryptors, one of which is selected
randomly (Whale). Such viruses are obviously more polymorphic than
Cascade. But are they more or less polymorphic than Suomi? They can be
detected by a set of non-wildcard strings...

Second, what about Bad Boy? It consists of 9 segments of code, 8 of
which can appear in any order. This gives 8! = 40,320 variants. But
the virus is even not encrypted, so it can be detected with a simple
(non-wildcard) scan string...

Third, what is a "wildcard string"? A string allowing "don't care"
bytes? A string allowing "don't know how many don't care bytes"? A
string allowing "don't care" bits? For instance, Maltese Amoeba cannot
be detected by the user-defined scan strings of SCAN or F-Prot, but
can be with the wildcard scan strings of HTScan/TbScan... So, is
Maltese Amoeba class 2 or class 3 polymorph?

Fourth, what about V2P2 and V2P6Z? None of them can be detected by a
scan string (even a wildcard one), but most experts agree that V2P6Z
is "more polymorphic" than V2P2 - because the decryptor can be of
different length, the virus too, and many other things...

3) The third idea was proposed by Dr. Solomon. He proposes to use the
length of the longest byte sequence that is present in the decryptor.
As an addition, one could use the sum of the length of all constant
byte sequences in the decryptor - if there are several short ones that
can appear in any order (like it is in V2P2).

This is already better, but still not good enough. According to this
criterium, the MtE-based viruses have polymorphism 1 - because all
decryptors contain only a single constant byte (the JNZ instruction),
which does not appear at a constant place. (Obviously, by this
criterium, the higher the number, the less polymorphic the virus is.)

Unfortunately, as I said, this is still not good enough. There are
other viruses with only a single constant byte in the decryptor, which
are much less polymorphic than the MtE-based ones. On the other side,
the TPE-based viruses can have 0 constant bytes in the decryptor, but
this does not imply that they are more polymorphic than the MtE-based
ones... In fact, if one looks at them very carefully, it is possible
to see that the different decryptors are pretty similar, if you remove
the garbage ("do-nothing") instructions...

It seems that what each anti-virus researcher considers as "level of
polymorphism" is dependent somehow on the technique he uses in his
anti-virus product to detect polymorphic viruses. For instance, V2P6Z
might look "more difficult" (i.e., more polymorphic) than the
MtE-based viruses to those people whose scanners depend on the number
of addressing modes used by the instruction that performs the actual
decoding...

This article is not meant to provide a solution of the problem. I am
trying just to explain the problem and am asking for solutions. Any
ideas are welcome - we really need an objective way to measure the
level of polymorphism...

Regards,
Vesselin
- --
Vesselin Vladimirov Bontchev          Virus Test Center, University of Hamburg
Tel.:[phone], Fax: [phone]      Fachbereich Informatik - AGN
< PGP 2.1 public key available on request. > Vogt-Koelln-Strasse 30, rm. 107 C
e-mail: [e-mail]    D-2000 Hamburg 54, Germany