A performance monitoring unit in a processor is programmed to issue an interrupt when a context switch occurs within an operating system if the currently executing thread belongs to a process that is subject to the malware prevention mechanism of the present invention. The interrupt enables a module that identifies mispredictions by the branch prediction unit of the processor and analyzes the address of the branch that was not predicted correctly. If the address of the branch is not contained on an existing whitelist of permissible branch addresses, an alert is generated and/or a protective action is taken. Such protective actions may include thread suspension, thread termination, process suspension, or process termination.
As computing devices become increasingly complex, viruses and malware also are becoming increasingly complex and difficult to detect and prevent. While the prior art includes many approaches for scanning non-volatile storage, such as hard disk drives, for such threats, the prior art includes few satisfactory solutions for detecting malicious code loaded into memory or the processor itself. The prior art also is lacking in the ability to detect malicious instructions before they are executed, particularly in situations where the malicious instructions are “new” or are known instructions used in a new way and are not part of a well-known virus or malware.
In
In the example shown in
With reference again to
Later in the example of
Notably, in the prior art, messages 231, 232, and 233 are sent asynchronously by kernel 210 and not necessarily immediately when a context switch occurs. Thus, the code running outside of kernel 210 may not know about a context switch occurring until after the context search already has occurred. This is a severe limitation in the prior art, at least for purposes of detecting and stopping malware. For example, if process 212 is a malware process, code outside of kernel 210 will not know that process 211 has ended and process 212 has begun until after process 212 has already begun. By then, the damage may already have occurred.
What is needed is a mechanism for detecting context switches immediately within certain processes in which one wishes to perform malware detection so that malware detection procedures can be invoked before a new process begins. What is further needed is a mechanism for analyzing the new process and to identify any suspicious BRANCH instructions that may indicate malware.
A performance monitoring unit in a processor is programmed to issue an interrupt when a context switch occurs within an operating system if the currently executing thread belongs to a process that is subject to the malware prevention mechanism of the present invention. The interrupt enables a module that identifies mispredictions by the branch prediction unit of the processor and analyzes the address of the branch that was not predicted correctly. If the address of the branch is not contained on an existing whitelist of permissible branch addresses, an alert is generated and/or a protective action is taken. Such protective actions may include thread suspension, thread termination, process suspension, or process termination.
Thus in the example of
Additional detail regarding branch analysis module 710 is now provided. Branch analysis module 710 parses software code stored in memory 120, which comprises binary executable files, and separates the code into its appropriate sections. Relocation information in the form of an absolute address is retrieved from data sections of each executable image, such as a BRANCH instruction. Each absolute address that is found that falls within the address range of the binaries code section is considered to be a legitimate BRANCH destination and added to whitelist 720.
Branch analysis module 710 then scans the code section of each binary image in search of specific byte sequences that indicate instructions that are loading an address into a register. Each address identified after the target byte sequence is treated as a relative instruction pointer (IP) address, and analysis is performed to determine whether the relative address falls into the code section of the binary image. Those that pass this criteria are considered legitimate BRANCH destinations.
Next, the algorithm scans for jump tables (switch statements) in code, and the code section for each loaded image is searched for an instruction byte sequence that indicates loading IP relative addresses into a register. If the relative address falls within a read-only data section of the binary, further analysis to identify jump tables is done as follows:
Prior to being added to whitelist 720, each branch location address that is identified in binary code is added to its appropriate base address of the binaries executable code page in virtual memory based on the memory map of the target thread of execution.
If processor 110 follows an instruction set architecture (ISA) where instructions are both larger than 8-bits and aligned on memory boundaries equal to a power of 2, then a further heuristic can be applied to ensure a candidate BRANCH destination lies on a 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, etc. byte aligned boundary depending on the instruction size and discarding those addresses that do not fall on that byte boundary.
Whitelist 720 comprises a data structure. To generate whitelist 720, each function entry point or legitimate branch location address is stored in a data structure that allows for fast lookup. Additionally, the data structure ensures a reduced memory footprint for the storage of the branch location list. In one embodiment, the data structure is a simple sorted list upon which a binary search is performed. In another embodiment, the data structure is a hashtable data structure. In another embodiment, the data structure is a bloom filter data structure. One of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that other types of data structures can be used.
With reference again to
Here, one counter is configured to be context switch counter 901 (hereinafter also referred to as “counter 901”), which begins at a value of −1 and increments by 1 whenever instruction translation lookaside buffer 112 is flushed (which occurs when a context switch occurs). In the example where operating system 140 is Windows and processor 110 is an Intel x86 or EMT64 architecture, the flushing is identified by detecting an “ITLB.ITLB_FLUSH” event.
Another counter is configured to be mode switch to user space counter 902 (hereinafter also referred to as “counter 902”), which begins at a value of −1 and increments by 1 whenever a mode switch occurs from kernel 210 to user space 220. In the example where operating system 140 is Windows and processor 110 is an Intel x86 or EMT64 architecture, this can be implemented by incrementing counter 902 whenever a “CPL_CYCLES.RING123” event occurs, which corresponds to every clock cycle while the CPU is executing user space 220, meaning that it will increment as soon as CPU control is passed from kernel 210 to user space 220.
Performance monitoring unit 111 is further configured to generate performance monitoring interrupt (PMI) 911 whenever context switch counter 901 reaches a value of 0 or when mode switch to user space counter 902 reaches a value of 0. Performance monitoring interrupt 911 is sent to malware interrupt service routine 912, which is a process within kernel 210.
With reference to
In step 1002, kernel 210 keeps operating and can start and stop any number of processes within kernel 210.
In step 1003, a mode switch from kernel 210 to user space 220 occurs, which causes counter 902 to increment, which in turn generates a performance monitoring interrupt 911.
In step 1004, performance monitoring interrupt 911 is generated. Malware interrupt service routine 912 receives the interrupt and executes in kernel 210.
In step 1005, counter 902 is disabled and counter 901 is reset to −1 then enabled.
In step 1006, a process in user space 220 keeps operating.
In step 1007, a context switch occurs, causing a flush of instruction translation lookaside buffer 310. This increments counter 901 and triggers a performance monitoring interrupt 911.
In step 1008, malware interrupt service routine 912 executes in the kernel, immediately transitioning back to step 1001.
Method 1200 is depicted in
In addition to or in place of method 1200, malware detection process 913 can implement other techniques as well. For example, it can determine if the new process to be executed (such as process 1112 in
Notification process 1110 can implement numerous actions, such as: issuing an alert to a user, administrator, and/or operating system 140; freezing the application, module, process, or thread in which the suspect instruction is contained; capturing a snapshot of memory 120; and rebooting computing device 100, which will cause processor 110 and memory 120 to be flushed.
Unlike in most prior art systems, the present invention allows an interrupt to be generated as soon as a context switch occurs within a process of interest. The interrupt causes malware interrupt service routine 912 to be executed, which in turn causes malware detection process 913 to be executed. Thus, the invention provides a powerful anti-malware function that is completely lacking in the prior art.
The foregoing merely illustrates the principles of the disclosure. Various modifications and alterations to the described embodiments will be apparent to those skilled in the art in view of the teachings herein. It will thus be appreciated that those skilled in the art will be able to devise numerous systems, arrangements, and procedures which, although not explicitly shown or described herein, embody the principles of the disclosure and can be thus within the spirit and scope of the disclosure. Various different exemplary embodiments can be used together with one another, as well as interchangeably therewith, as should be understood by those having ordinary skill in the art. In addition, certain terms used in the present disclosure, including the specification, drawings and claims thereof, can be used synonymously in certain instances, including, but not limited to, for example, data and information. It should be understood that, while these words, and/or other words that can be synonymous to one another, can be used synonymously herein, that there can be instances when such words can be intended to not be used synonymously. Further, to the extent that the prior art knowledge has not been explicitly incorporated by reference herein above, it is explicitly incorporated herein in its entirety. All publications referenced are incorporated herein by reference in their entireties.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
7797747 | Ferrie | Sep 2010 | B1 |
8239688 | De Atley | Aug 2012 | B2 |
9734326 | Heisswolf | Aug 2017 | B2 |
10121010 | Landau et al. | Nov 2018 | B2 |
10146579 | McKenney | Dec 2018 | B2 |
10423777 | Spisak et al. | Sep 2019 | B2 |
20060080470 | Sollenberger et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060123172 | Herrell | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20070101431 | Clift et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20080140897 | Ganguly | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080256346 | Lee | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20090044274 | Budko | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20100281540 | Alme | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20110004935 | Moffie | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110209158 | Paul | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20110264894 | Lin | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20130036464 | Glew et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
20130145429 | Mendel et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
20130174257 | Zhou | Jul 2013 | A1 |
20130283382 | Kim et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20140075556 | Wicherski | Mar 2014 | A1 |
20140123286 | Fischer et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
20140281713 | Hampapur et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140282622 | Frazier et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140283056 | Bachwani | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140298112 | Otsuka et al. | Oct 2014 | A1 |
20150033227 | Lin | Jan 2015 | A1 |
20150052339 | Suzuki | Feb 2015 | A1 |
20150095628 | Yamada et al. | Apr 2015 | A1 |
20150220464 | Heisswolf | Aug 2015 | A1 |
20150339480 | Lutas | Nov 2015 | A1 |
20160092673 | LeMay | Mar 2016 | A1 |
20160117229 | Epstein | Apr 2016 | A1 |
20160196425 | Davidov et al. | Jul 2016 | A1 |
20160328561 | Tamir | Nov 2016 | A1 |
20170039371 | Lukacs et al. | Feb 2017 | A1 |
20170083702 | Gathala | Mar 2017 | A1 |
20170286334 | Khanna | Oct 2017 | A1 |
20170300688 | Spisak et al. | Oct 2017 | A1 |
20170329973 | Landau et al. | Nov 2017 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
WO2017180317 | Oct 2017 | WO |
WO2017197142 | Nov 2017 | WO |
WO2019010448 | Jan 2019 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Ishii, Y. et al., “Revisiting Local History for Improving Fused Two-Level Branch Predictor”, JWAC-2: Championship Branch Prediction Program Saturday, Jun. 4, 2011, 5 pages. (Year: 2011). |
Pierce, Cody et al., “Capturing 0day Exploits with PERFectly Placed Hardware Traps”, Proceeding of the Black Hat USA, 2016, 7 pages. (Year: 2016). |
“International Search Report” and “Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority,” Patent Cooperation Treaty Application No. PCT/US2018/041139, dated Sep. 21, 2018, 17 pages. |
“International Search Report” and “Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority,” Patent Cooperation Treaty Application No. PCT/US2017/024300, dated Jul. 21, 2017, 9 pages. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20190012486 A1 | Jan 2019 | US |