Showing posts with label prefetch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label prefetch. Show all posts

Triage Practical Solution – Malware Event – Prefetch $MFT IDS

Wednesday, December 9, 2015 Posted by Corey Harrell 1 comments
You are staring at your computer screen thinking how you are going to tell your ISO what you found. Thinking about how this single IDS alert might have been overlooked; how it might have been lost among the sea of alerts from the various security products deployed in your company. Your ISO tasked with you triaging a malware event and now you are ready to report back.

Triage Scenario


 To fill in those readers who may not know what is going on you started out the meeting providing background information about the event. The practical provided the following abbreviated scenario (for the full scenario refer to the post Triage Practical – Malware Event – Prefetch $MFT IDS):

 The ISO continued “I directed junior security guy to look at the IDS alerts that came in over the weekend. He said something very suspicious occurred early Saturday morning on August 15, 2015.” Then the ISO looked directly at you “I need you to look into whatever this activity is and report back what you find.” “Also, make sure you document the process you use since we are going to use it as a playbook for these types of security incidents going forward.”

 Below are some of the initial questions you need to answer and report back to the ISO.

         * Is this a confirmed malware security event or was the junior analyst mistaken?
        * What type of malware is involved?
        * What potential risk does the malware pose to your organization?
        * Based on the available information, what do you think occurred on the system to cause the malware event in the first place?

Information Available


 Despite the wealth of information available to you within an enterprise, only a subset of data was provided for you to use while triaging this malware event. The following artifacts were made available:

         * IDS alerts for the time frame in question (you need to replay the provide pcap to generate the IDS alerts. pcap was not provided for you to use during triage and was only made available to enable you to generate the IDS alerts in question)

        * Prefetch files from the system in question (inside the Prefetch.ad1 file)

        * File system metadata from the system in question (the Master File Table is provided for this practical)

Information Storage Location within an Enterprise


 Each enterprise’s network is different and each one offers different information for triaging. As such, it is not possible to outline all the possible locations where this information could be located in enterprises. However, it is possible to highlight common areas where this information can be found. To those reading this post whose environments do not reflect the locations I mention then you can evaluate your network environment for a similar system containing similar information or better prepare your network environment by making sure this information starts being collected in systems.

         * IDS alerts within an enterprise can be stored on the IDS/IPS sensors themselves or centrally located through a management console and/or logging system (i.e. SIEM)

        * Prefetch files within an enterprise can be located on the potentially infected system

        * File system metadata within an enterprise can be located on the potentially infected system

Collecting the Information from the Storage Locations


 Knowing where information is available within an enterprise is only part of the equation. It is necessary to collect the information so it can be used for triaging. Similar to all the differences between enterprises’ networks, how information is collected varies from one organization to the next. Below are a few suggestions for how the information outlined above can be collected.

         * IDS alerts don’t have to be collected. They only need to be made available so they can be reviewed. Typically this is accomplished through a management console or security monitoring dashboard.

        * Prefetch files are stored on the potentially infected system. The collection of this artifact can be done by either pulling the files off remotely or locally. Remote options include an enterprise forensic tools such as F-Response, Encase Enterprise, or GRR Rapid Response, triage scripts such as Tr3Secure collection script, or by using the admin share since Prefetch files are not locked files. Local options can use the same options.

        * File system metadata is very similar to prefetch files because the same collection methods work for collecting it. The one exception is the NTFS Master File Table ($MFT) can’t be pulled off by using the admin share.

Potential DFIR Tools to Use


 The last part of the equation is what tools one should use to examine the information that is collected. The tools I’m outlining below are the ones I used to complete the practical.

      * Security Onion to generate the IDS alerts
        * Winprefetchview to parse and examine the prefetch files
        * MFT2CSV to parse and examine the $MFT file

Others’ Approaches to Triaging the Malware Event


 Before I dive into how I triaged the malware event I wanted to share the approaches used by others to tackle the same malware event. I find it helpful to see different perspectives and techniques tried to solve the same issue. I also wanted to thank those who took the time to do this so others could benefit from what you share.

 Matt Gregory shared his analysis on his blog My Random Thoughts on InfoSec. Matt did a great job outlining not only what he found but by explaining how he did it and what tools he used. I highly recommend taking the time to read through his analysis and the thought process he used to approach this malware event.

 An anonymous person (at least anonymous to me since I couldn’t locate their name) posted their analysis on a newly created blog called Forensic Insights. Their post goes into detail on analyzing the packet capture including what was transmitted to the remote device.

Partial Malware Event Triage Workflow


 The diagram below outlines the jIIr workflow for confirming malicious code events. The workflow is a modified version of the Securosis Malware Analysis Quant. I modified Securosis process to make it easier to use for security event analysis.

Detection: the malicious code event is detected. Detection can be a result of technologies alerting on it or a person reporting it. The workflow starts in response to a potential event being detected and reported.

 Triage: the detected malicious code event is triaged to determine if it is a false positive or a real security event.

 Compromised: after the event is triaged the first decision point is to decide if the machine could potentially be compromised. If the event is a false positive or one showing the machine couldn’t be infected then the workflow is exited and returns back to monitoring the network. If the event is confirmed or there is a strong indication it is real then the workflow continues to identify the malware.

 Malware Identified: the malware is identified two ways. The first way is identifying what the malware is including its purpose and characteristics using available information. The second way is identifying and obtaining the malware sample from the actual system to further identify the malware and its characteristics.

 Root Cause Analysis: a quick root cause analysis is performed to determine how the machine was compromised and to identify indicators to use for scoping the incident. This root cause analysis does not call for a deep dive analysis taking hours and/or days but one only taking minutes.

 Quarantine: the machine is finally quarantined from the network it is connected to. This workflow takes into account performing analysis remotely so disconnecting the machine from the network is done at a later point in the workflow. If the machine is initially disconnected after detection then analysis cannot be performed until someone either physically visits the machine or ships the machine to you. If an organization’s security monitoring and incident response capability is not mature enough to perform root cause analysis in minutes and analysis live over the wire then the Quarantine activity should occur once the decision is made about the machine being compromised.

Triage Analysis Solution


 To triage the malware event outlined in the scenario does not require one to use all of the supplied information. The triage process could had started with either the IDS alert the junior security analyst saw or the prefetch files from system in question to see what program executed early Saturday morning on August 15, 2015. For completeness, my analysis touches on each data source and the information it contains. As a result, I started with the IDS signature to ensure I included it in my analysis.

IDS alerts


 The screenshot below shows the IDS signatures that triggered by replaying the provided malware-event.pcap file in Security Onion. I highlighted the alert of interest.


The IDS alert by itself provides a wealth of information. The Emerging Threats (ET) signature that fired was "ET TROJAN HawkEye Keylogger FTP" and this occurred when the machine in question (192.168.200.128) made a connection to the IP address 107.180.21.230 on the FTP destination port 21. To determine if the alert is a false positive it’s necessary to explore the signature (if available) and the packet responsible for triggering it. The screenshot below shows the signature in question:

The signature is looking for a system on the $HOME_NET going to an external system on the FTP port 21 and the system has to initiate the connection (as reflected by flow:established,to_server). The packet needs to contain the string “STOR HAWKEye_”. The packet that triggered this signature meets all of these requirements. The system connected to an external IP address on port 21 and the picture below shows the data in the packet contained the string of interest.

Based on the network traffic and the packet data the IDS alert is not a false positive. I performed Internet research to obtain more context about the malware event. A simple Google search on HawkEye Keylogger produces numerous hits. From You Tube videos showing how to use it to forums posting cracked versions to various articles discussing it. One article is TrendMicro’s paper titled Piercing the HawkEye: Nigerian Cybercriminals Use a Simple Keylogger to Prey on SMBs Worldwide and just the pictures in the paper provide additional context (remember during triage you won’t have time to read 34 page paper.) The keylogger is easily customizable since it has a builder and it can delivery logs through SMTP or FTP. Additional functionality includes: stealing clipboard data, taking screenshots, downloading and executing other files, and collecting system information.

 Research on the destination IP address shows the AS is GODADDY and numerous domain names map back to the address.

Prefetch files


 When I review programs executing on a system I tend to keep the high level indicators below in mind. Over the years, these indicators have enabled me to quickly identify malicious programs that are or were on a system.
  • Programs executing from temporary or cache folders
  • Programs executing from user profiles (AppData, Roaming, Local, etc)
  • Programs executing from C:\ProgramData or All Users profile
  • Programs executing from C:\RECYCLER
  • Programs stored as Alternate Data Streams (i.e. C:\Windows\System32:svchost.exe)
  • Programs with random and unusual file names
  • Windows programs located in wrong folders (i.e. C:\Windows\svchost.exe)
  • Other activity on the system around suspicious files


 The collected prefetch files were parsed with Winprefetchview and I initially sorted by process path. I reviewed the parsed prefetch files using my general indicators and I found the suspicious program highlighted in red.

The program in question is suspicious for two reasons. First, the program executed from the temporarily Internet files folder. The second reason and more important one was the name of the program, which was OVERDUE INVOICE DOCUMENTS FOR PAYMENT 082015[1].EXE (%20 is the encoding for a space). The name resembles a program trying to be disguised as a document. This is a social engineering technique used with phishing emails. To gain more context around the suspicious program I then sorted by the Last Run time to see what else was executing around this time.

The OVERDUE INVOICE DOCUMENTS FOR PAYMENT 082015[1].EXE program executed on 8/15/15 at 5:33:55 AM UTC, which matches up to the time frame the junior security analyst mentioned. The file had a MD5 hash of ea0995d9e52a436e80b9ad341ff4ee62. This hash was used to confirm the file was malicious as reflected in an available VirusTotal report. Shortly thereafter another executable ran named VBC.exe but the process path was not reflected in the files referenced in the prefetch file itself. The other prefetch files did not show anything else I could easily tie to the malware event.

File System Metadata


 At this point the IDS alert revealed the system in question had network activity related to the HawkEye Keylogger. The prefetch files revealed a suspicious program named OVERDUE INVOICE DOCUMENTS FOR PAYMENT 082015[1].EXE and it executed on 8/15/15 at 5:33:55 AM UTC. The next step in the triage process is to examine the file system metadata to identify any other malicious software on the system and to try to identify the initial infection vector. I reviewed the metadata in a timeline to make it easier to see the activity for the time of interest.

 For this practical I leveraged the MFT2CSV program in the configuration below to generate a timeline. However, an effective technique - but not free - is using the home plate feature in Encase Enterprise against a remote system. This enables you to see all files and folders while being able to sort different ways. The Encase Enterprise method is not as comprehensive as a $MFT timeline but works well for triaging.

In the timeline I went to the time of interest, which was 8/15/15 at 5:33:55 AM UTC. I then proceeded forward in time to identify any other suspicious files. A few files were created within seconds of the OVERDUE INVOICE DOCUMENTS FOR PAYMENT 082015[1].EXE program executing. The files’ hashes will need to be used to determine more information about them since I am unable to view them.

The timeline then shows the VBC.EXE program executing followed by activity associated with a user surfing the Internet.

The timeline was reviewed for about a minute after the suspicious program executed and nothing else jumps out. The next step is go back to 8/15/15 at 5:33:55 AM UTC in the timeline to see what proceeded this event. There was more activity related to the user surfing the Internet as shown below.

I kept working my way through the web browsing files to find something to confirm what the user was actually doing. I worked my way through Yahoo cookies and cache web pages containing the word “messages”. There was nothing definite so I continued going back in time. I worked my way back to around 5:30 AM UTC where cookies for Yahoo web mail were created. This activity was three minutes prior to the infection; three minutes is a long time. At this point additional information is needed to definitely answer how the system became infected in the first place. At least I know that it came from the Internet using a web browser. note: in the scenario the pcap file was meant for IDS alerts only so I couldn’t use it to answer the vector question.

Researching Suspicious Files


 The analysis is not complete without researching the suspicious files discovered through triage. I performed additional research on the file OVERDUE INVOICE DOCUMENTS FOR PAYMENT 082015[1].EXE using its MD5 hash ea0995d9e52a436e80b9ad341ff4ee62. I went back to its VirusTotal report and noticed there didn’t appear to be a common name in the various security product detections. However, there were unique detection names I used to conduct additional research. Microsoft’s detection name was TrojanSpy:MSIL/Golroted.B and their report said the malware “tries to gather information stored on your PC”. A Google search of the hash also located a Malwr sandbox report for the file. The report didn’t shed any light on the other files I found in the timeline.

 The VBC.EXE file was no longer on the system preventing me from performing additional research on this file. The pid.txt and pidloc.txt files’ hashes were associated with a Hybrid Analysis report for a sample with the MD5 hash 242e9869ec694c6265afa533cfdf3e08. The report had a few interesting things. The sample also dropped the pid.txt and pidloc.txt files as well as executing the REGSVCS.EXE as a child process. This is the same behavior I saw in the file system metadata and prefetch files. The report provided a few other nuggets such as the sample tries to dump Web browser and Outlook stored passwords.

Triage Analysis Wrap-up


 The triage process did confirm the system was infected with malicious code. The infection was a result of the user doing something on the Internet and additional information is needed to confirm what occurred on the system for it to become infected in the first place. The risk to the organization is the malicious code tries to capture and exfiltrate information from the system including passwords. The next step would be to escalate the malware event to the incident response process so a deeper analysis can be done to answer more questions. Questions such as what data was potentially exposed, what did the user do to contribute to the infection, was the attack random or targeted, and what type of response should be done.
Labels: , , , , , ,

Triaging a System Infected with Poweliks

Sunday, January 4, 2015 Posted by Corey Harrell 3 comments
Change is one of the only constants in incident response. In time most things will change; technology, tools, processes, and techniques all eventually change. The change is not only limited to the things we rely on to be the last line of defense for our organizations and/or customers. The threats we are protecting them against change too. One recent example is the Angler exploit kit incorporating fileless malware. Malware that never hits the hard drive is not new but this change is pretty significant. An exploit kit is using the technique so the impact is more far reaching than the previous instances where fileless malware has been used (to my knowledge.) In this post I'm walking through the process one can use to triage a system potentially impacted by fileless malware. The post is focused on Poweliks but the process applies to any fileless malware.

Background on Why This Matters


In my RSS feeds, I was following the various articles about how an exploit kit incorporated the use of fileless malware. The malware never gets dropped to the disk and gets loaded directly into memory. A few of the articles I'm referring to are: Poweliks: The file-less little malware that could, Angler EK : now capable of "fileless" infection (memory malware), Fileless Infections from Exploit Kit: An Overview, POWELIKS: Malware Hides In Windows Registry, and POWELIKS Levels Up With New Autostart Mechanism. Reading the articles made one thing clear: one of the most effective tools to deliver malware (exploit kits) is now using malware that stays in memory.

This change has a significant impact on multiple areas. If the malware stays in memory then the typically artifacts we see on the host will not be there. For example, when the malware is loaded into memory then it won't create program execution artifacts on the system. This means the triage and examination process needs to adjust. As I mentioned previously, this change was implemented into a widely known exploit kit (Angler exploit kit.) The systems infected with this exploit kit can be far reaching. This means we will encounter this change sooner rather than later; if you haven't faced it already. Case in point, recently the Internet Systems Consortium website was compromised and was redirecting visitors to the Angler exploit kit. The last impact is if this change provides better results for the people behind it then I can see other exploit kit authors following suit. This means fileless malware may become even more widespread and it's something that is here to stay.

I knew memory forensics is one technique we can use to find the malware in memory. (if you need a great reference on how to do this check out the book the Art of Memory Forensics.) However, the question remained what does this look like. I took the short route for a quick answer to my question by reaching out to my Twitter followers. I asked them the following: "Anyone know how Poweliks code looks from memory forensics perspective?"

The first responses I got back was from Adam over at the Hexacron blog (great blog by the way) as shown below.

 
Adam provided some great information; to narrow in on the dllhost.exe process and what strings to look for. Another response I got was from @lstaPee as shown below:


@lstaPee provided a few more tidbits. RunDll32.exe injects code into the Dllhost.exe and dllhost.exe should have network connections. The response I got back from Twitter was great but I really needed to address the bigger question. If and when I have to triage a system infected with Poweliks what is the fastest way to perform the triage to locate the malware and determine the root cause of the infection. A question I needed to dig in to in order to find out the answer.

Testing Environment


As much as I wanted to simulate this attack by finding a live link to an Angler exploit kit I knew it would be very difficult. Based on various articles I read, Angler is VMware aware and  it doesn't always deliverer the fileless malware. I opted to use a Powelik's dropper/downloader. I used the sample MD5 0181850239cd26b8fb8b72afb0e95eac I found on Malwr. The test system was a Windows 7 32bit virtual machine in VMware.

The test conditions were really basic. I executed the sample by clicking it and then waited for about a minute. The VM was suspended and I collected the memory and prefetch files. I then unsuspended the VM followed by rebooting the system. After reboot, I logged onto the VM and then suspended it to collect the memory and prefetch files.

My tests was to analyze the Poweliks infection from two angles. The initial infection prior to a system reboot and a persistent infection after the system reboots. My analysis had one exception. By clicking the Poweliks executable to infect the system this action created program execution artifacts. I ignored these artifacts since they wouldn't be present if the malware was loaded directly into memory. I followed my typical examination process on the memory images and vmdk files but this post only highlights the activity that directly points to Poweliks. There was other activity of interest but the activity by itself does not indicate anything malicious. This activity I opted to omit from the post.

Poweliks' Behavior


Before diving into the triage process and what to look for it's important I discuss one Poweliks' behavior. I won't go into any details how I first picked up on this but I will show the end result. What the behavior is and how it can help when triaging Poweliks specifically. The screenshot below shows partial of the Malwr's behavior analysis section showing the behavior I'm referring to.


Upon a system's initial infection, the malware calls rundll32.exe which then calls powershell.exe who injects code into the dllhost.exe process. In the image above the numbers are for the process IDs and this relevant as we dig deeper into the behavior.

The image below shows activity that occurs shortly after the rundll32.exe process starts. As can be seen, rundll32.exe attempts to load a module into its own address space with the LdrLoadDll function. The module being loaded is actually javascript; this behavior is well documented for Poweliks such as in the article Poweliks – Command Line Confusion. Notice the activity following the LdrLoadDll function call is trying to locate the address for the RunHTMLApplication function. Here's the keyword Adam pointed out.


The images below shows activity that occurs just prior to powershell.exe process exiting. Powershell.exe creates the dllhost.exe process in the suspended state. Code gets injected into this suspended dllhost.exe process and then it is resumed. This technique is process hollowing and when the suspended process is resumed it executes the injected code.



Triaging System Infected with Poweliks


Triage is the assessment of a security event to determine if there is a security incident, its priority, and the need for escalation. As it relates to potential malware incidents, the purpose of triaging may vary. In this instance, triage is being used to determine if an event is a security incident or false positive by identifying  malware on the system. Confirming the presence of malware allows for a deeper examination to be completed. The triage process I'm outlining is to confirm the presence of the Poweliks fileless malware.

Triaging with Host Artifacts


Normally, triaging a system using artifacts on the host is an effective technique to identify malware. This is especially true when leveraging program execution artifacts. However, loading malware directly into memory has a significant impact on the artifacts available on the host. There are very little artifacts available and if the malware doesn't remain persistent then there will be even less. Triaging a system infected with Poweliks is no different. Most of the typically artifacts are missing but it can still be identified using prefetch files and autorun locations.

Prefetch Files


Previously I outlined the Poweliks behavior where the rundll32.exe process runs, which then starts a powershell.exe process before injecting code into the dllhost.exe suspended process. This behavior is apparent in the prefetch files at the point of the initial infection. The image below shows the activity.


The prefetch files show the sequence of rundll32.exe executing followed by powershell.exe before dllhost.exe. Furthermore, the dllhost.exe prefetch file is missing the process path. The missing process path indicates process hollowing was used as I outlined in the post Prefetch File Meet Process Hollowing. The prefetch files contain references to files accessed during the first 10 seconds of application startup. The dllhost.exe prefetch file contains revealing ones. It contains a reference to wininet.dll for interacting with the network and files associated with Internet Explorer as shown below.


This specific prefetch file sequence only occurs upon the initial infection. Future system restarts where Poweliks is loaded into the dllhost.exe process only shows the dllhost.exe prefetch file. The file references in this prefetch still show references to files located in the user profile.


Autoruns


The prefetch files contain a distinctive pattern indicating a Poweliks infection. Depending on the sample, autoruns can reveal even more. I mention depending on the sample because Poweliks has changed its persistence mechanism. Initially it used the Run registry key before moving on to a CLSID registry key. I thought one article mentioned Poweliks may not try to remain persistent at all times. If Poweliks does try to remain persistent then its mechanism can be used to find it. Keep in mind, Poweliks has taken self protection measures to prevent this mechanism from being located on a live system. The easiest method to bypass these measures is to access the system remotely with a forensic tool like Encase Enterprise, mount the drive, and then run Regripper across the hives.

The image below shows the Run key from the user account on my test system. The sample I used was older since the Run key was used but it still is a tell-tale sign for a Poweliks infection.

...snip....

Memory Analysis Triage


Fileless malware may leave very little artifacts available on the host's hard drive but it still has to reside in memory. The most effective technique to identify a fileless malware infection is memory forensics. A Poweliks infection is not an exception since it stands out in memory whether if the memory is examined after the initial infection or a system reboot.

Network Connections


One area with malware indications is network activity are for unusual processes. @lstaPee alluded to this in their tweet about Poweliks. The Volatility netscan plug-in does show network activity for  the dllhost.exe process involving the IP address 178.89.159.35 on port 80 for HTTP traffic. dllhost.exe is not a process typically associated with web traffic so this makes it a good indicator pointing to Poweliks.


Process Listing


Another area with malware indications is the process listing showing unusual ones or ones with unusual commands. The Volatility pslist, psscan, and pstree -v plugins did not reveal anything that could definitely be used as an indicator but they did show the dllhost.exe process running. I checked a few clean systems to see if dllhost.exe normally runs but the process was not running by default.  This doesn't mean it can be used as an indicator because there could be other reasons for dllhost.exe running besides Poweliks. The screen below is from the pstree plug-in showing the command-line for launching dllhost.exe (notice there are no other options used in the command.)


Injected Code


Looking for processes with injected code is an effective technique to locate malware on a system. This is the one technique that absolutely reveals Poweliks on a system. The Volatility malfind plug-in showed the dllhost.exe process with injected code. This matches up to the articles about the malware and behavior analysis showing code does get injected into the dllhost.exe process. The image below shows the partial output from malfind.


Extracting the injected code and scanning it with antivirus confirms it is Poweliks. The image below shows the VirusTotal results for the injected code. Microsoft detected the code as Trojan:Win32/Powessere.A which is their classification for Poweliks.


Strings


The last area containing indicators pointing to Poweliks are the strings in the dllhost.exe process. The method to review the strings is not as straight forward as running a single Volatility plug-in. The strings command reference walks through the process and it's the one I used. The only thing I did different was to grep for my process ID to make the strings easier to review. The dllhost.exe strings revealed URLs such as one containing the IP address found with the netscan plug-in.


The most significant string found was the command used to make rundll32.exe inject code into the dllhost.exe process as shown below. The presence of this string alone in the dllhost.exe process indicates the system is infected with Poweliks.


Wrapping Things Up


The change introduce by the Angler exploit kit creator(s) is causing us to make adjustments in our processes. The effective techniques we used in the past may not be as effective against fileless malware. However, it doesn't mean nothing is effective preventing us from triaging these systems. It only means we need to use other processes, techniques, and tools we have at our disposal. We need to take what artifacts do remain and use it to our advantage. This post was specific to the Poweliks malware but the techniques discussed will apply to other fileless malware. The only difference will be what data is actually found in the artifacts.
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Prefetch File Meet Process Hollowing

Wednesday, December 17, 2014 Posted by Corey Harrell 4 comments
There are times when you are doing research and you notice certain behavior. You may had been aware about the behavior but you never consider the impact it has on other artifacts we depend on during our digital forensic and incident response examinations. After thinking about and researching the behavior and impact, it makes complete sense; so much so it's pretty obvious after the fact. In this post I'm exploring one such behavior and its impact I came across researching systems impacted by the Poweliks fileless malware. Specifically, how creating a suspended process and injecting code into it impacts the process's prefetch file.

The statement below is the short version describing the impact injecting code into a suspended process has on its prefetch file. For those wanting the details behind it the rest of the post explains it.

If the CreateProcess function creates a process in the suspended state and code gets injected into the process. The prefetch file for that process will contain the trace for the injected code and not the original process. Therefore, the prefetch file can be an indicator showing this technique was used.

Process Hollowing Technique


Malware uses various techniques to covertly execute code on systems. One such technique is process hollowing, which is also known as process replacement. The book Practical Malware Analysis states the following in regards to this technique:

"Process replacement is used when a malware author wants to disguise malware as a legitimate process, without the risk of crashing a process through the use of process injection.

Key to process replacement is creating a process in a suspended state. This means that the process will be loaded into memory, but the primary thread of the process is suspended. The program will not do anything until an external program resumes the primary thread, causing the program to start running"

In addition, the book The Art of Memory Forensics states the following:

"A malicious process starts a new instance of a legitimate process (such as lsass.exe) in suspended mode. Before resuming it, the executable section( s) are freed and reallocated with malicious code."

In essence, process hollowing is when a process is started in the suspended state, code is injected into the process to overwrite the original data, and when the process is resumed the injected code is executed. In a future post I will go into greater detail about this technique but for this post I wanted to keep the description at a high level.

Windows Internals Information


To fully explore the process hollowing behavior on a Windows system and its impact on the prefetch file it is necessary to understand Windows internals. Specifically, when and why prefetch files are created  and how processes are created.

Windows Prefetcher Information


Prefetch files are a well known and understood artifact within the DFIR field. These files are a byproduct of the Windows operating system trying to speed up either the boot process or applications startup. The book Windows Internals, Part 2: Covering Windows Server 2008 R2 and Windows 7 states the following:

"The prefetcher tries to speed the boot process and application startup by monitoring the data and code accessed by boot and application startups and using that information at the beginning of a subsequent boot or application startup to read in the code and data."

As it relates to application prefetch files the book continues by saying:

"The prefetcher monitors the first 10 seconds of application startup."

The information the prefetcher monitors is explained as follows:

"The trace assembled in the kernel notes faults taken on the NTFS master file table (MFT) metadata file (if the application accesses files or directories on NTFS volumes), on referenced files, and on referenced directories."

In essence, if the prefetcher is enabled on a Windows systems then the first 10 seconds of execution is monitored to determine what files and directories the application accesses. This information (or trace) is then recorded in a prefetch file located inside the C:\Windows\Prefetch directory.

Windows Flow of Process Creation


Knowing about process hollowing and prefetching is not enough. It's necessary to understand the flow of process creation in order to see the various activities that occur when a process is created. The book Windows Internals, Part 1: Covering Windows Server 2008 R2 and Windows 7 goes into great detail about process creation and below are the main stages:

1. Validate parameters; convert Windows subsystem flags and options to their native counterparts; parse, validate, and convert the attribute list to its native counterpart.

2. Open the image file (. exe) to be executed inside the process.

3. Create the Windows executive process object.

4. Create the initial thread (stack, context, and Windows executive thread object).

5. Perform post-creation, Windows-subsystem-specific process initialization.

6. Start execution of the initial thread (unless the CREATE_ SUSPENDED flag was specified).

7. In the context of the new process and thread, complete the initialization of the address space (such as load required DLLs) and begin execution of the program.

The picture below illustrates the process creation main stages:


The main stages highlight a very important point as it relates to process hollowing. When the a process is created it doesn't start executing until Stage 7. If the process is created in a suspended state then the first 6 stages are completed. The question is when does the prefetcher come into play. The book Windows Internals Part 1 states the following activity occurs in stage 7:

"Otherwise, the routine checks whether application prefetching is enabled on the system and, if so, calls the prefetcher (and Superfetch) to process the prefetch instruction file (if it exists) and prefetch pages referenced during the first 10 seconds the last time the process ran."

This is very important so it is worth repeating. The prefetcher monitoring application startup occurs in stage 7 when the application is executing. However, a process that is created in the suspended state does not execute until it is resumed. This means if the process hollowing technique is used then when the process resumes and executes the injected code the prefetcher is monitoring the files/directories accessed by the injected code and not the original process. In shorter words:

If the CreateProcess function creates a process in the suspended state and code gets injected into the process. The prefetch file for that process will contain the trace for the injected code and not the original process. Therefore, the prefetch file can be an indicator showing this technique was used.

Process Hollowing Prefetch File


It's always helpful to see what is being described in actual data to make it easier to how it applies to our examinations. To generate a prefetch file I double-clicked the svchost.exe executable located in the C:\Windows\Prefetch directory. Below is the partial output from this prefetch file being parsed with Harlan Carvey's pref.pl script in the WFA 4th edition book materials. (One note about the prefetch file; I added the underscore at the end to force the creation of a new prefetch file.)

File     : C:\Prefetch\SVCHOST_.EXE-3530F672.pf
Exe Path : \DEVICE\HARDDISKVOLUME1\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\SVCHOST.EXE
Last Run : Wed Dec 17 20:58:57 2014
Run Count: 1

Module paths:
   \DEVICE\HARDDISKVOLUME1\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\NTDLL.DLL
   \DEVICE\HARDDISKVOLUME1\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\KERNEL32.DLL
   \DEVICE\HARDDISKVOLUME1\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\UNICODE.NLS
   \DEVICE\HARDDISKVOLUME1\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\LOCALE.NLS
  

As shown above, the svchost.exe executed one time and some of the files accessed are reflected in the module paths section. I asked Harlan about where the executable path comes from in prefetch parsers since the prefetch file format does not record the executable path. He confirmed what I was assuming. Prefetch parsers search the module paths for the name of the executable referenced at offset 0x0010.

Now let's take a look at the prefetch file for a svchost.exe process that was hollowed out. The Lab12-02.exe executable provided with Practical Malware Analysis performs process hollowing to the svchost.exe process. This can be seen performing dynamic analysis on the executable. The images below are from the executable being ran in Malwr.

Lab12-02.exe first creates the svchost.exe process in the suspended state. Notice the creation flag of 0x00000004. Also, make note about the process handle to the suspended process (0x00000094).


Lab12-02.exe then continues by injecting code into the suspended svchost.exe process.


Lab12-02.exe finishes injecting code into the suspended svchost.exe process with the process handle 0x00000094 before it resumes the suspended process.



Below is the partial output from this prefetch file being parsed with Harlan's pref.pl script.

File     : C:\ Prefetch\SVCHOST.EXE-3530F672.pf
Exe Path : SVCHOST.EXE-3530F672.pf
Last Run : Wed Dec 17 20:59:48 2014
Run Count: 1

Module paths:
   \DEVICE\HARDDISKVOLUME1\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\NTDLL.DLL
   \DEVICE\HARDDISKVOLUME1\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\KERNEL32.DLL
   \DEVICE\HARDDISKVOLUME1\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\UNICODE.NLS
   \DEVICE\HARDDISKVOLUME1\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\LOCALE.NLS
  

It may not be obvious in the partial output but the files accessed by the injected code is different than the normal svchost.exe process. One of the more obvious files is what is not accessed; the original executable itself. Notice how the executable path contains the name of the prefetch file and this is due to the actual svchost.exe process not being accessed within 10 seconds of the injected code running.

Circling Back To Poweliks


I mentioned previously that I noticed this behavior when researching the Poweliks fileless malware. This malware doesn't write its binary to disk since it stays in memory. The malware is not only not on the hard drive but other typical artifacts may not be present as well (such as the normal program execution artifacts.) In the near future I'll have a detailed post about how to triage systems impacted by this malware but I wanted highlight why the information I shared in this post matters. The screenshot below shows parsed prefetch files from a test system infected with a Poweliks dropper. My only clue to you is: one prefetch file is not like the others?


There is one dllhost.exe prefetch file that has the missing process path. A closer inspection of this prefetch file reveals some other interesting file access during application start-up:


During access start-up files associated with Internet activity were accessed in addition to the WININET.DLL dll for making HTTP requests. When Poweliks (or at least the samples I've reviewed) initially infects a computer it performs the following actions: rundll32.exe process starts the powershell.exe process  that then starts a suspended dllhost.exe and injects code into it. Powershell.exe then resumes the dllhost.exe process that executes the Poweliks malicious code. The screenhots above illustrate the behavior of process hollowing performed by Poweliks and the impact on the dllhost.exe prefetch file.

The above indication of the missing executable path in the dllhost.exe prefetch file  is only for the initial infection when process hollowing is used. (The malicious code doesn't access the file it injects in once it executes) If Poweliks remains persistent and the system reboots the malicious code is still injected into dllhost.exe process but it doesn't appear to be process hollowing. These dllhost.exe prefetch files will contain the dllhost.exe executable path; along with the trace for suspicious file access as shown in the last screenshot. This is reflected in the second dllhost.exe prefetch file highlighted in the above screenshot.

Conclusion


Uncovering behaviors during research is helpful to put something you take for granted in a different perspective. Process hollowing behaves in a specific way in the Windows operating system and it can impact prefetch files in a specific way. This impact can be used as an indicator to help explain what occurred on a system but it needs context. A missing process executable in a prefetch file does not mean process hollowing occurred. However, a missing process executable along with suspicious file access during application start-up and an indication a system was compromised means something completely else. 

Labels: , , ,

Triaging with Tr3Secure Script's NTFS Artifacts Only Option

Wednesday, November 5, 2014 Posted by Corey Harrell 1 comments
An alert fires about an end point potentially having a security issue. The end point is not in the cubicle next to you, not down the hall, and not even in the same city. It's miles away in one of your organization's remote locations. Or maybe the end point is not miles away but a few floors from you. However, despite its closeness the system has a one terabyte hard drive in it. The alert fired and the end point needs to be triaged but what options do you have. Do you spend the time to physically track down the end point, remove the hard drive, image the drive, and then start your analysis. How much time and resources would be spent approaching triage in this manner? How many other alerts would be overlooked while the focus is on just one? How much time and resources would be wasted if the alert was a false positive? In this post I'll demonstrate how the Tr3secure collection script can be leveraged to triage this type of alert.

Efficiency and Speed Matters


Triaging requires a delicate balance between thoroughness and speed. Too much time spent on one alert means not enough time for the other alerts. Time is not your friend when you are either trying to physically track down a system miles away or imaging a hard drive prior to analysis. Why travel miles when milliseconds will do?  Why collect terabytes/gigabytes when megabytes will do? Why spend time doing deep dive analysis until you confirm you have to? The answer to all these questions is to walk the delicate balance between thoroughness and speed. To quickly collect only the data you need to confirm if the alert is a security event or false positive. The tools one selects for triage is directly related to their ability to be thorough but fast. One crop of tools to help you strike this balance are triage scripts.

Triage scripts automate parts of the triage process; this may include either the data collection or analysis. The Tr3secure collection script automates the data collection. In my previous post - Tr3Secure Collection Script Updated  - I highlighted the new features I added in the script to collect the NTFS Change Journal ($UsnJrnl) and new menu option for only collecting NTFS artifacts. Triaging the alert I described previously can easily be done by leveraging Tr3Secure collection script's new menu option.

To demonstrate this capability I configure a virtual machine in an extremely vulnerable state then visited a few malicious sites to provide me with an end point to respond to.

Responding to the System


The command prompt was accessed on the target system. A drive was mapped to a network share to assist with the data collection. The network share not only is where the collected data will be stored but it is also where the Tr3Secure collect script resides. The command below uses the Tr3Secure collection script NTFS artifacts only option and stores the collected data in the network share with the drive (Y:). Disclaimer: leveraging network shares does pose a risk but it allows for the tools to be executed without being copied to the target and for the data to be stored in a remote location.


The image below shows part of the output from the command above.


The following is the data that was collected using Tr3secure collection script's NTFS artifacts only option:

     - Recentfilecach.bcf
     - Prefetch files
     - Master File Table ($MFT)
     - NTFS Change Journal ($UsnJrnl)
     - NTFS Logfile ($Logfile)

Triaging


Collecting the data is the first activity in triaging. The next step is to actually examine the data to confirm if the alert is an actual security event or a false positive. The triage process will vary based on what the event is. A fast spreading worm varies from a Trojan. Antivirus alerts vary from malicious network traffic (i.e. an end point communicating with a malicious IP). The scenario demonstrated in this post is for an alert firing that requires triaging an end point. There are certain indicators to look for when triaging end points for malware as outlined below:

     - Programs executing from temporary or cache folders
     - Programs executing from user profiles (AppData, Roaming, Local, etc)
     - Programs executing from C:\ProgramData or All Users profile
     - Programs executing from C:\RECYCLER
     - Programs stored as Alternate Data Streams (i.e. C:\Windows\System32:svchost.exe)
     - Programs with random and unusual file names
     - Windows programs located in wrong folders (i.e. C:\Windows\svchost.exe)
     - Other activity on the system around suspicious files

In addition to looking for the above indicators, it is necessary  to ask yourself a few important questions.

     1. What was occurring on the system around the time the alert generated?
     2. Is there any indicators in the alert to use examining the data?
     3. For any suspicious or identified malicious code, did it execute on the system?

The triage steps to use is dependent on the collected data. In this case, the data collected with NTFS artifacts option results in only examining: program execution and filesystem activity. These two examination steps are very effective for triaging end points as I previously illustrated in my post Triaging Malware Incidents.

Examining Program Execution Artifacts


The first artifact to check is the Recentfilecach.bcf to determine if any stand-alone programs executed on the endpoint. The file can be examined using a hex editor or Harlan's rfc.exe tool included in his WFA 4/e book materials. The command below parses this artifact:

rfc.exe C:\Data-22\WIN-556NOJB2SI8-11.04.14-19.36\preserved-files\AppCompat\RecentFileCache.bcf

The image below is highlighting a suspicious program. The program stands out since it is a program that executed from the lab user profile's temporary internet files folder. Right off the bat this artifact provides some useful information. The coffee.exe program executed within the past 24 hours, the program came from the Internet using the Internet Explorer web browser, and the activity is associated with the lab user profile.


The second program execution artifact collected during the NTFS artifacts only option are prefetch files. The command below parses this artifact with Winprefetchview:

winprefetchview.exe /folder C:\Data-22\WIN-556NOJB2SI8-11.04.14-19.36\preserved-files\Prefetch

The parsed prefetch files were first sorted by process path to find any suspicious programs. Then they were sorted by last run time to identify any suspicious programs that executed recently or around the time of the alert. Nothing really suspicious jumped out in the parsed prefetch files. However, there was a svchost.exe prefetch file and this was examined since it may contain interesting file handles related to the suspicious program listed in the Recentfilecach.bcf. (to see why review my Recentfilecach.bcf post and pay close attention to where I discuss the process svchost.exe) This could be something but it could be nothing. The svchost.exe process had a file handle to the ad[2].htm file located in the temporarily internet files folder as shown below:


Examining Filesystem Artifacts


The Tr3Secure collection script collects the NTFS $MFT, $Logfile, and $UsnJrnl; all of which can provide a wealth of information. These artifacts can be examined in two ways. First is to parse them and then look at the activity around the time the alert fired. Second, is to parse them and then look at the activity around the time of the identified suspicious files appeared on the system. In this post I'm using the latter method since the alert is hypothetical.

The $MFT was parsed with Joakim Schicht's MFT2CSV program. The output format is in the log2timeline format to make it into a timeline.


The MFT2CSV csv file was imported into Excel and a search was performed for the file "coffee.exe". It's important to look at the activity prior to this indicator and afterwards to obtain more context about the event. As illustrated below, there was very little activity - besides Internet activity - around the time the coffee.exe file was created. This may not confirm how the file got there but it does help rule out certain attack avenues such as drive-by downloads.


The image below shows what occurred on the system next. There is activity of Java executing and this may appear to be related to a Java exploit. However, this activity was due to Java update program executing.


The last portion of the $MFT timeline is shown below.  A file with the .tmp extension was created in the temp directory followed by the creation of a file named SonicMaster.exe in the System32 folder. SonicMaster.exe automatically becomes suspicious due to its creation time around coffee.exe (guilty by association.) If this is related then that means the malware had administrative rights, which is required to make modifications to the System32 folder. The task manager is executed and then there was no more obvious suspicious activity in the rest of the timeline. The remaining activity was the lab user account browsing the Internet.


At this point the alert has been properly triaged and confirmed. The event can be escalated according to the incident response procedures. However, addition context can be obtained by parsing the NTFS Change Journal ($UsnJrnl). Collecting this artifact was the most recent update to the Tr3Secure collection script. The $UsnJrnl was parsed with Joakim Schicht's UsnJrnl2CSV program.


The UsnJrnl2CSV csv file was imported into Excel and a search was performed for the file "coffee.exe". It's important to look at the activity prior to this indicator and afterwards to obtain more context about the event.  The $UsnJrnl shows the coffee.exe file being dropped onto the system from the Internet (notice the [1] included in the filename.)


The next portion as shown below, shows coffee.exe executing, which resulted in the modification to the Recentfilecache.bcf. Following this the tmp file is created along with the SonicMaster.exe file. The interesting activity is the data overwrites made to the SonicMaster.exe file after it's created.


Immediately after the SonicMaster.exe file creation the data overwrites continued to other programs as illustrated below. To determine what is happening would require those executables to be examined but it appears they had data written to them.


The executables were initially missed in the $MFT timeline since the files by themselves were not suspicious. They were legitimate programs located in their correct folders. However, the parsed $UsnJrnl provided more context about the executables and circling back around to the $MFT timeline shows the activity involving them. Their $MFT entries were updated.


Conclusion


As I mentioned previously, triaging requires a delicate balance between thoroughness but speed. It's a delicate balance between quickly collecting and analyzing data from the systems involved with an alert to determine if the alert is a security event or false positive. This post highlighted an effective technique for triaging an end point and the tools one could use. The entire technique takes minutes to complete from beginning to end. The triage process did not confirm if the activity is a security event but it did determine additional time and resources needs to be spent digging a bit deeper. Doing so would had revealed that the coffee.exe file is malicious and is actually the Win32/Parite file infector. The malware infects all executables on the local drive and network shares. Digging even deeper by performing analysis on coffee.exe (Malwr report and Anubis report) matches the activity identified on the system and even provides more indicators (such as an IP address) one could use to search for other infections in the environment.
Labels: , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)