Brian Weber

Luke Koch, Sean Oesch, Amul Chaulagain et al.

A polyglot is a file that is valid in two or more formats. Polyglot files pose a problem for malware detection systems that route files to format-specific detectors/signatures, as well as file upload and sanitization tools. In this work we found that existing file-format and embedded-file detection tools, even those developed specifically for polyglot files, fail to reliably detect polyglot files used in the wild, leaving organizations vulnerable to attack. To address this issue, we studied the use of polyglot files by malicious actors in the wild, finding $30$ polyglot samples and $15$ attack chains that leveraged polyglot files. In this report, we highlight two well-known APTs whose cyber attack chains relied on polyglot files to bypass detection mechanisms. Using knowledge from our survey of polyglot usage in the wild -- the first of its kind -- we created a novel data set based on adversary techniques. We then trained a machine learning detection solution, PolyConv, using this data set. PolyConv achieves a precision-recall area-under-curve score of $0.999$ with an F1 score of $99.20$% for polyglot detection and $99.47$% for file-format identification, significantly outperforming all other tools tested. We developed a content disarmament and reconstruction tool, ImSan, that successfully sanitized $100$% of the tested image-based polyglots, which were the most common type found via the survey. Our work provides concrete tools and suggestions to enable defenders to better defend themselves against polyglot files, as well as directions for future work to create more robust file specifications and methods of disarmament.

Sean Oesch, Phillipe Austria, Amul Chaulagain et al.

Defenders are overwhelmed by the number and scale of attacks against their networks.This problem will only be exacerbated as attackers leverage artificial intelligence to automate their workflows. We propose a path to autonomous cyber agents able to augment defenders by automating critical steps in the cyber defense life cycle.

Robert A. Bridges, Sean Oesch, Miki E. Verma et al.

In this paper, we present a scientific evaluation of four prominent malware detection tools to assist an organization with two primary questions: To what extent do ML-based tools accurately classify previously- and never-before-seen files? Is it worth purchasing a network-level malware detector? To identify weaknesses, we tested each tool against 3,536 total files (2,554 or 72\% malicious, 982 or 28\% benign) of a variety of file types, including hundreds of malicious zero-days, polyglots, and APT-style files, delivered on multiple protocols. We present statistical results on detection time and accuracy, consider complementary analysis (using multiple tools together), and provide two novel applications of the recent cost-benefit evaluation procedure of Iannacone \& Bridges. While the ML-based tools are more effective at detecting zero-day files and executables, the signature-based tool may still be an overall better option. Both network-based tools provide substantial (simulated) savings when paired with either host tool, yet both show poor detection rates on protocols other than HTTP or SMTP. Our results show that all four tools have near-perfect precision but alarmingly low recall, especially on file types other than executables and office files -- 37% of malware tested, including all polyglot files, were undetected. Priorities for researchers and takeaways for end users are given.