Polymorphic Encryption Methods
In this document I want to explain methods of polymorphic self-encryption methods and how they are used today. We see them in modern viruses and in packers. Mostly these methods are used in packers with the target to hide malicous software from anti virus scanners - but it's also worth mentioning that software companies use it to hide their software and algorithms (for example Google does it on Google Desktop). However, polymorphic encryption routines are very interesting because they do encryption technologies at runtime non static (you won't believe how far it could go and in fact does).
- Peter Kleissner, Software Engineer (July 2008)
Overview over polymorphic self-encryption
Self-decryption means the software decrypts a part of itself at runtime. Ideally the software just contains a decryptor stub and the encrypted code. There are many variants of encryption methods, some more static (with a static decryption key) and some with changing and the best with polymorph changing decryption keys. I have also seen malware that does not know its own decryption key, but did just brute force its own key, until the decrypted code 'makes sense'. This is done in order to let the logging debugger/emulation environment of anti-virus vendor stopping (and yes, it works fine).
A big difference between polymorphic decryption code is how the code is decrypted, thus I know 4 versions:
- with a static key (very easy to reverse engineer and understand the decryption routine)
- with an all the time changing key (like every loop adding to the key plus 1), easy to understand but little more tricky to reverse engineer
- with no key, just with bit operations (like not, rol, ror, x-bit swap)
- with a key that has external dependencies (changes when it changes, for example some module address)
- (and no key given, the decryption code will brute force it itself)
A simple polymorphic code
A very simple polymorphic self-decryption code looks like:
JUMP: add/sub/xor BYTE PTR [BX],X INC BX CMP BX,MAX JB JUMP
As you can see the bytes at a given pointer BX which points to the decrypted code will be decrypted using an easy arithmetic instruction (addition, subtraction and exlcusive-or), where the opposite instruction for encryption would be subtraction, addition and exclusive-or. The code shown there is copied from a tutorial site I've found, so don't blame me for this code.
Another code sample which uses at this time an instantly changing key (very easy to reconstruct for investigating software):
LEA SI,... MOV SP,0682h JUMP: XOR WORD PTR [SI],SI XOR WORD PTR [SI],SP INC SI DEC SP JNZ JUMP
At the first look it may seems as the decryption key would change with multiple executions (because of the stack pointer), but as you can see SP is clearly initialized before the loop. It's a simple code, but a little bit more tricky than the last one.
It's possible to realize a decryption routine with multiple of the above described methods (so there are more). Methods they would come into my sense would be:
- using the encrypted code (byte, word or dword wise) as key, or even better, the decrypted code
- using meta data of the code as key, like the address (relative or absolute) or the size
- using "constants" given from the system (returned from API calls), or even much more sophisticated using localized constants like the IP address
Problems with finding the perfect self-encryption algorithm
The biggest difference to conventional encryption methods is you can not apply them, until the principle of them is "security lies in the knowledge of the key, not the algorithm". Considering this fact we have to eliminate the key or making the key unreconstructable for out-standing code. This could be done if the encrypted code is one key for itselfs decryption process. Other keys could be then depending on the encrypted code or on the key that is calculated from the encrypted code. This could be done in layers.
Anti virus vendors implement decryption routines as calculation, not as the algorithm (they won't copy your polymorphic code). Giving an example, if you have (theoretically) for every 4 byte another random one, the AV vendor would not include a 4 GB translation file.
Polymorphic self-decrypting code in the real world
Last day I debugged an email worm which has a decryption stub (which means the virus has been packed):
WSNPOEM Decryption Code analyzed: 00409D17 WSNPOEM-.<ModuleEntryPoint> $ BE 419D4000 MOV ESI,<encrypted code> 00409D1C . BB 3997101A MOV EBX,1A109739 ; decryption key 00409D21 . 33C9 XOR ECX,ECX 00409D23 <WSNPOEM-.Decryption_Loop> > 281E SUB BYTE PTR DS:[ESI],BL 00409D25 . 46 INC ESI 00409D26 . C1EB 08 SHR EBX,8 00409D29 . 41 INC ECX 00409D2A . 83F9 04 CMP ECX,4 ; 4 bytes decrypted? 00409D2D . 75 0A JNZ SHORT 00409D39 ; if not => next bye, else reload decryption key 00409D2F . BB 3997101A MOV EBX,1A109739 ; decryption key, for every 4 byte, 1 byte to decrypt 00409D34 . B9 00000000 MOV ECX,0 00409D39 > 81FE 03A04000 CMP ESI,<End of Code> ; end of encrypted code reached? 00409D3F .^ 72 E2 JB SHORT <Decryption_Loop> 00409D41 <WSNPOEM-.encrypted code> . C9 DB C9
Notice this is just Layer 1 decryption code. As a good developer sees already, this code is inefficient. Instead of using ecx as 4 byte counter the developer could test ebx for zero, and use or reg,reg jnz instead of cmp reg,0 jnz. Also not to forget to use SIMD with the 4 byte subtraction (and THEN you don't even need to test ebx for zero, and don't need to reset the key).
To come to a conclusion, there are variety ways of making your decryption routine more complex. Common used methods are using localized or system-specific values as key. This makes the program working only on the you-wanted systems, and unable to be debugged or emulated on others. For this, current malicious software uses addresses of system functions or structures, mostly stack values or kernel addresses. It is also worth to mention that current malware decryption code works via multiple layers, which means layer 1 decrypts the basic code, layer 2 some specific if necessary (if no debugger detected..). You should think of making more intelligent decryption routines. Remember nothing is impossible at software level, just at least at hardware level everything is defined (as someone sayed..). Not to know, thanks for your attention, let's go back to work ;).
Last modified: 17 February 2009