Five years ago, Mandiant released a proof of concept tool named
ShimCacheParser, along with a blog post titled “Leveraging
the Application Compatibility Cache in Forensic Investigations”.
Since then, ShimCache metadata has become increasingly popular as a
source of forensic evidence, both for standalone analysis and
enterprise intrusion investigations.
While five years may seem like a long time, few community efforts
have focused on leveraging ShimCache metadata at an enterprise scale.
Today, we intend to fix that with the release of a new tool called AppCompatProcessor.
AppCompatProcessor started as a simple tool to automate
ShimCacheParser execution on enterprise-wide investigations,
leveraging Python’s multiprocessing module to speed up the parsing
process. Later, it evolved to support faster regular expression
searching and has continued to evolve ever since. Today, it handles
both AppCompat and AmCache artifacts, has modules for processing more
than 11 different formats, and contains some novel analytics to
redefine the way we look at execution trace artifacts.
Available ‘Modules’ in the Initial Release
Upon execution, AppCompatProcessor (ACP) enumerates all the
available commands we refer to as ‘modules’, as seen in Figure 1.
Figure 1: List of commands and modules
Investigators will likely use ‘load’, ‘status’, ‘list’ and
‘dump’ first. These will enable you to ingest data and enumerate
loaded hosts or dump the data for a specific host in the database.
Once you have ingested your data, the ‘search’ module will
enable you to search against a list of known-bad regular expressions
as part of your triaging or hunting methodology. The module will also
enable you to perform enterprise-wide string literal or regex searches
Regular expression searching leverages multiprocessing “under the
hood”. However, for simple literal string searches, the
‘fsearch’ module will automatically use the available indexes
to provide investigators with virtually immediate results.
The ‘Search’ and ‘FSearch’ functions empower an investigator to
search across the enterprise and much more. Perhaps you have found a
dropper and need to know the other systems it was executed on. Perhaps
an attacker is randomizing versioning information for binaries (stored
in AmCache), which is predictable. Perhaps the attacker has only been
active during specific timeframes. These objectives, and many more,
are capable using AppCompatProcessor. Due to the number of analysis
features offered by this tool, we will only discuss a subset of them.
Check the GitHub
page for a more detailed description of each feature.
leven’: Based on the Levenshtein
distance algorithm, which measures the ‘edit distance’ between
two strings, the module will identify small deviations from any known
legitimate filename present in the Windows\System32 folder on your
dataset. ‘svchosts.exe’, ‘svch0st.exe’, ‘scvhost.exe’ – how many of
those do we have to search for? None. ‘leven’ will spot all of
them, as well as any other possible variation, and will do so for all
legitimate file names and conveniently report them for you to
investigate. You can also run the ‘leven’ module with a
user-supplied filename. In that case, ACP will report all small
deviations in your dataset, regardless of the folder those files are
found in. This is an effective technique for spotting attacker
intentional or unintended typos during an investigation.
Figure 2: High level explanation of how temporal
execution strength is calculated
tcorr’: This module is based on a Temporal Correlation
execution engine, as shown in Figure 2. You supply a file name to it,
and it will determine what other files were executed before and after
(within a user configurable window). It calculates a correlation
‘strength’ index, which it uses to display the list of files that
present the strongest temporal execution correlation indexes with your
file name of interest. It will also automatically calculate if the
correlation is mutual by calculating the inverse correlation index,
which it will report as an ‘Inverse Bond’. ‘tcorr’ is great way
to triage suspicious files, or to easily find additional attacker
files as the investigation progresses. As a simple example, Figure 3
illustrates the results generated by ‘tcorr’ for “net.exe”. The
results provided evidence of the well-known fact that “net.exe” will
always execute “net1.exe”, resulting in a very strong temporal
execution correlation between both.
Figure 3: Explained output of “tcorr net.exe” command
tstack’: Investigators often question if they’ve
overlooked some detail as a result of an attacker deviating from
observed TTPs. Time stacking analytics have been designed to provide
you with the list of file names that have predominantly executed
within, or close to, the supplied attacker’s time frame of activity,
as seen in Figure 4. As the technique is inherently most effective for
narrow time intervals, investigators will want to focus around the
time frames associated with attacker lateral movement.
Figure 4: Time Stacking calculation
One of the main reasons for the Open Source release of ACP is to
provide a framework for the community at large to delve into advanced
analytics. Having a tool available that automates some of the analysis
of ShimCache and AmCache artifacts at enterprise scale should lower
the entry barrier for investigators interested in developing advanced
analytics. There’s a tremendous amount of untapped value on advanced
execution trace analytics. The examples presented here, while
immediately useful, are just the beginning.
Download AppCompatProcessor today.
This is a Security Bloggers Network syndicated blog post authored by Nick Harbour. Read the original post at: Threat Research Blog