Parent process termination: an adversarial technique for persistent malware
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Persistent malware use techniques, such as obfuscation, process injection, and system call abuse to evade security mechanisms and avoid detection throughout their compromise. Malware analysis and memory forensics must have proper skill for fighting them. To show the limitation of current memory forensics, we introduce an adversarial technique to remove the forensics evidence required to identify malware, called parent process termination (PPT). PPT neither creates a new malware nor does it manipulate the features of a running process like malware obfuscation techniques, which abuse the parent–child relationship. In PPT, the malware process creates child processes for a malicious purpose and then terminates. This termination, letting the operating system (OS) reuses the parent process’s resources and thus erases all trace of it, while leaving its children to perform anomalous activities. To show PPT’s applicability in Windows OS, we run and analyze selected malware samples in a controlled environment. We implement PPT and show how this technique benefits from current memory forensics tools being unable to identify the exited processes. The forensics analysis proves behaviour of the PPT adversarial technique run in different malware executions. Our experiments show PPT successfully removes forensics evidence to identify the source of malicious activity. We hope these results can shed light on the future design of memory forensics tools and better-informed choices by users.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it