Case file CF-001 Classification public — sanitized Domain malware research Status published

// casefiles/malware-evasion

Decoding Malicious Camouflage

An investigation into how contemporary malware families circumvent host-based defence architectures — specifically AMSI and EDR — and how those behaviours map back to detection and response.

RoleResearcher — Master's project
ContextUniversity of Westminster
LabAny.Run · REMnux (isolated)
SamplesRedline · WannaCry · SheetRAT
FrameworkMITRE ATT&CK Enterprise
Period2023 — 2024

01 Briefing

Host-based defences — AMSI and EDR — are the controls most organisations lean on to catch malware at the moment it runs. Modern malware knows this, and the families doing real damage invest heavily in getting past exactly these layers.

The question this research set out to answer, in plain terms: how do current malware families actually evade the defences we rely on — not in theory, but observed sample by sample — and what should defenders change as a result?

02 Threat model

Three families were selected to cover three distinct adversary goals, so the evasion behaviours could be compared across motives rather than within one type of malware:

  • Redline Stealer — commodity information stealer; harvests browser credentials, tokens, and wallet files, and exfiltrates them over its C2 channel.
  • WannaCry — ransomware worm; mass file encryption plus shadow-copy deletion to inhibit recovery and force payment.
  • SheetRAT — remote-access trojan; persistence, silent privilege escalation, and modular tooling pulled from C2 mid-run.

03 Method

All analysis ran in an isolated sandbox environment — no sample ever touched a production network. Each family went through the same pipeline, so the results are comparable:

Exhibit A — analysis pipelinerepeatable per sample
  1. Static triage on REMnux — strings, imports, packing indicators, and obfuscation layers before any execution.
  2. Detonation in Any.Run — full behavioural capture: process tree, registry writes, file system activity, network beacons.
  3. Deobfuscation — peeling back staged loaders and runtime decoding to reach the behaviour underneath.
  4. ATT&CK mapping — every observed behaviour classified against MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise for industry-standard comparison.
  5. CTI reporting — findings written up as actionable threat-intelligence reports, IOC sets extracted and enriched.
The same five stages ran for each of the three samples — 30 techniques across 10 tactics came out the other side.

04 Findings

Key Finding An obfuscated script used memory patching to disable AMSI tracing at runtime — patching amsi.dll in the loader's own process so every later scan call returns clean, before the real payload ever runs.

The headline finding is mapped as T1562.001 (Impair Defenses) in the coverage matrix below — but it was one of nine defense-evasion techniques observed. Evasion isn't a single trick; it's a layered posture: obfuscation to survive static analysis, sandbox fingerprinting to dodge automated detonation, and in-memory execution to stay off disk.

Every highlighted cell carries the analyst note from the original write-up — hover, tap, or focus a cell to read it.

// mitre att&ck · enterprise

Technique Coverage Map

30 techniques observed across Redline Stealer, WannaCry, and SheetRAT during sandbox analysis, mapped to 10 ATT&CK tactics. Hover, tap, or focus a highlighted cell for the analyst note.

ExecutionTA0002 · 4 mapped
T1569.002Service Execution
PersistenceTA0003 · 2 mapped
T1543.003Windows Service
T1574.002DLL Side-Loading
Privilege EscalationTA0004 · 1 mapped
T1134Access Token Manip.
Defense EvasionTA0005 · 9 mapped
T1070.004File Deletion
T1218System Binary Proxy
Credential AccessTA0006 · 2 mapped
T1003OS Credential Dumping
DiscoveryTA0007 · 4 mapped
T1016Network Config Disc.
CollectionTA0009 · 2 mapped
T1113Screen Capture
Command & ControlTA0011 · 3 mapped
T1095Non-App Layer Protocol
ExfiltrationTA0010 · 1 mapped
T1567.002Exfil to Cloud
ImpactTA0040 · 2 mapped
T1489Service Stop
> select a highlighted technique to read the analyst note.

05 Impact

  • Detection guidance over signatures. The AMSI-patch finding argues for detecting the act of tampering (memory writes into amsi.dll, suspicious AmsiScanBuffer patches) rather than the payloads it hides — the payload changes weekly, the tamper technique doesn't.
  • An honest coverage picture. Mapping all 30 observed techniques to ATT&CK turned three sample reports into a reusable coverage map — the same method later applied to production detection engineering (see CF-002).
  • Actionable CTI output. Each family produced a threat-intelligence report with extracted IOCs, written for the defenders who would consume them, not for the lab.
Next file · CF-002 Mapping Detections to ATT&CK Coverage
Open channel