Also consider... most sandboxes are wrong CONSTANTLY, mainly because they over complicate things. So if we were to implement tools like these, we would have the same issue.
Introducing SiriusGPT: The First Real-Time GPT / LLM AI based Antimalware Solution
- Thread starter danb
- Start date
- Featured
To clarify, here’s Sirius in a nutshell:
Expert malware researchers can render the correct verdict on nearly any file using nothing more than PeStudio. Sirius performs the exact same core function, but it includes additional metadata as well. It really is like an expert malware researcher sitting on your shoulder as you compute, but the difference is that Sirius has an IQ of 190.
Expert malware researchers can render the correct verdict on nearly any file using nothing more than PeStudio. Sirius performs the exact same core function, but it includes additional metadata as well. It really is like an expert malware researcher sitting on your shoulder as you compute, but the difference is that Sirius has an IQ of 190.
Hey Guys,
Here is Sirius version 0.70. There were just a few very small bug fixes and optimizations, I also enabled self-protection for SiriusGPT. The auto update is not quite working yet because I forgot that SiriusGPT has the SiriusLLM update code, so it will be fixed in the next version. This version will just take you to the website to download the new version, and you can install over the top.
Also, I forgot to mention that if do happen to see many false negatives, we can always perform a WhitelistCloud check as well, but I wanted to see if Sirius could do it all on its own, so all of the versions we have released relied 100% on the Sirius verdict. I did finally see one miss today... I was devastated
. It was close though, the scores were -65, -65 and 90, so the 90 overrode the other two. I was shocked because that model is more prone to false positives than the other two. But either way there will be a few misses here and there... which is probably a good thing, because otherwise CyberLock would no longer have a purpose .
Thank you guys!
Here is Sirius version 0.70. There were just a few very small bug fixes and optimizations, I also enabled self-protection for SiriusGPT. The auto update is not quite working yet because I forgot that SiriusGPT has the SiriusLLM update code, so it will be fixed in the next version. This version will just take you to the website to download the new version, and you can install over the top.
Also, I forgot to mention that if do happen to see many false negatives, we can always perform a WhitelistCloud check as well, but I wanted to see if Sirius could do it all on its own, so all of the versions we have released relied 100% on the Sirius verdict. I did finally see one miss today... I was devastated
. It was close though, the scores were -65, -65 and 90, so the 90 overrode the other two. I was shocked because that model is more prone to false positives than the other two. But either way there will be a few misses here and there... which is probably a good thing, because otherwise CyberLock would no longer have a purpose .Thank you guys!
BTW, I do you guys suppose we might be able to talk @cruelsister into taking SiriusGPT for a test drive and maybe even make a video ? I would love to see how Sirius performs with her special scriptors . Also, Shadowra is going to do a video once he returns from vacation.
? I would love to see how Sirius performs with her special scriptors . Also, Shadowra is going to do a video once he returns from vacation.
So I got home tonight and reviewed the latest results and noticed that someone had tested a new .jar threat (Backdoor.STRRAT) named ikov.jar and Sirius returned the incorrect verdict. To make a long story short, I wrote a new LLM instruction and it is fixed now. I tested tons of other .jar samples to verify. At some point we might extract the various classes of the .jar files and analyze each of them individually, but I think this fix will definitely work for now. Anyway, thank you to whoever thought of testing .jar files... that was one file type I had not tested yet. If anyone tests a file type that does not return the correct verdict, please let me know and we will update the LLM instructions. I will obviously keep monitoring the analysis as well.
I reviewed the results since we launched SiriusGPT a few days ago and there were 4-5 false negatives for PE files, out of 1,307 total. They all happened to be 85% confidence for Model 0. As I was reviewing the results, I noticed that the vast majority of the other samples had 95% + confidence for model 0. So this was an easy fix... I increased the confidence threshold to 90 .
Here were 2 of the misses that someone tested, the other 2 I am not finding right now and it is late.
8c1884e8c7945a89293c6612c31ef994efb7ff966afb364109953399d48acd08
83cc9395582825c673c7738afbb9f53a95b83aeb21365ad42703bcedf1ded219 (590_9883.exe)
If you guys notice any misses while you are testing, please let me know!
You can download 0.71 here... it does include the auto update, so the auto update should work next time.
.Here were 2 of the misses that someone tested, the other 2 I am not finding right now and it is late
.8c1884e8c7945a89293c6612c31ef994efb7ff966afb364109953399d48acd08
83cc9395582825c673c7738afbb9f53a95b83aeb21365ad42703bcedf1ded219 (590_9883.exe)
If you guys notice any misses while you are testing, please let me know!
You can download 0.71 here... it does include the auto update, so the auto update should work next time.
I reviewed the results since we launched SiriusGPT a few days ago and there were 4-5 false negatives for PE files, out of 1,307 total. They all happened to be 85% confidence for Model 0. As I was reviewing the results, I noticed that the vast majority of the other samples had 95% + confidence for model 0. So this was an easy fix... I increased the confidence threshold to 90
Here were 2 of the misses that someone tested, the other 2 I am not finding right now and it is late
8c1884e8c7945a89293c6612c31ef994efb7ff966afb364109953399d48acd08
83cc9395582825c673c7738afbb9f53a95b83aeb21365ad42703bcedf1ded219 (590_9883.exe)
If you guys notice any misses while you are testing, please let me know!
You can download 0.71 here... it does include the auto update, so the auto update should work next time.
Awesomesauce, as aways @danb. No issues here with the portable version.
There is free ? Compatible with H_C and Portmaster ?Hey Guys!
Developing SiriusGPT was by far the most difficult project I have ever worked on, but I am super happy with the results. SiriusGPT utilizes 3 LLM / GPT models in an iterative configuration, and I have yet to see one false positive or negative, for both compiled and text based files, and for command line analysis as well.
If you scan a file or experience a block, you can click the Sirius logo to toggle between the Analysis Report and the event details. I am pretty happy with the user prompt, but we will probably refine it a little more as we go, and if anyone has any suggestions, please let me know.
A lite version of CyberLock is implemented into SiriusGPT, so you can select from AutoPilot and Dynamic Security Postures (Smart Mode), which is essentially a zero-trust security posture when you are browsing the web or checking emails. The LLM command line / LOLBin / fileless analysis is fully implemented, so we no longer have to worry about confusing command line blocks, they are all handled automatically, unless there is a malicious attack, in which case you will see a prompt that tells you to not allow the event. There should be close to zero bugs, but as soon as we are sure all of the bugs are worked out, we will be implementing the SiriusGPT engine into our other products.
The LLM analysis on these events are extremely accurate, usually with a confidence of 95% or higher. Here is a sample analysis report for these types of events.
Process path: c:\windows\system32\rundll32.exe
Parent process path: c:\windows\explorer.exe
Command line: "c:\windows\system32\rundll32.exe" using s=system;class p{static void main(){s.console.writeline((char)72+""+(char)101+(char)108+(char)108+(char)111);}}
Final Verdict: Not Safe with 95% confidence.
## Analysis Summary
The given command line execution event involves `rundll32.exe` being launched by `explorer.exe`. The command line argument passed to `rundll32.exe` is unusual and appears to be an attempt to execute arbitrary code. `rundll32.exe` is a known LOLBin (Living Off The Land Binary) that can be used to execute code in a DLL by calling a specific function within it.
The command line argument `using s=system;class p{static void main(){s.console.writeline((char)72+""+(char)101+(char)108+(char)108+(char)111);}}` is not a typical DLL function call expected by `rundll32.exe`. Instead, it resembles C# code that prints "Hello" to the console. This syntax is not directly executable by `rundll32.exe`, which typically requires a DLL name and an entry point.
The use of `rundll32.exe` with such an argument is suspicious because it attempts to abuse the binary for executing arbitrary code, potentially bypassing security restrictions. The code within the command line argument is obfuscated or encoded, as it uses character codes to represent the string "Hello". This behavior is indicative of an attempt to hide the true intent of the command.
The parent process, `explorer.exe`, launching `rundll32.exe` with such an argument is abnormal. While `explorer.exe` can launch various processes, the context and the command line argument used here suggest malicious intent.
## Malware Type and Name
Given the suspicious use of `rundll32.exe` and the encoded command line argument, this activity represents LOLBin Abuse. The specific behavior of executing C#-like code within the command line argument is not typical for legitimate applications.
## Final Verdict
Malware type: LOLBin Abuse (Thanks to @Trident for the malware name idea!)
Malware name: LOLBin.Rundll32.Exec (Thanks to @Trident for the malware name idea!)
Final verdict: Malicious with 95% confidence.
If you are curious and want to try SiriusGPT, but have CyberLock installed, you can uninstall CyberLock temporarily and then install SiriusGPT. You might want to click No when it asks if you want to delete the Settings and Logs during the CyberLock uninstall.
You can download the installer or portable version here:
Thank you guys!
Dan
SiriusLLM is free, SiriusGPT will be a paid product soon. The three utilities are probably non-prevalent, unsigned binaries.
I researched these three samples and here is what I found. The LightBulb and KeyFreeze_x64 Not Safe verdicts were correct. The sidebar verdict was 95% Safe, so it was correct as well, but there was an error described below that I will have to figure out.
BTW, you can click on any of the files in the Snapshot Scan and choose Open Location. Then you can scan the file with SiriusGPT and it will explain to you exactly why it rendered the specific verdict.
The analysis for sidebar.exe did not have an analysis report, but it did have a final verdict of 95% Safe. So I am not sure what happened with sidebar.exe, I will have to look into this because I just noticed that several of the files in the database do not have an analysis report. I am sure it is a simple fix.
Here is the report for LightBulb.exe... Not Safe is the correct verdict.
Sending request to SiriusGPT Model 0...
Model 0 confidence (75% Not Safe) is below the 90% confidence threshold.
Sending request to Model 1...
Model 1 confidence (60% Not Safe) is below the 90% confidence threshold.
Sending request to Model 2...
Model 2 confidence (75% Not Safe).
Selected optimal result: Not Safe with 75% confidence from Model 0 (priority-based tie-break).
Database updated with result from Model 0.
Total tokens: 0 (0 request / 0 response)
File path: C:\Users\User\Desktop\LightBulb.win-x64\LightBulb.exe
File hash: 84073d80a6a5be838373b415650ec6ee9b59fccd108225bec5dab1855776f46d
File size: 0.15 MB
File publisher: This file is a signable file type but has not been digitally signed.
WhitelistCloud verdict: Not Safe
Final Verdict: Not Safe with 75% confidence.
### Analysis Summary
The analysis of the provided Portable Executable (PE) file, LightBulb.exe, reveals a complex software with various functionalities. The presence of numerous imports related to system interaction, file management, and error handling suggests that the application performs a range of tasks. However, the absence of digital signatures and certain characteristics of the file raise concerns about its legitimacy and potential maliciousness. The WhitelistCloud verdict indicates the file is malicious, but this signal should be considered in conjunction with other evidence.
### Detailed Analysis
The file is a Windows GUI application, as indicated by the `OptionalHeaderSubsystem` being `IMAGE_SUBSYSTEM_WINDOWS_GUI`. It has a substantial number of imports (125), which include functions for registry manipulation (`RegOpenKeyExW`, `RegGetValueW`), file operations (`CreateFileW`, `FindFirstFileExW`), and error handling (`GetLastError`, `SetLastError`). The presence of these imports suggests that the application interacts closely with the system, potentially modifying system settings or files.
The file's entropy across different sections varies, with some sections having high entropy (`SectionEntropy1`: 6.35, `SectionEntropy6`: 4.99), which could indicate the presence of compressed or encrypted data. The `CLRRuntimeHeaderSize` is 0, indicating that this is not a .NET application, so the absence of typical Windows API imports would not be expected.
The application does not have exports, which is not unusual for a GUI application. The lack of digital signatures is a red flag, as legitimate software is typically signed by its publisher.
### Portable Executable Imports
The imports list includes a wide range of functions, many of which are related to system interaction and error handling. Functions like `IsDebuggerPresent` and `IsProcessorFeaturePresent` could be used to detect debugging environments or specific CPU features. The presence of `MessageBoxW` and `OutputDebugStringW` suggests that the application interacts with the user and can display messages or debug information.
The imports also include several CRT (C Runtime) functions (`malloc`, `calloc`, `_set_new_mode`), indicating standard memory management practices. The presence of `hostfxr_main_bundle_startupinfo` and related functions suggests potential interaction with .NET Core or similar frameworks, despite the `CLRRuntimeHeaderSize` being 0.
### Portable Executable Exports
There are no exports found in this executable, which is typical for a Windows GUI application that does not provide a library interface to other programs.
### Portable Executable Strings
The strings extracted from the executable include a mix of error messages, function names, and what appears to be a list of numbers and letters (`0123456789abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz`). The presence of error messages related to network operations (`connection aborted`, `host unreachable`) and file system interactions (`file not found`, `permission denied`) suggests that the application performs network communication and file system operations.
### Speculative Assessment of Software Type
Based on the attributes and features observed, LightBulb.exe appears to be a utility or tool that interacts with the system and potentially performs network operations. The presence of error messages related to network and file system operations, along with the absence of digital signatures, raises concerns about its legitimacy. The software might be a legitimate utility, but its characteristics and the WhitelistCloud verdict suggest it could be malicious or potentially unwanted.
### Malware Type and Name
Given the concerns raised by the analysis, including the absence of digital signatures and the WhitelistCloud verdict indicating maliciousness, it's reasonable to classify this file as potentially malicious.
Malware type: Potentially Unwanted Program (PUP)
Malware name: Utility.LightBulb
### Final Verdict
Malware type: Potentially Unwanted Program (PUP)
Malware name: Utility.LightBulb
Final verdict: Malicious with 75% confidence.
Here is the report for KeyFreeze_x64.exe, it is NOT Safe, so Not Safe is the correct verdict.
Sending request to SiriusGPT Model 0...
Model 0 confidence (85% Safe) is below the 90% confidence threshold.
Sending request to Model 1...
Model 1 confidence (75% Not Safe) is below the 90% confidence threshold.
Sending request to Model 2...
Model 2 confidence (92% Not Safe).
Selected optimal result: Not Safe with 92% confidence from Model 2 (priority-based tie-break).
Database updated with result from Model 2.
Total tokens: 0 (0 request / 0 response)
File path: C:\Users\User\Desktop\KeyFreeze\KeyFreeze\KeyFreeze_x64.exe
File hash: fe43c86dd9fa0120f9d708900e3cc5a7f970c00d296191c6849e474b0f7c0292
File size: 0.89 MB
File publisher: Sordum Software
Digital signature verified: CERT_E_UNTRUSTEDROOT - A certification chain processed correctly but terminated in a root certificate that is not trusted by the trust provider.
Counter signer: This file is not counter signed.
WhitelistCloud verdict: Not Safe
Final Verdict: Not Safe with 92% confidence.
<think>
Okay, let's start by looking at the file information. The file is KeyFreeze_x64.exe, located in a user's OneDrive directory. The SHA-256 hash is provided, which can be used for further checks. The file size is around 930KB, which isn't unusually large for an executable, but it's something to note.
Looking at the PE features, the DangerousImportedLibrariesNormalized score is 42.99 out of 100. That's a bit high, but not extremely high. OverlayEntropy is 8.00, which is high entropy, possibly indicating packed or obfuscated code. The ImportsCount is 479, which is a lot. That's a red flag because legitimate software usually doesn't need that many imports. High entropy and a large number of imports can be signs of malware.
The ASLR is disabled, which is a security feature, so its absence might be a concern. DEP is enabled, which is good. The SectionEntropies vary, with some sections having high entropy (like 6.43) and others very low (0.00). High entropy in some sections could indicate packed data or code.
Looking at the imports, there are a lot of functions related to process manipulation (like OpenProcess, VirtualAllocEx, WriteProcessMemory), which are commonly used in malware for injecting code. There are also functions for network operations (InternetOpenW, HttpSendRequestW), which could be for C2 communication. File system functions (CreateFileW, DeleteFileW) and registry functions (RegSetValueExW, RegOpenKeyExW) are present, which could be used for persistence or data exfiltration.
The exports section is empty, which is common for malware as they don't need to export functions. The strings include some that look like error messages and possibly some Unicode data. There's a mention of "CorExitProcess" and "USER32.DLL", which might be part of normal operations, but the presence of many system-related functions still raises concerns.
The digital signature is present but untrusted due to an untrusted root certificate. This could mean the certificate is self-signed or from an untrusted CA, which is suspicious. The WhitelistCloud verdict is malicious, which adds to the suspicion.
Putting this all together, the high number of imports, the presence of functions associated with process manipulation and network activity, the untrusted digital signature, and the high entropy sections all point towards the file being malicious. The lack of exports and the suspicious imports are strong indicators. The confidence level is high because multiple factors align towards a malicious classification.
</think>
Analysis Summary
The file KeyFreeze_x64.exe exhibits multiple suspicious characteristics indicative of malicious behavior. The high number of imported functions (479) includes numerous system-level operations related to process manipulation, memory management, and network communication—commonly used in malware for code injection, persistence, and data exfiltration. The overlay entropy (8.00) and section entropy variations suggest potential packing or obfuscation. The digital signature is present but untrusted (CERT_E_UNTRUSTEDROOT), raising concerns about authenticity. Combined with the WhitelistCloud malicious verdict and absence of legitimate exports, these factors strongly support a malicious classification.
Detailed Analysis
The imports list includes critical functions like `VirtualAllocEx`, `WriteProcessMemory`, and `OpenProcess`, which are frequently exploited for process injection. Network-related imports (`HttpSendRequestW`, `InternetOpenW`) imply potential command-and-control (C2) communication. File and registry manipulation functions (`CreateFileW`, `RegSetValueExW`) suggest persistence mechanisms or data tampering. The absence of exports aligns with malware behavior, as malicious payloads rarely expose functions.
The untrusted digital signature (Sordum Software) lacks validation, increasing the likelihood of a spoofed or compromised certificate. High entropy in sections (e.g., 6.43) and the overlay (8.00) further support obfuscation techniques. While some imports (e.g., `GetFileVersionInfoW`, `SHGetFolderPathW`) are benign, their coexistence with suspicious functions does not mitigate risk. The file’s age (2010 timestamp) and lack of modern development practices (e.g., ASLR disabled) also raise red flags.
Portable Executable Imports
The imports include functions commonly associated with malware:
- **Process manipulation**: `OpenProcess`, `VirtualAllocEx`, `WriteProcessMemory` (code injection).
- **Network activity**: `HttpSendRequestW`, `InternetOpenW` (C2 communication).
- **Persistence**: `RegSetValueExW`, `CreateFileW` (registry/file-based persistence).
- **Memory management**: `HeapAlloc`, `VirtualFreeEx` (memory tampering).
- **System interaction**: `EnumProcesses`, `GetProcessMemoryInfo` (monitoring/analysis evasion).
The sheer volume of imports (479) is atypical for legitimate software, which typically requires fewer system calls.
Portable Executable Exports
No exports are present, which is consistent with malware behavior. Legitimate applications often export functions for API use, whereas malware avoids this to remain stealthy.
Portable Executable Strings
Notable strings include:
- `CorExitProcess`, `USER32.DLL` (common Windows APIs).
- `runtime error`, `TLOSS error` (error messages, possibly from obfuscated code).
- Unicode sequences (`SunMonTueWedThuFriSat`, `JanFebMar...`) and locale data (e.g., `Arabic`, `Cyrillic`) may indicate localization support or obfuscation.
- `GetProcessWindowStation`, `GetUserObjectInformationA` (user interface interaction, potentially for UI spoofing).
These strings do not directly indicate malicious intent but align with system-level operations typical of malware.
Speculative Assessment
The file likely functions as a **remote access trojan (RAT)** or **keylogger**, given its extensive process manipulation capabilities and network communication functions. The presence of `WNetAddConnection2W` and `WNetUseConnectionW` suggests potential network credential theft. The lack of a clear product name in version info (`VersionInfoProductName`) and the untrusted certificate further support this hypothesis.
Malware type: Remote Access Trojan (RAT)
Malware name: RAT.KeyFreeze
Final verdict: Malicious with 92% confidence.
BTW, you can click on any of the files in the Snapshot Scan and choose Open Location. Then you can scan the file with SiriusGPT and it will explain to you exactly why it rendered the specific verdict.
The analysis for sidebar.exe did not have an analysis report, but it did have a final verdict of 95% Safe. So I am not sure what happened with sidebar.exe, I will have to look into this because I just noticed that several of the files in the database do not have an analysis report. I am sure it is a simple fix.
Here is the report for LightBulb.exe... Not Safe is the correct verdict.
Sending request to SiriusGPT Model 0...
Model 0 confidence (75% Not Safe) is below the 90% confidence threshold.
Sending request to Model 1...
Model 1 confidence (60% Not Safe) is below the 90% confidence threshold.
Sending request to Model 2...
Model 2 confidence (75% Not Safe).
Selected optimal result: Not Safe with 75% confidence from Model 0 (priority-based tie-break).
Database updated with result from Model 0.
Total tokens: 0 (0 request / 0 response)
File path: C:\Users\User\Desktop\LightBulb.win-x64\LightBulb.exe
File hash: 84073d80a6a5be838373b415650ec6ee9b59fccd108225bec5dab1855776f46d
File size: 0.15 MB
File publisher: This file is a signable file type but has not been digitally signed.
WhitelistCloud verdict: Not Safe
Final Verdict: Not Safe with 75% confidence.
### Analysis Summary
The analysis of the provided Portable Executable (PE) file, LightBulb.exe, reveals a complex software with various functionalities. The presence of numerous imports related to system interaction, file management, and error handling suggests that the application performs a range of tasks. However, the absence of digital signatures and certain characteristics of the file raise concerns about its legitimacy and potential maliciousness. The WhitelistCloud verdict indicates the file is malicious, but this signal should be considered in conjunction with other evidence.
### Detailed Analysis
The file is a Windows GUI application, as indicated by the `OptionalHeaderSubsystem` being `IMAGE_SUBSYSTEM_WINDOWS_GUI`. It has a substantial number of imports (125), which include functions for registry manipulation (`RegOpenKeyExW`, `RegGetValueW`), file operations (`CreateFileW`, `FindFirstFileExW`), and error handling (`GetLastError`, `SetLastError`). The presence of these imports suggests that the application interacts closely with the system, potentially modifying system settings or files.
The file's entropy across different sections varies, with some sections having high entropy (`SectionEntropy1`: 6.35, `SectionEntropy6`: 4.99), which could indicate the presence of compressed or encrypted data. The `CLRRuntimeHeaderSize` is 0, indicating that this is not a .NET application, so the absence of typical Windows API imports would not be expected.
The application does not have exports, which is not unusual for a GUI application. The lack of digital signatures is a red flag, as legitimate software is typically signed by its publisher.
### Portable Executable Imports
The imports list includes a wide range of functions, many of which are related to system interaction and error handling. Functions like `IsDebuggerPresent` and `IsProcessorFeaturePresent` could be used to detect debugging environments or specific CPU features. The presence of `MessageBoxW` and `OutputDebugStringW` suggests that the application interacts with the user and can display messages or debug information.
The imports also include several CRT (C Runtime) functions (`malloc`, `calloc`, `_set_new_mode`), indicating standard memory management practices. The presence of `hostfxr_main_bundle_startupinfo` and related functions suggests potential interaction with .NET Core or similar frameworks, despite the `CLRRuntimeHeaderSize` being 0.
### Portable Executable Exports
There are no exports found in this executable, which is typical for a Windows GUI application that does not provide a library interface to other programs.
### Portable Executable Strings
The strings extracted from the executable include a mix of error messages, function names, and what appears to be a list of numbers and letters (`0123456789abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz`). The presence of error messages related to network operations (`connection aborted`, `host unreachable`) and file system interactions (`file not found`, `permission denied`) suggests that the application performs network communication and file system operations.
### Speculative Assessment of Software Type
Based on the attributes and features observed, LightBulb.exe appears to be a utility or tool that interacts with the system and potentially performs network operations. The presence of error messages related to network and file system operations, along with the absence of digital signatures, raises concerns about its legitimacy. The software might be a legitimate utility, but its characteristics and the WhitelistCloud verdict suggest it could be malicious or potentially unwanted.
### Malware Type and Name
Given the concerns raised by the analysis, including the absence of digital signatures and the WhitelistCloud verdict indicating maliciousness, it's reasonable to classify this file as potentially malicious.
Malware type: Potentially Unwanted Program (PUP)
Malware name: Utility.LightBulb
### Final Verdict
Malware type: Potentially Unwanted Program (PUP)
Malware name: Utility.LightBulb
Final verdict: Malicious with 75% confidence.
Here is the report for KeyFreeze_x64.exe, it is NOT Safe, so Not Safe is the correct verdict.
Sending request to SiriusGPT Model 0...
Model 0 confidence (85% Safe) is below the 90% confidence threshold.
Sending request to Model 1...
Model 1 confidence (75% Not Safe) is below the 90% confidence threshold.
Sending request to Model 2...
Model 2 confidence (92% Not Safe).
Selected optimal result: Not Safe with 92% confidence from Model 2 (priority-based tie-break).
Database updated with result from Model 2.
Total tokens: 0 (0 request / 0 response)
File path: C:\Users\User\Desktop\KeyFreeze\KeyFreeze\KeyFreeze_x64.exe
File hash: fe43c86dd9fa0120f9d708900e3cc5a7f970c00d296191c6849e474b0f7c0292
File size: 0.89 MB
File publisher: Sordum Software
Digital signature verified: CERT_E_UNTRUSTEDROOT - A certification chain processed correctly but terminated in a root certificate that is not trusted by the trust provider.
Counter signer: This file is not counter signed.
WhitelistCloud verdict: Not Safe
Final Verdict: Not Safe with 92% confidence.
<think>
Okay, let's start by looking at the file information. The file is KeyFreeze_x64.exe, located in a user's OneDrive directory. The SHA-256 hash is provided, which can be used for further checks. The file size is around 930KB, which isn't unusually large for an executable, but it's something to note.
Looking at the PE features, the DangerousImportedLibrariesNormalized score is 42.99 out of 100. That's a bit high, but not extremely high. OverlayEntropy is 8.00, which is high entropy, possibly indicating packed or obfuscated code. The ImportsCount is 479, which is a lot. That's a red flag because legitimate software usually doesn't need that many imports. High entropy and a large number of imports can be signs of malware.
The ASLR is disabled, which is a security feature, so its absence might be a concern. DEP is enabled, which is good. The SectionEntropies vary, with some sections having high entropy (like 6.43) and others very low (0.00). High entropy in some sections could indicate packed data or code.
Looking at the imports, there are a lot of functions related to process manipulation (like OpenProcess, VirtualAllocEx, WriteProcessMemory), which are commonly used in malware for injecting code. There are also functions for network operations (InternetOpenW, HttpSendRequestW), which could be for C2 communication. File system functions (CreateFileW, DeleteFileW) and registry functions (RegSetValueExW, RegOpenKeyExW) are present, which could be used for persistence or data exfiltration.
The exports section is empty, which is common for malware as they don't need to export functions. The strings include some that look like error messages and possibly some Unicode data. There's a mention of "CorExitProcess" and "USER32.DLL", which might be part of normal operations, but the presence of many system-related functions still raises concerns.
The digital signature is present but untrusted due to an untrusted root certificate. This could mean the certificate is self-signed or from an untrusted CA, which is suspicious. The WhitelistCloud verdict is malicious, which adds to the suspicion.
Putting this all together, the high number of imports, the presence of functions associated with process manipulation and network activity, the untrusted digital signature, and the high entropy sections all point towards the file being malicious. The lack of exports and the suspicious imports are strong indicators. The confidence level is high because multiple factors align towards a malicious classification.
</think>
Analysis Summary
The file KeyFreeze_x64.exe exhibits multiple suspicious characteristics indicative of malicious behavior. The high number of imported functions (479) includes numerous system-level operations related to process manipulation, memory management, and network communication—commonly used in malware for code injection, persistence, and data exfiltration. The overlay entropy (8.00) and section entropy variations suggest potential packing or obfuscation. The digital signature is present but untrusted (CERT_E_UNTRUSTEDROOT), raising concerns about authenticity. Combined with the WhitelistCloud malicious verdict and absence of legitimate exports, these factors strongly support a malicious classification.
Detailed Analysis
The imports list includes critical functions like `VirtualAllocEx`, `WriteProcessMemory`, and `OpenProcess`, which are frequently exploited for process injection. Network-related imports (`HttpSendRequestW`, `InternetOpenW`) imply potential command-and-control (C2) communication. File and registry manipulation functions (`CreateFileW`, `RegSetValueExW`) suggest persistence mechanisms or data tampering. The absence of exports aligns with malware behavior, as malicious payloads rarely expose functions.
The untrusted digital signature (Sordum Software) lacks validation, increasing the likelihood of a spoofed or compromised certificate. High entropy in sections (e.g., 6.43) and the overlay (8.00) further support obfuscation techniques. While some imports (e.g., `GetFileVersionInfoW`, `SHGetFolderPathW`) are benign, their coexistence with suspicious functions does not mitigate risk. The file’s age (2010 timestamp) and lack of modern development practices (e.g., ASLR disabled) also raise red flags.
Portable Executable Imports
The imports include functions commonly associated with malware:
- **Process manipulation**: `OpenProcess`, `VirtualAllocEx`, `WriteProcessMemory` (code injection).
- **Network activity**: `HttpSendRequestW`, `InternetOpenW` (C2 communication).
- **Persistence**: `RegSetValueExW`, `CreateFileW` (registry/file-based persistence).
- **Memory management**: `HeapAlloc`, `VirtualFreeEx` (memory tampering).
- **System interaction**: `EnumProcesses`, `GetProcessMemoryInfo` (monitoring/analysis evasion).
The sheer volume of imports (479) is atypical for legitimate software, which typically requires fewer system calls.
Portable Executable Exports
No exports are present, which is consistent with malware behavior. Legitimate applications often export functions for API use, whereas malware avoids this to remain stealthy.
Portable Executable Strings
Notable strings include:
- `CorExitProcess`, `USER32.DLL` (common Windows APIs).
- `runtime error`, `TLOSS error` (error messages, possibly from obfuscated code).
- Unicode sequences (`SunMonTueWedThuFriSat`, `JanFebMar...`) and locale data (e.g., `Arabic`, `Cyrillic`) may indicate localization support or obfuscation.
- `GetProcessWindowStation`, `GetUserObjectInformationA` (user interface interaction, potentially for UI spoofing).
These strings do not directly indicate malicious intent but align with system-level operations typical of malware.
Speculative Assessment
The file likely functions as a **remote access trojan (RAT)** or **keylogger**, given its extensive process manipulation capabilities and network communication functions. The presence of `WNetAddConnection2W` and `WNetUseConnectionW` suggests potential network credential theft. The lack of a clear product name in version info (`VersionInfoProductName`) and the untrusted certificate further support this hypothesis.
Malware type: Remote Access Trojan (RAT)
Malware name: RAT.KeyFreeze
Final verdict: Malicious with 92% confidence.
Sure, thank you as well... can you please post a download link for sidebar.exe so I can figure out and fix the issue? I looked for the file but there are tons of similar files and I want to make sure I have the correct one.
Just go the web page where the download is, and copy the browser address bar 's address and paste it here.
Please post a link in the way @Victor M described.
BTW, pointless or impossible? LLM malware analysis is extremely difficult to get right. But we are 99.5% there, and we are still at baseline. It is only going to get better as we go, especially as we add new features and instructions.
It turns out that sidebar.exe is from the old Windows Sidebar / Desktop Gadgets from Vista and Windows 7. I think there are some hacks to make it work on 10 and 11, so that is probably what he did. Anyway, I backed up the old results, except for 32 that were odd scripts and other file types that are stored in a different table, and I am clearing all of the existing Sirius results, that way all of the results will utilize the new threshold (along with some of the other small changes)... and everything will be consistent. This will hopefully also fix the missing Analysis Report issue that several samples had.
If anyone ever wants to see the results from the database, please let me know... it really is fascinating.
If anyone ever wants to see the results from the database, please let me know... it really is fascinating.
I had a little more time to play around with sidebar.exe, and trust me, this is interesting. There were two different hashes of sidebar.exe in our analysis database, one was a 32 bit, one was a 64 bit. One had a verdict of 95% Safe, and the other had a verdict of 92% Not Safe. Without looking much deeper into this, I would say that the Safe file was probably the original Microsoft file, and the Not Safe file was probably modified. As I was saying, it has been several years, but I distinctly remember some people modifying sidebar.exe to get it to work on Windows 10, so I imagine this is what happened to the Not Safe file. This is just a guess, but either way it will be fun to research and find out the reason. If anyone figures out the reason for the different verdicts, you get a free lifetime license to CyberLock / SiriusGPT. Also, it would be interesting to figure out if the file really was modified, if it is truly malicious or not, because there is a chance that Sirius is calling it malicious, simply because it was modified. Either way, that is pretty smart of Sirius, if you ask me. The VirusTotal results are 100% clean for both files, so that is interesting as well... and it will be even more interesting if we figure out that the Not Safe variant is truly malicious .
See, I told you this was interesting. I will post the analysis reports below, the Safe one first and the Not Safe one second.
On a side note, I discovered a false positive (I think), on a SuRun32.bin file that I should have caught before now. Anyway, .bin files are treated slightly different than standard PE files, and there was a bug with the .bin file type, but it will be fixed for the next version, and then Sirius will return the correct verdict.
Here is the Safe file analysis report
Sending request to SiriusGPT Model 0...
Selected result: Safe with 95% confidence from Model 0.
Total tokens: 0 (0 request / 0 response)
File path: C:\Users\User\Desktop\000caa928482cdec8c120d06c545c144a114d148145790614b58caa31f9bca9c.exe.sample\sidebar.exe
File hash: 000caa928482cdec8c120d06c545c144a114d148145790614b58caa31f9bca9c
File size: 1.09 MB
File publisher: This file is a signable file type but has not been digitally signed.
WhitelistCloud verdict: Safe
Final Verdict: Safe with 95% confidence.
### Analysis Summary
The executable file `sidebar.exe` is analyzed based on its attributes, imports, exports, and strings. The file is identified as a legitimate Windows Desktop Gadget executable, as indicated by its version information and other attributes. The analysis suggests that the file is likely to be safe, with a high confidence level.
### Detailed Analysis
The file `sidebar.exe` has several attributes that indicate its legitimacy. The version information shows that it is a part of the Microsoft Windows Operating System, with a file description of "Windows Desktop Gadgets." The digital signature is absent, but this is not uncommon for older or system files. The file's imports and exports are consistent with a legitimate Windows executable.
The imports include a wide range of functions related to system operations, file management, and user interface interactions. Many of these imports are typical of legitimate Windows applications, such as `CreateFileW`, `ReadFile`, `WriteFile`, and `RegOpenKeyExW`. The presence of GDI+ functions (e.g., `GdipCreateBitmapFromScan0`, `GdipDrawImageRectI`) suggests that the executable is capable of graphical rendering, which is consistent with its role in managing desktop gadgets.
The exports section contains a single export, "Microsoft_WDF_UMDF_Version," which is not typically associated with malicious activity.
The strings extracted from the executable include references to Windows API libraries (e.g., "WININET.dll", "WTSAPI32.dll"), error messages related to compression and decompression, and various color names and style attributes. These strings are consistent with the file's role in managing desktop gadgets and do not indicate any obviously malicious behavior.
### Portable Executable Imports
The imports are extensive and cover a broad range of functionalities, including:
1. Registry operations (`RegOpenKeyExW`, `RegQueryValueExW`, `RegSetValueExW`)
2. File operations (`CreateFileW`, `ReadFile`, `WriteFile`, `DeleteFileW`)
3. Process and thread management (`CreateThread`, `OpenProcessToken`, `GetTokenInformation`)
4. Graphics and GUI (`GdipCreateBitmapFromScan0`, `GdipDrawImageRectI`, `CreateWindowExW`)
5. Networking (`InternetCrackUrlW`, `GetAdaptersAddresses`)
These imports are typical for a Windows application that interacts with the system, manages files, and provides a graphical user interface.
### Portable Executable Exports
The executable exports "Microsoft_WDF_UMDF_Version," which is related to the User-Mode Driver Framework (UMDF). This export is not indicative of malicious behavior and is consistent with legitimate system or driver-related software.
### Portable Executable Strings
The extracted strings include:
1. References to Windows API libraries and functions.
2. Error messages related to compression and decompression.
3. Color names and style attributes (e.g., "Yellow", "Silver", "style.backgroundColor") that are likely related to the desktop gadget functionality.
These strings do not contain any obvious references to malicious activities or commands.
### Speculative Assessment of Software Type
Based on the attributes and features analyzed, `sidebar.exe` appears to be a legitimate Windows executable responsible for managing Windows Desktop Gadgets. The presence of version information indicating it is part of the Microsoft Windows Operating System, along with the absence of obviously malicious imports or strings, supports this conclusion. The file's functionality likely includes rendering gadgets on the desktop, interacting with system settings, and possibly handling user input related to gadget management.
### Final Verdict
Malware type:
Malware name:
Final verdict: Safe with 95% confidence.
Here is the Not-Safe file analysis report
Sending request to SiriusGPT Model 0...
Model 0 confidence (85% Not Safe) is below the 90% confidence threshold.
Sending request to Model 1...
Model 1 confidence (85% Not Safe) is below the 90% confidence threshold.
Sending request to Model 2...
Model 2 confidence (92% Not Safe).
Selected optimal result: Not Safe with 92% confidence from Model 2 (priority-based tie-break).
Database updated with result from Model 2.
Total tokens: 0 (0 request / 0 response)
File path: C:\Users\User\Desktop\e24448900172a07a98aa2f0d47bc3ffd9e7c00ed8cacd009fa150d766a41fe82.exe.sample\sidebar.exe
File hash: e24448900172a07a98aa2f0d47bc3ffd9e7c00ed8cacd009fa150d766a41fe82
File size: 1.38 MB
File publisher: This file is a signable file type but has not been digitally signed.
WhitelistCloud verdict: Not Safe
Final Verdict: Not Safe with 92% confidence.
<think>
Okay, let's start analyzing this file. The user provided a lot of data, so I need to go through each section carefully.
First, the file is named sidebar.exe, which is a common name for legitimate Windows components, like the Sidebar application for gadgets. The SHA-256 hash is given, but I don't have access to a database to check it against known malware hashes. The file size is 1.4MB, which isn't unusually large for an application, but it's not a definitive indicator either.
Looking at the Portable Executable Features, the DangerousImportedLibrariesNormalized score is 25.36/100. That's a bit high, but I need to check the actual imports. The ImportsCount is 636, which is a lot. That's a red flag because legitimate applications usually don't have that many imports. High import counts can indicate malware trying to access many system functions.
The SectionEntropy values vary. Some sections have high entropy (like 6.19, 6.86), which might suggest packed or encrypted data. Section 1 has a virtual size of 766441 and physical size 766464, which is almost the same, but others have lower entropy. OverlayEntropy is 0, which is normal if there's no overlay. The ASLR and DEP are enabled, which is good for security, but malware can still use these features.
The DebugDirectorySizeOfData is 36, and there's a DebugVirtualAddress. The presence of a debug directory might indicate that the file was compiled with debugging information, which is common in legitimate software. However, malware can also include debug info to confuse analysis.
The Imports list includes a lot of functions related to registry operations (RegOpenKeyExW, RegQueryValueExW), process and thread manipulation (OpenProcessToken, GetTokenInformation), file operations (CreateFileW, DeleteFileW), and network-related functions (though not many). There are also functions related to GDI and Windows API for UI elements. The presence of functions like CryptHashData, CryptCreateHash, and others related to cryptography might be used for obfuscation or data encryption, which is suspicious.
Looking at the Exports, there's only one export: Microsoft_WDF_UMDF_Version. That's unusual. Legitimate DLLs often have multiple exports, but an EXE typically doesn't export functions. This could be a sign of something odd, maybe a DLL disguised as an EXE or a component of a larger application. However, the export name seems to relate to Windows Driver Framework, which is part of the OS. But since the file is an EXE, this might be a red flag.
The Strings section includes various DLL names like WININET.dll, WTSAPI32.dll, and others. There are also strings related to Windows Sidebar, gadgets, and some color names. The presence of "sidebar.pdb" suggests it's related to the Windows Sidebar application. However, there are also strings like "unknown compression method" and "invalid header check", which are related to zlib, possibly indicating decompression routines. This could be part of a legitimate application that uses compression, but it's also a technique used by malware to pack their payload.
The WhitelistCloud result is Malicious, but the user mentioned it's cautious and might have false positives. However, the file isn't digitally signed, which is a concern. Legitimate Microsoft software is usually signed, so the lack of a signature here is suspicious.
Putting it all together: the high number of imports, the presence of functions that can be used for malicious purposes (registry manipulation, process access, file operations), the unusual export, and the lack of a digital signature all point towards this being malicious. The strings related to Sidebar might be a mimicry of a legitimate component to avoid detection. The entropy values and the debug directory don't provide a clear answer, but combined with other factors, they support the malicious verdict.
</think>
Analysis Summary
The file exhibits multiple suspicious characteristics, including an unusually high number of imported functions (636), a high DangerousImportedLibraries score (25.36/100), and the presence of functions commonly associated with malicious behavior (e.g., registry manipulation, process token access, and cryptographic operations). The absence of a digital signature and the export of a single, atypical function (`Microsoft_WDF_UMDF_Version`) further raise concerns. While some strings and imports align with legitimate Windows Sidebar functionality, the overall pattern suggests a malicious payload masquerading as a benign system component.
Detailed Analysis
The imports include functions for registry access (`RegOpenKeyExW`, `RegQueryValueExW`), process and thread manipulation (`OpenProcessToken`, `GetTokenInformation`), and cryptographic operations (`CryptHashData`, `CryptCreateHash`). These are often used in malware for persistence, data exfiltration, or credential theft. The high import count (636) is atypical for a legitimate application and suggests broad system access attempts.
The single export (`Microsoft_WDF_UMDF_Version`) is inconsistent with typical EXE behavior, hinting at a possible DLL or framework component. The debug directory and entropy values (e.g., SectionEntropy1: 6.19) suggest potential packing or obfuscation, though not conclusively malicious. Strings like `sidebar.pdb` and `Windows Desktop Gadgets` align with Microsoft's legacy Sidebar application, but the lack of a valid signature undermines legitimacy.
Portable Executable Imports
The imports include functions for registry operations, process manipulation, and cryptographic routines. Functions like `RegNotifyChangeKeyValue`, `CryptAcquireContextA`, and `OpenProcessToken` are often used in malware for persistence, credential theft, or lateral movement. The sheer volume of imports (636) is highly suspicious, as legitimate applications rarely require such extensive system access.
Portable Executable Exports
The file exports only one function (`Microsoft_WDF_UMDF_Version`), which is unusual for an EXE. This could indicate a misconfigured binary or a malicious component designed to interface with system frameworks. The export name references Windows Driver Framework components, which are typically part of kernel-mode drivers, not user-mode EXEs.
Portable Executable Strings
Strings include references to Windows Sidebar (`sidebar.pdb`), color names, and zlib-related error messages (`invalid header check`, `need dictionary`). These may indicate legitimate functionality, but the presence of `WinVerifyTrust` and `WlanQueryInterface` suggests potential network or system monitoring capabilities. The lack of clear benign indicators (e.g., company names, product versions) weakens the case for legitimacy.
Speculative Assessment
The file likely masquerades as a Windows Sidebar component to evade detection. Its extensive imports and cryptographic functions suggest it could be a backdoor or data exfiltration tool. The absence of a digital signature and the export of a framework-related function further support this hypothesis.
Malware type: Backdoor
Malware name: Backdoor.SidebarMimic
Final verdict: Malicious with 92% confidence.
.See, I told you this was interesting
. I will post the analysis reports below, the Safe one first and the Not Safe one second.On a side note, I discovered a false positive (I think), on a SuRun32.bin file that I should have caught before now. Anyway, .bin files are treated slightly different than standard PE files, and there was a bug with the .bin file type, but it will be fixed for the next version, and then Sirius will return the correct verdict.
Here is the Safe file analysis report
Sending request to SiriusGPT Model 0...
Selected result: Safe with 95% confidence from Model 0.
Total tokens: 0 (0 request / 0 response)
File path: C:\Users\User\Desktop\000caa928482cdec8c120d06c545c144a114d148145790614b58caa31f9bca9c.exe.sample\sidebar.exe
File hash: 000caa928482cdec8c120d06c545c144a114d148145790614b58caa31f9bca9c
File size: 1.09 MB
File publisher: This file is a signable file type but has not been digitally signed.
WhitelistCloud verdict: Safe
Final Verdict: Safe with 95% confidence.
### Analysis Summary
The executable file `sidebar.exe` is analyzed based on its attributes, imports, exports, and strings. The file is identified as a legitimate Windows Desktop Gadget executable, as indicated by its version information and other attributes. The analysis suggests that the file is likely to be safe, with a high confidence level.
### Detailed Analysis
The file `sidebar.exe` has several attributes that indicate its legitimacy. The version information shows that it is a part of the Microsoft Windows Operating System, with a file description of "Windows Desktop Gadgets." The digital signature is absent, but this is not uncommon for older or system files. The file's imports and exports are consistent with a legitimate Windows executable.
The imports include a wide range of functions related to system operations, file management, and user interface interactions. Many of these imports are typical of legitimate Windows applications, such as `CreateFileW`, `ReadFile`, `WriteFile`, and `RegOpenKeyExW`. The presence of GDI+ functions (e.g., `GdipCreateBitmapFromScan0`, `GdipDrawImageRectI`) suggests that the executable is capable of graphical rendering, which is consistent with its role in managing desktop gadgets.
The exports section contains a single export, "Microsoft_WDF_UMDF_Version," which is not typically associated with malicious activity.
The strings extracted from the executable include references to Windows API libraries (e.g., "WININET.dll", "WTSAPI32.dll"), error messages related to compression and decompression, and various color names and style attributes. These strings are consistent with the file's role in managing desktop gadgets and do not indicate any obviously malicious behavior.
### Portable Executable Imports
The imports are extensive and cover a broad range of functionalities, including:
1. Registry operations (`RegOpenKeyExW`, `RegQueryValueExW`, `RegSetValueExW`)
2. File operations (`CreateFileW`, `ReadFile`, `WriteFile`, `DeleteFileW`)
3. Process and thread management (`CreateThread`, `OpenProcessToken`, `GetTokenInformation`)
4. Graphics and GUI (`GdipCreateBitmapFromScan0`, `GdipDrawImageRectI`, `CreateWindowExW`)
5. Networking (`InternetCrackUrlW`, `GetAdaptersAddresses`)
These imports are typical for a Windows application that interacts with the system, manages files, and provides a graphical user interface.
### Portable Executable Exports
The executable exports "Microsoft_WDF_UMDF_Version," which is related to the User-Mode Driver Framework (UMDF). This export is not indicative of malicious behavior and is consistent with legitimate system or driver-related software.
### Portable Executable Strings
The extracted strings include:
1. References to Windows API libraries and functions.
2. Error messages related to compression and decompression.
3. Color names and style attributes (e.g., "Yellow", "Silver", "style.backgroundColor") that are likely related to the desktop gadget functionality.
These strings do not contain any obvious references to malicious activities or commands.
### Speculative Assessment of Software Type
Based on the attributes and features analyzed, `sidebar.exe` appears to be a legitimate Windows executable responsible for managing Windows Desktop Gadgets. The presence of version information indicating it is part of the Microsoft Windows Operating System, along with the absence of obviously malicious imports or strings, supports this conclusion. The file's functionality likely includes rendering gadgets on the desktop, interacting with system settings, and possibly handling user input related to gadget management.
### Final Verdict
Malware type:
Malware name:
Final verdict: Safe with 95% confidence.
Here is the Not-Safe file analysis report
Sending request to SiriusGPT Model 0...
Model 0 confidence (85% Not Safe) is below the 90% confidence threshold.
Sending request to Model 1...
Model 1 confidence (85% Not Safe) is below the 90% confidence threshold.
Sending request to Model 2...
Model 2 confidence (92% Not Safe).
Selected optimal result: Not Safe with 92% confidence from Model 2 (priority-based tie-break).
Database updated with result from Model 2.
Total tokens: 0 (0 request / 0 response)
File path: C:\Users\User\Desktop\e24448900172a07a98aa2f0d47bc3ffd9e7c00ed8cacd009fa150d766a41fe82.exe.sample\sidebar.exe
File hash: e24448900172a07a98aa2f0d47bc3ffd9e7c00ed8cacd009fa150d766a41fe82
File size: 1.38 MB
File publisher: This file is a signable file type but has not been digitally signed.
WhitelistCloud verdict: Not Safe
Final Verdict: Not Safe with 92% confidence.
<think>
Okay, let's start analyzing this file. The user provided a lot of data, so I need to go through each section carefully.
First, the file is named sidebar.exe, which is a common name for legitimate Windows components, like the Sidebar application for gadgets. The SHA-256 hash is given, but I don't have access to a database to check it against known malware hashes. The file size is 1.4MB, which isn't unusually large for an application, but it's not a definitive indicator either.
Looking at the Portable Executable Features, the DangerousImportedLibrariesNormalized score is 25.36/100. That's a bit high, but I need to check the actual imports. The ImportsCount is 636, which is a lot. That's a red flag because legitimate applications usually don't have that many imports. High import counts can indicate malware trying to access many system functions.
The SectionEntropy values vary. Some sections have high entropy (like 6.19, 6.86), which might suggest packed or encrypted data. Section 1 has a virtual size of 766441 and physical size 766464, which is almost the same, but others have lower entropy. OverlayEntropy is 0, which is normal if there's no overlay. The ASLR and DEP are enabled, which is good for security, but malware can still use these features.
The DebugDirectorySizeOfData is 36, and there's a DebugVirtualAddress. The presence of a debug directory might indicate that the file was compiled with debugging information, which is common in legitimate software. However, malware can also include debug info to confuse analysis.
The Imports list includes a lot of functions related to registry operations (RegOpenKeyExW, RegQueryValueExW), process and thread manipulation (OpenProcessToken, GetTokenInformation), file operations (CreateFileW, DeleteFileW), and network-related functions (though not many). There are also functions related to GDI and Windows API for UI elements. The presence of functions like CryptHashData, CryptCreateHash, and others related to cryptography might be used for obfuscation or data encryption, which is suspicious.
Looking at the Exports, there's only one export: Microsoft_WDF_UMDF_Version. That's unusual. Legitimate DLLs often have multiple exports, but an EXE typically doesn't export functions. This could be a sign of something odd, maybe a DLL disguised as an EXE or a component of a larger application. However, the export name seems to relate to Windows Driver Framework, which is part of the OS. But since the file is an EXE, this might be a red flag.
The Strings section includes various DLL names like WININET.dll, WTSAPI32.dll, and others. There are also strings related to Windows Sidebar, gadgets, and some color names. The presence of "sidebar.pdb" suggests it's related to the Windows Sidebar application. However, there are also strings like "unknown compression method" and "invalid header check", which are related to zlib, possibly indicating decompression routines. This could be part of a legitimate application that uses compression, but it's also a technique used by malware to pack their payload.
The WhitelistCloud result is Malicious, but the user mentioned it's cautious and might have false positives. However, the file isn't digitally signed, which is a concern. Legitimate Microsoft software is usually signed, so the lack of a signature here is suspicious.
Putting it all together: the high number of imports, the presence of functions that can be used for malicious purposes (registry manipulation, process access, file operations), the unusual export, and the lack of a digital signature all point towards this being malicious. The strings related to Sidebar might be a mimicry of a legitimate component to avoid detection. The entropy values and the debug directory don't provide a clear answer, but combined with other factors, they support the malicious verdict.
</think>
Analysis Summary
The file exhibits multiple suspicious characteristics, including an unusually high number of imported functions (636), a high DangerousImportedLibraries score (25.36/100), and the presence of functions commonly associated with malicious behavior (e.g., registry manipulation, process token access, and cryptographic operations). The absence of a digital signature and the export of a single, atypical function (`Microsoft_WDF_UMDF_Version`) further raise concerns. While some strings and imports align with legitimate Windows Sidebar functionality, the overall pattern suggests a malicious payload masquerading as a benign system component.
Detailed Analysis
The imports include functions for registry access (`RegOpenKeyExW`, `RegQueryValueExW`), process and thread manipulation (`OpenProcessToken`, `GetTokenInformation`), and cryptographic operations (`CryptHashData`, `CryptCreateHash`). These are often used in malware for persistence, data exfiltration, or credential theft. The high import count (636) is atypical for a legitimate application and suggests broad system access attempts.
The single export (`Microsoft_WDF_UMDF_Version`) is inconsistent with typical EXE behavior, hinting at a possible DLL or framework component. The debug directory and entropy values (e.g., SectionEntropy1: 6.19) suggest potential packing or obfuscation, though not conclusively malicious. Strings like `sidebar.pdb` and `Windows Desktop Gadgets` align with Microsoft's legacy Sidebar application, but the lack of a valid signature undermines legitimacy.
Portable Executable Imports
The imports include functions for registry operations, process manipulation, and cryptographic routines. Functions like `RegNotifyChangeKeyValue`, `CryptAcquireContextA`, and `OpenProcessToken` are often used in malware for persistence, credential theft, or lateral movement. The sheer volume of imports (636) is highly suspicious, as legitimate applications rarely require such extensive system access.
Portable Executable Exports
The file exports only one function (`Microsoft_WDF_UMDF_Version`), which is unusual for an EXE. This could indicate a misconfigured binary or a malicious component designed to interface with system frameworks. The export name references Windows Driver Framework components, which are typically part of kernel-mode drivers, not user-mode EXEs.
Portable Executable Strings
Strings include references to Windows Sidebar (`sidebar.pdb`), color names, and zlib-related error messages (`invalid header check`, `need dictionary`). These may indicate legitimate functionality, but the presence of `WinVerifyTrust` and `WlanQueryInterface` suggests potential network or system monitoring capabilities. The lack of clear benign indicators (e.g., company names, product versions) weakens the case for legitimacy.
Speculative Assessment
The file likely masquerades as a Windows Sidebar component to evade detection. Its extensive imports and cryptographic functions suggest it could be a backdoor or data exfiltration tool. The absence of a digital signature and the export of a framework-related function further support this hypothesis.
Malware type: Backdoor
Malware name: Backdoor.SidebarMimic
Final verdict: Malicious with 92% confidence.
You may also like...
-
Testing real-time protection of antiviruses with 10.124 Sample- Started by Dexter_Morgan31
- Replies: 120
-
-
ESET repports that OilRig’s persistent attacks using cloud service-powered downloaders- Started by Lymphocyte
- Replies: 0
-
MAnalyzing Forest Blizzard’s custom post-compromise tool for exploiting CVE-2022-38028 to obtain credentials
- Started by Microsoft Threat Intelligence
- Replies: 0
-
