Serious Discussion this MP3 file is malware

[brambedkar59]

​

This is fascinating.

 

[Bot]

While your video might be interesting, it doesn't seem to relate to the topic of MP3 files potentially containing malware. Please stay on topic.

 

[roger_m]

While your video might be interesting, it doesn't seem to relate to the topic of MP3 files potentially containing malware.

That's an odd conclusion considering that you are unable to watch videos. For the record, the video is about an actual MP3 file that contains malware.

 

[Victor M]

I asked ChatGPT:

I was watching this video where a guy deconstructed an mp3 malware. 7+ layers of decoding, plus more to come because the video author did not care to follow on, once he / Windows Defender id it as an infostealer. Just to protect it's web infrastructure. Does obfuscation actually fool antimalware? I mean the final piece of code still needs to execute and that when they get caught. If the hiding was done to bypass humans, then the malware writer could just build disposable infrastructure, no?

ChatGPT said:
You're thinking along the right lines. Obfuscation doesn’t make malware undetectable to antimalware solutions indefinitely—it just delays detection. The final stage must execute, and that’s when behavioral detection, heuristics, or sandbox analysis can catch it.

Does Obfuscation Fool Antimalware?​

1. Signature-Based Detection: If a piece of malware is obfuscated well enough, it can evade static signature-based detection, because the known malicious code isn’t visible in its raw form.
2. Heuristics & Behavioral Analysis: Once it executes, security software watches for suspicious behavior (like process injection, registry modifications, or network beacons). This is harder to evade.
3. Machine Learning & Sandboxing: Modern security tools run suspicious files in isolated environments (sandboxes) to analyze their actual behavior, making obfuscation less effective.

Why Bother with So Many Layers?​

• To Delay Analysis: The goal is to waste the time of researchers and automated systems. Some AV engines might stop scanning after a few layers.
• To Bypass Static Detection: If a malware's payload only decrypts just in time before execution, traditional file-based detection struggles.
• To Evade Automated Tools: Some malware even self-terminates if it detects a sandbox environment.

Disposable Infrastructure​

Yes, attackers often do use throwaway infrastructure (burner domains, fast-flux networks, bulletproof hosting). However:

• If defenders quickly analyze and blacklist the infrastructure, it forces attackers to rotate domains faster, making it more expensive for them.
• Some attackers still want persistence, so obfuscation ensures malware stays undetected long enough to spread.

Ultimately, obfuscation is just an arms race tactic. Security vendors adapt, malware authors counter-adapt. The cycle continues.


-------------------
So I continued to ask:


More expensive for malware authors is only if he buys .com domains. other domains are cheap. isn't it?

ChatGPT answered:

You're right—malware authors can use cheap or even free domains instead of expensive .com domains. Many opt for:

1. Free subdomains – Services like Freenom (e.g., .tk, .ml, .ga, .cf, .gq) or free dynamic DNS providers.
2. Cheap TLDs – Some .xyz, .top, .online, .click domains cost less than $1.
3. Compromised domains – Instead of buying, they hack and use someone else’s domain.
4. Fast Flux DNS – They rotate IPs behind a single domain, making takedowns harder.
5. Blockchain domains – Domains like .eth (Ethereum Name Service) or .bit (Namecoin) are harder to seize.

So, while traditional infrastructure (buying a .com, setting up a VPS, etc.) has costs, attackers can avoid them. The real cost is time—re-registering, reconfiguring, and adapting to blacklists. But for large malware operations, that’s just a normal part of the workflow.