Asynchronous Event Processing for Malware Detection

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Conventional malware detection methods, such as signature scanning and emulation, are inadequate in detecting new or evolving malware due to their reliance on known signatures and synchronous processing, which can delay system functionality and consume significant resources.

Innovation Solution

An asynchronous processing method for system events that analyzes application behavior using heuristic and signature data, allowing for real-time detection of malicious activities without interrupting system processes, and automatically classifies applications based on behavior patterns to optimize malware threat processing.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If synchronous analysis is used to detect malware events, then detection accuracy is improved, but system functionality is delayed

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvemalware detection accuracyVSAvoidsystem functionality delay
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system segments event processing into two independent pathways: synchronous processing for high-priority security events that require immediate analysis, and asynchronous processing for standard events. This segmentation allows critical security detections to maintain high accuracy while non-critical events are processed without blocking system functionality, resolving the contradiction between detection reliability and system responsiveness.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

An event queue acts as an intermediary buffer between event generation and analysis. Events are placed in the queue for asynchronous processing rather than being handled synchronously, which eliminates blocking delays. The queue mediates between the need for thorough malware detection and the requirement for continuous system operation, allowing analysis to occur without interrupting system functionality.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

2Speed

If signature scanning is used to detect known malware, then detection speed is improved, but new or evolving malware is not detected

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvemalware detection speedVSAvoiddetection of new malware
Core Design Contradiction:
SpeedVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The system merges multiple detection approaches: signature-based scanning for known malware patterns, heuristic analysis for suspicious behavior patterns, and anomaly detection for unknown threats. By combining these methods, the system achieves both the speed of signature matching and the adaptability to detect new or evolving malware that lacks known signatures.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #5Merging (Combining)

Solution Approach 2:

The detection system dynamically adapts its analysis methods based on event characteristics and evolving threat landscapes. Heuristic rules and behavioral thresholds are updated continuously to reflect new malware techniques, allowing the system to maintain high detection speed for known threats while simultaneously adapting to detect previously unseen malware variants.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

3Reliability

If emulation is used to analyze malware behavior, then detection accuracy is improved, but processing time increases and resources are consumed

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvemalware detection accuracyVSAvoidprocessing throughput
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

Instead of fully emulating all malware behavior, the system performs partial analysis by monitoring specific system calls and behavioral patterns that are indicative of malicious activity. This partial action approach maintains high detection accuracy for critical threats while significantly reducing the computational overhead and processing time associated with complete emulation, thereby preserving system productivity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #16Partial or excessive action

Solution Approach 2:

The system implements periodic sampling of malware behavior rather than continuous monitoring. By analyzing system calls and events at strategically selected intervals, the system achieves sufficient detection accuracy while reducing resource consumption and improving processing throughput compared to constant emulation monitoring.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #19Periodic action

Data Source

PatentEP2306356B1Asynchronous processing of events for malware detection
Publication Date: 2019.02.27 AO KASPERSKY LAB
  • EP2306356B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP2306356B1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP2306356B1 patent drawingFigure 3

AI summary

A system and a method for malware detection based on the behavior of applications running on a computer system, including: asynchronous processing of system events for malware threat analyses using application filters; analyzing events using heuristic and signature data; analyzing applications behavior and detecting abnormal behavior of "clean" applications; automatically classifying applications (i.e., detecting new versions) based on behavior analysis; automatically analyzing the reliability of web sites based on behavior triggered by the web site accesses; in enterprise networks, detecting abnormalities in configuration of user computer systems.