Computer Driver Vulnerability Analysis Using Static and Dynamic Detection

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing methods for detecting vulnerabilities in computer drivers are inadequate in identifying potential unauthorized access to system resources and privilege elevation, despite signature scanning and compatibility tests, leaving systems vulnerable to malicious attacks.

Innovation Solution

A combined dynamic and static analysis approach is employed to detect vulnerabilities in drivers, involving dynamic detection of driver behavior and offsets, static analysis of binary code, and symbolic execution to identify reachable code paths and unusual patterns, resulting in a vulnerability score for the driver.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Measurement precision

If signature scanning and compatibility tests are performed on drivers, then basic security checks are improved, but vulnerability detection precision remains insufficient

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvevulnerability detection precisionVSAvoidanalysis complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The vulnerability detection process is segmented into two distinct phases: static analysis (examining driver code without execution) and dynamic analysis (monitoring driver behavior during execution). This segmentation allows each phase to focus on specific vulnerability types, improving overall detection precision while managing complexity through specialized analysis techniques for each phase.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The system performs excessive analysis by combining both static and dynamic analysis methods, going beyond traditional single-method approaches. Static analysis examines code structure, APIs, and potential vulnerability patterns, while dynamic analysis monitors actual runtime behavior, privilege changes, and system interactions. This partial application of multiple analysis types ensures comprehensive vulnerability detection.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #16Partial or excessive action

2Reliability

If traditional virus scanning is performed on drivers, then basic malware detection is improved, but unauthorized access and privilege elevation vulnerabilities are not detected

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvedriver securityVSAvoidvulnerability detection capability
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDifficulty of detecting and measuring

Solution Approach 1:

The system introduces an intermediary analysis layer that sits between traditional virus scanning and driver execution. This intermediary performs static analysis of driver code structures, API usage patterns, and control flow graphs to identify potential vulnerability pathways before execution, complementing traditional scanning with deeper structural examination.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Solution Approach 2:

The system performs preliminary static analysis of driver code, examining import tables, exported functions, and control flow structures before the driver is allowed to execute. This preliminary action identifies suspicious patterns, unusual API sequences, and potential privilege escalation paths that traditional virus scanners would miss during runtime detection.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

3Ease of operation

If drivers are allowed to execute with full functionality, then system utility is improved, but security vulnerabilities enable unauthorized access and privilege elevation

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvedriver functionalityVSAvoidmalicious attack vulnerability
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of operationVSObject-affected harmful factors

Solution Approach 1:

The system applies preliminary anti-action by performing comprehensive static and dynamic analysis to identify and block vulnerable drivers before they can be exploited. The analysis examines driver code for malicious patterns, monitors runtime behavior for suspicious activities, and prevents execution of drivers that exhibit vulnerability characteristics, thereby countering potential attacks before they occur.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #9Preliminary anti-action

Solution Approach 2:

The system implements feedback mechanisms where dynamic analysis results are fed back into the security decision process. During runtime, the system monitors driver behavior, detects anomalies such as unexpected privilege changes or unauthorized system calls, and responds by blocking or terminating suspicious driver operations, creating a closed-loop security system that adapts to actual driver behavior.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

Data Source

PatentEP4441646B1Vulnerability analysis of a computer driver
Publication Date: 2025.12.24 MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING LLC
  • EP4441646B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP4441646B1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP4441646B1 patent drawingFigure 3

AI summary

Methods, systems, and computer programs are presented for analyzing a program to be executed on a computer to detect vulnerability for malicious attacks using the program. One method includes an operation for performing dynamic vulnerability detection of a driver when the driver is loaded in a computing system. The dynamic vulnerability detection comprises detecting at least one offset made available by the driver for access to the driver, and detecting application programming interface (API) calls made by the driver. Further, the method includes performing static vulnerability detection of the driver by analyzing binary code of the driver. The static vulnerability detection comprises determining the at least one offset available for access to the driver, and identifying vulnerable code paths to functions accessing kernel functionality. Further, the method includes an operation for determining if the driver is vulnerable based on results from the dynamic vulnerability detection and the static vulnerability detection.