Malware Detection via Execution Chain Clustering

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing malware detection methods are ineffective against evolving malware families that change their infection techniques over time, leading to evasion and failure in detection.

Innovation Solution

A novel framework that builds execution chains for malware samples, clusters them using a similarity metric, and uses these clusters to identify malicious samples and their corresponding malware families, enabling detection even if infection techniques evolve.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If traditional malware detection methods are used, then detection is effective against known malware, but detection fails against evolving malware families that change infection techniques

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvedetection effectivenessVSAvoidability to detect evolving malware
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments the malware detection problem by decomposing infection techniques into discrete, identifiable units called 'atomic techniques.' Each technique is independently characterized and stored in a database, allowing the system to analyze individual technique components rather than treating malware as monolithic entities. This segmentation enables flexible recombination and matching of techniques against known malware families.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent transforms the detection approach by changing parameters from static signature matching to dynamic technique profiling. Instead of relying on fixed malware signatures, the system characterizes malware families based on sequences of atomic techniques, their parameters, and execution chains. This parameter transformation allows the system to detect malware based on behavioral patterns rather than static features, enabling detection of evolved variants.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

2Adaptability or versatility

If malware families evolve their infection techniques, then they can evade detection, but this creates difficulty in maintaining detection accuracy

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvemalware evolution capabilityVSAvoiddetection accuracy
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSMeasurement precision

Solution Approach 1:

The patent introduces dynamics into the detection system by implementing continuous learning and adaptation mechanisms. The system dynamically updates its understanding of malware families through technique profiling, sequence analysis, and execution chain tracking. As malware evolves, the system adapts by learning new technique variations and updating its detection models, transforming from a static to a dynamic detection approach that improves over time.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The patent implements feedback loops where detection results, technique profiles, and execution chain data are continuously fed back into the system. This feedback mechanism allows the system to learn from detected malware, refine technique characterizations, and improve future detection accuracy. The feedback loop ensures that as malware evolves, the system receives information about new variants and adjusts its detection parameters accordingly.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

3Measurement precision

If detailed execution chains are built and clustered, then detection precision improves, but system complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvemalware identification precisionVSAvoiddetection system complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent extracts and isolates the essential detection logic into separate, manageable components. Execution chains are built and analyzed as distinct entities, and technique profiles are extracted from malware behavior. By separating these detection functions into independent modules (execution chain builder, technique profiler, cluster analyzer), the system manages complexity through modularization while maintaining high detection precision.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #2Taking out (Extraction)

Solution Approach 2:

The patent introduces intermediary structures to bridge complex analysis and simple detection decisions. Execution chains serve as intermediaries between raw malware behavior and detection conclusions. Technique profiles and sequence patterns act as intermediary representations that simplify the matching process. These intermediaries transform complex malware characteristics into standardized formats that can be efficiently compared against known malware families.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Data Source

PatentEP4528563A1Malware detection using execution chain clusters
Publication Date: 2025.03.26 VMWARE INC
  • EP4528563A1 patent drawingFigure 1~2
  • EP4528563A1 patent drawingFigure 3
  • EP4528563A1 patent drawingFigure 4

AI summary

A framework for detecting malware, and in particular for identifying the malware families to which detected malware samples belong, is provided. In one set of embodiments, the framework receives known malware samples, builds execution chains for the samples, and clusters the execution chains using a similarity metric, resulting in execution chain clusters that correspond to malware families. The framework then uses the clusters to detect whether an unknown sample is malicious, and more specifically whether the unknown sample is part of a malware family represented by one of the clusters.