![]() ![]() ![]() Katz explains, “ The page code contains two payload arrays, flagged as sections one (1) and four (4) in the image. An anonymous JavaScript function then performs additional operations on the second payload, hands it over to the sixth piece of code and then finally the code is executed. The third snippet of code then retrieves the first payload’s values, and then a second payload is generated. A payload array is generated, then passed on to another segment of code where a function shuffles all of the payload data. In an example piece of code, Kats highlighted the seven different elements of code used in an obfuscation attack. This method is useful only to a point, however, because the information of the malicious payload is normally only revealed upon the page being rendered. Similar methods could be used to thwart email attacks but this is not widely adopted at this stage, as seen in the rise of attacks that use this delivery method. Some countermeasures can be used to help detect malicious JavaScript code in websites, such as String Pattern Analysis. Variables are named to be more confusing, comments are removed, data structures are changed and functions are introduced that confuse and change data. Obfuscation in programming and coding means that all of the code in an application is reworked to make it difficult, or impossible, to understand. ![]() Methods used for obfuscationĪs most people already know, content escaping is a big factor in these attacks as a means of obfuscation. This means that it is far more difficult to detect any malicious code up until the asset has been rendered. This page has been generated by the malicious code embedded in the email. This means that once the script has run on a target computer, the user or victim will essentially be feeding their personal information into a local page. There are a few reasons why these kinds of attacks have suddenly become popular, primarily because JavaScript is a client-side scripting language. HEX encoding variable name obfuscation, 86%.Content escaping obfuscation techniques, 72%.The following shows the attack types and increases from the report: ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |