Beneficial for applications that require a high level of security, such as those used in the financial and healthcare industries, the zero-code injection technologies employ RASP (Runtime Application Self-Protection) that use multiple checks during an application’s runtime to detect any irregular changes made to the application itself.
Its checking techniques include signature-based and anomaly-based detection as well as behavioral analysis – some of which are only active during runtime, while others are always active to prevent code tampering and reverse engineering. For example, code obfuscation and encryption are two standard methods used in RASP to prevent criminals from attempting reverse-engineering.
The applications used in the financial and health industries constantly communicate with databases that contain vast amounts of sensitive data such as financial information and protected health information (PHI). A leak of such data from individuals or organizations can lead to massive regulatory repercussions.
Static RASP uses code tampering and reverse-engineering protection techniques to guard the application against threats of static analysis while dynamic RASP bolsters the runtime environment’s defenses against dynamic analysis.
A zero-code injection approach inserts code into application points not present in the original code. It’s interleaved with functional code so that potential attackers are not able to distinguish between the protection and functional code.
Additionally, by then consistently checking the inserted code, another form of verification is employed to determine if the application has been altered. If so, the application can be designed to crash by default or run a predefined script.
With control flow obfuscation (CFO) accompanying the application protection efforts, it largely renders tampering attempts futile by changing the source code flow through techniques such as GoTo and mutated conditional code insertions. These GoTo insertions allow the redirection of code, utilizing it to move from code block to code block, hiding its structure.
The mutated conditional code insertion further enhances this by using dead code to confuse attackers into dead ends, exponentially increasing their workload and creating levels of frustration that serve as a huge deterrent. In this way, zero-code injection adds a layer of protection to the industry-standard protections provided by RASP solutions.
This layer makes it even more difficult for attackers to reverse-engineer the application and makes it not “worth” their time to try in the first place. After all, criminals typically seek out opportunities with the least impediments.
Applications requiring a high level of reverse-engineering protection gain innumerable benefits via a zero-code injection approach, including enhancements to the industry-standard protections provided by RASP solutions.
Click here for Information on Verimatrix’s patented zero-code injection technology as well as its AI and ML-based 24/7 monitoring and detection services that focus on the endpoint and allow an organization to take action before cybercriminals can compromise the app’s connected enterprise.
Commentary
Enhancing Application Security Protections: A Look at the Zero-Code Injection Approach to Prevent Reverse-Engineering
Table of Contents
Zero-code injection technology serves as a high-value yet low-effort security measure that significantly enhances an application’s protection against reverse-engineering.
The resulting impact on a business is a dramatic reduction in the chance that a mobile app will become weaponized to attack either its users or owner. Plus, one of the more frequently noted benefits is the faster time to market that’s possible due to the zero-code approach.
How does the zero-code injection approach work?
Beneficial for applications that require a high level of security, such as those used in the financial and healthcare industries, the zero-code injection technologies employ RASP (Runtime Application Self-Protection) that use multiple checks during an application’s runtime to detect any irregular changes made to the application itself.
Its checking techniques include signature-based and anomaly-based detection as well as behavioral analysis – some of which are only active during runtime, while others are always active to prevent code tampering and reverse engineering. For example, code obfuscation and encryption are two standard methods used in RASP to prevent criminals from attempting reverse-engineering.
The applications used in the financial and health industries constantly communicate with databases that contain vast amounts of sensitive data such as financial information and protected health information (PHI). A leak of such data from individuals or organizations can lead to massive regulatory repercussions.
Static RASP uses code tampering and reverse-engineering protection techniques to guard the application against threats of static analysis while dynamic RASP bolsters the runtime environment’s defenses against dynamic analysis.
A zero-code injection approach inserts code into application points not present in the original code. It’s interleaved with functional code so that potential attackers are not able to distinguish between the protection and functional code.
Additionally, by then consistently checking the inserted code, another form of verification is employed to determine if the application has been altered. If so, the application can be designed to crash by default or run a predefined script.
With control flow obfuscation (CFO) accompanying the application protection efforts, it largely renders tampering attempts futile by changing the source code flow through techniques such as GoTo and mutated conditional code insertions. These GoTo insertions allow the redirection of code, utilizing it to move from code block to code block, hiding its structure.
The mutated conditional code insertion further enhances this by using dead code to confuse attackers into dead ends, exponentially increasing their workload and creating levels of frustration that serve as a huge deterrent. In this way, zero-code injection adds a layer of protection to the industry-standard protections provided by RASP solutions.
This layer makes it even more difficult for attackers to reverse-engineer the application and makes it not “worth” their time to try in the first place. After all, criminals typically seek out opportunities with the least impediments.
Applications requiring a high level of reverse-engineering protection gain innumerable benefits via a zero-code injection approach, including enhancements to the industry-standard protections provided by RASP solutions.
Click here for Information on Verimatrix’s patented zero-code injection technology as well as its AI and ML-based 24/7 monitoring and detection services that focus on the endpoint and allow an organization to take action before cybercriminals can compromise the app’s connected enterprise.
Stay ahead of reverse-engineering threats
Written by
Dr. Klaus Schenk
Dr. Klaus Schenk is senior vice president of security and threat research at Verimatrix and serves as head of its VMX Labs.
Share this cybersecurity insight
Other cybersecurity insights
Salt Typhoon Exposes Critical Gaps in Mobile Security: CISA Reacts
When Apps Attack: HGS Hack, F@c! Messages and Bitcoin Ransoms
BoneSpy & PlainGnome: The Spyware Duo Disguised as Trusted Apps
Decoding Remo: The Evolving Android Banking Trojan