A Collaborative Obfuscation Method for JavaScript Code Based on Intensity Orientation

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1671-1122.2023.04.001

Abstract

Abstract:

Code obfuscation is a kind of protection technique for software code. It is used to reinforce the software by increasing the difficulty of analyzing the code. Nowadays, the research on code obfuscation mainly focuses on analyzing the effect of single obfuscation method. There are few studies on collaborative obfuscation of multiple methods. To solve this problem, this article proposed a collaborative obfuscation method for JavaScript code based on intensity orientation. First, this paper evaluated the intensity of multiple independent obfuscation methods involved. Then this paper adjusted the execution order of obfuscation methods based on the evaluation result, and obtained a better obfuscation effect than simple multi-method stacking. Experimental results show that this method can obtain better obfuscation effect at a lower cost.

Key words: code obfuscation, collaborate obfuscation, JavaScript language, software maintainability index

CLC Number:

TP309

LI Yuanzhang, MA Yujie, SUN Haipeng, ZHANG Zheng. A Collaborative Obfuscation Method for JavaScript Code Based on Intensity Orientation[J]. Netinfo Security, 2023, 23(4): 1-9.

Figures/Tables 7

References 27

[1]	BUONAMICI F, CARFAGNI M, FURFERI R, et al. Reverse Engineering Modeling Methods and Tools: A Survey[J]. Computer-Aided Design and Applications, 2018, 15(3): 443-464. doi: 10.1080/16864360.2017.1397894 URL
[2]	GU Weiwei, HUANG Guifang, LIAO Maodong. The Application of Obfuscation in Cryptographic Protocols[J]. Netinfo Security, 2017, 17(9): 81-84.
	顾微微, 黄桂芳, 廖茂东. 代码混淆在密码协议中的应用[J]. 信息网络安全, 2017, 17(9):81-84.
[3]	PAN Yan, ZHU Yuefei, LIN Wei. Code Obfuscation Based on Instructions Swapping[J]. Journal of Software, 2019, 30(6): 1778-1792.
	潘雁, 祝跃飞, 林伟. 基于指令交换的代码混淆方法[J]. 软件学报, 2019, 30(6):1778-1792.
[4]	KIPERBERG M, LEON R, RESH A, et al. Hypervisor-Based Protection of Code[J]. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 2019, 14(8): 2203-2216. doi: 10.1109/TIFS.10206 URL
[5]	CHEN Yaoyang, CHEN Wei. Control Flow Obfuscation Technology Based on Implicit Jump[J]. Computer Engineering and Applications, 2021, 57(20): 125-132. doi: 10.3778/j.issn.1002-8331.2007-0109
	陈耀阳, 陈伟. 采用隐式跳转的控制流混淆技术[J]. 计算机工程与应用, 2021, 57(20):125-132. doi: 10.3778/j.issn.1002-8331.2007-0109
[6]	XIONG Wenjie, SCHALLER A, KATZENBEISSER S, et al. Software Protection Using Dynamic PUFs[J]. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 2019, 15: 2053-2068. doi: 10.1109/TIFS.10206 URL
[7]	WEN Weiping, FANG Ying, YE He, et al. A Code Obfuscation System Against Symbolic Execution Attacks[J]. Netinfo Security, 2021, 21(7): 17-26.
	文伟平, 方莹, 叶何, 等. 一种对抗符号执行的代码混淆系统[J]. 信息网络安全, 2021, 21(7):17-26.
[8]	CHEN Zhe, JIA Chunfu, ZONG Nan, et al. Branch Obfuscation Using Random Forest[J]. Acta Electronica Sinica, 2018, 46(10): 2458-2466. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0372-2112.2018.10.020
	陈喆, 贾春福, 宗楠, 等. 随机森林在程序分支混淆中的应用[J]. 电子学报, 2018, 46(10):2458-2466. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0372-2112.2018.10.020
[9]	FANG Hui, WU Yongdong, WANG Shuhong, et al. Multi-Stage Binary Code Obfuscation Using Improved Virtual Machine[C]// Springer. International Conference on Information Security. Heidelberg: Springer, 2011: 168-181.
[10]	KUANG Kaiyuan, TANG Zhanyong, GONG Xiaoqing, et al. Enhance Virtual-Machine-Based Code Obfuscation Security through Dynamic Bytecode Scheduling[J]. Computers & Security, 2018, 74: 202-220. doi: 10.1016/j.cose.2018.01.008 URL
[11]	WANG Huaijin, WANG Shuai, XU Dongpeng, et al. Generating Effective Software Obfuscation Sequences with Reinforcement Learning[J]. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, 2020, 19(3): 1900-1917. doi: 10.1109/TDSC.2020.3041655 URL
[12]	LIU Han, SUN Chengnian, SU Zhendong, et al. Stochastic Optimization of Program Obfuscation[C]// IEEE. 2017 IEEE/ACM 39th International Conference on Software Engineering(ICSE). New York: IEEE, 2017: 221-231.
[13]	COLLBERG C, THOMBORSON C, LOW D. A Taxonomy of Obfuscating Transformations[R]. New Zealand: The University of Auckland, TR148, 1997.
[14]	QU Jun, HE Yuan. Research on Reverse Analysis of Android Application Based on Control Flow Obfuscation Resistance Algorithm[J]. Netinfo Security, 2020, 20(S1): 71-74.
	瞿俊, 何源. 基于控制流混淆抵御算法的Android应用程序逆向分析研究[J]. 信息网络安全, 2020, 20(S1):71-74.
[15]	BALACHANDRAN V, KEONG N W, EMMANUEL S. Function Level Control Flow Obfuscation for Software Security[C]// IEEE. 2014 8th International Conference on Complex, Intelligent and Software Intensive Systems. New York: IEEE, 2014: 133-140.
[16]	SU Qing. Research on Code Protection Technology in Malicious Controlled Environment[D]. Guangzhou: Guangdong University of Technology, 2018.
	苏庆. 恶意受控环境下的代码保护技术研究[D]. 广州: 广东工业大学, 2018.
[17]	SU Qing, SUN Jintian. Research on Opaque Predicate Obfuscation Technique Based on Chaotic Opaque Expression[J]. Computer Science, 2017, 44(12): 114-119. doi: 10.11896/j.issn.1002-137X.2017.12.022
	苏庆, 孙金田. 基于混沌不透明表达式的不透明谓词混淆技术研究[J]. 计算机科学, 2017, 44(12):114-119. doi: 10.11896/j.issn.1002-137X.2017.12.022
[18]	TAN Junjun. Research and Implementation of Code Obfuscation System Based on Chaotic Opaque Predicate in Java[D]. Xi’an: Shaanxi Normal University, 2018.
	谭俊俊. Java基于混沌不透明谓词代码混淆系统的研究与实现[D]. 西安: 陕西师范大学, 2018.
[19]	EBERT C, CAIN J, ANTONIOL G, et al. Cyclomatic Complexity[J]. IEEE Software, 2016, 33(6): 27-29. doi: 10.1109/MS.52 URL
[20]	ANUGRAH I G, SARNO R, ANGGRAINI R N E. Decomposition Using Refined Process Structure Tree(RPST) and Control Flow Complexity Metrics[C]// IEEE. 2015 International Conference on Information & Communication Technology and Systems(ICTS). New York: IEEE, 2015: 203-208.
[21]	MUBARAK A, COUNSELL S, HIERONS R M. An Evolutionary Study of Fan-in and Fan-out Metrics in OSS[C]// IEEE. 2010 4th International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science(RCIS). New York: IEEE, 2010: 473-482.
[22]	MUNSON J C, KOHSHGOFTAAR T M. Measurement of Data Structure Complexity[J]. Journal of Systems and Software, 1993, 20(3): 217-225. doi: 10.1016/0164-1212(93)90065-6 URL
[23]	KENCANA G H, SALEH A, DARWITO H A, et al. Comparison of Maintainability Index Measurement from Microsoft CodeLens and Line of Code[C]// IEEE. 2020 7th International Conference on Electrical Engineering, Computer Sciences and Informatics(EECSI). New York: IEEE, 2020: 235-239.
[24]	CHEN C, ALFAYEZ R, SRISOPHA K, et al. Why is It Important to Measure Maintainability and What are the Best Ways to do It?[C]// IEEE. 2017 IEEE/ACM 39th International Conference on Software Engineering Companion(ICSE-C). New York: IEEE, 2017: 377-378.
[25]	SJØBERG D I K, ANDA B, MOCKUS A. Questioning Software Maintenance Metrics: A Comparative Case Study[C]// IEEE. The 2012 ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement. New York: IEEE, 2012: 107-110.
[26]	MALHOTRA R, CHUG A. Software Maintainability: Systematic Literature Review and Current Trends[J]. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 2016, 26(8): 1221-1253. doi: 10.1142/S0218194016500431 URL
[27]	HARIPRASAD T, VIDHYAGARAN G, SEENU K, et al. Software Complexity Analysis Using Halstead Metrics[C]// IEEE. 2017 International Conference on Trends in Electronics and Informatics(ICEI). New York: IEEE, 2017: 1109-1113.

原判断条件	${{x}_{m}}>{{y}_{n}}$	组合方式	组合的判断条件
T	T	逻辑与	T
T	F	逻辑或	T
F	T	逻辑与	F
F	F	逻辑或	F

参数	描述	评估标准
HV （Halstead Volume）	Halstead量^[27]	基于代码中操作符和操作数出现的数量和次数。反映了代码计算的密集程度
CC （Cyclomatic Complexity）	圈复杂度	基于代码中独立执行路径的条数。反映了代码的逻辑控制复杂度
LOC （Lines of Code）	代码行数	基于代码中语句的条数。反映了代码的长度

混淆方法	插入点	插入点分布	单个插入点引入的强度
标识符替换	表达式和函数调用等处存在的标识符	广泛	低
数据混淆	常量、字符串等数据	较广泛	低
控制流程压扁	代码块	一般	中
添加冗余代码	代码块	一般	高
不透明谓词	分支、循环等存在判断条件处	受代码文件本身性质影响很大	高

		MD5	SHA256	AES	JSON2	A*
原代码	MI	99.04	107.98	94.61	100.18	106.86
原代码	T_pot	—	—	—	—	—
常量合并	MI	99.02	106.11	91.77	99.52	106.84
常量合并	T_pot	0.02%	1.73%	3.00%	0.66%	0.01%
代码重排序	MI	97.34	105.99	92.29	98.92	103.65
代码重排序	T_pot	1.72%	1.84%	2.45%	1.26%	3.00%
不透明谓词	MI	89.26	95.16	79.63	82.67	89.39
不透明谓词	T_pot	9.87%	11.87%	15.83%	17.48%	16.35%
函数合并	MI	85.22	79.57	90.00	97.96	105.93
函数合并	T_pot	13.95%	26.31%	4.87%	2.22%	0.87%
控制流程压扁	MI	84.97	90.50	71.81	77.36	82.75
控制流程压扁	T_pot	14.21%	16.19%	24.10%	22.78%	22.56%