Technical depth on how CodeHunter deconstructs binaries, scripts, containers, and packages to determine exactly what each artifact is capable of doing before it runs.
In the evolving world of cybersecurity, zero-day threats represent the worst-case scenario for any organization. These are attacks that exploit previously unknown vulnerabilities, bypassing traditional defenses and leaving security teams scrambling to respond. For CISOs, zero-day malware isn’t just a technical problem—it’s a business risk that threatens data, trust, and continuity.
Facing an unknown malicious threat is one of the biggest challenges for cybersecurity analysts. Unlike known threats, which can often be addressed with existing protocols and tools, unknown threats require adaptive thinking and a strategic approach. Below are key steps analysts can take to detect, analyze, and contain these threats.
In the realm of cybersecurity, custom malware has become a formidable threat to organizations of all sizes. Unlike generic malware, which is designed for mass deployment and targets a wide range of victims, custom malware is meticulously crafted to infiltrate specific organizations. This personalized approach makes it incredibly effective at bypassing traditional security measures, posing significant risks to targeted businesses.
In the intricate web of cybersecurity, one of the most insidious dangers comes from within: insider threats. These threats, posed by employees or other insiders with access to an organization’s systems and data, can be challenging to detect and devastating in their impact. Understanding the nature of insider threats and implementing proactive measures to catch them early is crucial for safeguarding an organization’s digital assets.
The first commercial antivirus software was launched in response to the first PC viruses in the mid-1980s. Ever since, cybersecurity has largely operated in the same pattern: a new threat appears, defenders analyze it, a detection rule is built, and then the wait for the next one begins. Signature-based detection is a catalog of what has already been seen. It works until it does not, and it stops working the moment an attacker produces something new.
Behavioral analysis was developed to address this gap. Rather than asking whether a file matches something previously seen, behavioral analysis asks what a file actually does. That is a better question, but in most implementations it still has a critical limitation: it asks the question after the code runs. Pre-execution behavioral intent analysis asks it before.
Signature-based detection relies on known patterns of malicious code. New malware variants and zero-day exploits have no prior signature, which means they pass through signature-based defenses without triggering a single alert. Polymorphic and metamorphic malware compound the problem by constantly changing code structure, generating variants that look different every time while performing the same dangerous functions. When defenders rely on recognition, attackers invest in being unrecognizable.
Behavioral intent analysis does not compare an artifact against a library of known threats. It deconstructs the artifact itself to determine what it is capable of doing: what system calls it makes, what files it accesses or modifies, what network connections it initiates, whether it attempts to escalate privileges, inject into other processes, or establish persistence, and whether it contains logic designed to detect analysis environments and alter its behavior accordingly. These capabilities exist in the artifact regardless of whether it has ever been catalogued, and they can be surfaced before the artifact is ever allowed to run.
Sandboxes share the same fundamental constraint as signature detection: code must run before behavior can be observed. Sophisticated malware has adapted accordingly, and environment-aware code can detect that it is running in a sandbox and suppress its malicious behavior until it reaches a real system. Pre-execution behavioral intent analysis does not require detonation. It deconstructs the artifact’s structure and logic to surface behavioral capability without triggering it, which means there is no evasion path for code that is designed to behave differently under observation.
Traditional behavioral analysis tools give you a probability score. A high-risk rating sounds useful until you realize it is not actually a decision. Someone still has to read it, interpret it, and figure out what to do next. That works when you are looking at a handful of artifacts. It does not work at scale.
Pre-execution behavioral intent analysis skips the guesswork entirely. Every artifact gets a deterministic verdict: Allow, Block, Contain, or Escalate. Each decision is tied to explicit organizational policy, backed by forensic evidence, and mapped to MITRE ATT&CK. No interpretation required, no grey area, and the call is made before the code ever runs.
CodeHunter’s patented behavioral intent analysis automates the artifact deconstruction process. What previously required months of expert analysis is delivered in minutes, at scale, across binaries, scripts, containers, packages, and AI-generated code. Our platform analyzes the behavioral intent of any software artifact before it is allowed to execute, and delivers a deterministic Allow, Block, Contain, or Escalate decision backed by forensic evidence. Every artifact is untrusted by default, and trust is earned through behavioral verification. Find out how CodeHunter can strengthen your existing security stack.
Software supply chain attacks are on the rise, and the reason is straightforward. A successful attack on any single link in the chain can spell disaster downstream. As software becomes more complex and interconnected, attackers have more entry points, more trusted channels to exploit, and more cover for the code they introduce.
The deeper problem is structural. Most cybersecurity solutions available today are built to detect known threats. By the time a security team identifies a new attack, the effects have already traveled down the chain. Reactive defenses that wait for something to look wrong are not a supply chain security strategy. They are a cleanup plan.
Defending software supply chains requires answering a question that existing tools were never designed to ask: what will this code do when it executes?
Threat actors approach supply chain attacks by undermining code signing, forging their way into a software supply chain under the guise of a known and trusted author. The fundamental problem is that organizations extend trust based on where code came from rather than what it will do.
CodeHunter operates on a different principle: every artifact is untrusted by default, regardless of its source. Where a manual check or preconfigured rule might wave through code from a trusted vendor, CodeHunter’s pre-execution behavioral analysis evaluates what that code is capable of doing before it is allowed to run, every time, without exception.
Software updates present the same risk. A threat actor who compromises a vendor’s update pipeline delivers malicious behavioral capability through a channel the target organization has explicitly trusted. Combing through every update manually would be prohibitively slow and expensive. CodeHunter deconstructs the artifact’s behavior automatically, issuing a deterministic verdict in a fractionof the time it would take an analyst to complete the same review.
Compromised open-source code is one of the most underestimated supply chain risks. The Linux backdoor discovered in the XZ Utils compression library is a clear example: a single contributor embedded a backdoor into widely trusted code that had been in use for years. Researchers caught it before it reached production systems, but that outcome was fortunate rather than systematic.
The sheer scope of open-source dependencies makes manual review impractical at scale. CodeHunter can be configured to automatically scan entire directories and networks, locally or in the cloud, to identify behavioral capabilities that should not be there. The question is never whether the code looks familiar. The question is what the code will do.
Valid credentials were the preferred initial access technique of cybercriminals last year, with a 71% increase in attacks leveraging stolen account access. Information stealers that harvest those credentials are often delivered through code that looks entirely legitimate. CodeHunter’s pre-execution behavioral analysis evaluates what code is capable of doing at the artifact level, not the filename level. Suspicious behavioral capability is surfaced regardless of how the artifact is packaged, named, or signed.
Not every supply chain threat arrives with a known fingerprint. Behavioral intent analysis does not depend on prior knowledge of the threat. It deconstructs the artifact to surface what it is programmatically designed to do, and a trojan that has never been catalogued still has behavioral characteristics that are present in the artifact before it ever runs.
The SolarWinds attack remains the clearest illustration of what delayed detection costs. Eighteen thousand customers unknowingly downloaded a malicious update, and the intrusion went undetected long enough to cause an estimated $90 million in insured losses. IBM put the average cost to remediate a software supply chain compromise at $4.63 million in 2023. The earlier a malicious artifact is identified, the less damage it causes, and CodeHunter is designed to catch artifacts at the threshold, before they execute, not after the damage is done.
CodeHunter’s combination of scalability, automation, and pre-execution behavioral analysis makes it the practical defense for organizations that cannot afford to let signed, trusted-looking code run unchecked. Speak with our team to learn more about how CodeHunter applies Zero Trust for Code to software supply chain security.
Zero-day malware is called such because it takes advantage of zero-day vulnerabilities, which are newly discovered flaws that have yet to be patched. The time when the vulnerability is discovered is referred to as “Day 0”. These vulnerabilities provide cyber attackers with a window of opportunity to launch their attacks, often catching victims- and their security systems- off guard. In the time that it takes for a patch to be deployed across an entire enterprise malware can already be siphoning critical information from your system.
Malware-as-a-service (MaaS) poses a serious threat to enterprise organizations. MaaS functions much like any other software-as-a-service you may be familiar with, and in some cases even comes with technical support. Hackers develop complex malware systems that can be easily purchased by even the most novice of cybercriminals, who can then launch sophisticated attacks against individuals and businesses. Malware-as-a-service democratizes cybercrime, providing any run-of-the-mill criminal with the expertise of an experienced hacker, drastically increasing the average strength and sophistication of a malware attack. Read more
Zero-day attacks are, by definition, the threats nobody saw coming. No patch exists. No signature has been written. No prior incident has made it into a threat database. And yet the code is already out there, already capable of causing damage, already moving toward systems that have no specific defense prepared for it.
The cybersecurity industry has spent decades building tools designed to recognize what they have already seen. Zero-day threats are specifically designed to be something those tools have never seen before, and that tension is not going to resolve in favor of signature-based detection. The volume of novel threats is growing too fast, and AI has made generating new variants easier than ever.
The question is not how to get better at recognizing zero-day code. The question is how to evaluate what code will do regardless of whether it has ever been seen before.
The financial case for addressing zero-day vulnerabilities is not abstract. The WannaCry ransomware attack in 2017, which used a zero-day exploit, caused an estimated $4 billion in damages globally. The SolarWinds supply chain attack in 2020, also built around a zero-day, affected more than 18,000 organizations and cost billions more. The pattern is the same in each case: code executes before anyone understands what it can do, and by the time the behavioral impact surfaces, the window to prevent it has long since closed.
A study from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign put the zero-day problem into sharper focus. Researchers gave GPT-4 access to a database of zero-day vulnerabilities, equipped only with CVE descriptions, and the model successfully exploited 87% of them autonomously. Most open-source scanners could not detect the same vulnerabilities at all.
GPT-3.5 achieved a 0% success rate on the same task. That jump, from 0% to 87% in a single model generation, tells you something important about where this is heading. As models grow more capable and more accessible, the democratization of zero-day exploitation is not a future risk. It is an accelerating present one.
Signature-based detection is a catalog of the past. Zero-day code has no entry in that catalog. Polymorphic and metamorphic code compounds the problem further by generating variants that look structurally different with every iteration while performing the same underlying functions. Writing signatures fast enough to keep pace with AI-generated novelty is not a strategy that scales, and it never will be.
Pre-execution behavioral capability analysis does not compare artifacts against a library of known threats. It deconstructs the artifact itself, examining its programmatic structure to determine what it is capable of doing. A zero-day payload that has never been catalogued still makes system calls. It still initiates or avoids network connections. It still does or does not attempt privilege escalation. These behavioral characteristics are present in the artifact regardless of whether anyone has ever seen it before.
Surfacing those characteristics before execution is authorized is the only defense model that is not structurally defeated by novelty. The verdict is not based on resemblance to something previously seen. It is a deterministic Allow, Block, Contain, or Escalate decision, issued before the code ever runs, backed by forensic evidence, and mapped to MITRE ATT&CK.
Zero Trust for Code is that control. Every artifact is untrusted by default, and trust is earned through behavioral verification. Find out how CodeHunter brings pre-execution defense to your security stack.
Formjacking is malicious JavaScript code that steals digital information through online forms — and it’s wreaking havoc on mortgage lenders. Malicious software lurks in the background of compromised online forms waiting to steal credit card information, social security numbers, passwords, and other PII while innocent hopefuls sign up for an account or apply for a home loan.
Cybercriminals use formjacking to take advantage of trusting home buyers operating under the illusion of digital safety. Most prospective clients assume bankers and lenders place everyone’s information under a tight watch, trusting the mortgage lenders implicitly as they fill out web forms. They rarely stop to consider who else might be accessing them.
The method is simple and eerily effective: A cybercriminal slips malicious JavaScript code into a website’s back or front end, which sends copies of users’ input to them instantly. If their code seeps into the front end, malicious actors can add extra input fields to any form. They can request sensitive information like a social security number or bank account credentials. And, if they’re particularly hungry, they can track mouse clicks and IP addresses.
If that sounds bad, it only gets worse. It’s far too easy for these formjackers to go undetected for months or even years. They can set the script to activate at certain times of day to avoid a cybersecurity team’s working hours or split it into multiple files to make detection that much harder.
Mortgage lenders are a tempting target for their size, ubiquity, and access to sensitive information. What better way to demonstrate what formjacking can do than with the hackers who infiltrated hundreds of real estate websites with a single video?
Brightcove provides video streaming services to many well-known clients, including Sotheby’s International Realty. In January 2021, an attacker injected JavaScript codes into a video used in over 100 real estate websites run by Sotheby’s — which means that every time a user opened an infected page, the software would import the video. Then, the malicious code would become embedded in the website.
Sotheby’s was only recently able to end the attack campaign, meaning that for a year, their attacker hoarded clients’ names, email addresses, phone numbers, and credit card data.
The danger is not limited to clients either. Though news reports tend to highlight the damage to consumers, formjacking can just as easily steal internal information through company portals. If a cybercriminal managed to embed their code into an employee training video purchased from a mass retailer, for example, they wouldn’t need to wait long before taking a snapshot of an employee’s login credentials.
Formjacking is a growing trend — and it’s not going away anytime soon. Though it would be nice to believe that Brightcove’s breach was an anomaly, 4,800 websites are compromised with formjacking every month. Attackers especially enjoy targeting third-party tools because the average eCommerce website uses 40-60 of them, with the majority (68%) of those tools accessing form and input fields. Given the prevalence of these tools in modern business, anyone can be an easy target.
Safeguarding your business from formjacking is becoming increasingly important, and there are steps you can take to minimize risk:
Website admins should manage permissions with a zero-trust mentality: In other words, trust nobody — and limit access to those who need it to do their job.
Most data breaches are a result of human error. Educate your staff about cybersecurity best practices.
Require two-factor authentication (2FA) to verify form submissions on your website. While 2FA doesn’t stop formjacking itself, it can minimize damage by preventing an attacker from taking over a person’s accounts. The malicious actor must simultaneously compromise both devices customers use for authorization (not an easy feat). Attackers tend to look for easier prey.
Detect unwanted changes to your environment with file integrity monitoring (FIM). You’ll be alerted to any changes made to files you’ve set it to monitor.
Run penetration tests and vulnerability scans. No matter how confident you feel about your security, make it a habit to look for weaknesses and consider new ways to strengthen your cybersecurity framework.
Run quality assurance tests on new updates. Make sure things are operating as you intend before launching something new, from back-end functionality to UI interactions.
It’s time to level up your security and stay multiple steps ahead of cybercriminals — it’s your job to protect your customers’ assets, and your own! Update your cybersecurity framework and audit your organization with meticulous detail because what you don’t know will hurt you.
After a chaotic and surreal couple of years, 2022 is already stretching our collective limit. The system is once again buckling under the weight of the pandemic, businesses are pivoting (or shuttering) in response to new challenges, political turmoil continues around the world — and ransomware is now a national security threat.
Organized cyber gangs continue to ruthlessly attack enterprise organizations, from government and financial institutions to critical infrastructures such as transportation and hospitals. Ransomware-focused threat actors like FIN12 are using the healthcare industry for target practice — taking advantage of known vulnerabilities — and becoming more efficient and nimble with their methods by the day. And ransom demands are soaring to record levels.
2021 was the “Year of Ransomware,” and the projections for 2022 are even more harrowing. Cybersecurity pundits will have to get creative when they name 2022: We expect the declaration of the “Year of Ransomware” to become as redundant as the “Year of Cybersecurity.”
A report by Cybersecurity Ventures estimates that an organization will be attacked by ransomware every 11 seconds.
And that’s only the publicly reported earnings. Consider that an estimated 75% of ransomware attacks go unreported and you’ll begin to grasp how lucrative “ransomware as a service” (RaaS) has become.
Annual damages from ransomware are projected to rise 1225% by 2031, up to $265 billion per year.
The previous record occurred just four months prior at $50 million.
And that number will only increase, especially with the growing prevalence of double extortion.
Considering what’s at stake for a healthcare facility — lifesaving machinery, confidential patient information, and lives (people died from malware in 2021) — it’s no surprise that the ransom payouts are higher in healthcare than other industries. Regardless of payout, victims’ data was leaked in at least 72% of the incidents (an additional 15% didn’t know if data was compromised).
The average cost of a ransomware attack is $1.85 million when you consider factors like downtime, lost business, and damaged reputation in addition to the ransom paid.
Almost half (42%) of companies with 1,001-5,000 employees were hit by ransomware in 2021 — compared to 33% of smaller companies.
It might seem easier to quietly pay off cybercriminals rather than deal with an embarrassing public fallout and sky-high fines — but it’s a spectacularly bad idea. Instead, follow protocol and alert the authorities immediately.
Read More: Call the Feds! What Bank CISOs Need to Do After a Data Breach
42% of local governmental organizations, 35% of organizations in the education sector, and 34% of healthcare organizations also reported meeting the ransom demands.
It’s just one of many reasons why the FBI advises against paying ransoms. Read More: Should Hospitals Pay Off Cyber Terrorists? What to do after a ransomware attack.
Change and adapt to the new cybersecurity landscape because things will only get more challenging as cybercriminals hone their skills and tactics. Regularly back up your data — it’s expected in today’s cyber minefield. Educate yourself and your employees about the latest threats, and review your defenses against escalating attacks. Don’t settle for anything less than the utmost vigilance and cutting-edge cybersecurity protocols.
If you are not automating artifact deconstruction, you are already behind. The volume of code moving through modern environments makes manual analysis untenable, and the complexity of what attackers are building today makes signature-based shortcuts just as untenable.
Most security leaders already know they cannot build a strong execution control posture without the ability to quickly and proactively understand what software can do. The question is not whether to automate. The question is what kind of automation actually solves the problem.
Security researchers have been deconstructing executable code for decades, carefully disassembling binaries layer by layer to understand their structure, logic, and behavioral capabilities. Practice has always been the most reliable way to answer the question that matters most: what can this code do?
What has changed is everything around that question. Today’s threat actors build code that is specifically designed to evade the methods and tools that worked in the past. Polymorphic code changes its structure with every iteration. Environment-aware payloads suppress their behavior when they detect analysis tools. AI-generated variants arrive with no prior signature because they have never existed in that form before. The analysis that used to take a skilled researcher weeks now needs to happen in minutes, across thousands of artifacts, before any of them are authorized to execute.
Before automated behavioral intent analysis, the process of understanding what code does was linear and slow. An analyst would observe the artifact, disassemble it, trace its logic, and work through the full behavioral picture by hand. Meanwhile, the artifact sat in the environment, potentially already executing, while the analysis was still underway.
CodeHunter’s platform automates that entire process. Using patented behavioral intent analysis and binary-level deconstruction, CodeHunter evaluates what any executable artifact is capable of doing without requiring source code, prior signatures, or sandbox detonation. The analysis covers binaries, scripts, containers, packages, and AI-generated code, with known and previously unknown artifacts evaluated on the same basis: behavioral capability.
The output is not a risk score. It is a deterministic verdict, Allow, Block, Contain, or Escalate, backed by forensic evidence, mapped to MITRE ATT&CK, and issued before the artifact is authorized to run. What previously took months of expert analysis now takes minutes.
One of the most dangerous characteristics of modern malicious code is its patience. Dormant artifacts sit in environments behaving normally until a trigger condition activates their payload. By the time the behavioral anomaly surfaces in the SOC, the artifact may have been present for weeks or months, and the window to prevent execution has long since closed.
Pre-execution behavioral intent analysis evaluates an artifact’s full behavioral capability at the point of evaluation, including capabilities that are conditional, delayed, or designed to activate only under specific circumstances. The analysis does not depend on observing the behavior. It deconstructs the artifact to surface what it is programmatically capable of doing, which means dormant threats do not get to wait for their trigger when every artifact is evaluated before it runs.
Automated artifact deconstruction is the mechanism that makes Zero Trust for Code operationally real. The principle that every artifact is untrusted by default and must earn authorization through behavioral verification only holds if the verification process can operate at the speed and scale of the environments it governs. Automated behavioral intent analysis is what makes that possible.
Every artifact that enters your environment, from every source, is evaluated before execution is authorized. The verdict is deterministic. The evidence is forensic. The decision is made by policy rather than by default. Stop chasing alerts. Start enforcing trust.
