Labeling and classifying Android malware is important for identifying new threats, triaging security incidents, and demystifying evasion techniques. To automate the malware classification pipeline, state-of-the-art tools such as AVClass and Euphony unify raw labels from commercial antivirus vendors (i.e., VirusTotal) to produce family labels. These tools are widely used for automatic malware classification in both academic research and industry practice. However, they face significant limitations in real-world industrial scenarios with numerous and dynamically changing samples. For example, our industrial practices revealed that VirusTotal's results change over time, leading to temporal inconsistencies in family labeling results that rely on label unification, which can severely impact a company's security posture. Despite this, such issues and challenges remain understudied. In this paper, we present the first systematic measurement study of existing automatic Android malware family labeling systems from various aspects, including label dynamics, consistency, reliability, and etc. Based on a large-scale dataset, we validate that the labeling results of these systems do evolve with time, and such evolution can introduce bias into many previous studies on performance assessments. We also reveal substantial divergence in labeling decisions across different systems when given the same input. Besides, we identify a disclosure priority among families in these systems' labeling processes, which could threaten the industry by allowing malicious actors to exploit these discrepancies. Our findings could benefit both researchers and industry practitioners for further refinement of automatic malware family labeling systems, contributing to their practical applications.

The proliferation of pre-trained models (PTMs) and datasets has led to the emergence of centralized model hubs like Hugging Face, which facilitate collaborative development and reuse. However, recent security reports have uncovered vulnerabilities and instances of malicious attacks within these platforms, highlighting growing security concerns. This paper presents the first systematic study of malicious code poisoning attacks on pre-trained model hubs, focusing on the Hugging Face platform. We conduct a comprehensive threat analysis, develop a taxonomy of model formats, and perform root cause analysis of vulnerable formats. While existing tools like Fickling and ModelScan offer some protection, they face limitations in semantic-level analysis and comprehensive threat detection. To address these challenges, we propose MalHug, an end-to-end pipeline tailored for Hugging Face that combines dataset loading script extraction, model deserialization, in-depth taint analysis, and heuristic pattern matching to detect and classify malicious code poisoning attacks in datasets and models. In collaboration with Ant Group, a leading financial technology company, we have implemented and deployed MalHug on a mirrored Hugging Face instance within their infrastructure, where it has been operational for over three months. During this period, MalHug has monitored more than 705K models and 176K datasets, uncovering 91 malicious models and 9 malicious dataset loading scripts. These findings reveal a range of security threats, including reverse shell, browser credential theft, and system reconnaissance. This work not only bridges a critical gap in understanding the security of the PTM supply chain but also provides a practical, industry-tested solution for enhancing the security of pre-trained model hubs.

The exponential growth of open-source package ecosystems, particularly NPM and PyPI, has led to an alarming increase in software supply chain poisoning attacks. Existing static analysis methods struggle with high false positive rates and are easily thwarted by obfuscation and dynamic code execution techniques. While dynamic analysis approaches offer improvements, they often suffer from capturing non-package behaviors and employing simplistic testing strategies that fail to trigger sophisticated malicious behaviors. To address these challenges, we present OSCAR, a robust dynamic code poisoning detection pipeline for NPM and PyPI ecosystems. OSCAR fully executes packages in a sandbox environment, employs fuzz testing on exported functions and classes, and implements aspect-based behavior monitoring with tailored API hook points. We evaluate OSCAR against six existing tools using a comprehensive benchmark dataset of real-world malicious and benign packages. OSCAR achieves an F1 score of 0.95 in NPM and 0.91 in PyPI, confirming that OSCAR is as effective as the current state-of-the-art technologies. Furthermore, for benign packages exhibiting characteristics typical of malicious packages, OSCAR reduces the false positive rate by an average of 32.06% in NPM (from 34.63% to 2.57%) and 39.87% in PyPI (from 41.10% to 1.23%), compared to other tools, significantly reducing the workload of manual reviews in real-world deployments. In cooperation with Ant Group, a leading financial technology company, we have deployed OSCAR on its NPM and PyPI mirrors since January 2023, identifying 10,404 malicious NPM packages and 1,235 malicious PyPI packages over 18 months. This work not only bridges the gap between academic research and industrial application in code poisoning detection but also provides a robust and practical solution that has been thoroughly tested in a real-world industrial setting.