A security analyst is investigating a suspicious executable file recovered from a user's workstation. Initial static analysis reveals that the file is heavily obfuscated and contains very few readable strings, making it difficult to determine its purpose. Which of the following is the MOST effective next step to determine the file's true behavior and potential maliciousness?
Perform a full disassembly of the executable to manually trace the code execution path.
Submit the file's hash to online malware repositories to check for known indicators of compromise (IoCs).
Execute the file within a controlled, isolated sandbox environment to perform dynamic analysis.
Analyze the system's standard event logs for any anomalies that occurred after the file was downloaded.
The most effective step is to execute the file in a sandbox for dynamic analysis. Since static analysis was hindered by heavy obfuscation, running the executable in a controlled, isolated environment allows the analyst to observe its actual behaviors, such as network connections, file system modifications, or registry changes, which would otherwise remain hidden. Submitting the hash is a good initial step, but it is ineffective for unknown or polymorphic malware. Performing a full disassembly is extremely time-consuming and complex for heavily obfuscated code. Relying on standard event logs is insufficient, as the malware may not have executed or could be designed to evade standard logging mechanisms.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is the purpose of a sandbox in cybersecurity?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
How does sandboxing differ from traditional logging?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are common obfuscation techniques used by malicious programs?