|

Linux Malware Hides in RAR Filenames: How a Sneaky Bash Injection Evades Antivirus

ByInnoVirtuoso

What if a file name alone could compromise your Linux system—without a macro, without a dropper, and without you clicking “Run”? That’s exactly the uncomfortable reality uncovered by researchers who found a Linux-specific malware delivery trick that hides executable code inside the file name of a RAR archive entry. Even worse, most antivirus tools don’t scan file names, so this technique flies under the radar.

In this post, I’ll break down how the attack works, why it bypasses traditional defenses, and what you can do today to protect your fleet. We’ll also look at a related Linux post-exploitation tool that dodges many EDR hooks by abusing io_uring, a modern kernel feature. By the end, you’ll understand the threat—and have a concrete plan to reduce your risk.

Let’s dig in.

The Short Version: A Weaponized File Name That Triggers Bash

Cybersecurity researchers at Trellix detailed a phishing campaign delivering an open-source backdoor known as VShell. The twist isn’t the payload—it’s the delivery. The malicious logic is embedded directly in the file name of an item inside a RAR archive. When a vulnerable shell script or command evaluates that name without proper sanitization, the injected code executes, pulls down an ELF binary for the host architecture, and launches an in-memory backdoor.

Here’s why that matters: many defenders focus on scanning file content. In this case, the content can be clean. The danger lives in the metadata—the file name—and it only “comes alive” when the shell interprets it as code.

For background on the research, see Trellix’s write-up on their research blog: Trellix Research.

The Phishing Setup: A Subtle Lure With a RAR Attachment

The campaign arrives as a simple phishing email themed around a beauty product survey, offering a small monetary reward (10 RMB) to nudge clicks. The email includes a RAR attachment—named something innocuous like “yy.rar”—but doesn’t instruct the recipient to open it. That subtlety matters. It feels less pushy, more plausible, and easier to ignore. But curiosity or routine handling of attachments can still lead to extraction.

Inside the RAR is a file with a crafted name that includes Bash-friendly syntax and a Base64-encoded command. The file name is engineered so that, if any shell processing improperly touches it—think poor quoting, unsafe evals, or sloppy loops—the shell treats parts of the name as code and runs it.

A key point to emphasize: – Simply extracting the archive does not trigger execution. – The execution happens only when a shell command or script parses the file name in an unsafe way.

In other words, the trap is passive until a vulnerable workflow steps on it.

Why It Works: Command Injection via Unsanitized Filenames

Linux shells like Bash are incredibly powerful. That power comes with a catch: symbols in strings can have special meaning to the interpreter. If a script passes a file name through the shell without quoting or sanitation—especially when using eval, command substitution, or pipelines—the shell can reinterpret portions of that string as executable code. That’s command injection.

Three realities collide here: – File names on Linux can contain almost any character. – Many shell scripts still assume “file names are safe” and handle them casually. – Bash will execute metacharacters if it’s given a chance.

Examples of risky patterns include: – Using eval on variables that contain user-controlled or untrusted values (including file names). – Using command substitution or backticks when composing commands that involve file names. – Iterating file names with unquoted expansions, then passing them into other shell constructs.

If you’ve maintained Linux systems for long, you’ve probably seen at least one “quick-and-dirty” admin script that would be vulnerable here. That’s what attackers are counting on.

For a good primer on Bash pitfalls and how to avoid them, see these resources: – Bash quoting rules in the GNU manual: Bash Manual: Quoting – Common shell mistakes: Bash Pitfalls – OWASP guidance on command injection: OWASP Command Injection

The Payload Path: Cross-Architecture Downloaders and In-Memory Execution

Once the shell misinterprets the file name and executes the embedded command, the flow continues: – A Base64-encoded downloader runs. – It fetches an ELF binary from an external server tailored to the system architecture (x86_64, i386, i686, armv7l, aarch64). – That binary contacts a command-and-control (C2) service. – It retrieves the encrypted VShell payload, decodes it, and executes it in memory.

Running in memory is a big deal. It avoids writing a traditional file to disk, which is where many antivirus engines still focus their detection logic. Paired with the filename trick that bypasses scanners outright, the malware chain evades both static and many runtime defenses.

If you track ATT&CK techniques, this aligns with: – T1059 Command and Scripting Interpreter – T1027 Obfuscated/Compressed Files and Information – T1105 Ingress Tool Transfer – T1055 Process Injection or in-memory execution patterns, depending on implementation

Reference: MITRE ATT&CK T1059

VShell: A Capable Go-Based Backdoor

VShell is a remote access tool written in Go. It’s been associated with multiple Chinese threat actors, including UNC5174. Capabilities typically include: – Reverse shell operations – File management (upload, download, delete) – Process and service enumeration – Port forwarding or tunneling – Encrypted C2 communications

The choice of Go provides cross-compilation flexibility and decent performance on low-resource devices, which expands the target surface across servers, cloud workloads, developer laptops, and even embedded Linux systems.

Why Antivirus Missed It: File Name Blind Spots

Let’s be fair to security tools: most scanning engines are designed to inspect content. They analyze bytes, macros, and embedded executables. They deobfuscate scripts. They look for signatures and behaviors in files and processes. But file names? Those are often treated as inert metadata.

This attack deliberately lives in that blind spot. Highlights: – Payload embedded in the file name, not the file body. – Execution occurs only if a vulnerable shell parsing operation occurs later. – The actual payload then runs in memory, skipping a disk footprint that many AV engines rely on.

It’s a perfect storm: nothing obvious to scan at rest, and minimal forensic residue post-execution.

The Real-World Trigger: Where Shell Scripts Go Wrong

You might be thinking, “But who evaluates file names with eval?” More than you’d expect.

Common risky patterns include: – Helper scripts that “massage” file names with command substitutions, then feed them back to the shell. – Automation that builds commands dynamically using untrusted values (e.g., filenames from temporary directories) and calls eval. – Pipelines that use unquoted expansions, allowing special characters in names to alter the command graph. – Loops that parse the output of ls or find without null-delimited safety and proper quoting.

The bottom line: any code path that causes the shell to re-interpret the content of a file name—rather than treat it as opaque data—is risky.

For a safer mental model, treat every file name as untrusted input. If your code would reject user input containing backticks, $(), pipes, or braces, it should reject file names with those characters, too.

Defender-Safe Technical Deep Dive

To understand the risk without enabling misuse, keep the following high-level model in mind: – The attacker crafts a file name that includes shell metacharacters and an encoded payload. – A shell script touches the file name in a way that re-parses it. – The shell executes the injected logic, which decodes and runs a downloader. – The downloader fetches an ELF for the system’s architecture and runs the backdoor in memory.

Important constraints and edges: – Merely listing files in a typical terminal doesn’t execute code. The problem arises when a script or command feeds the filename back into the shell interpreter without strict quoting or sanitization. – You cannot easily “hand-type” a filename with such syntax at the shell prompt; the malicious name is typically created by tooling that bypasses the shell’s input validation (e.g., inside an archive or created by a lower-level API).

Practical Mitigations: What To Do Now

Here’s a prioritized, practical plan you can implement right away.

1) Reduce exposure to risky attachments – Block or quarantine inbound RAR files at the email gateway, or detonate them in a sandbox first. – Use content disarm and reconstruction (CDR) for archives when possible. – Flag messages with archive attachments that don’t mention the attachment in the body—this campaign uses that subtlety to blend in.

2) Add filename-aware scanning policies – Inspect archive entries for dangerous characters before extraction or handling: – Backticks, $(), pipes |, semicolons ;, ampersands &, braces {}, angle brackets <>. – Quarantine or require manual review for archives containing such names. – Consider rejecting files with control characters or unusual Unicode where business use doesn’t require them.

3) Fix shell scripts and automations – Always quote expansions: “$var” and “$@”. – Avoid eval. If you think you need eval, you probably don’t. Refactor to arrays or explicit functions. – Use null-delimited pipelines: – find with -print0 and xargs -0 – while IFS= read -r -d ‘’ f; do …; done – Never parse ls output. Ever. – Treat file names as data, not code. Escape metacharacters when passing to commands. – Add ShellCheck to CI to catch unsafe patterns automatically.

4) Harden runtime environments – Mount temporary directories (e.g., /tmp, /var/tmp) with noexec where feasible to prevent binary execution. – Restrict which tools can execute in user-writable paths using AppArmor/SELinux policies. – Use least privilege for automation accounts that handle attachments or archives. – Containerize or sandbox any workflow that processes untrusted archives (e.g., bubblewrap, Firejail).

5) Improve detection and telemetry – Alert on suspicious process chains: – base64 -d piped to an interpreter (bash, sh, python, perl) – curl|bash or wget|bash style patterns – bash reading from stdin with no obvious script file – Log command-line arguments for process creation events. – Monitor for immediate network connections by short-lived processes spawned by archive handlers. – Hunt for file names containing backticks or $() in temporary directories or mail processing paths. – Enrich telemetry with MITRE mappings to drive hunts: MITRE ATT&CK T1059.

6) Train users—and admins – Teach users to be cautious with unsolicited archives, even if they look trivial. – Coach developers and sysadmins on safe shell practices. A 15-minute lunch-and-learn on quoting rules can prevent a breach.

7) Coordinate with vendors – Ask your AV/EDR provider whether file name scanning heuristics are supported for archives. – Confirm whether in-memory-only malware execution telemetry is captured and visible in your console.

Threat Hunting Ideas (SOC-Friendly)

These are safe, high-level ideas to seed hunts without enabling misuse: – Identify processes that: – Spawn a shell with a short-lived child process that immediately initiates outbound network calls. – Invoke base64 -d and pipe into an interpreter within a small time window. – Appear shortly after unrar/7z/bsdtar activity on the same host. – Search for unusual file names in locations where your automation touches user-supplied content (mail spool directories, ingestion queues, scanning sandboxes). – Correlate mail gateway metadata with host events: a RAR attachment received followed by bash or sh execution on the user host within N minutes.

If you rely on Sigma rules, explore the community repo for relevant patterns and adapt them: SigmaHQ Rules.

The io_uring Angle: RingReaper Shows Post-Exploit Stealth

While the filename technique is about initial execution, there’s a parallel trend in Linux post-exploitation: evading detection by avoiding the “usual” system calls that EDRs monitor. Picus Security analyzed a tool dubbed RingReaper that leans on Linux’s io_uring framework to reduce visibility.

What’s io_uring? It’s a high-performance asynchronous I/O interface in the Linux kernel that lets applications queue operations for the kernel to process. It’s great for speed. It’s also potent for stealth because security tools that hook classic syscalls (read, write, connect) may miss the equivalent io_uring operations.

According to Picus’ analysis, RingReaper: – Uses io_uring primitives to perform asynchronous equivalents of common I/O. – Enumerates processes, PTS sessions, network connections, and logged-in users. – Abuses SUID binaries for privilege escalation. – Cleans up traces on exit.

Defenders should ensure their telemetry covers io_uring events or uses kernel-level observability beyond syscall hooking.

Learn more: – Linux io_uring documentation: Kernel docs: io_uring – Picus Security blog hub: Picus Security Blog – eBPF overview for advanced telemetry: eBPF

Hardening Linux Against Filename and io_uring Abuse

Let’s translate all of this into concrete, defense-in-depth steps:

  • Application and script hygiene
  • Treat file names as untrusted input. Sanitize and quote. Avoid eval.
  • Use robust languages or libraries for archive handling whenever possible, not ad-hoc shell glue.
  • Archive handling policy
  • Sandboxed extraction for all untrusted archives.
  • Quarantine or alert on filenames with metacharacters.
  • Consider converting archives to safe formats internally with controlled tooling.
  • System controls
  • SELinux/AppArmor confinement for archive handlers and mail clients.
  • noexec and nodev on temporary or ingest directories where possible.
  • Limit which interpreters are present in user environments that process inbound files.
  • Detection engineering
  • Expand rules to cover base64-to-interpreter pipelines and download-and-execute chains.
  • Add filename anomaly detection for paths that touch untrusted content.
  • Incorporate io_uring-aware telemetry where your EDR supports it, or augment with eBPF-based collectors.
  • Process and people
  • Regular tabletop exercises focused on “weird Linux tradecraft,” not just Windows-centric techniques.
  • Red team validations to find your unsafe shell scripts internally.
  • Quick wins with CI linters like ShellCheck on any repository containing shell code.

Common Questions (FAQ)

Q: Can a Linux file name really execute code by itself? A: Not by itself. Execution requires a shell or program to interpret the file name as code. This happens when scripts misuse constructs like eval or unquoted command substitutions. Properly written code that treats file names as data, not code, does not execute them.

Q: Does extracting a malicious RAR trigger the malware? A: No. Extraction alone doesn’t execute anything. The risk appears when a shell script or command handles the extracted file name in an unsafe way that leads to command interpretation.

Q: Which Linux distributions are affected? A: This is not a distro-specific vulnerability. Any Linux system where scripts or tools evaluate file names unsafely can be affected. The backdoor delivery supports multiple architectures (x86_64, i386, i686, armv7l, aarch64), which broadens the target range.

Q: Why didn’t antivirus catch this? A: Most AV engines focus on file content. In this technique, the malicious logic lives in the file name, which many scanners don’t analyze. The subsequent payload also runs in memory, reducing disk artifacts.

Q: What is VShell? A: VShell is a remote access tool written in Go, used by several threat actors. It supports reverse shells, file operations, process management, port forwarding, and encrypted C2. For threat context, see Trellix Research.

Q: How do I check if my scripts are vulnerable? A: Audit for: – Any use of eval – Unquoted variable expansions involving file names – Parsing ls output – Using command substitution/backticks with variables that may contain file names Run your scripts through ShellCheck and review guidance like Bash Pitfalls.

Q: What logs should I collect to detect this technique? A: Collect command-line arguments, parent-child process relationships, and network telemetry. Hunt for: – base64 -d piped into bash/sh – curl|bash and wget|bash patterns – Shell processes that quickly spawn network connections after archive handling

Q: What is io_uring and why does it matter for detection? A: io_uring is a Linux kernel interface for asynchronous I/O. Some malware uses it to avoid traditional syscall hooks, reducing visibility in EDRs that rely on those hooks. Ensure your tooling can observe io_uring activity or deploy kernel-level telemetry. See Kernel docs: io_uring.

Q: Are Macs or Windows affected by this exact technique? A: The filename-injection trick described here targets Linux shells and tooling. Similar classes of bugs exist elsewhere, but this specific chain relies on Bash-compatible parsing and Linux execution models.

Q: Should we ban RAR files entirely? A: If your business doesn’t require RAR, blocking it is reasonable risk reduction. If you must allow RAR, sandbox and scan archives, inspect entry names for metacharacters, and restrict who can process them.

Key Takeaways and Next Steps

  • A file name in a RAR archive can be weaponized to execute commands on Linux—but only if your scripts or tools parse it unsafely.
  • Traditional AV often misses this because it lives in metadata and executes in memory.
  • You can mitigate the risk today: block or sandbox RARs, add filename-aware checks, fix shell scripts (quote, avoid eval, use -print0 pipelines), and improve detection of base64-to-interpreter and download-and-execute patterns.
  • Prepare for the next wave. Techniques like io_uring-based I/O are reshaping Linux post-exploitation tradecraft. Ensure your telemetry and EDR strategy keep pace.

If you found this helpful, consider subscribing for more practical, defense-first analyses of emerging threats—and share this with your Linux and DevOps teams. The quickest wins here come from small changes in scripting habits and attachment handling. One lunch-and-learn could save you a breach.

Discover more at InnoVirtuoso.com

I would love some feedback on my writing so if you have any, please don’t hesitate to leave a comment around here or in any platforms that is convenient for you.

For more on tech and other topics, explore InnoVirtuoso.com anytime. Subscribe to my newsletter and join our growing community—we’ll create something magical together. I promise, it’ll never be boring! 

Stay updated with the latest news—subscribe to our newsletter today!

Thank you all—wishing you an amazing day ahead!

Read more related Articles at InnoVirtuoso

InnoVirtuoso

Hello there! I'm passionate content writer navigating the digital landscape. With a deep love for words and an insatiable curiosity about technology.

With 10 years of experience in IT field, I write mostly about emerging tech, sharing news, informational articles and covering other topics I find interesting.

Let's craft the future of content together – one word at a time!

Browse InnoVirtuoso for more!