← Back to SOC feed Coverage →

maldoc indirect function call 2

yara LOW Yara-Rules
community
This rule was pulled from an open-source repository and enriched with AI. Validate in a test environment before deploying to production.
View original rule at Yara-Rules →
Retrieved: 2026-05-13T11:00:00Z · Confidence: medium

Hunt Hypothesis

Indirect function calls in malicious documents may indicate the use of obfuscation techniques to evade signature-based detection. SOC teams should proactively hunt for this behavior in Azure Sentinel to identify potential malware activity that bypasses traditional detection methods.

YARA Rule

rule maldoc_indirect_function_call_2 : maldoc
{
    meta:
        author = "Didier Stevens (https://DidierStevens.com)"
    strings:
        $a = {FF B5 ?? ?? ?? ?? FF 95 ?? ?? ?? ??}
    condition:
        for any i in (1..#a): ((uint8(@a[i] + 2) == uint8(@a[i] + 8)) and (uint8(@a[i] + 3) == uint8(@a[i] + 9)) and (uint8(@a[i] + 4) == uint8(@a[i] + 10)) and (uint8(@a[i] + 5) == uint8(@a[i] + 11)))
}

Deployment Notes

This YARA rule can be deployed in the following contexts:

This rule contains 1 string patterns in its detection logic.

False Positive Guidance

Original source: https://github.com/Yara-Rules/rules/blob/main/maldocs/maldoc_somerules.yar