Applied Cybernetics Group
T1027.016 Junk Code Insertion
coverage gap
- Technique
T1027.016- Tactics
- Defense Evasion
- Research, 90 days
- 1
- KEV CVEs mapped
- 0
- SigmaHQ rules
- 0
- Elastic, Splunk
- 0
- thrunt rules
- 0
- Upstream
- https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1027/016
MITRE description
Adversaries may use junk code / dead code to obfuscate a malware’s functionality. Junk code is code that either does not execute, or if it does execute, does not change the functionality of the code. Junk code makes analysis more difficult and time-consuming, as the analyst steps through non-functional code instead of analyzing the main code. It also may hinder detections that rely on static code analysis due to the use of benign functionality, especially when combined with [Compression](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1027/015) or [Software Packing](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1027/002).(Citation: ReasonLabs)(Citation: ReasonLabs Cyberpedia Junk Code) No-Operation (NOP) instructions are an example of dead code commonly used in x86 assembly language. They are commonly used as the 0x90 opcode. When NOPs are added to malware, the disassembler may show the NOP instructions, leading to the analyst needing to step through them.(Citation: ReasonLabs) The use of junk / dead code insertion is distinct from [Binary Padding](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1027/001) because the purpose is to obfuscate the functionality of the code, rather than simply to change the malware’s signature.
Research citing this technique
Reports and advisories from the last 90 days that cite this technique.
-
2026-08-13Recorded Future Insikt: Malware Crypting Services and the Threat Actors Who Sell Them
Detection coverage
No rule covers this technique yet. No SigmaHQ, Elastic or Splunk production rule carries its tag, and thrunt hasn't written one. Techniques like this are where the next thrunt rules come from; the gap map has the full list.