Duck Hunter: Encountering USB Rubber Ducky Threat

Abstract

Introduction

USB ports, while essential for connectivity and data transfer, have become vulnerable entry points for cyberattacks. One such threat is the USB Rubber Ducky, a device that mimics a Human Interface Device (HID) like a keyboard and injects malicious keystrokes rapidly, bypassing conventional security measures such as antivirus and firewalls.

Research Problem:

Operating systems inherently trust HID devices, creating a critical vulnerability. USB Rubber Ducky attacks are effective due to:

1. Masquerading as legitimate devices.

2. High-speed keystroke injection.

3. Lack of detection by traditional antivirus.

4. Low user awareness of USB-related threats.

Research Objectives:

• Develop a detection system that distinguishes between real HIDs and malicious ones.

• Create countermeasures to block or neutralize USB Rubber Ducky attacks without affecting normal usage.

• Simulate real attacks to expose system vulnerabilities.

• Increase user awareness through alerts and education.

Purpose & Significance:

This study aims to fill the gap in USB-specific hardware security by:

• Developing integrated defense mechanisms for detection, prevention, and user notification.

• Enhancing cybersecurity practices in organizations.

• Contributing to national security, data privacy, and public awareness.

Contributions to Society:

• Data Protection: Safeguards against theft and compromise.

• Organizational Security: Helps businesses and governments prevent operational disruptions.

• Policy Influence: May shape future USB security standards and best practices.

Literature Review Highlights:

• Attacks: USB Rubber Ducky bypasses antivirus by posing as an HID.

• Defense Mechanisms:

  • Whitelisting is effective but limits usability.

  • Behavioral analysis detects unusual typing patterns but suffers from false positives.

  • Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS) require constant updates.

• User Awareness: Education reduces risk but is not sufficient alone.

• Research Gaps:

  • Lack of integrated, multi-layered defense systems.

  • High rate of false positives in detection.

  • Need for solutions combining automation and education.

  • Insufficient research on emerging USB-based attack vectors.

Research Methodology:

The study uses both primary and secondary data to simulate attacks, assess vulnerabilities, and develop a comprehensive security solution.

Conclusion

The research findings indicate that the proposed USB Rubber Ducky Defense System is largely effective in preventing and mitigating attacks, with a high detection rate and minimal impact on system performance. However, certain areas—particularly false positives in keystroke pattern analysis and the need for continuous whitelist management—require further refinement to improve accuracy and user experience. A. Key Conclusions • USB Whitelisting is a highly effective method for preventing unauthorized devices from executing malicious actions. However, maintaining an updated whitelist is essential for ensuring smooth operation, as legitimate devices can sometimes be blocked. • Keystroke Pattern Analysis can effectively detect rapid, automated keystroke injections, but struggles with human-like attack patterns and generates occasional false positives. Further development of more sophisticated behavioral algorithms is needed to reduce false positives without compromising security. • Intrusion Detection and Prevention Systems (IDPS) are effective at identifying and neutralizing suspicious USB activity. The IDPS implementation proved successful at detecting not only keystroke injections but also script execution and data exfiltration attempts, making it a crucial component of the defense system. • User Education is an important aspect of preventing USB-based attacks. The educational alerts included in the defense system increased user awareness significantly, helping users make more informed decisions about USB device usage. B. Overall Conclusion This research demonstrates that a multi-layered defense approach—combining whitelisting, keystroke pattern analysis, IDPS, and user education—is highly effective in countering USB Rubber Ducky attacks. While further work is needed to refine specific components of the system, this integrated approach provides a strong foundation for enhancing USB security and mitigating the risks posed by malicious USB devices. The study\'s contributions extend beyond technical defenses, as the inclusion of user awareness mechanisms helps address the human factor in cybersecurity, making this solution practical for both individual users and organizations.

References

[1] Balduzzi, M., Pasta, A., & Wilhoit, K. (2011). A security evaluation of USB-connected devices. Proceedings of the 28th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference.. This paper provides insights into the vulnerabilities of USB-connected devices and discusses potential attack vectors, including USB Rubber Ducky-style attacks. [2] Kamkar, S. (2010). Exploiting USB devices: The USB Rubber Ducky attack. Security Weekly Blog. This article introduces the USB Rubber Ducky attack and its implications for cybersecurity, detailing how such devices can compromise system security. [3] Intel Corporation. (2018). USB security: Threats and countermeasures. White Paper. This document outlines various threats posed by USB devices and suggests security measures to mitigate these risks, including hardware and software-based defenses. [4] Symantec. (2019). The dangers of USB-based attacks. Symantec Threat Report. This report focuses on the rising trend of USB-based attacks and the challenges in detecting and preventing such intrusions. [5] Hay, A., & Nance, K. (2014). Security issues of modern USB devices: Attacks and solutions. Journal of Information Security, 5(3), 134-145. A detailed examination of the different types of USB attacks, including USB Rubber Ducky, and the defensive strategies used to protect systems. [6] Kaspersky Lab. (2020). Understanding the risks of USB Rubber Ducky attacks. Kaspersky Blog. [7] Kaspersky\'s analysis of USB Rubber Ducky devices, explaining how they work and the steps users and organizations can take to protect themselves [8] CERT Coordination Center. (2016). Protecting systems from physical attacks via USB devices. CERT Security Report. This publication discusses methods to safeguard against physical threats, including malicious USB devices that can bypass traditional security measures. [9] USB Implementers Forum. (2020). USB device security best practices. USB IF White Paper. Provides guidelines for manufacturers and users on ensuring secure USB device implementation and preventing malicious attacks. [10] Goodin, D. (2014). The USB threat: Devices that turn into malicious computers. Ars Technica. A comprehensive discussion on the inherent risks associated with USB devices, particularly in the context of attacks like USB Rubber Ducky.

Copyright

Copyright © 2025 Dheeraj Yadav, Komal Gupta, Smita Dalvi, Vaishali Kadam, Ankit Vishwakarma. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.