“We’re not creative enough when we imagine cyber warfare,” F-Secure Security Advisor Sean Sullivan recently told me. “It’s not kinetic explosions. It could be a guy whose crimeware business has dried up and is looking for new business.”
Over the last week, F-Secure Labs has taken a look at attacks from the “Energetic Bear” hacking group, Havex, which targets the energy sector, and now CosmicDuke, which is aimed at targets in Ukraine, Poland, Turkey, and Russia.
The goal of these attacks seems to be espionage or gathering information up for a buyer, which could be a government. But the methods don’t match the precision and massive investment of manhours that went into an attack like Stuxnet, which was designed to take down Iran’s nuclear capabilities.
“They rely on plausible deniability and using resources that don’t seem to be created specifically for the task,” Sean said. “It matches the modular methodology of what we conventionally think of as crimeware.”
“You look at one element and it looks like crimeware,” said F-Secure Senior Researcher Timo Hirvonen, who wrote the CosmicDuke analysis. “You look at it from a different angle and you say, ‘I’ve never seen it aimed like that before.'”
“The conventional wisdom is that anything related to cyber warfare will be shiny and new,” Sean said. These attacks instead suggest “semi-professionalism”.
Here are three questions Sean is pondering in the wake these attacks:
What do we mean when we say state-sponsored?
“Cyber warfare models real life,” Sean said. “Some countries have a massive cyber intelligence infrastructure that works from the top down. Others seem to have a more grassroots origin, co-opting existing technologies that seem to be built on existing crimeware.”
He wonders if state-focused campaigns are using malware that isn’t necessarily state-sponsored. “Countries who use troops with black masks and no insignias standing on a peninsula may have the same kind of thing going online.”
Opportunistic and pragmatic governments may be paying people to co-opting technology that exist for international espionage purposes.
He suggests the goals of such attacks may fit into Sun Tzu’s advice from The Art of War: know your enemy.
Armed with information, countries can use soft power to turn allies against each other and dissuade retribution like economic sanctions.
What do we mean by APT — advanced persistent threat?
These attacks are not complex in the way Stuxnet was. And they don’t need to be.
CosmicDuke — a variant of a malware family that has existed since 2001– infects by tricking targets into opening either a PDF file which contains an exploit or a Windows executable whose filename makes it look like a document or image file.
Once the target opens the malicious file, CosmicDuke gains access starts collecting information with a keylogger, clipboard stealer, screenshotter, and password stealers for a variety of popular chat, e-mail and web browsing programs. CosmicDuke also collects information about the files on the system, and has the capability to export cryptographic certificates and their private keys. Once the information has been collected, it is sent out to remote servers via FTP. In addition to stealing information from the system, CosmicDuke allows the attacker to download and execute other malware on the system. Pretty standard stuff.
Is the war against crimeware driving criminals to cyber espionage? Or: Could be fighting cybercrime be counterproductive?
“Some of these guys may be working for the government and themselves,” Sean said.
A wave of successes in the international war on cybercrime may be driving criminals to new buyers.
“The talent developed on its own,” he said. “And now there’s a government taking advantage of talent in their borders. Law enforcement has been going after crimeware. But it doesn’t go away. It’s fungible. The talent’s still there it needs to make a buck.”
Sean believes there’s a message in these attacks for everyone.
“It’s not just the NSA that hunts system admins. If you have any sort of credentialed access to important systems, you are a target. Keep calm and secure your stuff.”
He hopes that businesses will recognize that prevention is always the best remedy.
“For IT managers: ask for the security budget you need – and fight for it. There is more evidence than ever that letting cost dictate security is bad management.”
If governments are willing to work with increasingly opportunistic malware authors, risks could grow exponentially.
“Is today’s crimeware botnet, tomorrow’s national security nightmare?” Sean asks. “What happens when these guys get out of jail? I’m sure they won’t let the talent go fallow.”
It’s a well-known fact that UK’s Prime Minister David Cameron doesn’t care much about peoples’ privacy. Recently he has been driving the so called Snooper’s Charter that would give authorities expanded surveillance powers, which got additional fuel from the Paris attacks. It is said that terrorists want to tear down the Western society and lifestyle. And Cameron definitively puts himself in the same camp with statements like this: “In our country, do we want to allow a means of communication between people which we cannot read? No, we must not.” David Cameron Note that he didn’t say terrorists, he said people. Kudos for the honesty. It’s a fact that terrorist blend in with the rest of the population and any attempt to weaken their security affects all of us. And it should be a no-brainer that a nation where the government can listen in on everybody is bad, at least if you have read Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. But why does WhatsApp occur over and over as an example of something that gives the snoops grey hair? It’s a mainstream instant messenger app that wasn’t built for security. There are also similar apps that focus on security and privacy, like Telegram, Signal and Wickr. Why isn’t Cameron raging about them? The answer is both simple and very significant. But it may not be obvious at fist. Internet was by default insecure and you had to use tools to fix that. The pre-Snowden era was the golden age for agencies tapping into the Internet backbone. Everything was open and unencrypted, except the really interesting stuff. Encryption itself became a signal that someone was of interest, and the authorities could use other means to find out what that person was up to. More and more encryption is being built in by default now when we, thanks to Snowden, know the real state of things. A secured connection between client and server is becoming the norm for communication services. And many services are deploying end-to-end encryption. That means that messages are secured and opened by the communicating devices, not by the servers. Stuff stored on the servers are thus also safe from snoops. So yes, people with Cameron’s mindset have a real problem here. Correctly implemented end-to-end encryption can be next to impossible to break. But there’s still one important thing that tapping the wire can reveal. That’s what communication tool you are using, and this is the important point. WhatsApp is a mainstream messenger with security. Telegram, Signal and Wickr are security messengers used by only a small group people with special needs. Traffic from both WhatsApp and Signal, for example, are encrypted. But the fact that you are using Signal is the important point. You stick out, just like encryption-users before. WhatsApp is the prime target of Cameron’s wrath mainly because it is showing us how security will be implemented in the future. We are quickly moving towards a net where security is built in. Everyone will get decent security by default and minding your security will not make you a suspect anymore. And that’s great! We all need protection in a world with escalating cyber criminality. WhatsApp is by no means a perfect security solution. The implementation of end-to-end encryption started in late 2014 and is still far from complete. The handling of metadata about users and communication is not very secure. And there are tricks the wire-snoops can use to map peoples’ network of contacts. So check it out thoroughly before you start using it for really hot stuff. But they seem to be on the path to become something unique. Among the first communication solutions that are easy to use, popular and secure by default. Apple's iMessage is another example. So easy that many are using it without knowing it, when they think they are sending SMS-messages. But iMessage’s security is unfortunately not flawless either. Safe surfing, Micke PS. Yes, weakening security IS a bad idea. An excellent example is the TSA luggage locks, that have a master key that *used to be* secret. Image by Sam Azgor
If you run a Wordpress site, you know that criminals around the world would love to use it to spread malware. Last month, F-Secure Labs spike in "Flash redirectors" that automatically redirect the visitor to a site with the goal of infecting them with malware, in this case the Angler exploit kit. The source was compromised websites -- specifically Wordpress sites. This isn't a new find for the Labs but what is unique is one of the tactics of the attack -- seeking out Wordpress usernames. Why? "After obtaining the username, the only thing that the attacker would need to figure out is the password," Patricia from The Labs explains. "The tool used by the attacker attempted around 1200 passwords before it was able to successfully login." If you happen to have one of those passwords, bam. You site is serving up malware, which is not only harmful to your visitors, it can cost you tons of traffic as Google delists you. Keeping your server and plugins up to date is essential for avoiding most attacks. Beyond that, this attack points to the need to both protect your Wordpress username AND always use a unique, strong password. "Furthermore, in order to defend against this kind of WordPress attack, you should not use a WordPress admin account for publishing anything," Patricia notes. You can also protect your server from enumeration attacks that discover the usernames of your bloggers. To see how to do that, visit our News from the Labs blog. It's pretty amazing what people can figure out about you with just your login and password. But when you're running a website, which can be part or all of your livelihood, the only way to keep from handing criminals the key to your front door is to make sure your password can't be figured out by anyone but you. And turn on two-step authentication if you haven't already. Cheers, Jason
We have a dilemma, and maybe you want to help us. I have written a lot about privacy and the trust relationship between users and software vendors. Users must trust the vendor to not misuse data that the software handles, but they have very poor abilities to base that trust on any facts. The vendor’s reputation is usually the most tangible thing available. Vendors can be split into two camps based on their business model. The providers of “free” services, like Facebook and Google, must collect comprehensive data about the users to be able to run targeted marketing. The other camp, where we at F-Secure are, sells products that you pay money for. This camp does not have the need to profile users, so the privacy-threats should be smaller. But is that the whole picture? No, not really. Vendors of paid products do not have the need to profile users for marketing. But there is still a lot of data on customers’ devices that may be relevant. The devices’ technical configuration is of course relevant when prioritizing maintenance. And knowing what features actually are used helps plan future releases. And we in the security field have additional interests. The prevalence of both clean and malicious files is important, as well as patterns related to malicious attacks. Just to name a few things. One of our primary goals is to guard your privacy. But we could on the other hand benefit from data on your device. Or to be precise, you could benefit from letting us use that data as it contributes to better protection overall. So that’s our dilemma. How to utilize this data in a way that won’t put your privacy in jeopardy? And how to maintain trust? How to convince you that data we collect really is used to improve your protection? Our policy for this is outlined here, and the anti-malware product’s data transfer is documented in detail in this document. In short, we only upload data necessary to produce the service, we focus on technical data and won’t take personal data, we use hashing of the data when feasible and we anonymize data so we can’t tell whom it came from. The trend is clearly towards lighter devices that rely more on cloud services. Our answer to that is Security Cloud. It enables devices to off-load tasks to the cloud and benefit from data collected from the whole community. But to keep up with the threats we must develop Security Cloud constantly. And that also means that we will need more info about what happens on your device. That’s why I would like to check what your opinion about data upload is. How do you feel about Security Cloud using data from your device to improve the overall security for all users? Do you trust us when we say that we apply strict rules to the data upload to guard your privacy? [polldaddy poll=9196371] Safe surfing, Micke Image by balticservers.com