What's new arround internet
| Src | Date (GMT) | Titre | Description | Tags | Stories | Notes |
 |
2022-07-07 08:14:35 | North Korean State-Sponsored Threat Actors Deploying "MAUI" Ransomware (lien direct) | Today, the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency (CISA) and the Department of Treasury released a joint Cybersecurity Advisory on Maui Ransomware, which is attributed to state sponsored activity by the government of North Korea. The Joint CSA provides detailed insight on the various TTPs used by the threat actors behind Maui, which has targeted the Health and Public Health Sector.How Serious of an Issue is This?High. As ransomware activity causes downtime, theft of confidential and personally identifiable information (PII) and other significant impact to operations, it is important to ensure that various security measures are in place, like being up to date with patching vulnerable machines/infrastructure. Also, ensuring employees are trained and up to date on various social engineering attempts and tactics used by threat actors will be a first line of defense against such attacks.What is Maui Ransomware?Maui ransomware is unique in a way that it requires manual execution to start the encryption routine. Maui also features a CLI (command line interface) that is used by the threat actor to target specific files to encrypt. Maui also has the ability to identify previously encrypted files due to customer headers containing the original path of the file.Who are HIDDEN COBRA/LAZARUS/APT38/BeagleBoyz?HIDDEN COBRA also known as Lazarus/APT38/BeagleBoyz has been atributed to the government of North Korea. Also, they have been linked to multiple high-profile, financially-motivated attacks in various parts of the world - some of which have caused massive infrastructure disruptions. Notable attacks include the 2014 attack on a major entertainment company and a 2016 Bangladeshi financial institution heist that almost netted nearly $1 Billion (USD) for the attackers. Had it not been for a misspelling in an instruction that caused a bank to flag and block thirty transactions, HIDDEN COBRA would have pulled off a heist unlike any other. Although HIDDEN COBRA failed in their attempt, they were still able to net around 81 million dollars in total.The most recent notable attack attributed to HIDDEN COBRA was the Wannacry Ransomware attack, which resulted in massive disruption and damage worldwide to numerous organizations, especially those in manufacturing. Various estimates of the impact were in the hundreds of millions of dollars, with some estimates claiming billions. Other verticals which this group has targeted include critical infrastructures, entertainment, finance, healthcare, and telecommunication sectors across multiple countries.Who are the BeagleBoyz?The BeagleBoyz group is a newly identified group that is a subset of activity by the threat actors known as HIDDEN COBRA/LAZARUS/APT 38 and has been observed committing financial crimes, specifically cryptocurrency related thefts. Further information about the BeagleBoyz can be found here.What Operating Systems are Affected?Windows based operating systems are affected.What is the Status of Coverage?Fortinet customers running the latest definitions are protected against Maui with the following (AV) signatures:W32/Ransom_Win32_MAUICRYPT.YACC5W32/Agent.C5C2!trW32/PossibleThreatAnything Else to Note?Victims of ransomware are cautioned against paying ransoms by such organizations as CISA, NCSC, the FBI, and HHS. Payment does not guarantee files will be recovered. It may also embolden adversaries to target additional organizations, encourage other criminal actors to engage in the distribution of ransomware, and/or fund illicit activities which could potentially be illegal according to a U.S. Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) advisory. | Ransomware Threat Patching Medical | Wannacry Wannacry APT 38 | |
 |
2019-08-07 14:23:02 | Businesses need to patch for BlueKeep to avoid another WannaCry (lien direct) | BitSight is sounding an alarm over the potential for patching to taper off, leaving legacy systems at risk for the potentially potent vulnerability. | Patching | Wannacry | |
 |
2019-05-28 06:20:06 | Almost One Million Vulnerable to BlueKeep Vuln (CVE-2019-0708) (lien direct) | Microsoft announced a vulnerability in it's "Remote Desktop" product that can lead to robust, wormable exploits. I scanned the Internet to assess the danger. I find nearly 1-million devices on the public Internet that are vulnerable to the bug. That means when the worm hits, it'll likely compromise those million devices. This will likely lead to an event as damaging as WannaCry and notPetya from 2017 -- potentially worse, as hackers have since honed their skills exploiting these things for ransomware and other nastiness.To scan the Internet, I started with masscan, my Internet-scale port scanner, looking for port 3389, the one used by Remote Desktop. This takes a couple hours, and lists all the devices running Remote Desktop -- in theory.This returned 7,629,102 results (over 7-million). However, there is a lot of junk out there that'll respond on this port. Only about half are actually Remote Desktop.Masscan only finds the open ports, but is not complex enough to check for the vulnerability. Remote Desktop is a complicated protocol. A project was posted that could connect to an address and test it, to see if it was patched or vulnerable. I took that project and optimized it a bit, rdpscan, then used it to scan the results from masscan. It's a thousand times slower, but it's only scanning the results from masscan instead of the entire Internet.The table of results is as follows:1447579 UNKNOWN - receive timeout1414793 SAFE - Target appears patched1294719 UNKNOWN - connection reset by peer1235448 SAFE - CredSSP/NLA required 923671 VULNERABLE -- got appid 651545 UNKNOWN - FIN received 438480 UNKNOWN - connect timeout 105721 UNKNOWN - connect failed 9 82836 SAFE - not RDP but HTTP 24833 UNKNOWN - connection reset on connect 3098 UNKNOWN - network error 2576 UNKNOWN - connection terminatedThe various UNKNOWN things fail for various reasons. A lot of them are because the protocol isn't actually Remote Desktop and respond weirdly when we try to talk Remote Desktop. A lot of others are Windows machines, sometimes vulnerable and sometimes not, but for some reason return errors sometimes.The important results are those marked VULNERABLE. There are 923,671 vulnerable machines in this result. That means we've confirmed the vulnerability really does exist, though it's possible a small number of these are "honeypots" deliberately pretending to be vulnerable in order to monitor hacker activity on the Internet.The next result are those marked SAFE due to probably being "pached". Actually, it doesn't necessarily mean they are patched Windows boxes. They could instead be non-Windows systems that appear the same as patched Windows boxes. But either way, they are safe from this vulnerability. There are 1,414,793 of them.The next result to look at are those marked SAFE due to CredSSP/NLA failures, of which there are 1,235,448. This doesn't mean they are patched, but only that we can't exploit them. They require "network level authentication" first before we can talk Remote Desktop to them. That means we can't test whether they are patched or vulnerable -- but neither can the hackers. They may still be exploitable via an insider threat who knows a valid username/password, but they aren't exploitable by anonymous hackers or worms.The next category is marked as SAFE because they aren't Remote Desktop at all, but HTTP servers. In other words, in response to o | Ransomware Vulnerability Threat Patching Guideline | NotPetya Wannacry | |
|
2019-05-27 19:59:38 | A lesson in journalism vs. cybersecurity (lien direct) | A recent NYTimes article blaming the NSA for a ransomware attack on Baltimore is typical bad journalism. It's an op-ed masquerading as a news article. It cites many to support the conclusion the NSA is to be blamed, but only a single quote, from the NSA director, from the opposing side. Yet many experts oppose this conclusion, such as @dave_maynor, @beauwoods, @daveaitel, @riskybusiness, @shpantzer, @todb, @hrbrmst, ... It's not as if these people are hard to find, it's that the story's authors didn't look.The main reason experts disagree is that the NSA's Eternalblue isn't actually responsible for most ransomware infections. It's almost never used to start the initial infection -- that's almost always phishing or website vulns. Once inside, it's almost never used to spread laterally -- that's almost always done with windows networking and stolen credentials. Yes, ransomware increasingly includes Eternalblue as part of their arsenal of attacks, but this doesn't mean Eternalblue is responsible for ransomware.The NYTimes story takes extraordinary effort to jump around this fact, deliberately misleading the reader to conflate one with the other. A good example is this paragraph: That link is a warning from last July about the "Emotet" ransomware and makes no mention of EternalBlue. Instead, the story is citing anonymous researchers claiming that EthernalBlue has been added to Emotet since after that DHS warning.Who are these anonymous researchers? The NYTimes article doesn't say. This is bad journalism. The principles of journalism are that you are supposed to attribute where you got such information, so that the reader can verify for themselves whether the information is true or false, or at least, credible.And in this case, it's probably false. The likely source for that claim is this article from Malwarebytes about Emotet. They have since retracted this claim, as the latest version of their article points out. In any event, the NYTimes article claims that Emotet is now "relying" on the NSA's EternalBlue to spread. That's not the same thing as "using", not even close. Yes, lots of ransomware has been updated to also use Eternalblue to spread. However, what ransomware is relying upon is still the Wind |
Ransomware Malware Patching Guideline | NotPetya Wannacry | |
 |
2019-05-16 23:13:01 | Microsoft Warns Against Critical, WannaCry-like Flaw (lien direct) | Microsoft's announcement urging users of older versions of Windows to apply a patch to protect against a potential widespread WannaCry-like attack. Two years on from the WannaCry attack, which affected computers in over 70 countries, Tanium's recent research showed that organisations are still struggling with patching hygiene, leaving their critical assets exposed. This vulnerability is so bad that #Microsoft … The ISBuzz Post: This Post Microsoft Warns Against Critical, WannaCry-like Flaw | Vulnerability Patching | Wannacry | |
 |
2018-08-08 13:28:00 | Chip maker TSMC will lose millions for not patching its computers (lien direct) | Taiwanese chip-making giant Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC), whose customers include Apple, Nvidia, AMD, Qualcomm, and Broadcom, was hit with a WannaCry infection last weekend that knocked out production for a few days and will cost the firm millions of dollars.Most chip companies are fabless, meaning they don't make their own chips. It's a massively expensive process, as Intel has learned. Most, like the aforementioned firms, simply design the chips and farm out the manufacturing process, and TSMC is by far the biggest player in that field.CEO C.C. Wei told Bloomberg that TSMC wasn't targeted by a hacker; it was an infected production tool provided by an unidentified vendor that was brought into the company. The company is overhauling its procedures after encountering a virus more complex than initially thought, he said. | Tool Patching | Wannacry | |
|
2018-06-27 15:49:15 | Lessons from nPetya one year later (lien direct) | This is the one year anniversary of NotPetya. It was probably the most expensive single hacker attack in history (so far), with FedEx estimating it cost them $300 million. Shipping giant Maersk and drug giant Merck suffered losses on a similar scale. Many are discussing lessons we should learn from this, but they are the wrong lessons.An example is this quote in a recent article:"One year on from NotPetya, it seems lessons still haven't been learned. A lack of regular patching of outdated systems because of the issues of downtime and disruption to organisations was the path through which both NotPetya and WannaCry spread, and this fundamental problem remains." This is an attractive claim. It describes the problem in terms of people being "weak" and that the solution is to be "strong". If only organizations where strong enough, willing to deal with downtime and disruption, then problems like this wouldn't happen.But this is wrong, at least in the case of NotPetya.NotPetya's spread was initiated through the Ukraining company MeDoc, which provided tax accounting software. It had an auto-update process for keeping its software up-to-date. This was subverted in order to deliver the initial NotPetya infection. Patching had nothing to do with this. Other common security controls like firewalls were also bypassed.Auto-updates and cloud-management of software and IoT devices is becoming the norm. This creates a danger for such "supply chain" attacks, where the supplier of the product gets compromised, spreading an infection to all their customers. The lesson organizations need to learn about this is how such infections can be contained. One way is to firewall such products away from the core network. Another solution is port-isolation/microsegmentation, that limits the spread after an initial infection.Once NotPetya got into an organization, it spread laterally. The chief way it did this was through Mimikatz/PsExec, reusing Windows credentials. It stole whatever login information it could get from the infected machine and used it to try to log on to other Windows machines. If it got lucky getting domain administrator credentials, it then spread to the entire Windows domain. This was the primary method of spreading, not the unpatched ETERNALBLUE vulnerability. This is why it was so devastating to companies like Maersk: it wasn't a matter of a few unpatched systems getting infected, it was a matter of losing entire domains, including the backup systems.Such spreading through Windows credentials continues to plague organizations. A good example is the recent ransomware infection of the City of Atlanta that spread much the same way. The limits of the worm were the limits of domain trust relationships. For example, it didn't infect the city airport because that Windows domain is separate from the city's domains.This is the most pressing lesson organizations need to learn, the one they are ignoring. They need to do more to prevent desktops from infecting each other, such as through port-isolation/microsegmentation. They need to control the spread of administrative credentials within the organization. A lot of organizations put the same local admin account on every workstation which makes the spread of NotPetya style worms trivial. They need to reevaluate trust relationships between domains, so that the admin of one can't infect the others.These solutions are difficult, which is why news articles don't mention them. You don't have to know anything about security to proclaim "the problem is lack of patches". It's moral authority, chastising the weak, rather than a proscription of what to do. Solving supply chain hacks and Windows credential sharing, though, is hard. I don't know any universal solution to this -- I'd have to thoroughly analyze your network and business in order to | Ransomware Malware Patching | FedEx NotPetya Wannacry |
1
We have: 7 articles.
We have: 7 articles.
To see everything:
Our RSS (filtrered)
