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.”
Two high-severity security vulnerabilities, which went undetected for several years, have been discovered in a legitimate driver that’s part of Avast and AVG antivirus solutions.
“These vulnerabilities allow attackers to escalate privileges enabling them to disable security products, overwrite system components, corrupt the operating system, or perform malicious operations unimpeded,” SentinelOne researcher Kasif Dekel said in a report shared with The Hacker News.
Tracked as CVE-2022-26522 and CVE-2022-26523, the flaws reside in a legitimate anti-rootkit kernel driver named aswArPot.sys and are said to have been introduced in Avast version 12.1, which was released in June 2016.
Specifically, the shortcomings are rooted in a socket connection handler in the kernel driver that could lead to privilege escalation by running code in the kernel from a non-administrator user, potentially causing the operating system to crash and display a blue screen of death (BSoD) error.
Worryingly, the flaws could also be exploited as part of a second-stage browser attack or to perform a sandbox escape, leading to far-reaching consequences.
Following responsible disclosure on December 20, 2021, Avast addressed the issues in version 22.1 of the software released on February 8, 2022. “Rootkit driver BSoD was fixed,” the company said in its release notes.
While there is no evidence that these flaws were abused in the wild, the disclosure comes merely days after Trend Micro detailed an AvosLocker ransomware attack that leveraged another issue in the same driver to terminate antivirus solutions on the compromised system.
Update: SentinelOne notes that the bug dates back to version 12.1, which it claims was released in January 2012. However, Avast’s own releasenotes show that version 12.1 was shipped in June 2016. We have reached out to SentinelOne for further comment, and we’ll update the story once we hear back.
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.”
Google has officially released the first developer preview for the Privacy Sandbox on Android 13, offering an “early look” at the SDK Runtime and Topics API to boost users’ privacy online.
“The Privacy Sandbox on Android Developer Preview program will run over the course of 2022, with a beta release planned by the end of the year,” the search giant said in an overview.
A “multi-year effort,” Privacy Sandbox on Android aims to create technologies that’s both privacy-preserving as well as keep online content and services free without having to resort to opaque methods of digital advertising.
The idea is to limit sharing of user data with third-parties and operate without cross-app identifiers, including advertising ID, a unique, user-resettable string of letters and digits that can be used to track users as they move between apps.
Google originally announced its plans to bring Privacy Sandbox to Android earlier this February, following the footsteps of Apple’s App Tracking Transparency (ATT) framework.
Integral to the proposed initiative are two key solutions —
SDK Runtime, which runs third-party code in mobile apps such as software development kits (SDKs), including those for ads and analytics, in a dedicated sandbox, and
Topics API, which gleans “coarse-grained” interest signals on-device based on a user’s app usage that are then shared with advertisers to serve tailored ads without cross-site and cross-app tracking
To address criticisms that the model could possibly give Google an unfair advantage, the tech behemoth noted that the privacy-oriented systems will be developed as part of the Android Open Source Project (AOSP) to ensure transparency into the design and implementation of these solutions.
“Android will collaborate with the entire industry and app ecosystem on the journey to a more privacy-first mobile platform, and one which supports a rich diversity of value-exchange that benefits users, developers, and advertisers,” the company said.
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 disclosed an unpatched security vulnerability that could pose a serious risk to IoT products.
The issue, which was originally reported in September 2021, affects the Domain Name System (DNS) implementation of two popular C libraries called uClibc and uClibc-ng that are used for developing embedded Linux systems.
uClibc is known to be used by major vendors such as Linksys, Netgear, and Axis, as well as Linux distributions like Embedded Gentoo, potentially exposing millions of IoT devices to security threats.
“The flaw is caused by the predictability of transaction IDs included in the DNS requests generated by the library, which may allow attackers to perform DNS poisoning attacks against the target device,” Giannis Tsaraias and Andrea Palanca of Nozomi Networks said in a Monday write-up.
DNS poisoning, also referred to as DNS spoofing, is the technique of corrupting a DNS resolver cache — which provides clients with the IP address associated with a domain name — with the goal of redirecting users to malicious websites.
The vulnerability in uClibc and uClibc-ng is the result of having a predictable transaction ID assigned to each DNS lookup and their static use of source port 53, effectively defeating source port randomization protections.
Successful exploitation of the bug could allow an adversary to carry out Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) attacks and corrupt the DNS cache, effectively rerouting internet traffic to a server under their control.
Nozomi Networks cautioned that the vulnerability could be trivially exploited in a reliable manner should the operating system be configured to use a fixed or predictable source port.
“The attacker could then steal and/or manipulate information transmitted by users, and perform other attacks against those devices to completely compromise them,” the researchers 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.