The Internet of Things (IoT) is here, and we’re using it for everything from getting instant answers to random trivia questions to screening visitors at the door. According to Gartner, we were expected to use more than 25 billion internet-connected devices by the end of 2021. But as our digital lives have become more convenient, we might not yet have considered the risks involved with using IoT devices.
How can you keep yourself secure in today’s IoT world, where hackers aim to outsmart your smart home? First we’ll look at how hackers infiltrate the IoT, and then we’ll look at what you can do right now to make sure the IoT is working for you – not against you.
How hackers are infiltrating the Internet of Things
While we’ve become comfortable asking voice assistants to give us the weather forecast while we prep our dinners, hackers have been figuring out how to commandeer our IoT devices for cyber attacks. Here are just a few examples of how cyber criminals are already infiltrating the IoT.
Gaining access to and control of your camera
Have you ever seen someone with a sticker covering the camera on their laptop or smartphone? There’s a reason for that. Hackers have been known to gain access to these cameras and spy on people. This has become an even more serious problem in recent years, as people have been relying on videoconferencing to safely connect with friends and family, participate in virtual learning, and attend telehealth appointments during the pandemic. Cameras now often come with an indicator light that lets you know whether they’re being used. It’s a helpful protective measure, but not a failsafe one.
Using voice assistants to obtain sensitive information
According to Statista, 132 million Americans used a digital voice assistant once a month in 2021. Like any IoT gadget, however, they can be vulnerable to attack. According to Ars Technica, academic researchers have discovered that the Amazon Echo can be forced to take commands from itself, which opens the door to major mischief in a smart home. Once an attacker has compromised an Echo, they can use it to unlock doors, make phone calls and unauthorized purchases, and control any smart home appliances that the Echo manages.
Many bad actors prefer the quiet approach, however, slipping in undetected and stealing information. They can piggyback on a voice assistant’s privileged access to a victim’s online accounts or other IoT gadgets and make off with any sensitive information they desire. With the victim being none the wiser, the attackers can use that information to commit identity fraud or stage even more ambitious cyber crimes.
Hacking your network and launching a ransomware attack
Any device that is connected to the internet, whether it’s a smart security system or even a smart fridge, can be used in a cyber attack. Bad actors know that most people aren’t keeping their IoT gadgets’ software up to date in the same way they do their computers and smartphones, so they take advantage of that false sense of security. Once cyber criminals have gained access to an IoT device, they can go after other devices on the same network. (This is because most home networks are designed to trust devices that are already connected to them.) When these malicious actors are ready, they can launch a ransomware attack that brings your entire digital life to a halt – unless you agree to fork over a hefty sum in bitcoin, that is.
Using bots to launch a DDOS attack
Although most people never notice it, hackers can and do infect IoT devices with malware en masse, gaining control over them in the process. Having turned these zombie IoT devices into bots, the hackers then collectively use them to stage what’s called a botnet attack on their target of choice. This form of assault is especially popular for launching distributed denial of service (DDOS) attacks, in which all the bots in a botnet collectively flood a target with network requests until it buckles and goes offline.
How you can keep your Internet of Things gadgets safe from hackers
So how can you protect your IoT devices from these determined hackers? Fortunately, you can take back control by becoming just a little more cyber smart. Here are a few ways to keep your IoT gadgets safe from hackers:
Never use the default settings on your IoT devices. Although IoT devices are designed to be plug-and-play so you can start enjoying them right away, their default settings are often not nearly as secure as they should be. With that in mind, set up a unique username and strong password combination before you start using any new IoT technology. While you’re at it, see if there’s an option to encrypt the traffic to and from your IoT device. If there is, turn it on.
Keep your IoT software up to date. Chances are, you regularly install the latest software updates on your computer and phone. Hackers are counting on you to leave your IoT gadgets unpatched, running outdated software with vulnerabilities they can exploit, so be sure to keep the software on your IoT devices up to date as well.
Practice good password hygiene. We all slip into bad password habits from time to time – it’s only human – but they put our IoT security at risk. With this in mind, avoid re-using passwords and be sure to set unique, strong passwords on each of your IoT devices. Update those passwords from time to time, too. Don’t store your passwords in a browser, and don’t share them via email. A password manager can help you securely store and share your passwords, so hackers never have a chance to snatch them.
Use secure, password-protected WiFi. Cyber criminals are notorious for sneaking onto open, insecure WiFi networks. Once they’re connected, they can spy on any internet activity that happens over those networks, steal login credentials, and launch cyber attacks if they feel like it. For this reason, make sure that you and your IoT devices only use secure, password-protected WiFi.
Use multi-factor authentication as an extra layer of protection. Multi-factor authentication (MFA), gives you extra security on top of all the other measures we mentioned above. It asks you to provide one more credential, or factor, in addition to a password to confirm you are who you say you are. If you have MFA enabled and a hacker tries to log in as you, you’ll get a notification that a login attempt is in progress. Whenever you have the option to enable MFA on any account or technology, take advantage of it.
Protect your Internet of Things devices with smart password security
The IoT is making our lives incredibly convenient, but that convenience can be a little too seductive at times. It’s easy to forget that smart home devices, harmless-looking and helpful as they are, can be targeted in cyber attacks just like our computers and phones. Hackers are counting on you to leave your IoT gadgets unprotected so they can use them to launch damaging attacks. By following these smart IoT security tips, you can have the best of both worlds, enjoying your smart life and better peace of mind at the same time.
Learn how LastPass Premium helps you strengthen your password security.
QR codes link the offline to the online. What started as a way to streamline manufacturing in the automotive industry is now a widespread technology helping connect the physical world to digital content. And as the world embraced remote, no-touch solutions during the Covid pandemic, QR codes became especially popular. QR codes offer convenience and immediacy for businesses and consumers, but cybercriminals also take advantage of them. Here’s what you need to know about QR codes and how to stay safe when using them.
Why QR codes?
Due to their size and structure, the two-dimensional black and white barcodes we call QR codes are very versatile. And since most people carry a smartphone everywhere, they can quickly scan QR codes with their phone’s camera. Moreover, since QR codes are relatively easy to program and accessible for most smartphone users, they can be an effective communication tool.
They also have many uses. For example, QR codes may link to a webpage, start an app or file download, share contact information, initiate a payment, and more. Covid forced businesses to be creative with touchless experiences, and QR codes provide a convenient way to transform a physical touchpoint into a digital interaction. During Covid, QR codes became a popular way to look at restaurant menus, communicate Covid policies, check in for an appointment, and view marketing promotions, among other scenarios.
As a communication tool, QR codes can transmit a lot of information from one person to another, making it easy for someone to take action online and interact further with digital content.
What hackers do with QR codes
QR codes are inherently secure, and no personally identifiable information (PII) is transmitted while you’re scanning them. However, the tricky part about QR codes is that you don’t know what information they contain until you scan them. So just looking at the QR code won’t tell you if it’s entirely trustworthy or not.
For example, cybercriminals may try to replace or sticker over a QR code in a high-traffic, public place. Doing so can trick people into scanning a malicious QR code. Or, hackers might send malicious QR codes digitally by email, text, or social media. The QR code scam might target a specific individual, or cybercriminals may design it to attract as many scans as possible from a large number of people.
Once scanned, a malicious QR code may take you to a phishing website, lead you to install malware on your device, redirect a payment to the wrong account, or otherwise compromise the security of your private information.
In the same way that cybercriminals try to get victims to click phishing links in email or social media, they lure people into scanning a QR code. These bad actors may be after account credentials, financial information, PII, or even company information. With that information, they can steal your identity or money or even break into your employer’s network for more valuable information (in other words, causing a data breach).
Pay attention to context. Where is the code available? What does the code claim to do (e.g., will it send you to a landing page)? Is there someone you can ask to confirm the purpose of the QR code? Did someone send it unprompted? Is it from a business or individual you’ve never heard of? Just like with phishing links, throw it out when in doubt.
Look closely at the code. Some codes may have specific colors or branding to indicate the code’s purpose and destination. Many codes are generic black and white designs, but sometimes there are clues about who made the code.
Check the link before you click. If you scan the QR code and a link appears, double-check it before clicking. Is it a website URL you were expecting? Is it a shortened link that masks the full URL? Is the webpage secure (HTTPS)? Do you see signs of a phishing attack (branding is slightly off, strange URL, misspelled words, etc.)? If it autogenerates an email or text message, who is the recipient and what information is it sending them? If it’s a payment form, who is receiving the payment? Read carefully before taking action.
Practice password security. Passwords and account logins remain one of the top targets of cyber attacks. Stolen credentials give cybercriminals access to valuable personal and financial information. Generate every password for every account with a random password generator, ideally built into a password manager for secure storage and autofill. Following password best practices ensures one stolen password results in minimal damage.
Layer with MFA. Adding multi-factor authentication to logins further protects against phishing attacks that steal passwords. With MFA in place, a hacker still can’t access an account after using a stolen password. By requiring additional login data, MFA can prevent cybercriminals from gaining access to personal or business accounts.
QR codes remain a popular marketing and communication tool. They’re convenient and accessible, so you can expect to encounter them occasionally. Though cyber attacks via QR codes are less common, you should still stay vigilant for signs of phishing and social engineering via QR codes. To prevent and mitigate attacks via QR codes, start by building a solid foundation of digital security with a trusted password manager.
“Luck favors the prepared,” as the saying goes. The maxim is true in cyber security, too. We all know about data breaches. We know they’re alarmingly common; more common than ever, if you can believe it. We know they can be costly, time-consuming, and disruptive. And yet, what do we know of mentally and emotionally preparing for an attack to happen to us?
A cyber attack can have a tremendous negative psychological impact, the effects of which victims can feel for weeks and months. Understanding the emotions you might feel during and after an attack can help you better prepare for and handle a cyber attack if/when it happens to you. Here’s what you need to know about the potential psychological impact of cyber attacks and what to do in advance so you can deal with one calmly and rationally.
During a cyber attack
Cyber attacks can happen suddenly. For example, you might get a random text or email about new account activity or a changed password. A service might inform you of a money transfer you didn’t approve, a purchase you didn’t make, or an account change you weren’t expecting. Or the next time you try to log in to an account, you find yourself locked out. Or your data is suddenly gone and held hostage by a cyber-criminal demanding a ransom. Or you just hung up the phone with someone who claimed to be tech support, and now you’re watching someone else control your computer without your consent.
No matter how it happens, panic often sets in once you find yourself suffering a cyber attack. It’s common to feel intense fear; fear for what will happen to your money and your personal information and the unknown impact the attack will have on your life. You might panic about what to do, how to regain control, and how to get help. You might feel violated, like someone has invaded your personal space and upended your sense of safety. In some ways, a cyber attack can feel like the digital equivalent of being robbed, with a corresponding wave of anxiety and dread.
Anxiety, panic, fear, and frustration – even intense anger – are common emotional responses when experiencing a cyber attack. While expected, these emotions can paralyze you and prolong or worsen a cyber attack. The combination of not knowing what to do and being paralyzed with fear can keep you from taking quick, effective action against a cyber attack. Preparing in advance can help you move through these intense emotions and respond productively.
During an attack, your focus should be on regaining control of the situation. Do you still have access to the account/device under attack? Immediately change passwords, remove unauthorized locations, notify customer service, check all security settings and do everything you can to lock out access to any third parties while beefing up security (including enabling two-factor authentication). On a trusted device (e.g., not a compromised device), change passwords for other high-value accounts like email, banking/financial, and social media. A password manager can help you change passwords quickly to new, random ones. You need to act fast while staying focused on the actions most likely to stop or at least slow down an attack.
Immediately after an attack
At some point, the attack will be over. Either you shut down the attack or the attackers “win,” and you find yourself dealing with the aftermath. Regardless, the emotional and mental impact may continue. A cyber attack can leave you with tough questions despite the initial relief when the immediate threat is over.
Self-pity and rumination are typical responses in the immediate wake of an attack. Why me? Did I draw their attention? Did I make a mistake? Why was my data/money/account/device worth stealing? Could I have done something different to prevent it? What if I had done x or y? Are they going to strike again? And on and on. You might find yourself overthinking and overanalyzing everything leading up to the attack. You might obsess over your actions during the attack and criticize yourself excessively for what you did or didn’t do.
Again, all of the above are understandable responses to a cyber attack. But these negative emotions can drag you down. If you’re mentally stuck, you’ll struggle to clean up after the attack and prepare for future incidents.
After an attack, your focus should be on analyzing how the attack happened and closing those “gaps” in your cyber security. Scan your devices for malware and change passwords. Turn on two-factor authentication, remove unknown and unused apps/browser extensions/software/files, and review the security settings for important accounts like email and financials. If the cybercriminals stole money, you’d need to follow any options for recourse against theft. You might also need to cancel a card, close an account, or freeze your credit to prevent further abuse. In sum, your goal immediately after an attack is over should be to identify weaknesses in your online security and eliminate or minimize them to prevent further problems.
Long-term impact
Unfortunately, negative emotions can persist weeks and months after a cyber attack, especially when the attack results in the theft of data, money, or other personal property. You’ll likely feel embarrassed about what happened, maybe even ashamed. You may worry about what others think if they find out the details. Sometimes, workplace security mistakes can lead to loss of employment, which can devastate one’s mental and physical wellbeing.
Avoidance is common, too; if you feel uncomfortable thinking about the cyber attack, you might use your discomfort as an excuse to avoid improving your cyber security. Ignoring your feelings, though, can keep you from processing what happened and doing what you must to ensure it doesn’t happen again.
Will it happen again? Apprehension is understandable in the wake of a cyber attack. You’ve been through a roller coaster of emotions, and the attack has forever shattered your sense of digital safety. Anxiety and worry about future attacks are normal but use those feelings as motivation to improve your cyber security strategy. There is never a “done” when it comes to cyber security. Hackers are constantly evolving their methods, and your cyber security strategy needs to keep up.
How to minimize psychological distress
Whether or not you’ve been the victim of a cyber attack, there are things you can do to stop or minimize future attacks. Building a solid foundation of cyber security requires doing the basics well. It’s not hard, but it takes a little time and commitment to improving your digital practices. The good news is that once you make these changes, you’ll find they can improve your online experience and help you feel better prepared for cyber attacks.
Prioritize good password hygiene. Weak, reused, guessable passwords contribute to account takeovers and online theft. Replace passwords with generated ones that are genuinely random and strong enough to withstand cracking. Enable two-factor authentication wherever it’s available; some two-factor apps make it easier to log in to an account.
Safeguard accounts with a password manager. A password manager stores credentials for your online accounts, enters your info when you need to log in, and ensures every password is unique and random. It simplifies strong password security and takes the hassle out of logging in.
Keep a clean machine. Don’t click random links. Don’t download strange attachments. Don’t install unverified apps and extensions. Don’t give strangers your login information, SSN, or other data. Don’t answer the phone for “tech support” – no tech support or police department or bank will ever call you to deal with a “security issue” or “software problem.”
Stay cyber aware. Watch for suspicious online account activity and take action at the first sign of something strange. Turn on account alerts to your phone or email. Enable dark web monitoring and follow up immediately on publicized data breaches. Know the signs of phishing and social engineering attacks, and scrutinize every text/email/phone call/social media message for signs of fraud.
Seek support and professional advice. You don’t have to suffer alone. Like other traumatic life events, a therapist or other qualified mental health professional can help you process after you’re the victim of cybercrime. When necessary, digital forensics and information security professionals can also help investigate and resolve a digital crime. Don’t hesitate to seek personal and professional support when needed.
Cybercriminals like to go after easy targets. Building a solid foundation with cyber security basics can prevent cyber attacks by making it too difficult or costly for criminals to go after your accounts. It can also buy you time to react immediately when an attack starts.
Cyber attacks can cause intense, paralyzing emotions. The more you educate yourself and prepare in advance, the more likely you are to work around those emotions during and after an attack. Don’t just assume you’ll deal with it and figure everything out in the moment. Do the work now to prepare so you’re not overwhelmed mentally by a cyber attack. Getting started with a password manager will help you build stronger, more effective online security habits. When you feel confident handling a cybersecurity incident, you’ll minimize the psychological impact of these scary events and more effectively navigate the challenges they can bring.
With its new SonicWave 641 and SonicWave 681 access points, SonicWall has combined the security and performance benefits of Wi-Fi 6 with our simplified management and industry-leading TCO.
Organizations are evolving — some more quickly, others more reluctantly. But over the past three years, the pace of change for everyone has accelerated to hyperspeed.
In early 2020, very few people could have foreseen the changes that were about to be unleashed on the world. And even fewer could have successfully predicted the long-term impact that COVID-19 would have on the way the world’s eight billion people live and work.
Prior to the pandemic, only about 2% of employees worked remotely. By May 2020, that number had risen to 70%, according to the Society for Human Resource Management. This pivot was possible because organizations were able to adjust their infrastructure to meet new working demands — and wireless technology played an important part in this solution.
The importance of wireless technology goes far beyond simply enabling employees to work remotely. According to a study, 87% of organizations believe that adopting advanced wireless capabilities can be a competitive advantage, because it allows them to innovate and increase agility. And 86% of networking executives believe advanced wireless will soon transform their organization.
But wireless technology impacts more than just how we work: It has changed the way we shop, watch movies, listen to music, navigate in our cars, or spend time with family and friends (some of whom may be a half a world away). And every one of us expects a good experience every single time we use wireless. That’s a tall order, especially given the sheer number of existing devices and the ever-growing amount of bandwidth being consumed.
The need for high-performing, secure wireless technology has never been greater — and Wi-Fi 6 is a massive next step toward this reality. SonicWall’s SonicWave 641 and SonicWave 681 access points provide the combination of performance and security that we all demand.
What is Wi-Fi 6?
Wi-Fi 6, also known as 802.11ax, is the successor to 802.11ac Wave 2, or Wi-Fi 5. While the primary goal of Wi-Fi 6 is to enhance throughput in complex environments, there are additional benefits:
OFDMA’s multi-user support can make Wi-Fi 6 access points more efficient than Wi-Fi 5’s single-user OFDM. This results in lower latency.
Wi-Fi 6 utilizes WPA3, which provides advanced security features to enable more robust authentication.
BSS coloring marks traffic on a shared frequency to determine if it can be used. The result is less interference and more consistent service in complex environments.
Target Wake Time (TWT) allows devices to determine how often to wake to send or receive data, improving battery life.
Wi-Fi 6’s multi-user, multiple input, multiple output (or MU-MIMO) supports multiple users within a single network environment. This allows multiple users to upload and download data at the same time, resulting in less wait time and faster network speed.
Some of these features are designed to improve performance, while some are designed to improve security. Any one of them can make a positive difference in an organization’s wireless network. Combined, however, the feature improvements provided by Wi-Fi 6 can create a significant wireless network advancement for any organization.
SonicWave 641 and SonicWave 681
SonicWall’s SonicWave 641 and SonicWave 681 are Wi-Fi 6 access points that deliver wireless performance and security that are superior to the 802.11ac standard.
But there are additional benefits available with the SonicWave 641 and SonicWave 681, such as SonicWall Capture Security Center, a scalable cloud security management system that helps you control assets and defend your entire network against cyberattacks.
SonicWave 600 series APs also integrate with Wireless Network Manager, an intuitive centralized network management system that leverages the cloud to make it easy to manage complex wireless and security environments with a single-pane-of-glass management portal.
WiFi Planner is a site-survey tool that allows you to optimally design and deploy a wireless network to get maximum coverage with the fewest number of APs, resulting in a lower TCO.
And the SonicExpress mobile app allows you to easily register and use the Wireless Network Manager to set up, manage and monitor SonicWall wireless appliances.
A strong wireless network is not a “nice to have” — it’s a necessity. What today’s organizations require is the high performance and security of the SonicWave 641 and SonicWave 681 access points.
To learn more about the SonicWave 641 and SonicWave 681 access points, as well as SonicWall’s entire wireless portfolio, visit www.sonicwall.com/wireless.
The U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) on Monday added a security flaw impacting Palo Alto Networks PAN-OS to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities Catalog, based on evidence of active exploitation.
The high-severity vulnerability, tracked as CVE-2022-0028 (CVSS score: 8.6), is a URL filtering policy misconfiguration that could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to carry out reflected and amplified TCP denial-of-service (DoS) attacks.
“If exploited, this issue would not impact the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of our products,” Palo Alto Networks said in an alert. “However, the resulting denial-of-service (DoS) attack may help obfuscate the identity of the attacker and implicate the firewall as the source of the attack.
The weakness impacts the following product versions and has been addressed as part of updates released this month –
PAN-OS 10.2 (version < 10.2.2-h2)
PAN-OS 10.1 (version < 10.1.6-h6)
PAN-OS 10.0 (version < 10.0.11-h1)
PAN-OS 9.1 (version < 9.1.14-h4)
PAN-OS 9.0 (version < 9.0.16-h3), and
PAN-OS 8.1 (version < 8.1.23-h1)
The networking equipment maker said it discovered the vulnerability after being notified that susceptible firewall appliances from different vendors, including Palo Alto Networks, were being used as part of an attempted reflected denial-of-service (RDoS) attack.
In light of active exploitation, customers of affected products are advised to apply the relevant patches to mitigate potential threats. Federal Civilian Executive Branch (FCEB) agencies are mandated to update to the latest version by September 12, 2022.
It’s not uncommon for users to experience “DDoS Protection” pages when casually browsing the web. These DDoS protection pages are typically associated with browser checks performed by WAF/CDN services which verify if the site visitor is, in fact, a human or is part of a Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack or other unwanted bot.
Under normal circumstances, DDoS pages usually don’t affect users much — they simply perform a check or request a skill testing question in order to proceed to the desired webpage. However, a recent surge in JavaScript injections targeting WordPress sites has resulted in fake DDoS prevent prompts which lead victims to download remote access trojan malware.
Bots prompt usage of DDoS protection
The web is absolutely rife with bots and crawlers. There are varying estimates of how much total web traffic are bots but most put it at anywhere between 25-45% of all traffic!
Bots themselves are automated queries to websites done by computer programs. Some bots are good and actually essential for the functioning of the web as we know it today. These include crawlers such as GoogleBot, BingBot, and Baidu Spider which scan and index content from webpages so that they can be discovered during search.
Bad bots, on the other hand, make up an even greater portion of web traffic. These include DDoS traffic, scrapers gobbling up emails addresses to send spam, bots attempting to find vulnerable websites to compromise, content stealers, and more.
Furthermore, bots eat up bandwidth on websites, causing increased hosting costs and disruption of meaningful website visitor statistics. The gradual increase of bad bot traffic has prompted many websites to deter or otherwise block them entirely, resulting in the nearly ubiquitous usage of DDoS prevention services and CAPTCHAs on websites.
CAPTCHA for human verification
Although a nuisance, these browser verification checks are essential to deterring unwanted and malicious traffic from legitimate websites.
Fake DDoS protection prompts used to serve RATs
Unfortunately, attackers have begun leveraging these familiar security assets in their own malware campaigns. We recently discovered a malicious JavaScript injection affecting WordPress websites which results in a fake CloudFlare DDoS protection popup.
Fake DDoS protection prompt
Since these types of browser checks are so common on the web many users wouldn’t think twice before clicking this prompt to access the website they’re trying to visit. However, the prompt actually downloads a malicious .iso file onto the victim’s computer.
Malicious .iso downloaded from fake DDoS prompt
This is followed by a new message coaxing the user into opening the file in order to obtain a verification code to access the website:
Verification code requestThe .iso file does in fact contain a verification code so as to not disrupt the ruse
What most users do not realise is that this file is in fact a remote access trojan, currently flagged by 13 security vendors at the time of writing this article.
The VirusTotal report for this malicious file
We reached out to our good friend Jerome Segura at MalwareBytes to see what happens to unfortunate victims’ Windows computers when they install this malware onto their endpoint devices:
“This is NetSupport RAT. It has been linked to FakeUpdates/SocGholish and typically used to check victims before ransomware rollout. The ISO file contains a shortcut disguised as an executable that runs powershell from another text file.
It also installs RaccoonStealer and drops the following payloads:
After that, just about anything can happen depending on the victim.”
– Jerome Segura
Screenshot courtesy of Jerome Segura
The infected computer could be used to pilfer social media or banking credentials, detonate ransomware, or even entrap the victim into a nefarious “slave” network, extort the computer owner, and violate their privacy — all depending on what the attackers decide to do with the compromised device.
A look at the malware itself
When malicious actors aim to infect endpoint devices they need a distribution network. Quite often this takes form in malicious or phishing emails sent to potential victim’s inboxes. In this case, however, the remote access trojans are distributed through hacked WordPress websites.
So, how does this WordPress malware actually work and what does it look like?
Most prominently we see three short lines of malicious code affecting the following file: ./wp-includes/js/jquery/jquery.min.js
Malicious code found in jquery.min.js
We have also seen instances of this very same malware injected into the active theme file of the victim’s WordPress website. In any event, the files it is appended onto will load once the site is opened up in the browser, prompting the download of the malicious remote access trojan.
Located at adogeevent[.]com is a heavily obfuscated JavaScript sample containing the payload:
This JavaScript then communicates with a second malicious domain which loads more JavaScript that initiates the download prompt for the malicious .iso file: hxxps://confirmation-process[.]at/fortest/parsez[.]php?base=www.REDACTED.com&full=https://www.REDACTED.com/?v11
We can see the reference to the security_install.iso file here (hosted at a free Austrian file sharing service free[.]files[.]cnow[.]at), as well as a second malicious .msi file which also contains malware — although, in this case, it is commented out:
How to protect your site from infection
This case is a great example of both the importance of website security — and the importance of remaining vigilant when browsing the web. It’s not just SEO rankings or website reputations that are on the line, but the very security and privacy of everyone who visits your website. Malicious actors will take whatever avenues are available to them to compromise computers and push their malware onto unsuspecting victims.
Remote Access Trojans (RATs) are regarded as one of the worst types of infections that can affect a computer as it gives the attackers full control over the device. At that point, the victim is at their mercy. Website owners and visitors alike must take any and all precautions to protect themselves.
Here are a number of key steps you can take to mitigate risk from this infection.
Password-protected ZIP archives are common means of compressing and sharing sets of files—from sensitive documents to malware samples to even malicious files (i.e. phishing “invoices” in emails).
But, did you know it is possible for an encrypted ZIP file to have two correct passwords, with both producing the same outcome when the ZIP is extracted?
A ZIP file with two passwords
Arseniy Sharoglazov, a cybersecurity researcher at Positive Technologies shared over the weekend a simple experiment where he produced a password-protected ZIP file called x.zip.
The password Sharoglazov picked for encrypting his ZIP was a pun on the 1987 hit that’s become a popular tech meme:
But the researcher demonstrated that when extracting x.zip using a completely different password, he received no error messages.
In fact, using the different password resulted in successful extraction of the ZIP, with original contents intact:
pkH8a0AqNbHcdw8GrmSp
Two different passwords for same ZIP file result in successful extraction (Sharoglazov)
BleepingComputer was able to successfully reproduce the experiment using different ZIP programs. We used both p7zip (7-Zip equivalent for macOS) and another ZIP utility called Keka.
Like the researcher’s ZIP archive, ours was created with the aforementioned longer password, and with AES-256 encryption mode enabled.
While the ZIP was encrypted with the longer password, using either password extracted the archive successfully.
How’s this possible?
Responding to Sharoglazov’s demo, a curious reader, Rafaraised an important question, “How????”
Twitter user Unblvr seems to have figured out the mystery:
When producing password-protected ZIP archives with AES-256 mode enabled, the ZIP format uses the PBKDF2 algorithm and hashes the password provided by the user, if the password is too long. By too long, we mean longer than 64 bytes (characters), explains the researcher.
Instead of the user’s chosen password (in this case “Nev1r-G0nna-G2ve-…”) this newly calculated hash becomes the actual password to the file.
When the user attempts to extract the file, and enters a password that is longer than 64 bytes (“Nev1r-G0nna-G2ve-… “), the user’s input will once again be hashed by the ZIP application and compared against the correct password (which is now itself a hash). A match would lead to a successful file extraction.
The alternative password used in this example (“pkH8a0AqNbHcdw8GrmSp“) is in fact ASCII representation of the longer password’s SHA-1 hash.
SHA-1 checksum of “Nev1r-G0nna-G2ve-…” = 706b4838613041714e62486364773847726d5370.
This checksum when converted to ASCII produces: pkH8a0AqNbHcdw8GrmSp
Note, however, that when encrypting or decrypting a file, the hashing process only occurs if the length of the password is greater than 64 characters.
In other words, shorter passwords will not be hashed at either stage of compressing or decompressing the ZIP.
This is why when picking the long “Nev1r-G0nna-G2ve-… ” string as the password at the encryption stage, the actual password being set by the ZIP program is effectively the (SHA1) hash of this string.
At the decryption stage, if you were to enter “Nev1r-G0nna-G2ve-…,” it will be hashed and compared against the previously stored password (which is the SHA1 hash). However, entering the shorter “pkH8a0AqNbHcdw8GrmSp” password at the decryption stage will have the application directly compare this value to the stored password (which is, again the SHA1 hash).
The HMAC collisions subsection of PBKDF2 on Wikipedia provides some more technical insight to interested readers.
“PBKDF2 has an interesting property when using HMAC as its pseudo-random function. It is possible to trivially construct any number of different password pairs with collisions within each pair,” notes the entry.
“If a supplied password is longer than the block size of the underlying HMAC hash function, the password is first pre-hashed into a digest, and that digest is instead used as the password.”
But, the fact that there are now two possible passwords to the same ZIP does not represent a security vulnerability, “as one still must know the original password in order to generate the hash of the password,” the entry further explains.
Arriving at a perfect password
An interesting key aspect to note here is, ASCII representations of every SHA-1 hash need not be alphanumeric.
In other words, let’s assume we had chosen the following password for our ZIP file during this experiment. The password is longer than 64 bytes:
It’s SHA-1 checksum comes out to be: bd0b8c7ab2bf5934574474fb403e3c0a7e789b61
And the ASCII representation of this checksum looks like a gibberish set of bytes—not nearly elegant as the alternative password generated by the researcher for his experiment:
ASCII representation of SHA-1 hash of Bl33pingC0mputer… password
BleepingComputer asked Sharoglazov how was he able to pick a password whose SHA-1 checksum would be such that its ASCII representation yields a clean, alphanumeric string.
“That’s why hashcat was used,” the researcher tells BleepingComputer.
By using a slightly modified version of the open source password recovery tool, hashcat, the researcher generated variations of the “Never Gonna Give You Up…” string using alphanumeric characters until he arrived at a perfect password.
“I tested Nev0r, Nev1r, Nev2r and so on… And I found the password I need.”
And, that’s how Sharoglazov arrived at a password that roughly reads like “Never Gonna Give You Up…,” but the ASCII representation of its SHA-1 checksum is one neat alphanumeric string.
For most users, creating a password-protected ZIP file with a choice of their password should be sufficient and that is all they would need to know.
But should you decide to get adventurous, this experiment provides a peek into one of the many mysteries surrounding encrypted ZIPs, like having two passwords to your guarded secret.
Before COVID-19, most corporate employees worked in offices, using computers connected to the internal network. Once users connected to these internal networks, they typically had access to all the data and applications without many restrictions. Network architects designed flat internal networks where the devices in the network connected with each other directly or through a router or a switch.
But while flat networks are fast to implement and have fewer bottlenecks, they’re extremely vulnerable — once compromised, attackers are free to move laterally across the internal network.
Designing flat networks at a time when all the trusted users were on the internal networks might have been simpler and more efficient. But times have changed: Today, 55% of those surveyed say they work more hours remotely than at the physical office. Due to the rapid evolution of the way we work, corporations must now contend with:
Multiple network perimeters at headquarters, in remote offices and in the cloud
Applications and data scattered across different cloud platforms and data centers
Users who expect the same level of access to internal networks while working remotely
While this is a complex set of issues, there is a solution. Network segmentation, when implemented properly, can unflatten the network, allowing security admins to compartmentalize internal networks and provide granular user access.
What is network segmentation?
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) offers the following definition for network segmentation: “Splitting a network into sub-networks; for example, by creating separate areas on the network which are protected by firewalls configured to reject unnecessary traffic. Network segmentation minimizes the harm of malware and other threats by isolating it to a limited part of the network.”
The main principle of segmentation is making sure that each segment is protected from the other, so that if a breach does occur, it is limited to only a portion of the network. Segmentation should be applied to all entities in the IT environment, including users, workloads, physical servers, virtual machines, containers, network devices and endpoints.
Connections between these entities should be allowed only after their identities have been verified and proper access rights have been established. The approach of segmenting with granular and dynamic access is also known as Zero Trust Network Access (ZTNA).
As shown in Figure 1, instead of a network with a single perimeter, inside which entities across the network are freely accessible, a segmented network environment features smaller network zones with firewalls separating them.
Achieving network segmentation
Implementing segmentation may seem complex, and figuring out the right place to start might seem intimidating. But by following these steps, it can be achieved rather painlessly.
1. Understand and Visualize
Network admins need to map all the subnets and virtual local area networks (VLANs) on the corporate networks. Visualizing the current environment provides a lot of value right away in understanding both how to and what to segment.
At this step, network and security teams also need to work together to see where security devices such as firewalls, IPS and network access controls are deployed in the corporate network. An accurate map of the network and a complete inventory of security systems will help tremendously in creating efficient segments.
2. Segment and Create Policies
The next step in the process is to create the segments themselves: Large subnets or zones should be segmented, monitored and protected with granular access policies. Segments can be configured based on a variety of categories, including geo-location, corporate departments, server farms, data centers and cloud platforms.
After defining segments, create security policies and access-control rules between those segments. These polices can be created and managed using firewalls, VLANs or secure mobile access devices. In most cases, security admins can simply use existing firewalls or secure mobile access solutions to segment and create granular policies. It’s best for administrators to ensure that segments and policies are aligned with business processes.
3. Monitor and Enforce Policies
After creating segments and policies, take some time to monitor the traffic patterns between those segments. The first time the security policies are enforced, it may cause disruption to regular business functions. So it’s best to apply policies in non-blocking or alert mode and monitor for false positives or other network errors.
Next, it’s the time to enforce policies. Once the individual policies are pushed, each segment is protected from cyber attackers’ lateral movements and from internal users trying to reach resources they are not authorized to use. It’s a good idea to continuously monitor and apply new policies as needed whenever there are changes to networks, applications or user roles.
Policy-based segmentation: A way forward for distributed networks
What today’s enterprises require is a way to deliver granular policy enforcement to multiple segments within the network. Through segmentation, companies can protect critical digital assets against any lateral attacks and provide secure access to remote workforces.
The good news is that, with the power and flexibility of a next-generation firewall (NGFW) and with other technologies such as secure mobile access and ZTNA solutions, enterprises can safeguard today’s distributed networks by enforcing policy-based segmentation.
SonicWall’s award-winning hardware and advanced technologies include NGFWs, Secure Mobile Access and Cloud Edge Secure Access. These solutions are designed to allow any network— from small businesses to large enterprises, from the datacenter to the cloud — to segment and achieve greater protection with SonicWall.
TA558 is a likely financially motivated small crime threat actor targeting hospitality, hotel, and travel organizations.
Since 2018, this group has used consistent tactics, techniques, and procedures to attempt to install a variety of malware including Loda RAT, Vjw0rm, and Revenge RAT.
TA558’s targeting focus is mainly on Portuguese and Spanish speakers, typically located in the Latin America region, with additional targeting observed in Western Europe and North America.
TA558 increased operational tempo in 2022 to a higher average than previously observed.
Like other threat actors in 2022, TA558 pivoted away from using macro-enabled documents in campaigns and adopted new tactics, techniques, and procedures.
Overview
Since 2018, Proofpoint has tracked a financially-motivated cybercrime actor, TA558, targeting hospitality, travel, and related industries located in Latin America and sometimes North America, and western Europe. The actor sends malicious emails written in Portuguese, Spanish, and sometimes English. The emails use reservation-themed lures with business-relevant themes such as hotel room bookings. The emails may contain malicious attachments or URLs aiming to distribute one of at least 15 different malware payloads, typically remote access trojans (RATs), that can enable reconnaissance, data theft, and distribution of follow-on payloads.
Proofpoint tracked this actor based on a variety of email artifacts, delivery and installation techniques, command and control (C2) infrastructure, payload domains, and other infrastructure.
In 2022, Proofpoint observed an increase in activity compared to previous years. Additionally, TA558 shifted tactics and began using URLs and container files to distribute malware, likely in response to Microsoft announcing it would begin blocking VBA macros downloaded from the internet by default.
TA558 has some overlap with activity reported by Palo Alto Networks in 2018, Cisco Talos in 2020 and 2021, Uptycs in 2020, and HP in 2022. This report is the first comprehensive, public report on TA558, detailing activity conducted over four years that is still ongoing. The information used in the creation of this report is based on email campaigns, which are manually contextualized, and analyst enriched descriptions of automatically condemned threats.
Campaign Details and Activity Timeline
2018
Proofpoint first observed TA558 in April 2018. These early campaigns typically used malicious Word attachments that exploited Equation Editor vulnerabilities (e.g. CVE-2017-11882) or remote template URLs to download and install malware. Two of the most common malware payloads included Loda and Revenge RAT. Campaigns were conducted exclusively in Spanish and Portuguese and targeted the hospitality and related industries, with “reserva” (Portuguese word for “reservation”) themes. Example campaign:
The documents leveraged remote template URLs to download an additional RTF document, which then downloaded and installed Revenge RAT. Interestingly, the term “CDT” is in the document metadata and in the URL. This term, which may refer to a travel organization, appears throughout TA558 campaigns from 2018 to present.
In 2019, this actor continued to leverage emails with Word documents that exploited Equation Editor vulnerabilities (e.g. CVE-2017-11882) to download and install malware. TA558 also began using macro-laden PowerPoint attachments and template injection with Office documents. This group expanded their malware arsenal to include Loda, vjw0rm, Revenge RAT, and others. In 2019, the group began occasionally expanding targeting outside of the hospitality and tourism verticals to include business services and manufacturing. Example campaign:
Figure 3: Example TA558 Microsoft Word attachment from 2019
The documents leveraged a remote template relationship URL to download an additional RTF document. The RTF document (Author: obidah qudah, Operator: Richard) exploited the CVE-2017-11882 vulnerability to retrieve and execute an MSI file. Upon execution, the MSI file extracted and ran Loda malware.
In December 2019, Proofpoint analysts observed TA558 begin to send English-language lures relating to room bookings in addition to Portuguese and Spanish.
2020
In 2020, TA558 stopped using Equation Editor exploits and began distributing malicious Office documents with macros, typically VBA macros, to download and install malware. This group continued to use a variety of malware payloads including the addition of njRAT and Ozone RAT.
Hotel, hospitality, and travel organization targeting continued. Although the actor slightly increased its English-language operational tempo throughout 2020, most of the lures featured Portuguese and Spanish reservation requests. An example of a common attack chain in 2020:
The message contained a PowerPoint attachment that used template injection techniques and VBA macros which, if enabled, executed a PowerShell script to download a VBS payload from an actor-controlled domain. The VBS script in turn downloaded and executed Revenge RAT.
Figure 5: 2020 attack path example
TA558 was more active in 2020 than previous years and 2021, with 74 campaigns identified. 2018, 2019, and 2021 had 9, 70, and 18 total campaigns, respectively. So far in 2022, Proofpoint analysts have observed 51 TA558 campaigns.
Figure 6: Total number of TA558 campaigns over time
2021
In 2021, this actor continued to leverage emails with Office documents containing macros or Office exploits (e.g. CVE-2017-8570) to download and install malware. Its most consistently used malware payloads included vjw0rm, njRAT, Revenge RAT, Loda, and AsyncRAT.
Additionally, this group started to include more elaborate attack chains in 2021. For example, introducing more helper scripts and delivery mechanisms such as embedded Office documents within MSG files.
In this example 2021 campaign, emails purported to be, e.g.:
Emails masqueraded as Unimed, a Brazilian medical work cooperative and health insurance operator. These messages contained Microsoft Word attachments with macros which, if enabled, invoked a series of scripts to ultimately download and execute AsyncRAT.
Figure 7: Example TA558 email from 2021
Of note is the repeat use of the string “CDT” contained the replyto email address and C2 domain names.
AsyncRAT C2 domains:
warzonecdt[.]duckdns[.]org
cdt2021.zapto[.]org
Example PowerShell execution to download and execute AsyncRAT:
This was the actor’s least active year. Proofpoint observed just 18 campaigns conducted by TA558 in 2021.
2022
In 2022, campaign tempo increased significantly. Campaigns delivered a mixture of malware such as, Loda, Revenge RAT, and AsyncRAT. This actor used a variety of delivery mechanisms including URLs, RAR attachments, ISO attachments, and Office documents.
TA558 followed the trend of many threat actors in 2022 and began using container files such as RAR and ISO attachments instead of macro-enabled Office documents. This is likely due to Microsoft’s announcements in late 2021 and early 2022 about disabling macros by default in Office products, which caused a shift across the threat landscape of actors adopting new filetypes to deliver payloads.
Additionally, TA558 began using URLs more frequently in 2022. TA558 conducted 27 campaigns with URLs in 2022, compared to just five campaigns total from 2018 through 2021. Typically, URLs led to container files such as ISOs or zip files containing executables.
Figure 8: Campaigns using specific threat types over time
For example, this 2022 Spanish language campaign featured URLs leading to container files. Messages purported to be, e.g.:
The URL purported to be a legitimate 155 Hotel reservation link that led to an ISO file and an embedded batch file. The execution of the BAT file led to a PowerShell helper script that downloaded a follow-on payload, AsyncRAT.
Similar to earlier campaigns, persistence was achieved via a scheduled task:
In April 2022 Proofpoint researchers spotted a divergence from the typical email lure. One of the campaigns included a QuickBooks invoice email lure. Additionally, this campaign included the distribution of RevengeRAT which had not been observed in use by TA558 since December 2020. Messages purported to be:
From: Intuit QuickBooks Team <quickbooks@unimed-corporated.com>
The emails contained Excel attachments with macros that downloaded helper scripts via PowerShell and MSHTA. The execution of helper scripts ultimately led to the installation of RevengeRAT. Proofpoint has not seen this theme since April, and it is unclear why TA558 temporarily pivoted away from reservations themes.
Malware Use
Since 2018, TA558 has used at least 15 different malware families, sometimes with overlapping command and control (C2) domains. The most frequently observed payloads include Loda, Vjw0rm, AsyncRAT, and Revenge RAT.
Figure 10: Number of TA558 campaigns by malware type over time
Typically, TA558 uses attacker owned and operated infrastructure. However, Proofpoint has observed TA558 leverage compromised hotel websites to host malware payloads, thus adding legitimacy to its malware delivery and C2 traffic.
Language Use
Since Proofpoint began tracking TA558 through 2022, over 90% of campaigns were conducted in Portuguese or Spanish, with four percent featuring multiple language lure samples in English, Spanish, or Portuguese.
Figure 11: Campaign totals by language since 2018
Interestingly, the threat actor often switches languages in the same week. Proofpoint researchers have observed this actor send, for example, a campaign in English and the following day another campaign in Portuguese. Individual targeting typically differs based on campaign language.
Notable Campaign Artifacts
In addition to the consistent lure themes, targeting, message content, and malware payloads, Proofpoint researchers observed TA558 using multiple notable patterns in campaign data including the use of certain strings, naming conventions and keywords, domains, etc. For example, the actor appears to repeat the term CDT in email and malware attributes. This may relate to the CDT Travel organization and related travel reservation lure themes. Proofpoint researchers observed TA558 use the CDT term in dozens of campaigns since 2018, in C2 domains, replyto email addresses, payload URLs, scheduled task name, and Microsoft Office document metadata (i.e., Author, Last Saved By), and Microsoft Office macro language.
Throughout many of the 2019 and 2020 campaigns the threat actor used various URLs from the domain sslblindado[.]com to download either helper scripts or malware payloads. Some examples include:
microsofft[.]sslblindado[.]com
passagensv[.]sslblindado[.]com
system11[.]sslblindado[.]com
Like other threat actors, this group sometimes mimics technology service names to appear legitimate. For example, using terms in payload URLs or C2 domain names. Some examples include:
microsofft[.]sslblindado[.]com
firefoxsystem[.]sytes[.]net
googledrives[.]ddns[.]net
Another interesting pattern observed were common strings like “success” and “pitbull”. In several campaigns Proofpoint researchers spotted these strings in C2 domains. Some examples include:
successfully[.]hopto[.]org
success20[.]hopto[.]org
4success[.]zapto[.]org
From 2019 through 2020, TA558 conducted 10 campaigns used the keyword “Maringa” or “Maaringa” in payload URLs or email senders. Maringa is a city in Brazil. Examples include:
maringareservas[.]com[.]br/seila[.]rtf
maringa[.]turismo@system11[.]com[.]br
Possible Objectives
Proofpoint has not observed post-compromise activity from TA558. Based on the observed payloads, victimology, and campaign and message volume, Proofpoint assesses with medium to high confidence that this is a financially motivated cybercriminal actor.
The malware used by TA558 can steal data including hotel customer user and credit card data, allow lateral movement, and deliver follow-on payloads.
Open-source reporting provides insight into one possible threat actor objective. In July, CNN Portugal reported a Portuguese hotel’s website was compromised, and the actor was able to modify the website and direct customers to a fake reservation page. The actor stole funds from potential customers by posing as the compromised hotel. Although Proofpoint does not associate the identified activity with TA558, it provides an example of possible follow-on activity and the impacts to both target organizations and their customers if an actor is able to compromise hotel or transportation entities.
Conclusion
TA558 is an active threat actor targeting hospitality, travel, and related industries since 2018. Activity conducted by this actor could lead to data theft of both corporate and customer data, as well as potential financial losses.
Organizations, especially those operating in targeted sectors in Latin America, North America, and Western Europe should be aware of this actor’s tactics, techniques, and procedures.
Indicators of Compromise (IOCs)
The following IOCs represent a sample of indicators observed by Proofpoint researchers associated with TA558.
As we continue to monitor the cyber situation in Ukraine, the data we are seeing shows some interesting trends. Not only has the volume of attacks continued rising throughout the conflict in Ukraine, the types of attacks have been varied. A common tactic of cyber criminals is to run automated exploit attempts, hitting as many possible targets as they can to see what gets a result. The data we have analyzed shows that this tactic is being used against Ukrainian websites. This is in contrast to a targeted approach where threat actors go after specific individuals or organizations, using gathered intelligence to make at least an educated guess at the type of vulnerabilities that may be exploitable.
Data Shows a Variety of Attack Types
In the past 30 days, we have seen 16 attack types that triggered more than 85 different firewall rules across protected websites with .ua top-level domains. These rules blocked more than 9.8 million attack attempts on these websites, with the top five attack types accounting for more than 9.7 million of those attempts.
In order to demonstrate the top five attack types, we are going to follow a single threat actor who has been observed attempting each of these attack types throughout the last 30 days. Combining the originating IP addresses associated with the attack attempts with the user-agent that was used and other commonalities, we can say with a high degree of certainty that the demonstrated attack attempts were work of the same threat actor.
Known Malicious IP Addresses
The largest category of blocked attack attempts were due to use of a known malicious IP address. These IP addresses are maintained by the Wordfence blocklist, with new addresses added when they become maliciously engaged, and removed when they are no longer being used maliciously. When we see activity from an IP address on the blocklist, it is immediately blocked, however we do track the request that was received from the attacking server.
The top IP addresses we have blocked using known malicious IP addresses were often seen attempting to upload spam content to websites, however it was also common to see file upload and information disclosure attempts as well. Here we see a simple POST request that uses URL encoding along with base64 encoding to obfuscate a command to be run.
The decoded payload will simply display XO_Sp3ctra to alert the malicious actor that the affected system will allow commands to be run by them.
When we look at the top known malicious IP addresses blocked worldwide, the top 15 are IP addresses within Russia. This does not match what we are seeing in the Ukraine, where the top attacking IP addresses vary in location across North America, Europe, and Asia, with only three in Russia. However, there is a similarity. The IP address in 15th position worldwide for most initiated exploit attempts is in 4th position for blocked attacks against .ua domains. The IP address, 152.89.196.102, is part of an ASN belonging to Chang Way Technologies Co. Limited. The IP itself is located in Russia, but assigned to a company named Starcrecium Limited, which is based in Cyprus and has been used to conduct attacks of this type in the past. This IP has been blocked 78,438 times on .ua websites, with a total of 3,803,734 blocked attack attempts worldwide.
When you consider the fact that we logged malicious activity from almost 2.1 million individual IP addresses in this time, and the 15th worldwide ranked IP was ranked 4th against an area as small as Ukraine, the number of blocked attacks becomes very significant. Additionally, there were three IP addresses that ranked higher in Ukraine, but did not even make the top 20 worldwide, showing that while there are threat actors who are not focusing heavily on Ukraine, others are very focused on Ukrainian websites. What we are seeing from the IP addresses targeting Ukrainian websites more heavily is similar to what we see here, with information gathering and uploading spam content being the two main goals of the attack attempts.
One thing to keep in mind here is the fact that all .ua sites get our real-time threat intelligence, which is typically reserved for Wordfence Premium, Care, and Response customers, so it is not possible to get a true comparison between the websites in Ukraine and the rest of the world. IP addresses are added to the blocklist for many reasons, including the attack types we outlined above. Often these addresses are blocked for simple malicious behavior, such as searching for the existence of specific files on a website. More complex behavior like searching for the ability to run commands on the server will also lead to an IP being added to the blocklist.
Known Malicious User-Agents
One way that we block attacks is by tracking known malicious user-agents. This was the second-largest category our firewall blocked on .ua domains. When we see a user-agent string that is consistently being used in malicious events, like the user-agent below, we add it to a firewall rule.
User-agent strings can be set to an arbitrary value, so blocking user-agents is not sufficient to maintain security on its own. Nonetheless, tracking and blocking consistently malicious user-agents still allows us to block millions of additional attacks a day and provides us with a great degree of visibility into attacks that are less targeted at specific vulnerabilities. Many threat actors consistently use a given user-agent string, so this also allows us to block a large number of credential stuffing attacks on the first attempt, rather than after a certain threshold of failed logins.
There are many reasons a user-agent will be blocked by the Wordfence firewall, but always for consistent malicious activity. For instance, the user-agent here has been tracked in numerous types of attack attempts without consistent legitimate activity or false positives being detected. It is frequently found looking for configuration files, such as the aws.yml file in this example. Keep in mind that the fact that the actor is searching for this file does not automatically mean it exists on the server. However, if the file does exist and can be read by a would-be attacker, the data contained in the file would tell them a lot about the Amazon Web Services server configuration being used. This could lead to the discovery of vulnerabilities or other details that could help a malicious actor damage a website or server.
Similarly, information about the server could be discovered no matter who the server provider is if a file that returns configuration information, such as a info.php or server_info.php file can be discovered and accessed. Knowing the web server version, PHP version, and other critical details can add up to a vulnerability discovery that makes it easy for a malicious actor to access a website.
In addition to searching for configuration files, and other malicious activities, we also see an attacker using this specific user-agent attempting to upload malicious files to the servers they are trying to compromise. The following shows an attacker using the same known malicious user-agent attempting to upload a zip file, which, if successful, unzips to install a file named sp3ctra_XO.php on the server. When we said there were clues that these attack attempts were being perpetrated by the same threat actor, you can see here what one of those clues are with the sp3ctra_XO.php filename variation of the XO_Sp3ctra output seen earlier.
Over the past 30 days, we have observed this user-agent string used in more than 1.3 million attack attempts against Ukrainian websites. This makes it the largest attacking user-agent that is not immediately recognizable as an unusual user-agent. The only user-agent string that had more tracked attack attempts is wp_is_mobile. These user-agent strings are among the dozens that have been observed over time to be consistently associated only with malicious activity.
The user-agent we are following here was logged in 1,115,824,706 attack attempts worldwide in the same time frame, making this a very common malicious user-agent string. With this being a prolific user-agent in attacks around the world, it is no surprise that it is being seen in regular attack attempts on Ukrainian websites. Whether specifically targeted, or just a victim of circumstance, Ukrainian websites are seeing an increase in attacks. This is likely due to heightened activity from threat actors globally.
Directory Traversal
The next largest category of attack attempts we have been blocking targeting .ua domains was directory traversal. This relies on a malicious actor getting into the site files wherever they can, often through a plugin or theme vulnerability, and trying to access files outside of the original file’s directory structure. We are primarily seeing this used in much the same way as the information disclosure attacks, as a way to access the wp-config.php file that potentially provides database credentials. Other uses for this type of attack can also include the ability to get a list of system users, or access other sensitive data stored on the server.
In this example, the malicious actor attempted to download the site’s wp-config.php file by accessing the file structure through a download.php file in the twentyeleven theme folder, and moving up the directory structure to the WordPress root, where the wp-config.php file is located. This is seen in the request by adding ?file=..%2F..%2F..%2Fwp-config.php. This tells the server to look for a wp-config. php file that is three directories higher than the current directory.
This type of attack is often a guessing game for the malicious actor, as the path they are attempting to traverse may not even exist, but when it does, it can result in stolen data or damage to a website or system. The fact that the twentyeleven theme was used here does not necessarily indicate that the theme was vulnerable, or even installed on the site, only that the malicious actor was attempting to use it as a jumping off point while trying to find a vulnerable download.php file that could be used for directory traversal.
Information Disclosure
Information disclosure attacks are the fourth-largest attack type we blocked against .ua domains. The primary way we have observed threat actors attempting to exploit this type of vulnerability is through GET requests to a website, using common backup filenames, as seen in the example below. Unfortunately, due to the insecure practice of system administrators appending filenames with .bak as a method of making a backup of a file prior to modifying the contents, threat actors are likely to successfully access sensitive files by simply attempting to request critical files in known locations, with the .bak extension added. When successful, the contents of the file will be returned to the threat actor.
This is a fairly straightforward attack type, where the request simply returns the contents of the requested file. If a malicious actor can obtain the contents of a site’s wp-config.php file, even an outdated version of the file, they may be able to obtain the site’s database credentials. With access to a site’s database credentials, an attacker could gain full database access granted they have access to the database to log in with the stolen credentials. This would then give the attacker the ability to add malicious users, change a site’s content, and even collect useful information to be used in future attacks against the site or its users.
File Upload
File upload rounds out the top five categories of attack attempts we have been blocking targeting .ua domains. In these attempts, malicious actors try to get their own files uploaded to the server the website is hosted on. This serves a number of purposes, from defacing a website, to creating backdoors, and even distributing malware.
The example here is only one of the many types of upload attacks we have blocked. A malicious actor can use this POST request to upload a file to a vulnerable website that allows them to upload any file of their choosing. This can ultimately lead to remote code execution and full server compromise.
The POST request in this case includes the contents of a common PHP file uploader named bala.php. This code provides a simple script to select and upload any file the malicious actor chooses. If the upload is successful they will see a message stating eXploiting Done but if it fails they message will read Failed to Upload. The script also returns some general information about the system that is being accessed, including the name of the system and the operating system being used.
Another important thing to note about this request is that it attempts to utilize the Ioptimization plugin as an entry point. Ioptimization is a known malicious plugin that offers backdoor functionality, but was not actually installed in the site in question. This indicates that the threat actor was trying to find and take over sites that had been previously compromised by a different attacker.
The fact that file uploads are the most common blocked attack type is not at all surprising. File uploads can be used to distribute malware payloads, store spam content to be displayed in other locations, and install shells on the infected system, among a number of other malicious activities. If a malicious actor can upload an executable file to a site, it generally gives them full control of the infected site and a foothold to taking over the server hosting that site. It can also help them remain anonymous by allowing them to send out further attacks from the newly infected site.
Conclusion
In this post, we continued our analysis of the cyber attacks targeting Ukrainian websites. While there has been an increase in the number of attacks being blocked since the start of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the attacks do not appear to be focused. Known malicious IP addresses were the most common reason we blocked attacks in the last 30 days, however, information stealing and spam were the most common end goals for the observed attack attempts.
If you believe your site has been compromised as a result of a vulnerability, we offer Incident Response services via Wordfence Care. If you need your site cleaned immediately, Wordfence Response offers the same service with 24/7/365 availability and a 1-hour response time. Both of these products include hands-on support in case you need further assistance.