Displaying items by tag: Malware

The recent attack that leveraged a 0-Day vulnerability to compromise a number of Barracuda Email Security Gateway appliances (physical and virtual, but not cloud) was a very sophisticated one. Even in the beginning when news of this first broke it was fairly clear that this was not just another breach. It was targeted and very specific. In looking over the two reports Mandiant has released on the incident we can identify a few things about this attack that could be helpful in identifying and preventing future attacks.

Supply chain attacks are all the rage right now (although certainly not new). These attacks are part of what appears to be a multi-pronged shift in the threat landscape. While attacks on the endpoint and users are still happening, we are also seeing expanded efforts in targeting edge devices, networking equipment, and an increased focus on open-source repositories. Recently a new campaign was discovered that is leveraging open-sourced software supply chain attacks in an effort to target the banking sector.

The UEFI (Unified Extensible Framework Interface) was the replacement for the old BIOS (Basic Input Output System). It was intended as an improvement to the underlying systems on a motherboard (also called mainboard) the motherboard controls communication between all components connected to it from CPUs, to memory, to GPUs, disk or solid-state drives, network cards… you get the picture. The old BIOS was limited and also susceptible to compromise in a number of rather simple ways. By moving to UEFI systems could become more complex without issues potential hardware conflicts, the UEFI structure was also much faster than the BIOS system meaning that as overall computing increased in speed the underlying controls for different components was up to the task.

If I have said it once, I have said it a thousand times; attackers are cunning. The adage that attackers are lazy has nothing to do with strategic, tactical, or technical knowledge. They understand the landscape and, in many cases, better than the organizations they are attacking do. Because of this deep understanding of their target environment, they also know to be on the lookout for special purpose entities. In this case we are talking about Security Researchers. Security researchers are a special target for attackers and when they can leverage an existing opportunity to target and potentially compromise them, they are going to take it.

Diver Signing requirements in Windows is a feature that is intended to help prevent the Windows Operating system from being compromised through malicious software posing as legitimate drivers. The policy was implemented way back in early versions of the 64-bit flavor of Windows XP and became a defacto security policy very quickly after that. Since its implementation and enforcement threat groups have found multiple ways around this policy including the use of compromised certificate issuing groups, purchasing actually legitimate certificates, and certificate theft.

Social engineering efforts via voice calls (Vishing) is nothing new. The use of phone calls for malicious activity is pretty old and include such popular scams as extended car warranties, IRS collection attempts, and the ever popular “there is a complaint against you”. These are just a few of the consumer scams that have been in play and are still in play. On the corporate side there are even more which target general employees and support personnel to either gain entry or enable some form of financial fraud. Sadly, this pivot is also seriously under managed by most organizations, with few providing any preventative training and most not testing this attack vector to determine exposure.

Last week Progress Software, the company behind MOVEit file transfer software, announced another SQL injection flaw had been identified and patched. This flaw is just the latest in a series of vulnerabilities that have been identified in the application after the Cl0p ransomware group was found to have exploited a different SQL injection flaw to steal data from multiple MOVEit users. The attacks started in late 2022, but the Cl0p group might have been testing different entry points as far back as June 2022.

It has been a few days since we talked about NPM and node.js. The popular repository has been taking a bit of a beating in recent months as attackers, hacktivists, and others seek to compromise their packages as part of a general supply chain attack. Supply chain attacks are in vouge right now and are part of the reason you might be seeing the acronym SBOM (Software Build of Materials) so much. Sure, SBOM is not a new term, but the push for it and the rise of an entire vertical in the cybersecurity industry is new and should be a bit of an indicator that there is a problem.

There is nothing like an unresolved security flaw in a major product. Especially when the flaw is one that the developer knows about but does not consider important enough to fix in a timely manner. If the flaw is in a commonly used product, it is even better. In this case we are talking about a flaw we covered back on the 23rd of June. This is a bug that can allow an attacker to mimic an internal sender to get around file handling from external senders. In our opinion, it is significant, but Microsoft has no plans to remediate it any time soon. I guess they have other things on their plate like Privacy Investigations in the EU (Over Teams and Office) and the pending Activision/Blizzard deal in court in the US.

EDR, XDR, and MDR are acronyms that are well known to most organizations. The operative letters here are DR which stands for Detection and Response. The E, X, and M stand for Endpoint, E(x)tended, and Managed respectively. Each one of these is designed to monitor a device for threats and respond according to the profile/configuration/policy enabled for the device. This is different than the traditional “anti-virus/anti-malware” application in many ways. The most common is that an EDR is intended to do more than check files against a signature list and quarantine them if identified. The modern EDR does look for malware, but it also monitors script execution, process starts/stops, file and registry reads and writes and, in many cases, network activity that can indicate potential compromise.