DOCSLIB.ORG

ENISA Threat Landscape 2015

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

ENISA Threat Landscape 2015 JANUARY 2016 www.enisa.europa.eu European Union Agency For Network And Information Security ENISA Threat Landscape 2015 | January 2016 About ENISA The European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA) is a centre of network and information security expertise for the EU, its member states, the private sector and Europe’s citizens. ENISA works with these groups to develop advice and recommendations on good practice in information security. It assists EU member states in implementing relevant EU legislation and works to improve the resilience of Europe’s critical information infrastructure and networks. ENISA seeks to enhance existing expertise in EU member states by supporting the development of cross-border communities committed to improving network and information security throughout the EU. More information about ENISA and its work can be found at www.enisa.europa.eu. Authors Louis Marinos ([email protected]), ENISA, Adrian Belmonte, ENISA (contribution Attack Vectors and SDN), Evangelos Rekleitis, ENISA (contribution Big Data). Contact For contacting the authors please use [email protected] For media enquiries about this paper, please use [email protected]. Acknowledgements The author would like to thank the members of the ENISA ETL Stakeholder group: Paolo Passeri, Consulting, UK, Pierluigi Paganini, Chief Security Information Officer, IT, Paul Samwel, Banking, NL, Tom Koehler, Consulting, DE, Stavros Lingris, CERT, EU, Jart Armin, Worldwide coalitions/Initiatives, International, Thomas Häberlen, Member State, DE, Neil Thacker, Consulting, UK, Margrete Raaum, CERT, NO, Shin Adachi, Security Analyst, US, R. Jane Ginn, Consulting, US, Lance James, Consulting, US, Polo Bais, Member State, NL. Moreover, we would like to thank CYjAX for granting access pro bono to its cyber risk intelligence portal providing information on cyber threats and cyber-crime. Thanks go to ENISA colleagues who contributed to this work by commenting drafts of the report. Special thanks to Jakub Radziulis, iTTi and his colleagues for the support in information analysis. Legal notice Notice must be taken that this publication represents the views and interpretations of the authors and editors, unless stated otherwise. This publication should not be construed to be a legal action of ENISA or the ENISA bodies unless adopted pursuant to the Regulation (EU) No 526/2013. This publication does not necessarily represent state- of the-art and ENISA may update it from time to time. Third-party sources are quoted as appropriate. ENISA is not responsible for the content of the external sources including external websites referenced in this publication. This publication is intended for information purposes only. It must be accessible free of charge. Neither ENISA nor any person acting on its behalf is responsible for the use that might be made of the information contained in this publication. Copyright Notice © European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA), 2015 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 02 ENISA Threat Landscape 2015 | January 2016 Table of Contents Executive Summary 5 1. Introduction 8 Policy context 9 Target audience 9 Structure of the document 10 2. Purpose, Scope and Method 11 Data structures used in the threat analysis process and threat landscaping 12 Threat taxonomy 14 Graphical support 16 Used definitions 16 3. Top Cyber-Threats: The Current Threat Landscape 18 Content and purpose of this chapter 18 Malware 19 Web based attacks 22 Web application attacks 24 Botnets 25 Denial of service 28 Physical damage/theft/loss 30 Insider threat 31 Phishing 33 Spam 35 Exploit kits 37 Data Breaches 38 Identity theft 41 Information leakage 43 Ransomware 45 Cyber Espionage 47 Visualising changes in the current threat landscape 51 03 ENISA Threat Landscape 2015 | January 2016 4. Threat Agents 52 Threat Agents Models 52 Overview of threat agents 54 Threat Agents and Top Threats 59 5. Attack vectors 61 Attacks against cyber physical systems 61 Targeted attacks 63 Advanced Persistent Threats (APT) 64 6. Emerging Threat Landscape 67 Cloud computing 68 Mobile computing 70 Cyber physical systems 72 Internet of things (IoT) 74 Big data 77 Network Function Virtualization, Software Defined Networks and 5G 80 7. Food for thought: Lessons Learned and Conclusions 82 Lessons learned 82 Conclusions 83 Annex A: Comparison ENISA and STIX data models 86 04 ENISA Threat Landscape 2015 | January 2016 Executive Summary For yet another year the 2015 edition of the cyber-threat landscape features a number of unique observations, the main one being the smooth advancement of maturity. As a matter of fact, cyber-space stakeholders have gone through varying degrees of further maturity. While the friendly agents – the good guys – have demonstrated increased cooperation and orchestrated reaction to cyber-threats, hostile agents – the bad guys – have advanced their malicious tools with obfuscation, stealthiness and striking power. On the defenders’ side, improvements have been achieved in coordinated campaigns to disturb operations of malicious infrastructures, strengthen the legal/governmental cyber-defence framework and develop more efficient products. In particular: Performing orchestrated actions to take down malicious infrastructure but also to analyse incidents and improve attribution. Strengthening governmental awareness, cyber-defence expenses, capabilities and level of cooperation among states. Performing exercises, development of threat intelligence, proliferation of information sharing, tools and products to enhance awareness, preparedness and efficiency of defence. Focusing on research and development to accommodate developments of the cyber-threat landscape to existing protection measures and methods and tools. These are qualities that have been consistently developed throughout 2015 and have reached a momentum that allows for a persistent course of action. Adversaries have achieved considerable advances too. No Snowden or Heartbleed-like events have been reported. Instead, cyber-threats have undergone significant evolution and just as in 2014, significant breaches have covered front pages of media. And exactly this is an alerting fact: seemingly, cyber-threat agents have had the tranquillity and resources to implement a series of advancements in malicious practices. In particular: Performing persistent attacks based on hardware, far below the “radar” of available defence tools and methods. Achieving enhancements in the provision of “cyber-crime-as-a-service”, tool developments for non- experts and affiliate programmes. Highly efficient development of malware weaponization and automated tools to detect and exploit vulnerabilities. Campaigning with highly profitable malicious infrastructures and malware to breach data and hold end-user devices to ransom. Broadening of the attack surface to include routers, firmware and internet of things. Details for all the above-mentioned points can be found in the ENISA Threat Landscape 2015 (ETL 2015). Top 15 cyber-threats together with threat trends, trends of threat agents and trends for emerging technologies have been assessed and presented in this report. This material delivers evidence upon which the consequences for the development of cyber-defences can be based. 05 ENISA Threat Landscape 2015 | January 2016 Lessons learned and conclusions summarise our experience from this year’s threat landscape and draw a roadmap with aspects that need to be addressed in the future by policy, businesses and research. An overview hereof is as follows: Policy conclusions: - Make threat intelligence collection, management and sharing an inherent part of the national cyber- defence capabilities. - Foster voluntary reporting and perform analysis of reported incidents and recycle results for better planning of defences. - Disseminate cyber-threat knowledge to all players in cyber-space, including end-users. Business conclusions: - Simplify content of threat intelligence to achieve wider uptake in the stakeholder community. - Elaborate on threat agent models and make it inherent part of threat intelligence. - Create correlated, contextualized threat information to increase timespan of relevance. - Continuously adapt protection and detection tools to the threats. - Invest in better vulnerability management and exploitation of dark web. Research conclusions: - Develop applied statistic models to increase comparability of cyber-threat and incident information. - Develop new models for seamlessly operated security controls to be included in complex, smart end- user environments. - Develop trust models for the ad hoc interoperability of devices within smart environments. Finally, regarding the overall highlights for the future cyber-threat landscapes, one should mention two overarching trends for defenders and adversaries respectively: - The need for “Streamlining and consolidation” of existing policies, defences and cooperation to accommodate changes in threat landscape and - Ongoing activities towards “Consumerization of cyber-crime”, that is, making malicious tools available to everybody. The figure below summarizes the top 15 cyber-threats and threat trends in comparison to the threat landscape of 2014. 06 ENISA Threat Landscape 2015 | January 2016 Assessed Assessed Change in Top Threats 2014 Top Threats 2015 Trends 2014 Trends 2015 ranking 1. Malicious code: 1. Malware Worms/Trojans → 2. Web-based attacks 2. Web based attacks
Recommended publications
  • Biuletyn 2016 1.Pdf

    Biuletyn 2016 1.Pdf

    szkolenia badania raport zgłoszenie DBI.pl CERT.pl inicjatywy domena .pl bezpieczeństwo honeypot seminarium biometria eksperci konferencje dyżurnet.pl digitalizacja nauka BIPSE SPIS treści KONFERENCJE 5 Razem tworzymy lepszy Internet 7 Globalne wyzwanie – bezpieczny Internet dla dzieci i młodzieży 8 SECURE 2015 – Cyberpolicjanci kontra cyberprzestępcy WYDARZENIA 10 Piknik Naukowy 10 Festiwal Nauki 10 CyberPol – szkolenia dla Policji 11 Seminarium eksperckie 11 Konferencja naukowa „Nastolatki wobec internetu” 11 Sukces polskiej biometrii RAPORTY 12 Roczny raport CERT Polska za 2014 rok 13 Raport Dyżurnet.pl 15 Rekordowy III kwartał w rejestrze domeny .pl BADANIA 17 Nastolatki wobec internetu PROJEKTY 21 Malware kontra lodówka 22 Bezpieczne uwierzytelnienie we współczesnym świecie 24 Digitalizacja, cyfryzacja czyli dostępność…. BEZPIECZEńStwO 28 Cyberprzestępcy podszywają się pod Pocztę Polską 29 Dorkbot już nam nie zagraża ROZMOWA Z … 30 Senior dla kultury NR 1/2016 Redakcja: Anna Maj, Monika Gajewska-Pol Projekt okładki, skład i przygotowanie do druku: Anna Nykiel Adres: ul. Wąwozowa 18, 02-796 Warszawa, Redakcja zastrzega sobie prawo do skrótu tel. (22) 38 08 200, e-mail: [email protected] i opracowania redakcyjnego otrzymanych tekstów. Biuletyn Szanowni Państwo, Mam przyjemność zaprosić Państwa do lektury najnow- celu ochronę przed zagrożeniami najmłodszych użyt- szego numeru „Biuletynu NASK”. Prezentujemy w nim kowników internetu. W ramach realizowanego przez nasze osiągnięcia, najważniejsze wydarzenia minione- NASK projektu Safer Internet funkcjonuje zespół go roku, opisujemy ciekawe i ważne projekty oraz naj- Dyżurnet.pl, przyjmujący zgłoszenia o niebezpiecz- nowsze opracowane przez nas rozwiązania naukowe. nych treściach internetowych, które zagrażają dzie- ciom i młodzieży korzystającym z sieci. W czasie swo- NASK jest instytutem badawczym, który realizuje jej dziesięcioletniej działalności zespół przeanalizował liczne projekty naukowe oraz komercyjne, szczególnie blisko 45 tysięcy zgłoszeń.
  • Cyberaanval Op Nederland Citadel-Malwareonderzoek “Pobelka” Botnet

    Cyberaanval Op Nederland Citadel-Malwareonderzoek “Pobelka” Botnet

    Cyberaanval op Nederland Citadel-malwareonderzoek “Pobelka” botnet Cyberaanval op Nederland | Citadel-malwareonderzoek “Pobelka” botnet Pagina 1 Inhoudsopgave Inleiding ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Telegraaf.nl ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 3 Pobelka ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4 Doelgericht ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 4 Nederland............................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Java exploits .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Cyberincidenten ..................................................................................................................................................................................
  • 2015 Threat Report Provides a Comprehensive Overview of the Cyber Threat Landscape Facing Both Companies and Individuals

    2015 Threat Report Provides a Comprehensive Overview of the Cyber Threat Landscape Facing Both Companies and Individuals

    THREAT REPORT 2015 AT A GLANCE 2015 HIGHLIGHTS A few of the major events in 2015 concerning security issues. 08 07/15: Hacking Team 07/15: Bugs prompt 02/15: Europol joint breached, data Ford, Range Rover, 08/15: Google patches op takes down Ramnit released online Prius, Chrysler recalls Android Stagefright botnet flaw 09/15: XcodeGhost 07/15: Android 07/15: FBI Darkode tainted apps prompts Stagefright flaw 08/15: Amazon, ENFORCEMENT bazaar shutdown ATTACKS AppStore cleanup VULNERABILITY reported SECURITYPRODUCT Chrome drop Flash ads TOP MALWARE BREACHING THE MEET THE DUKES FAMILIES WALLED GARDEN The Dukes are a well- 12 18 resourced, highly 20 Njw0rm was the most In late 2015, the Apple App prominent new malware family in 2015. Store saw a string of incidents where dedicated and organized developers had used compromised tools cyberespionage group believed to be to unwittingly create apps with malicious working for the Russian Federation since behavior. The apps were able to bypass at least 2008 to collect intelligence in Njw0rm Apple’s review procedures to gain entry support of foreign and security policy decision-making. Angler into the store, and from there into an ordinary user’s iOS device. Gamarue THE CHAIN OF THE CHAIN OF Dorkbot COMPROMISE COMPROMISE: 23 The Stages 28 The Chain of Compromise Nuclear is a user-centric model that illustrates Kilim how cyber attacks combine different Ippedo techniques and resources to compromise Dridex devices and networks. It is defined by 4 main phases: Inception, Intrusion, WormLink Infection, and Invasion. INCEPTION Redirectors wreak havoc on US, Europe (p.28) INTRUSION AnglerEK dominates Flash (p.29) INFECTION The rise of rypto-ransomware (p.31) THREATS BY REGION Europe was particularly affected by the Angler exploit kit.
  • Moonlight Maze,’ Perhaps the Oldest Publicly Acknowledged State Actor, Has Evaded Open Forensic Analysis

    Moonlight Maze,’ Perhaps the Oldest Publicly Acknowledged State Actor, Has Evaded Open Forensic Analysis

    PENQUIN’S MOONLIT MAZE The Dawn of Nation-State Digital Espionage Juan Andres Guerrero-Saade, Costin Raiu (GReAT) Daniel Moore, Thomas Rid (King’s College London) The origins of digital espionage remain hidden in the dark. In most cases, codenames and fragments of stories are all that remains of the ‘prehistoric’ actors that pioneered the now- ubiquitous practice of computer network exploitation. The origins of early operations, tools, and tradecraft are largely unknown: official documents will remain classified for years and decades to come; memories of investigators are eroding as time passes; and often precious forensic evidence is discarded, destroyed, or simply lost as storage devices age. Even ‘Moonlight Maze,’ perhaps the oldest publicly acknowledged state actor, has evaded open forensic analysis. Intrusions began as early as 1996. The early targets: a vast number of US military and government networks, including Wright Patterson and Kelly Air Force Bases, the Army Research Lab, the Naval Sea Systems Command in Indian Head, Maryland, NASA, and the Department of Energy labs. By mid-1998 the FBI and Department of Defense investigators had forensic evidence pointing to Russian ISPs. After a Congressional hearing in late February 1999, news of the FBI’s vast investigation leaked to the public.1 However, little detail ever surfaced regarding the actual means and procedures of this threat actor. Eventually the code name was replaced (with the attackers’ improved intrusion set dubbed Storm Cloud’, and later ‘Makers Mark’) and the original ‘MM’ faded into obscurity without proper technical forensic artefacts to tie these cyberespionage pioneers to the modern menagerie of APT actors we are now all too familiar with.
  • Cyber News for Counterintelligence / Information Technology / Security Professionals 13 November 2014

    Cyber News for Counterintelligence / Information Technology / Security Professionals 13 November 2014

    Cyber News for Counterintelligence / Information Technology / Security Professionals 13 November 2014 Purpose Stuxnet worm entered Iran's nuclear facilities through hacked suppliers Educate recipients of cyber events to aid in protecting Engadget, 13 Nov 2014: You may have heard the common story of how Stuxnet electronically stored DoD, spread: the United States and Israel reportedly developed the worm in the mid- corporate proprietary, and/or Personally Identifiable 2000s to mess with Iran's nuclear program by damaging equipment, and first Information from theft, unleashed it on Iran's Natanz nuclear facility through infected USB drives. It got compromise, espionage out of control, however, and escaped into the wild (that is, the internet) sometime Source later. Relatively straightforward, right? Well, you'll have to toss that version of This publication incorporates open source news articles events aside -- a new book, Countdown to Zero Day, explains that this digital educate readers on security assault played out very differently. Researchers now know that the sabotage- matters in compliance with oriented code first attacked five component vendors that are key to Iran's nuclear USC Title 17, section 107, program, including one that makes the centrifuges Stuxnet was targeting. These Para a. All articles are truncated to avoid the companies were unwitting Trojan horses, security firm Kaspersky Lab says. Once appearance of copyright the malware hit their systems, it was just a matter of time before someone brought infringement compromised data into the Natanz plant (where there's no direct internet access) Publisher and sparked chaos. As you might suspect, there's also evidence that these first * SA Jeanette Greene Albuquerque FBI breaches didn't originate from USB drives.
  • Miscellaneous: Malware Cont'd & Start on Bitcoin

    Miscellaneous: Malware Cont'd & Start on Bitcoin

    Miscellaneous: Malware cont’d & start on Bitcoin CS 161: Computer Security Prof. Raluca Ada Popa April 19, 2018 Credit: some slides are adapted from previous offerings of this course Viruses vs. Worms VIRUS WORM Propagates By infecting Propagates automatically other programs By copying itself to target systems Usually inserted into A standalone program host code (not a standalone program) Another type of virus: Rootkits Rootkit is a ”stealthy” program designed to give access to a machine to an attacker while actively hiding its presence Q: How can it hide itself? n Create a hidden directory w /dev/.liB, /usr/src/.poop and similar w Often use invisiBle characters in directory name n Install hacked Binaries for system programs such as netstat, ps, ls, du, login Q: Why does it Become hard to detect attacker’s process? A: Can’t detect attacker’s processes, files or network connections By running standard UNIX commands! slide 3 Sony BMG copy protection rootkit scandal (2005) • Sony BMG puBlished CDs that apparently had copy protection (for DRM). • They essentially installed a rootkit which limited user’s access to the CD. • It hid processes that started with $sys$ so a user cannot disaBle them. A software engineer discovered the rootkit, it turned into a Big scandal Because it made computers more vulneraBle to malware Q: Why? A: Malware would choose names starting with $sys$ so it is hidden from antivirus programs Sony BMG pushed a patch … But that one introduced yet another vulneraBility So they recalled the CDs in the end Detecting Rootkit’s
  • Internet Security Threat Report VOLUME 21, APRIL 2016 TABLE of CONTENTS 2016 Internet Security Threat Report 2

    Internet Security Threat Report VOLUME 21, APRIL 2016 TABLE of CONTENTS 2016 Internet Security Threat Report 2

    Internet Security Threat Report VOLUME 21, APRIL 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2016 Internet Security Threat Report 2 CONTENTS 4 Introduction 21 Tech Support Scams Go Nuclear, 39 Infographic: A New Zero-Day Vulnerability Spreading Ransomware Discovered Every Week in 2015 5 Executive Summary 22 Malvertising 39 Infographic: A New Zero-Day Vulnerability Discovered Every Week in 2015 8 BIG NUMBERS 23 Cybersecurity Challenges For Website Owners 40 Spear Phishing 10 MOBILE DEVICES & THE 23 Put Your Money Where Your Mouse Is 43 Active Attack Groups in 2015 INTERNET OF THINGS 23 Websites Are Still Vulnerable to Attacks 44 Infographic: Attackers Target Both Large and Small Businesses 10 Smartphones Leading to Malware and Data Breaches and Mobile Devices 23 Moving to Stronger Authentication 45 Profiting from High-Level Corporate Attacks and the Butterfly Effect 10 One Phone Per Person 24 Accelerating to Always-On Encryption 45 Cybersecurity, Cybersabotage, and Coping 11 Cross-Over Threats 24 Reinforced Reassurance with Black Swan Events 11 Android Attacks Become More Stealthy 25 Websites Need to Become Harder to 46 Cybersabotage and 12 How Malicious Video Messages Could Attack the Threat of “Hybrid Warfare” Lead to Stagefright and Stagefright 2.0 25 SSL/TLS and The 46 Small Business and the Dirty Linen Attack Industry’s Response 13 Android Users under Fire with Phishing 47 Industrial Control Systems and Ransomware 25 The Evolution of Encryption Vulnerable to Attacks 13 Apple iOS Users Now More at Risk than 25 Strength in Numbers 47 Obscurity is No Defense
  • Threat Landscape Report

    Threat Landscape Report

    QUARTERLY Threat Landscape Report Q3 2020 NUSPIRE.COM THIS REPORT IS SOURCED FROM 90 BILLION TRAFFIC LOGS INGESTED FROM NUSPIRE CLIENT SITES AND ASSOCIATED WITH THOUSANDS OF DEVICES AROUND THE GLOBE. Nuspire Threat Report | Q2Q3 | 2020 Contents Introduction 4 Summary of Findings 6 Methodology and Overview 7 Quarter in Review 8 Malware 9 Botnets 15 Exploits 20 The New Normal 28 Conclusion and Recommendations 31 About Nuspire 33 3 | Contents Nuspire Threat Report | Q3 | 2020 Introduction In Q2 2020, Nuspire observed the increasing lengths threat actors were going to in order to capitalize on the pandemic and resulting crisis. New attack vectors were created; including VPN usage, home network security issues, personal device usage for business purposes and auditability of network traffic. In Q3 2020, we’ve observed threat actors become even more ruthless. Shifting focus from home networks to overburdened public entities including the education sector and the Election Assistance Commission (EAC). Many school districts were forced into 100% virtual or hybrid learning models by the pandemic. Attackers have waged ransomware attacks at learning institutions who not only have the financial resources to pay ransoms but feel a sense of urgency to do so in order to avoid disruptions during the school year. Meanwhile, the U.S. Elections have provided lures for phishers to attack. Nuspire witnessed Q3 attempts to guide victims to fake voter registration pages to harvest information while spoofing the Election Assistance Commission (EAC). Like these examples, cybercriminals taking advantage of prominent media themes are expected. We anticipate our Q4 2020 Threat Report 4 | Introduction Nuspire Threat Report | Q3 | 2020 to find campaigns leveraging more of the United report each quarter is a great step to gain that States Presidential election as well.
  • View Final Report (PDF)

    View Final Report (PDF)

    TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY III INTRODUCTION 1 GENESIS OF THE PROJECT 1 RESEARCH QUESTIONS 1 INDUSTRY SITUATION 2 METHODOLOGY 3 GENERAL COMMENTS ON INTERVIEWS 5 APT1 (CHINA) 6 SUMMARY 7 THE GROUP 7 TIMELINE 7 TYPOLOGY OF ATTACKS 9 DISCLOSURE EVENTS 9 APT10 (CHINA) 13 INTRODUCTION 14 THE GROUP 14 TIMELINE 15 TYPOLOGY OF ATTACKS 16 DISCLOSURE EVENTS 18 COBALT (CRIMINAL GROUP) 22 INTRODUCTION 23 THE GROUP 23 TIMELINE 25 TYPOLOGY OF ATTACKS 27 DISCLOSURE EVENTS 30 APT33 (IRAN) 33 INTRODUCTION 34 THE GROUP 34 TIMELINE 35 TYPOLOGY OF ATTACKS 37 DISCLOSURE EVENTS 38 APT34 (IRAN) 41 INTRODUCTION 42 THE GROUP 42 SIPA Capstone 2020 i The Impact of Information Disclosures on APT Operations TIMELINE 43 TYPOLOGY OF ATTACKS 44 DISCLOSURE EVENTS 48 APT38 (NORTH KOREA) 52 INTRODUCTION 53 THE GROUP 53 TIMELINE 55 TYPOLOGY OF ATTACKS 59 DISCLOSURE EVENTS 61 APT28 (RUSSIA) 65 INTRODUCTION 66 THE GROUP 66 TIMELINE 66 TYPOLOGY OF ATTACKS 69 DISCLOSURE EVENTS 71 APT29 (RUSSIA) 74 INTRODUCTION 75 THE GROUP 75 TIMELINE 76 TYPOLOGY OF ATTACKS 79 DISCLOSURE EVENTS 81 COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS 84 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ACTOR RESPONSE 84 CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES 86 MEASURING THE SUCCESS OF DISCLOSURES 90 IMPLICATIONS OF OUR RESEARCH 92 FOR PERSISTENT ENGAGEMENT AND FORWARD DEFENSE 92 FOR PRIVATE CYBERSECURITY VENDORS 96 FOR THE FINANCIAL SECTOR 96 ROOM FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 97 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 98 ABOUT THE TEAM 99 SIPA Capstone 2020 ii The Impact of Information Disclosures on APT Operations EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This project was completed to fulfill the including the scope of the disclosure and capstone requirement for Columbia Uni- the disclosing actor.
  • A Systematic Empirical Analysis of Unwanted Software Abuse, Prevalence, Distribution, and Economics

    A Systematic Empirical Analysis of Unwanted Software Abuse, Prevalence, Distribution, and Economics

    UNIVERSIDAD POLITECNICA´ DE MADRID ESCUELA TECNICA´ SUPERIOR DE INGENIEROS INFORMATICOS´ A Systematic Empirical Analysis of Unwanted Software Abuse, Prevalence, Distribution, and Economics PH.D THESIS Platon Pantelis Kotzias Copyright c 2019 by Platon Pantelis Kotzias iv DEPARTAMENTAMENTO DE LENGUAJES Y SISTEMAS INFORMATICOS´ E INGENIERIA DE SOFTWARE ESCUELA TECNICA´ SUPERIOR DE INGENIEROS INFORMATICOS´ A Systematic Empirical Analysis of Unwanted Software Abuse, Prevalence, Distribution, and Economics SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF: Doctor of Philosophy in Software, Systems and Computing Author: Platon Pantelis Kotzias Advisor: Dr. Juan Caballero April 2019 Chair/Presidente: Marc Dasier, Professor and Department Head, EURECOM, France Secretary/Secretario: Dario Fiore, Assistant Research Professor, IMDEA Software Institute, Spain Member/Vocal: Narseo Vallina-Rodriguez, Assistant Research Professor, IMDEA Networks Institute, Spain Member/Vocal: Juan Tapiador, Associate Professor, Universidad Carlos III, Spain Member/Vocal: Igor Santos, Associate Research Professor, Universidad de Deusto, Spain Abstract of the Dissertation Potentially unwanted programs (PUP) are a category of undesirable software that, while not outright malicious, can pose significant risks to users’ security and privacy. There exist indications that PUP prominence has quickly increased over the last years, but the prevalence of PUP on both consumer and enterprise hosts remains unknown. Moreover, many important aspects of PUP such as distribution vectors, code signing abuse, and economics also remain unknown. In this thesis, we empirically and sys- tematically analyze in both breadth and depth PUP abuse, prevalence, distribution, and economics. We make the following four contributions. First, we perform a systematic study on the abuse of Windows Authenticode code signing by PUP and malware.
  • Cyber Warfare

    Cyber Warfare

    Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 23:51 30 May 2016 Cyber Warfare This book is a multidisciplinary analysis of cyber warfare, featuring contribu- tions by leading experts from a mixture of academic and professional backgrounds. Cyber warfare, meaning interstate cyber aggression, is an increasingly important emerging phenomenon in international relations, with state- orchestrated (or apparently state- orchestrated) computer network attacks occur- ring in Estonia (2007), Georgia (2008) and Iran (2010). This method of waging warfare – given its potential to, for example, make planes fall from the sky or cause nuclear power plants to melt down – has the capacity to be as devastating as any conventional means of conducting armed conflict. Every state in the world now has a cyber- defence programme and over 120 states also have a cyber- attack programme. While the amount of literature on cyber warfare is growing within disciplines, our understanding of the subject has been limited by a lack of cross- disciplinary engagement. In response, this book, drawn from the fields of computer science, military strategy, international law, political science and military ethics, provides a critical overview of cyber warfare for those approaching the topic from what- ever angle. Chapters consider the emergence of the phenomena of cyber warfare in international affairs; what cyber- attacks are from a technological standpoint; the extent to which cyber- attacks can be attributed to state actors; the strategic value and danger posed by cyber conflict; the legal regulation of cyber- attacks, both as international uses of force and as part of an ongoing armed conflict, and the ethical implications of cyber warfare.
  • Use of Botnets for Mining Cryptocurrencies

    Use of Botnets for Mining Cryptocurrencies

    Use of Botnets for Mining Cryptocurrencies December 2020 Renita Murimi Associate Professor of Cybersecurity University of Dallas In this talk… • History of botnet-inspired threats • Operational mechanisms of botnets • In-depth look at significant botnets that have attacked cryptocurrencies • Countermeasures • Implications for the future Market capitalization Energy Consumption Index Comparison Footprints Rising popularity • Distributed nature of currency generation • Anonymity • Low barrier to entry • Browser-based mining software Botnet core • Command and Control (C&C) architectures: backbone of botnet operations • Aided by the IRC protocol C&C server sends commands to malware-infected machines, which are then capable of launching DDoS attacks, data manipulation, and malware propagation. • IRC protocol: text-based protocol that allows clients in various topology configurations to connect to a server over communication • Can also use the HTTP protocol for C&C communication Push and pull frameworks • Two frameworks for C&C communications • Push Bots wait for commands from the C&C server, i.e., the server pushes the commands to bots in real time. IRC-based bots fall into the push category. • Pull Servers store commands in a file Bots check back at later times to retrieve and execute the commands, i.e., the bots pull the commands from a file stored in the C&C server. Most HTTP-based bots fall into this category of botnets that do not adhere to real- time botmaster control. The appeal of botnets for cryptomining • Distributed nature of both botnets and cryptocurrency mining • Anonymity in cryptocurrency Each node is identified only by its IP address Contrast to fiat currencies • Botnets – initially used for spam In 2019 ransomware from phishing emails increased 109% over 2017.