Internet Security Threat Report VOLUME 21, APRIL 2016 TABLE of CONTENTS 2016 Internet Security Threat Report 2
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Ransom Where?
Ransom where? Holding data hostage with ransomware May 2019 Author With the evolution of digitization and increased interconnectivity, the cyberthreat landscape has transformed from merely a security and privacy concern to a danger much more insidious by nature — ransomware. Ransomware is a type of malware that is designed to encrypt, Imani Barnes Analyst 646.572.3930 destroy or shut down networks in exchange [email protected] for a paid ransom. Through the deployment of ransomware, cybercriminals are no longer just seeking to steal credit card information and other sensitive personally identifiable information (PII). Instead, they have upped their games to manipulate organizations into paying large sums of money in exchange for the safe release of their data and control of their systems. While there are some business sectors in which the presence of this cyberexposure is overt, cybercriminals are broadening their scopes of potential victims to include targets of opportunity1 across a multitude of industries. This paper will provide insight into how ransomware evolved as a cyberextortion instrument, identify notorious strains and explain how companies can protect themselves. 1 WIRED. “Meet LockerGoga, the Ransomware Crippling Industrial Firms” March 25, 2019; https://www.wired.com/story/lockergoga-ransomware-crippling-industrial-firms/. 2 Ransom where? | May 2019 A brief history of ransomware The first signs of ransomware appeared in 1989 in the healthcare industry. An attacker used infected floppy disks to encrypt computer files, claiming that the user was in “breach of a licensing agreement,”2 and demanded $189 for a decryption key. While the attempt to extort was unsuccessful, this attack became commonly known as PC Cyborg and set the archetype in motion for future attacks. -
2016.4 Vol.28 Mac はマルウェアから 100%安全か
2016.4 Vol.28 Mac はマルウェアから 100%安全か セキュリティプレス・アン Mac 向けセキュリティソリューション AhnLab V3 365 Clinic for Mac Mac はマルウェアから 100%安全か AppleのMacは、多くの人にマルウェアから安全だと思われている。しかし実際はWindowほどではないにせよ、Mac向けのマルウ ェアもマルウェア史の初期から存在し続けていた。それは現在も同じで、Macも安全地帯ではないということだ。 今回のプレス・アンでは、最新Mac向けマルウェアの特徴を分析し、Mac環境を保護する方策を探る。 Appleのマッキントッシュ(Macintosh、以下Mac)に対するユーザーの信頼は厚く、次のような挿絵からも見て取れる。コンピューター使用中感電し たキャラに、「コンピューターに異常はないかい?」と聞いたところ「これはMacだから大丈夫」と断言する内容である。 [図1] The Brads- Impossible 2 セキュリティプレス・アン その信頼はセキュリティに関しても絶大で、どうやらMacは安全な環境であると思われているらしい。しかし前述のようにMac向けマルウェアは昔か ら存在していたし、Macの運営環境である「OS X」に移行してから10年間、脅威は持続的に発見されている。もちろんWindowに比べればMac向け マルウェアが少ないのは確かだが、最近発見されるマルウェアの傾向を見るとMacもまたマルウェアの安全地帯ではないことが分かる。最近登場して いるMac向けマルウェアの特徴を分析し、Macを保護するソリューションを見てみよう。 主なMacマルウェア 現在のMacも多くの進化を遂げた。プロセッサやOSの変化により、[図2]のようにOS環境がOS Xに変更された前後で発見されたマルウェアは異なる。 初期 偽装した セキュリティ プログラム リリース リリース [図2] Mac向けマルウェア史タイムライン OS X移行後に登場したマルウェアに関する詳細情報は次の通りだ。 マルウェア(発見時期) 特徴 備考 Renepo -システムセキュリティ設定: 低 -OS X 初のマルウェア (2004) -OS X ファイアウォール解除 -2004/3/3、ニックネーム DimBulbが「Macintosh Underground -ソフトウェアアップデート機能解除 forum」に参加後、3/13からスクリプトワームに対して掲載し、フォーラ -ohphoneX(ボイス及びビデオ共有)、d ムの参加者とマルウェア作成を開始。9/10の掲載バージョンが10/23に sniff(暗号スニファ)、John the Rippe 外部に知れ渡り、10/24から大炎上したことから作成を放棄 r(暗号クラック)をダウンロードインストール -Apple社ではマルウェアではないと否認し、対応せず RSPlug(Dnschanger) -DNSアドレスを変更してフィッシングサイ -使用者に実害を与えた初のOS X向けマルウェア (2007.10) トに誘導し、金銭的要求 3 セキュリティプレス・アン マルウェア(発見時期) 特徴 備考 MacSweeper -常に何かを診断し、購入要求 -OS X初の偽装アンチウィルスプログラム (2008.1.17) -KiVVi Softwareで作成し、強制マーケティングに使用したことで公式謝 罪 -2011/5以降Mac Defender、Mac Protector、Mac Security、 Mac Guard、Mac Shieldなど偽装プログラムが大幅に増加 -Apple社は同年5月末セキュリティアップデートを行い、偽装アンチウィルス -
Security and Hardening Guide Security and Hardening Guide SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 15 SP2
SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 15 SP2 Security and Hardening Guide Security and Hardening Guide SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 15 SP2 Introduces basic concepts of system security, covering both local and network security aspects. Shows how to use the product inherent security software like AppArmor, SELinux, or the auditing system that reliably collects information about any security-relevant events. Supports the administrator with security-related choices and decisions in installing and setting up a secure SUSE Linux Enterprise Server and additional processes to further secure and harden that installation. Publication Date: September 24, 2021 SUSE LLC 1800 South Novell Place Provo, UT 84606 USA https://documentation.suse.com Copyright © 2006– 2021 SUSE LLC and contributors. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or (at your option) version 1.3; with the Invariant Section being this copyright notice and license. A copy of the license version 1.2 is included in the section entitled “GNU Free Documentation License”. For SUSE trademarks, see https://www.suse.com/company/legal/ . All other third-party trademarks are the property of their respective owners. Trademark symbols (®, ™ etc.) denote trademarks of SUSE and its aliates. Asterisks (*) denote third-party trademarks. All information found in this book has been compiled with utmost attention to detail. However, this does not guarantee complete accuracy. Neither SUSE LLC, -
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
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 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. -
Ransomware Is Here: What You Can Do About It?
WHITEPAPER Ransomware is Here: What you can do about it? Overview Over the last few years, ransomware has emerged as one of the most devastating and costly attacks in the hacker arsenal. Cyber thieves are increasingly using this form of attack to target individuals, corporate entities and public sector organizations alike by holding your system or files for ransom. Unlike other forms of cyber theft that often involve stolen financial or healthcare information, ransomware cuts out the middleman. In cases where an attacker steals health or financial documents, they must sell them on to third parties to make money. As far as ransomware is concerned, the money comes directly from the victim. Ransomware is a quickly growing threat vector. According to the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint center (IC3), infected users made complaints about ransomware 2,453 times in 2015—nearly double the figure for 2014. What’s more, these figures most likely represent only the tip of the iceberg, as many users pay their ransom without making a report to the authorities. A recent survey conducted by a Cyber Security Research Center at the University of Kent found that over 40% of those infected with CryptoLocker actually agreed to pay the ransom demanded, which is a big incentive for hackers to target more systems. Lastly, hackers are rapidly iterating both malware and distribution techniques. In early Q2 of 2016, a new variant of ransomware, known as CryptXXX, emerged on the scene. This program is packed in such a way that users and antivirus software may initially confuse it for a Windows DLL file. -
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 -
Efficiently Mitigating Transient Execution Attacks Using the Unmapped Speculation Contract Jonathan Behrens, Anton Cao, Cel Skeggs, Adam Belay, M
Efficiently Mitigating Transient Execution Attacks using the Unmapped Speculation Contract Jonathan Behrens, Anton Cao, Cel Skeggs, Adam Belay, M. Frans Kaashoek, and Nickolai Zeldovich, MIT CSAIL https://www.usenix.org/conference/osdi20/presentation/behrens This paper is included in the Proceedings of the 14th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation November 4–6, 2020 978-1-939133-19-9 Open access to the Proceedings of the 14th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation is sponsored by USENIX Efficiently Mitigating Transient Execution Attacks using the Unmapped Speculation Contract Jonathan Behrens, Anton Cao, Cel Skeggs, Adam Belay, M. Frans Kaashoek, and Nickolai Zeldovich MIT CSAIL Abstract designers have implemented a range of mitigations to defeat transient execution attacks, including state flushing, selectively Today’s kernels pay a performance penalty for mitigations— preventing speculative execution, and removing observation such as KPTI, retpoline, return stack stuffing, speculation channels [5]. These mitigations impose performance over- barriers—to protect against transient execution side-channel heads (see §2): some of the mitigations must be applied at attacks such as Meltdown [21] and Spectre [16]. each privilege mode transition (e.g., system call entry and exit), To address this performance penalty, this paper articulates and some must be applied to all running code (e.g., retpolines the unmapped speculation contract, an observation that mem- for all indirect jumps). In some cases, they are so expensive ory that isn’t mapped in a page table cannot be leaked through that OS vendors have decided to leave them disabled by de- transient execution. To demonstrate the value of this contract, fault [2, 22]. -
Vulnerability Management: Overview
Resource ID: w-013-3774 Cybersecurity Tech Basics: Vulnerability Management: Overview SEAN ATKINSON, CIS™ (CENTER FOR INTERNET SECURITY), WITH PRACTICAL LAW INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & TECHNOLOGY Search the Resource ID numbers in blue on Westlaw for more. A Practice Note providing an overview of what Design, implementation, or other vendor oversights that create defects in commercial IT products (see Hardware and Software cyber vulnerability management programs Defects). are, how they work, and the key role they play Poor setup, mismanagement, or other issues in the way an in any organization’s information security organization installs and maintains its IT hardware and software components (see Unsecured Configurations). program. This Note discusses common types of Vulnerability management programs address these issues. Other cyber vulnerabilities and core process steps for common vulnerabilities that organizations must also tackle in their implementing and maintaining a vulnerability information security programs include: management program to decrease cybersecurity Gaps in business processes. Human weaknesses, such as lack of user training and awareness. risks. It also addresses common pitfalls that Poorly designed access controls or other safeguards. can lead to unnecessary cyber incidents and Physical and environmental issues. data breaches. Unlike threats, organizations can often directly control their vulnerabilities and therefore minimize the opportunities for threat actors. Most organizations depend on a combination of commercial and custom-developed hardware and software products to support their Organizations that develop their own in-house software should information technology (IT) needs. These technology components use security by design techniques to avoid creating vulnerabilities. inevitably include vulnerabilities in their design, setup, or the code that For more information on assessing overall data security risks and runs them. -
Bank of Chile Affected by Cyber-Attack Malware Found Pre
JUNE 2018 Bank of Chile Affected By Cyber-Attack On May 28, 2018, the Bank of Chile, the largest bank operating in the country, declared in a public statement that a virus presumably sent from outside of the country affected the bank’s operations. According to the announcement, the virus was discovered by internal IT experts on May 24. It impacted workstations, executives’ terminals, and cashier personnel, causing difficulties in office services and telephone banking. After the emergency, the Bank of Chile activated its contingency protocol by disconnecting some workstations and suspending normal operations to avoid the propagation of the virus. Although the virus severely affected the quality of banking services, the institution assured that the security of transactions, as well as client information and money remained safe at all times. Pinkerton assesses that cyber-attacks targeting financial institutions and international banks form part of a trend that is likely to continue increasing in 2018. So far, Pinkerton Vigilance Network sources had identified Mexico and Chile as the two most impacted by cyber-crimes in Latin America; however, Pinkerton finds that no nation is exempt from becoming a target. Clients are encouraged to review the standard regulations on cyber- security for their banks and its contingency protocols in the event of cyber-attacks. Any unrecognized banking operation or phishing scam should be reported as soon as possible to the Bank of Chile emergency phone line (600) 637 3737. For further information concerning security advise from the Bank of Chile, the following website can be consulted: https://ww3.bancochile.cl/wps/wcm/connect/personas/portal/seguridad/inicio-seguridad#Tab_ Acorden_Respon3. -
Ransomware Trends to Watch
2017. 03. 02 Ransomware Trends to Watch Notorious ransomware in 2016 and changes in ransomware trends 220, Pangyoyeok-ro, Bundang-gu, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do, South Korea Tel: +82-31-722-8000 | Fax: +82-31-722-8901 | www.ahnlab.com | © AhnLab, Inc. All rights reserved. Tech Report_ Ransomware Trends to Watch Table of Content Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Findings 1: Representative ransomware in 2016 ............................................................................ 4 1. Locky: No. 1 ransomware of 2016 ........................................................................................ 4 2. Cerber: ransomware with audio guidance ............................................................................. 5 3. CryptXXX: suddenly vanishing ransomware ......................................................................... 7 4. Types of ransomware that encrypt MBR ............................................................................... 8 Findings 2: Key changes in ransomware trends .............................................................................. 9 1. Expanded range of ransomware damages ........................................................................... 9 2. Diversification of distribution methods ................................................................................. 10 3. Changes in ransomware creation ......................................................................................