Avast AV & CCleaner Massive Malware Download: How to Help the End users

ccleaner

Screenshot of CCleaner from Talos Blog

Computers are hard. Ask the average user. They expect technology to serve their needs, not the other way around. Computers are supposed to be instant gratification, entertainment, making life easier, solving problems. They are not supposed to require much more effort than pressing the “on” key and typing. Anything else is our problem – we we were supposed to build security in, right?

We talk increasingly about “the human condition” in tech and security, because more often than not, it is that path of least resistance. Attackers know how we succumb – hence phishing. We opt for free – but you really do only get what you pay for, and buyer beware. Convenience, immediacy, lowest price – these drive the standard of quality in our connected world. It explains the current abysmal state of the IoT. And as we know, we cannot keep doing what we have been doing because – say it with me – it just doesn’t work anymore.

So when things go wrong, which they have been on an almost daily basis it seems, we who are tech reach out to the end users and let them know that they have to do more: remove software, delete files, check for files, run scans. As anyone who has ever worked helpdesk or worked with end users knows, this is not an easy ask. Most people struggle with just setting up their ISP modem/routers. Never mind removing default passwords or enabling controls. People tend to be afraid of technology, because as humans, we are afraid of what we don’t know. So we are afraid of breaking things, just as we are afraid to ask for help. And face it, tech support has earned its reputation for good reason.  People know when they are being made fun of, talked down to. We don’t make it easy for people to ask for help.

It doesn’t help that mega breaches and global ransomware outbreaks have been consistently in the headlines this past year. It’s enough to give anyone breach fatigue. And that’s what brings me to this. The talented team at Cisco Talos have issued a warning in their blog about a massive malware infection being spread by a tool, CCleaner 5.33, that has been shipping with a popular, often free, antivirus product, Avast. This is the statement according to Piriform, who owns CCleaner:

“An unauthorized modification of the CCleaner.exe binary resulted in an insertion of a two-stage backdoor capable of running code received from a remote IP address on affected systems.”

There are excellent technical write ups on this latest event and mine is not one of them. Initially, I saw the threat of securing third parties – we all know the perils of supply chain. But then, as I read through it, I realized I could read through it only after months of immersing myself, by choice, in infosec. Choosing to look up and learn what I did not already know (which is still a lot). The average user – that ain’t happening. They may read some of the articles that are more mainstream, but don’t bank on that either. Increasingly, end users are hitting the bar. Some are defeatist, saying they don’t care anymore, it’s pointless, what can they do anyway. Others believe in the power of the megacorps to protect them, so they follow whatever advice is given, like buying credit monitoring. Because that is easier than having to piece together a solution themselves on something they really know nothing about. And others prefer the head in the sand approach – Hear no evil, see no evil. I kid you not.

Some are lucky enough to have the money to pay a tech to fix the problem. Some have tech friends/family who can fix it for them. Most, however, are cast adrift on a sea of increasing peril, without life preservers. And even if we threw them a lifeline, we can’t expect they would be willing to take it. Trust goes both ways.

Before you make fun of the folks who chose Avast because it was free, here’s how I rationalized it years ago, before I arrived in InfoSec. I knew I needed to do something to secure my computer, and a free AV was better then nothing at all. Plus I could use it. And understand enough to use it, to scan. To pay attention if it alerted me. Maybe I even read a bit more to see that it suggested things I could do to clean up my computer and be safer. So, I would have downloaded CCleaner, which I have seen recommended in other places as a safe and free solution to optimizing my performance. And here’s the thing – I would have expected a known AV product, like Avast, would not be endorsing something harmful. Hence, I could trust CCleaner because I could trust Avast.

certsAnd Avast trusted CCleaner enough to promote and bundle them. To download them. So let’s look at that breakdown of trust. The researchers at Cisco Talos flagged a malicious executable file while doing some beta testing for their new product. That file happened to be the installer file for CCleaner v5.33. Now, that file was being delivered as downloads in good faith by legit CCleaner servers to millions of customers. It was legit because the appropriate digital certification was issued and signed to the main company, Piriform.

Enter the attackers. They had managed to intrude this trust worthy process and include a free, unwelcome gift with download.  This was malware, a malicious payload containing the ability to call back to the attackers command and control server, as well as being equipped with a DGA or Domain Generating Algorithm – definitely not a good thing. Obfuscation is a thing. If you can’t find someone was there, how do you know? And, without evidence or proof, trying to analyze this after the fact is problematic. The good news is there was a short window of release between August 15 til the latest version, 5.34 was issued on September 12. In previous attacks I’ve seen, manipulation of digital certificates is often an indicator that compromise is deep, systemic even, and trust in the signing authority may have been misplaced. In this case, Cisco cites:

 “the fact that the binary was digitally signed using a valid certificate issued to the software developer, it is likely that an external attacker compromised a portion of their development or build environment and leveraged that access to insert malware into the CCleaner build that was released and hosted by the organization. It is also possible that an insider with access to either the development or build environments within the organization intentionally included the malicious code or could have had an account (or similar) compromised which allowed an attacker to include the code”

Looking through the malware, Cisco found clues that the attacker tried to cover their tracks. Once the infection was in place, the program worked to erase its source data and the memory regions it inhabited. With the legit program now installed, the attacker has the ability to do as they wish in the machine they now occupy. Which means they can gather system information on the machine and send it back to their command + control server. With this link established, other malware could be sent to infect the compromised machines. Here is a high level view of what happens, as written by the Talos crew:talos pic2

As for the DGA, if the key C+C server for the malware failed to respond, the program had a failback to generate some other IP addresses using the DGA and dns lookups. Here’s the good news. Talos used the algorithm and found that the domains it generated had not been registered. Moving on it,  they registered them instead and sinkholed them to keep the attackers out. As well, the malicious version of CCleaner had been removed from the download servers.

talos pic3

What is of concern is how many people around the world apparently use CCleaner.  As of today, Piriform is somewhat ambivalent in its claims of the number of users affected. Are they limited to only 32 bit windows machines? If you go back to Aug 15, would almost 4 million users have downloaded the malware?

cleaner

Talos advises that users need to either rollback to the previous version or install the new one. Which brings me to my earlier point about the human condition:

“according to the CCleaner download page, the free version of CCleaner does not provide automated updates, so this might be a manual process for affected users.”

The team at Talos is seeing a lot of DNS activity around machines trying to connnect with those suspect domains that are no longer available. And the only reason can be those machines are being controlled by malware. Worse, the malware is not being detected using current methods. So far as fixing things goes: if you currently are a Cisco customer then you are covered. As for the rest of us, sigh. We have work to do. Uninstalling will not remove the malware. That is left to you.  If you have a full backup of your system, (and in this age of ransomware you really, really need one)  you can restore from that. Otherwise, I suggest using Malwarebytes.

http://blog.talosintelligence.com/2017/09/avast-distributes-malware.html

https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/18/avast-reckons-ccleaner-malware-infected-2-27m-users/

Advertisements

Petnya Post-Mortem: Wiper, not Ransom

This wasn’t just another ransomware attack. It marks a pivot. Because these are the games nationstates play. With collateral damage and no impunity because attribution is hard. We left brick and mortar behind some time ago, when the battlefield moved to cyberspace, where there are no boundaries. Moreover, whatever previous rules of battle we followed do not apply.

There was a one-two punch, with the events out of the Ukraine Thursday morning.  Absolutely things were connected and we need to remember that going forward. Bigger picture. Because a lot is at play right now. From my vantage point, as a Poli Sci grad, cyber security is intrinsically tied to whatever is going on in the larger arena. National security. Global security. The whims of the powers that be dictate their machinations of technology, which has become their new and shiny arsenal. They’ve been at it for a while now, but unlike conventional physical battlefields, we don’t witness what plays out until we’re impacted.

What’s critical to me is that this attack was presented as ransomware to throw us off. As described by The Grugq:

This is definitely not designed to make money. This is designed to spread fast and cause damage, with a plausibly deniable cover of “ransomware.”

This was actually a targeted attack against Ukraine, using malware that was highly destructive. This attack was never about making money. It was all about taking down systems and taking away access to essential service, as per this illustration from the blog post by The Grugq :

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Think CIA – confidentiality, integrity, accessibility. Ransomware and wiperware go after accessibility. And in our world, downtime can equal death, figuratively as well as literally (think hospitals and critical infrastructure).  As Leslie Carhart says:

Blood is in the Water -Not only have criminals found that ransomware is a great money-making scheme, but nation states and terrorist organizations have realized pseudo-ransomware makes a misleading and effective weapon. A weapon that can cause collateral damage, globally.

 

 

 

 

 

 

There have been some excellent reviews of what this attack was about, and how the Eternal Blue exploit released via ShadowBrokers was yet again leveraged against unpatched systems. Key takeaways were:

  • Unpatched systems will continue to be our undoing and exploited. We’re more at risk now because of that cache of exploits being lobbed at us monthly via the ShadowBrokers.
  • Lateral movement within networks works for attackers and infection spread. Segment. Segregate. Flat networks are an attacker’s dream.
  • Multiple infection vectors. There were as many as 4 ways for the target to be compromised.
  • Backup and test how those restore. Don’t assume anything. And keep backups off the main network
  • Windows.  Everyone uses it. Powershell. Sysinternals. AD. PSExec. Let’s keep learning about these because the attackers sure as heck know what they can do with them.

We know what er are not doing well. It’s catching up with us. Let me end with these words of wisdom by Leslie:

Defense in depth, including human threat hunting and effective detection and prevention at many points, is key. This will involve policy and financial buy-in from many lagging organizations at a new level.

And this sums it up:

 

 

 

 

 

 

These blog posts say everything I could ever want you to know, only better. Please read them:

The Grugq: Pnetya: Yet Another Ransomware Outbreak  .

Leslie Carhart @hacksforpancakes:  Why NotPetya Kep Me Awake (And You Should Worry Too)

Cisco Talos Blog: New Ransomware Variant Netnya Compromises Systems Worldwide

Learning: Reversing Malware

Have you ever wanted to learn about reversing malware? There is no better way to understand exploits and infections. It’s essential as attacks evolve and we need to understand what’s being leveraged, how and why. It’s fascinating, and yes – you can do this. Dream big! Aim high!

@MalwareUnicorn (Twitter) is one of the best there is at this and she shares her wisdom and knowledge online. I’ll make you a deal – let’s start learning this together. I promise regular progress updates.

Here is her site. Let’s get going!

https://securedorg.github.io/RE101/

The ABC’s of APTs: Shamoon

sham35Welcome to the grey zone where politics and cyber meet. APTs or advanced persistent threats, are one of my favourite acronyms (but then you know how I am intrigued by Stuxnet and cartels), and essentially are how nation states get their digital digs at each other. Usually the intention is to get information, because knowledge is power. Cyberespionage can give a competing nation a real competitive advantage in the world economy, among other things. But sometimes, there is a need to control more, and that is where weaponizing code takes on a whole new nasty.

The keyword here is “persistence.”  First, attackers must find their way into the networks of the target. Usually, they employ targeted spear phishing, painstakingly staking out the right victim to receive that loaded email.  The investment of time and money at this point is essential, so as not to tip anyone off. And the emails are crafted so carefully, picking up on points tailored to that recipient so that they will open it, and launch the attachment that will create an entry point for the attacker. There is a reason why phishing is at the heart of so many breaches.

Now, imagine a video game, where you must progressively meet the challenges of each level to go higher. That is the attacker moving through the network, acquiring credentials to gain access to the crown jewels. The strategy is to find someone lower level, then work your way up. Hence, persistence, because this is an investment of both time and patience. Expect the key executives or decision makers to be well-guarded, with access and authorization controls in place. Not the case for someone lower on the food chain. All an attacker needs is to gain access. As proven repeatedly, once in, they can take all the time they need to find what they want. Case in point: the attack on the Ukraine power grid in December 2016.  The attackers were in that system for over nine months, collecting what they needed, notably credentials for the Virtual Private Network, that enabled them to jump the security gap onto the restricted side. As Stuxnet taught us, there is no such thing as air-gapped security.

shamoonattackgraphic

We know the Russians hacked the US; we know China hacked the US and Canada; and yes, the US has hacked someone too. These are the games nations play. The trick, of course, is not to get caught before you have the prize. And when you do get caught?  Well, as we’ve seen play out, nothing really bad happens. Just expect that your victim will be in your systems. Unless information isn’t the endgame and control is. Then, be prepared for something to go bump in the night.

Shamoon is devastating wiper malware that took out a massive swath of Saudi Aramco when it first debuted in 2012.  Linked to Iran, and an ongoing feud in the region between key players, it was a targeted attack against the oil giant, damaging or destroying 35,000 computers. Sec Def at the time, Leon Panetta, described it as “probably the most destructive cyber attack on a business.”

Wiper malware was used against business targets in  December 2014 destroying the systems in a Vegas casino, The Sands, after owner Sheldon Adelson advocated using nuclear weapons against Iran. The US “publicly cited Iran as the culprit”.   Then Disstrack was used again in December 2015, in the attack that brought Sony to its knees.  These aren’t gangs using cybercrime for monetary gain. These are the equivalent of acts of war, given the level of damage done.

Fast forward to late 2016. Two major attacks happened in Saudi: November 17 taking out systems at the airport and other Saudi government agencies, and then again on November 29. Then, on January 23 there was another attack. The malware used was almost identical to the original Shamoon, aka Disstrack.  Except there were a few key enhancements.  According to Andrew Plato, CEO of Anitian Enterprise Security

 “What is really worrisome about this is it’s just outright destructive. It isn’t really trying to steal anything. It’s the closest things we’re going to get to a cyber bomb”.

The new version, dubbed Shamoon 2, spread through the local network using legitimate counts belonging to users and administrators, with complex passwords likely obtained from an earlier attack. Remember what I said about persistence?  This new version, however went on to attack VDIs, or Virtual Desktops, which previously could have offered some protection because of their ability to load snapshots of systems that were wiped. Now Shamoon had migrated from just Windows-based systems to Linux in the attacks on VDIs.

cyberwar1-1024x482

Now, I don’t want to be alarmist and spread FUD everywhere. Yes, this is serious and destructive. Like Stuxnet, it broke things. And that’s the differentiator. So far, the line hasn’t been crossed where breaking things was deliberately done to harm people. Because as Archer would say: You want cyberwar? Because that’s how you get cyberwar.

While the expectation is that Iran is once again behind the attacks, Symantec has revealed there are multiple parties involved. More than one entity, so collaboration and cooperation.  The report is that an entity known as Greenbug may have assisted in getting the credentials needed for access.  Palo Alto reported on a campaign known as Magic Hound which targeted energy, technology and government with ties or locations in Saudi.  There were links between Magic Hound and two other actors with Iranian ties: Charming Kitten and Rocket Kitten. Finally, putting all this together was the group Timberworm or Cobalt Gypsy.  Per Symantec, Timberworm was behind the January 23 attacks.

Here’s the play by play. First, Timberworm used spear phishing emails with weaponized documents (we warned you about those Office Macros!) to gain initial access into the network. Once there, they used custom malware, along with leveraging existing sysadmin tools to avoid detection, and help them achieve persistent remote access. Quick FYI: custom malware is a hallmark of major organized cybercrime groups or nation state attacks because it costs a lot of time and money to craft, and the stakes are going to be very high.

Apparently Greenbug and Timberworm have been active, penetrating organizations beyond Saudi. Note that Shamoon, however, was only used against the Saudi target. Timberworm is a large operation, as is Greenbug, with targets in a range of areas. We know who they are now, what they can do, and that they have a shared interest. What we don’t know: the endgame. I’m waiting for that other shoe to drop.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-01/another-false-flag-destructive-iranian-hackers-allegedly-wreak-havoc-saudi-computer-

http://www.securityweek.com/shamoon-2-variant-targets-virtualization-products

http://www.securityweek.com/multiple-groups-cooperated-shamoon-attacks-Symantec

http://www.archersecuritygroup.com/second-wave-bomb-malware-hits-saudi-arabia/

Ransomware Updates

We’ve got some new stuff out there. First, for those who torrent, be careful. If you torrent on a Mac, be very careful.  For the second time, ransomware has been designed for the Mac OS.In this case, “Patcher” is poor quality, shoddy code, to the extent that if the victim pays the ransom, they don’t get their files back because that code doesn’t work. It’s getting dropped via fake Adobe Premier Pro and Microsoft Office for Mac.

Second, if Google is telling you “Hoefler test not found”, don’t think you need to install that font. It’s a ploy on certain compromised websites to drop Spora ransomware. And very few AV or anti-malware programs can detect this one.

spora.JPG But, if you play it safe and do as Google says, click Discard and don’t download.  You’ll avoid ransomware.

If you want to know more, I’ve got a Ransomware page.

And saved the best for last. This amazing map from F-Secure shows the timeline of ransomware.  You can see the explosion that took place in 2016.

ransomware-tube-map

https://www.f-secure.com/documents/996508/1030743/cyber-security-report-2017

 

Banking on Insecurity

They came for the money, they stayed for the data. There is far more at stake in financial services than dollars and sense. The past twelve months have shown how far attackers are willing and able to go; banks are known for their conservative pace in adopting new strategies, and attackers are literally banking on it.

As the saying goes, “In God we trust”. In banks, maybe not so much.  According to a recent report by Capgemini, one in five bank execs are “highly confident” in their ability to detect a breach, never mind defend themselves against it.  Yet “83% of consumers believe their banks are secure from cyber attack”.  One in four banks report they’ve been attacked, but only 3% of consumers believe their bank has suffered a breach. Never mind the money. How about the data? Survey shows that 71% of banks don’t have a solid security strategy in place, nor do they have adequate data privacy practices. The numbers are not good. Only 40% of banking and insurance companies have automated security intelligence capabilities for proactive threat detection

After following the trail on the SWIFT bank heists last year, I’ve paid close attention to banking malware, threat actors, and points of failure. What worries me is what’s coming as digital payments become the norm, and digital identities take hold in developing nations who lack the infrastructure or regulation to secure or enforce. Given what we already know, what does this recent history of attacks tell us?

Polish Banks
The recent series of targeted malware attacks against Polish banks was identified in January this year, but attackers went after the data, not money. After noticing unusual network activity, like traffic to “exotic” locations and encrypted executables that nobody knew of, and unauthorised files on key machines in the network, several commercial banks confirmed malware infections. Investigations revealed infection stemmed from a tampered JS file from the webserver of the Polish financial sector regulatory body.  This was actually part of a wider campaign that has gone after financial institutions in over 30 countries.  According to researchers from both BAE Systems and Symantec, the malware used in Poland can be linked to similar attacks around the globe, and there are marked similarities to tools used by the cybercrime group Lazarus, although no confirmation has been made.  Targets were led to compromised sites of interest to them, watering holes, which were malicious sites that injected code and directed the targets to a customized exploit kit.  This kit contained exploits against known vulnerabilities in Flash Player and Silverlight. What’s interesting is that the exploits were only activated for certain visitors: those with IP addresses from specific ranges. Per Symantec, “The IP addresses belong to 104 different organizations located in 31 different countries … The vast majority of these organizations are banks, with a small number of telecoms and internet firms on the list.” 15 of these are from the US.  The infection downloaded enables recon on the compromised system. Again, this tool is similar to those used in past by the Lazarus group. Now every major security group has published their opinions and analysis on what was originally all but overlooked as some malware that spread from the regulatory body’s server.

Fileless Malware Attacks
In January of this year, there were reports around the globe of attacks on banks using fileless malware. The malware resided solely in the memory of compromised systems.  This is not signature based malware that can be referenced and detected. According to Kaspersky, 140 enterprises in 40 countries have been hit. And forensics cannot help us:

“ memory forensics is becoming critical to the analysis of malware and its functions. In these particular incidents, the attackers used every conceivable anti-forensic technique; demonstrating how no malware files are needed for the successful exfiltration of data from a network, and how the use of legitimate and open source utilities makes attribution almost impossible.” 

But the infections are hard to identify so that number could well be more.  Further complicating things is the use of legitimate and widely used sysadmin and security tools  like PowerShell, Metasploit and Mimikatz for malware injection. In a range of incidents, the common denominator seems to be embedding PowerShell in the registry to download Meterpreter. From there, the attack is carried out using the native Windows utilities and sysadmin tools. Per Kaspersky:

fileless1fileless2

The new fileless malware hitting banks is Duqu 2.0, which Kaspersky found on it corporate network in 2014, but only after it went undetected for 6 months because it lives almost completely in the memory of the computers. Duqu 2.0 is derived from Stuxnet. The malware renames itself when an infected computer is rebooted so digital forensics has a tough time finding traces. The calling card seems to be the unusual embedding of PowerShell into the registry to download Meterpreter. Duqu 2.0 is derived from Stuxnet. Reports aren’t saying how the malware spreads.

TESCO Bank Attack
In November 2016, Tesco Bank, a British retail bank chain with 7 million customers, warned its customers to watch for suspicious money withdrawals. Unfortunately, when customers who noticed money was missing from their accounts reached out to the bank, many could not get through. Approximately 20,000 accounts were hit. Tesco briefly halted online transactions in response. The attack seemed to stem from a “systemic failure of security around Tesco’s core database”. Recommendations include having controls in place to alert on changes to key files and configurations. As well, file monitoring integrity and Configuration Management Security ensure that if and when changes are made, they are valid and validated.

Take the Money and Run:  COBALT, ATMs and ‘Jackpotting’
There was a distinct rise in ATM attacks over 2016.  The latest siege, Cobalt, covers a wide swath across the UK, Spain, Russia, Romania, the Netherlands, much of Eastern Europe and Malaysia.  According to Group IB researchers, a large number of machines are attacked at once, and Cobalt appears to be linked to cybercrime syndicate Buhtrap.  The malware used causes infected machines to spit out cash in an attacks known as “jackpotting”.  Noteworthy is how this is being described as “the new model of organized crime”.  The FBI issued warnings to US banks following those ATM heists, taking into account the attacks in Taiwan and Thailand, when thieves grabbed over 260,000 pounds from Thailand’s Government savings bank and $2.5 million from Taiwan. The world’s two largest ATM manufacturers, NCR and Diebold Nixdorf, worked to manage the threat.

Lloyd’s Bank Hit by DDoS Attack
In January the venerable Lloyd’s Bank of London was struck by a DDoS attack that lasted two days.  Attackers tried to crash the Lloyd’s site, causing issues for customers and impacting some access to online banking.  The bank did not lose money, nor data, nor was the impact significant.  Law enforcement is investigating.

Attacks on Banks in the SWIFT System
Banks rely on messenger systems to conduct transfers back and forth. In 2016, a series of targeted attacks on banks in the trusted SWIFT messenger system came to light after a massive heist on the Bank of Bangladesh. Apparently the attacks are evolving, and SWIFT has told member bank, in an undisclosed letter from Nov. 2, that “attacks on its systems have only become more sophisticated in their strategies”.  “The threat is very persistent, adaptive and sophisticated – and it is here to stay”.  This is despite the work by regulators globally to toughen bank security measures. And the word is that “a fifth of them are hitting paydirt for the attackers”, per Stephen Gilderdale, head of SWIFT’s Customer Security Programme. Now the hackers exploit tech support software to gain access. Then send victims phony payment instructions via SWIFT network.  SWIFT emphasizes that all those attacks detected “exploited SWIFT interfaces used by its customers” but that the SWIFT communications network itself was not impacted. In light of this, warnings are being issued to small businesses to realize the threat to them is real.  Scams have become more sophisticated and will continue to evolve. 

Sources:

https://badcyber.com/several-polish-banks-hacked-information-stolen-by-unknown-attackers/
https://securelist.com/blog/research/77403/fileless-attacks-against-enterprise-networks/
https://www.symantec.com/connect/blogs/attackers-target-dozens-global-banks-new-malware-0
https://baesystemsai.blogspot.sk/2017/02/lazarus-watering-hole-attacks.html   https://threatpost.com/fileless-memory-based-malware-plagues-140-banks-enterprises/123652/
http://www.welivesecurity.com/2017/02/16/demystifying-targeted-malware-used-polish-banks/?utm_source=organic%20twitter&utm_medium=news&utm_campaign=WLS   http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/banking/finance/banking/indian-banks-are-waking-up-to-a-new-kind-of-cyber-attack/articleshow/56575808.cms
https://www.f-secure.com/documents/996508/1030743/cyber-security-report-2017

Irongate & Customized ICS Malware: Don’t Hit the Snooze Button This time

icspic3

ICS or Industrial Control System networks are integral to running our critical infrastructure, industrial and manufacturing processes, hospitals.  These are specialized systems that have been kept separate or “air gapped” from main networks, but that has been changing over the past few years as everybody finds ways to get connected. However, a mindset persists that because these systems are “special” and “different”, and because they have been segregated from conventional networks for so long, they are inherently protected. This past week heralded the discovery of “Irongate”, customized malware for ICS that is still in the testing stages and has not been used against production facilities – yet. The fact that somebody has carried on from where Stuxnet left off is a warning to us all that our assumptions on what keeps us secure no longer apply.

Stuxnet showed us that specialized systems offer attackers, especially at the nation state level, a unique opportunity for this reason. Nobody is looking when they think they are secure. The fact is that attackers live within our networks for long periods. We have seen this proven in recent months through the rapid escalation of ransomware and lateral movement through networks to accumulate info and destroy data; in the attack on the power grid in the Ukraine where attackers harvested credentials to access the VPN and get into supposedly secure systems; and the SWIFT banking heists where attackers learned the most intricate details of how to manipulate printer outputs and redirect huge monetary transactions.

‘Airgaps’ are great in theory, but don’t hold up given the growing reality of the Iot and now the IIoT. With pressures to cut costs, increase productivity, and just make things easier, these systems are being connected to corporate networks and the “Cloud”. There’s a whole lot of scary here because the truth is that ICS systems are not well monitored. Experts like Chris Sistrunk and Robert M. Lee have made this pointedly clear in emphasizing the need for NSM, network system monitoring and DFiR, digital forensics, to look for what attackers leave behind.  You can’t find the danger if you aren’t looking.

While the big announcement of Irongate was this week, researchers actually found samples late 2015, and reports show that the malware can be dated as far back at 2012, and was submitted to VirusTotal through the web interface in Israel in 2014. There is no evidence of this having been used in any campaign, nor is it associated with known threat actors.  Siemens ProductCERT confirmed that “the code would not work against a standard Siemens control system environment”. As it stands, it is not proof-of-concept for an actual weapon or adversary. Yet, the code was found when searching for droppers compiled with PyInstaller; Irongate droppers are Python scripts converted to executables from that same software. Somebody saw the need to make this, and the opportunity for exploit.  We need to read into that and act on it before it moves from test to production.

According to Robert M. Lee,

“ICS is a viable target and attackers are getting smarter on how to impact ICS with ICS specific knowledge sets… The unique nature of ICS offers defenders many advantages in countering adversaries but it is not enough. You cannot rest on the fact that ‘ICS is unique’ or ‘ICS can be hard to figure out’ as a defense mechanism. It is a great vantage point for defenders but must be taken advantage of or adversaries will overcome it.”

Right now, there is a lot of speculation around why this exists in test, without a known contributor. Dan Scali, senior manager for FireEye Mandiant ICS Consulting, posits “Is someone trying this in a simulated [environment] before taking it to a production environment? Or is it a researcher saying ‘look what I can do … a Stuxnet-type thing?”

Robert M Lee expressed concern that this illustrates a fundamental security problem with ICS/SCADA. “It’s a sign of the interest in this by pen testers, security companies, as well as adversaries…I am not confident that a majority of the industry could respond to it. We don’t know what’s out there; antivirus companies aren’t finding it and even if they had, who would know what to do with it [the threat]?”

If we’re not looking, we’re not finding. And we won’t be able to prepare for attacks which are already in the works. We would be foolish to think otherwise.

This argument is made by Lior Frenkel, CEO of Waterfall Security.  He expects attacks similar to Stuxnet “are in the pipeline”.

these attacks will increase in their sophistication and complexity so any solution needs to be completely comprehensive and robust to cover the full perimeter of an ICS site … (adding that) unidirectional gateways are the optimal solution for these attacks”.

Add to that this assertion by Sean McBride, attack synthesis lead for FireEye iSIGHT Intelligence: “I would not be surprised to see sandbox evasion and file replacement attacks incorporated by future ICS malware deployed in the wild.” This is yet another wakeup call for ICS SCADA, and other sensitive segregated systems.

Irongate is

  • sophisticated,
  • has the capacity to be persistent,
  • is evasive
  • undetected by AV
  • introduces new features to existing knowledge of customized ICS malware.

The key feature is a man-in-the-middle (MitM) attack, where the malware replaces existing DLL (Dynamic Link Library) files with malicious ones, enabling it to come between a PLC and legitimate monitoring software to engineer the next step. Like a scene from a movie, where the security camera footage is manipulated, the malicious DLL records five seconds of ‘normal’ traffic from a PLC to the user interface. This “footage” goes on replay while other data gets sent back to the PLC. Hence an attacker can alter a controlled process without alerting the process operators.

Causes for concern should be:  this malware was undetected by AV, even though some strings had the word “dropper” and there was an actual module named scada.exe; the malware is evasive, and will not run if it detects the use of VMware or Cuckoo Sandbox environments – something Stuxnet could not do.

Although Irongate is not as complex, the similarities to Stuxnet stand out:

  • Both types of malware search for a single, highly specific process.
  • Both replace DLLs to manipulate processes
  • Both are evasive. IRONGATE looks for sandbox or VMware that allow observation of malware; Stuxnet sought out antivirus software.
  • Both manipulate process data. IRONGATE actively records and plays back to conceal it manipulations however.

A key difference is that unlike Stuxnet, “Irongate has no worm-like spreading function, nor any apparent ties to nation-state actors”.

Recommendations on how to secure against this latest variant of ICS malware include integrity checks and code. But it really comes down to following through on best practices and those areas already identified as weak. The problem is that what we’ve been doing will fail us going forward, and we’re failing at doing the basics right. Know your baselines and actively look for anomalies. NSM needs to happen, as does DFiR within ICS, comprehensively and without further delays and excuses. Otherwise, we are turning a blind eye to attackers who know these systems better than we do.

This latest variant of customized ICS malware may be in the testing stages as we found it. But you can bet if someone else is working on this, things have already moved toward production and deployment. Irongate is yet another major wakeup call and we can’t keep hitting the snooze button.

Resources:

https://www.fireeye.com/blog/threat-research/2016/06/irongate_ics_malware.html

https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2016/04/13/ics-network-attacks/?utm_content=buffer3b349&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

http://www.darkreading.com/threat-intelligence/shades-of-stuxnet-spotted-in-newly-found-ics-scada-malware-/d/d-id/1325753

https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2016/06/03/ics-focused-irongate-malware/