Feb 16 2018

32 class-action suits filed against Intel over Spectre and Meltdown flaws

Enlarge / This may become the new default imagery for Spectre and Meltdown around Intel. (credit: Brian Turner / Flickr)

In its annual SEC filing, Intel has revealed that it's facing 32 lawsuits over the Spectre and Meltdown attacks on its processors. While the Spectre problem is a near-universal issue faced by modern processors, the Meltdown attack is specific to processors from Intel and Apple, along with certain ARM designs that are coming to market shortly.

Per Intel's filing, 30 of the cases are customer class-action suits from users claiming to be harmed by the flaws. While Meltdown has effective workarounds, they come with some performance cost. Workarounds for Spectre are more difficult and similarly can harm system performance.

The other two cases are securities class actions that claim that Intel made misleading public statements during the six-month period after the company was notified of the problems but before the attacks were made public.

Read 2 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Feb 16 2018

Free Ransomware Available on Dark Web

The McAfee Advanced Threat Research team recently analyzed a ransomware-as-a-service threat that is available for free and without registration. This malware was first seen in July 2017 with the extension .shifr. It has now appeared in recent detections with the extension .cypher.

Ransomware-as-a-Service

Ransomware-as-a-service is a cybercrime economic model that allows malware developers to earn money for their creations without the need to distribute their threats. Nontechnical criminals buy their wares and launch the infections, while paying the developers a percentage of their take. The developers run relatively few risks, and their customers do most of the work.

Some ransomware-as-a-service, such as RaaSberry, use subscriptions while others require registration to gain access to the ransomware. The ransomware developer hosts a service on the “dark web” that allows any buyer to create and modify the malware. For example, the buyer can add custom ransom notes and the amount of the payment. More advanced services offer features such as evasion techniques to avoid detection and analysis. The service can also offer a control server with an administration panel to manage each victim. This system is convenient for both the developer, who makes money by selling malware, and for buyers, who gain ready-to-deploy ransomware without needing any specific coding knowledge.

The underground economy behind this service is well organized, effectively offering a cybercrime infrastructure. Basically, the ransomware is available on a website. The buyer sets up the ransomware by adding a wallet address. The ransomware is then available to download. The buyer just needs to customize and spread the malware. When a victim pays the ransom, a percentage is delivered both to the buyer and to the malware coder.

 

The ransomware is available on the TOR network at hxxp://kdvm5fd6tn6jsbwh.onion. A web page guides buyers through the configuration process.

On the configuration page, a generic XMPP address suggests we may have found a demo version of the ransomware.

On the page, the buyer need only to add a Bitcoin wallet address and the amount of the ransom. Once that is done, the malware is generated and can be downloaded. With this malware, the developer earns a 10% commission on every payment. Now let’s look at the malware sample.

Dynamic Analysis 

When the malware launches on the victim’s system, it checks for an Internet connection. If there is none, it exits the process. Otherwise, it contacts the following addresses to download the encryption key:

Once the file is running, it creates several files on the system:

  • Encryption_key: the RSA key encrypted in AES
  • Lock_file: an indicator that the system is encrypted
  • Uuid_file: a reference for the infected machine. A TOR address is generated with this ID.

The encryption key is downloaded from hxxps://kdvm5fd6tn6jsbwh.onion.to/new_c/xmKksHw53W433lmvNsdzGxqWLcPLA44Dyna.

The ransom note is created on the desktop.

The file “HOW_TO_DECRYPT_FILES.html” gives a link to the TOR network.

Once the files are encrypted, the ransom note is displayed in HTML and points to the TOR site hxxp://kdvm5fd6tn6jsbwh.onion/ with the ID of the infected machine.

Allegedly after payment, the victim can download the file decrypter.exe and unlock encrypted files, which have the extension .cypher.

The malware encrypts the following file extensions:

The targeted extensions include many picture and photography files related to Canon, Kodak, Sony, and others. There are also extensions for AutoCAD, Autodesk projects, scalable vector images, and Microsoft Office files. These files are mostly used by designers, photographers, architect—and many others.

Digging Deeper

The malware runs on 64-bit systems and is coded in Golang (“Go language,” from Google), a programming language similar to C with some improvements in error management. It is not common to find malware using Golang, although this is not the first time that we have analyzed such malware. This threat is pretty big compared with most other malware, larger than 5.5MB. The file size can make analysis more difficult and can also help evade hardcoded antimalware file-inspection sizes.

Reverse engineering in Golang is a bit different than other languages. Golang binaries are usually bigger than other executables. (By default, the compiler statically links the program’s libraries, resulting a bigger file.)

A drawback for attackers is that such big binaries can be easily detected on a corporate network. Large files are “noisier” and may appear suspicious when arriving from an external source. They can also be less convenient for attackers to deal with because they can make the infection process more difficult.

The first interesting function to analyze in a Golang binary is the “main_main.” The malware starts by gathering environment variables. It then checks whether the file “lock_file” exists in the directory C:\Users\<username>\AppData\Roaming.

The function “main_Exists” will check for the file. If it does not exist, the malware exits the process.

If the file does exist, the malware downloads the public key from the control server.

The malware contacts the address  hxxps://kdvm5fd6tn6jsbwh.onion/new_c/<nameofmalware>. The encryption public key is stored directly on the website.

This address is generated when the buyer creates the ransomware on the developer’s web page; thus the same malware encrypts files with the same public key.

The malware generates the AES key and tries to find any network share by querying the letters.

This function tries to find network shares:

Before a file is encrypted, the malware creates another file in C:\Users\<username>\AppData\Roaming\uuid_file to use as a victim identifier.

The malware encrypts the files using AES and deletes them after encryption with the function “os.remove” to avoid any simple forensic recovery.

The decrypter, which can be downloaded, works in a similar way but it requests the private key that the victims must pay for at hxxps://kdvm5fd6tn6jsbwh.onion.to/get_privkey/math/big. The mechanism behind the encryption routine seems to be on the online server and the decryption key cannot be easily recovered.

The following information describes the decrypter.

Conclusion

Cybercrime-as-a-service is not new, yet it is now more widespread than ever. In this case, the malware is available for free but the ransomware developer earns a 10% fee from each victim who pays a ransom. The use of Golang is not common for malware. Most ransomware-as-a-service is not free, which could indicate this might be a demonstration version, or a proof of concept for future sale.

This malware is not advanced and was coded without evasion techniques, such as DGA, SSL for control, encryption, or even file compression. Looking at the targeted file extensions suggests the victims can range from general home or business users to the graphics industry. Although such malware is not difficult to analyze, it can be very destructive in a corporate environment.

Keep in mind that paying a ransom is no guarantee of receiving a decryption key. McAfee advises that you never pay a ransom. You can find further information and help on unlocking some ransomware threats at https://www.nomoreransom.org.

McAfee detects this threat as Ransomware-FPDS!0F8CCEE515B8.

 

Indicators of Compromise

Hashes:

  • cb73927aa749f88134ab7874b15df898c014a35d519469f59b1c85d32fa69357
  • 0622fcb172773d8939b451c43902095b0f91877ae05e562c60d0ca0c237a2e9c

IP address:

  • hxxp://kdvm5fd6tn6jsbwh.onion

Files created:

  • C:\Users\<username>\AppData\Roaming\uuid_file
  • C:\Users\<username>\AppData\Roaming\lock_file
  • C:\Users\<username>\AppData\Roaming\encryption_key
  • C:\Users\< username >\Desktop\HOW_TO_DECRYPT_FILES.html

Encryption extension:

  • .cypher

References:

https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/0622fcb172773d8939b451c43902095b0f91877ae05e562c60d0ca0c237a2e9c/analysis/

https://isc.sans.edu/forums/diary/Ransomware+as+a+Service/23277/

 

The post Free Ransomware Available on Dark Web appeared first on McAfee Blogs.

Feb 15 2018

Krebs on Security 2018-02-15 13:11:30

Companies around the globe are scrambling to comply with new European privacy regulations that take effect a little more than three months from now. But many security experts are worried that the changes being ushered in by the rush to adhere to the law may make it more difficult to track down cybercriminals and less likely that organizations will be willing to share data about new online threats.

On May 25, 2018, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) takes effect. The law, enacted by the European Parliament, requires technology companies to get affirmative consent for any information they collect on people within the European Union. Organizations that violate the GDPR could face fines of up to four percent of global annual revenues.

In response, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) — the nonprofit entity that manages the global domain name system — is poised to propose changes to the rules governing how much personal information Web site name registrars can collect and who should have access to the data.

Specifically, ICANN has been seeking feedback on a range of proposals to redact information provided in WHOIS, the system for querying databases that store the registered users of domain names and blocks of Internet address ranges (IP addresses).

Under current ICANN rules, domain name registrars should collect and display a variety of data points when someone performs a WHOIS lookup on a given domain, such as the registrant’s name, address, email address and phone number. (Most registrars offer a privacy protection service that shields this information from public WHOIS lookups; some registrars charge a nominal fee for this service, while others offer it for free).

In a bid to help domain registrars comply with the GDPR regulations, ICANN has floated several proposals, all of which would redact some of the registrant data from WHOIS records. Its mildest proposal would remove the registrant’s name, email, and phone number, while allowing self-certified 3rd parties to request access to said data at the approval of a higher authority — such as the registrar used to register the domain name.

The most restrictive proposal would remove all registrant data from public WHOIS records, and would require legal due process (such as a subpoena or court order) to reveal any information supplied by the domain registrant.

ICANN’s various proposed models for redacting information in WHOIS domain name records.

The full text of ICANN’s latest proposed models (from which the screenshot above was taken) can be found here (PDF). A diverse ICANN working group made up of privacy activists, technologists, lawyers, trademark holders and security experts has been arguing about these details since 2016. For the curious and/or intrepid, the entire archive of those debates up to the current day is available at this link.

WHAT IS THE WHOIS DEBATE?

To drastically simplify the discussions into two sides, those in the privacy camp say WHOIS records are being routinely plundered and abused by all manner of ne’er-do-wells, including spammers, scammers, phishers and stalkers. In short, their view seems to be that the availability of registrant data in the WHOIS records causes more problems than it is designed to solve.

Meanwhile, security experts are arguing that the data in WHOIS records has been indispensable in tracking down and bringing to justice those who seek to perpetrate said scams, spams, phishes and….er….stalks.

Many privacy advocates seem to take a dim view of any ICANN system by which third parties (and not just law enforcement officials) might be vetted or accredited to look at a domain registrant’s name, address, phone number, email address, etc. This sentiment is captured in public comments made by the Electronic Frontier Foundation‘s Jeremy Malcolm, who argued that — even if such information were only limited to anti-abuse professionals — this also wouldn’t work.

“There would be nothing to stop malicious actors from identifying as anti-abuse professionals – neither would want to have a system to ‘vet’ anti-abuse professionals, because that would be even more problematic,” Malcolm wrote in October 2017. “There is no added value in collecting personal information – after all, criminals are not going to provide correct information anyway, and if a domain has been compromised then the personal information of the original registrant isn’t going to help much, and its availability in the wild could cause significant harm to the registrant.”

Anti-abuse and security experts counter that there are endless examples of people involved in spam, phishing, malware attacks and other forms of cybercrime who include details in WHOIS records that are extremely useful for tracking down the perpetrators, disrupting their operations, or building reputation-based systems (such as anti-spam and anti-malware services) that seek to filter or block such activity.

Moreover, they point out that the overwhelming majority of phishing is performed with the help of compromised domains, and that the primary method for cleaning up those compromises is using WHOIS data to contact the victim and/or their hosting provider.

Many commentators observed that, in the end, ICANN is likely to proceed in a way that covers its own backside, and that of its primary constituency — domain registrars. Registrars pay a fee to ICANN for each domain a customer registers, although revenue from those fees has been falling of late, forcing ICANN to make significant budget cuts.

Some critics of the WHOIS privacy effort have voiced the opinion that the registrars generally view public WHOIS data as a nuisance issue for their domain registrant customers and an unwelcome cost-center (from being short-staffed to field a constant stream of abuse complaints from security experts, researchers and others in the anti-abuse community).

“Much of the registrar market is a race to the bottom, and the ability of ICANN to police the contractual relationships in that market effectively has not been well-demonstrated over time,” commenter Andrew Sullivan observed.

In any case, sources close to the debate tell KrebsOnSecurity that ICANN is poised to recommend a WHOIS model loosely based on Model 1 in the chart above.

Specifically, the system that ICANN is planning to recommend, according to sources, would ask registrars and registries to display just the domain name, city, state/province and country of the registrant in each record; the public email addresses would be replaced by a form or message relay link that allows users to contact the registrant. The source also said ICANN plans to leave it up to the registries/registrars to apply these changes globally or only to natural persons living in the European Economic Area (EEA).

In addition, sources say non-public WHOIS data would be accessible via a credentialing system to identify law enforcement agencies and intellectual property rights holders. However, it’s unlikely that such a system would be built and approved before the May 25, 2018 effectiveness date for the GDPR, so the rumor is that ICANN intends to propose a self-certification model in the meantime.

ICANN spokesman Brad White declined to confirm or deny any of the above, referring me instead to a blog post published Tuesday evening by ICANN CEO Göran Marby. That post does not, however, clarify which way ICANN may be leaning on the matter.

“Our conversations and work are on-going and not yet final,” White wrote in a statement shared with KrebsOnSecurity. “We are converging on a final interim model as we continue to engage, review and assess the input we receive from our stakeholders and Data Protection Authorities (PDAs).”

But with the GDPR compliance deadline looming, some registrars are moving forward with their own plans on WHOIS privacy. GoDaddy, one of the world’s largest domain registrars, recently began redacting most registrant data from WHOIS records for domains that are queried via third-party tools. And it seems likely that other registrars will follow GoDaddy’s lead.

ANALYSIS

For my part, I can say without hesitation that few resources are as critical to what I do here at KrebsOnSecurity than the data available in the public WHOIS records. WHOIS records are incredibly useful signposts for tracking cybercrime, and they frequently allow KrebsOnSecurity to break important stories about the connections between and identities behind various cybercriminal operations and the individuals/networks actively supporting or enabling those activities. I also very often rely on WHOIS records to locate contact information for potential sources or cybercrime victims who may not yet be aware of their victimization.

In a great many cases, I have found that clues about the identities of those who perpetrate cybercrime can be found by following a trail of information in WHOIS records that predates their cybercriminal careers. Also, even in cases where online abusers provide intentionally misleading or false information in WHOIS records, that information is still extremely useful in mapping the extent of their malware, phishing and scamming operations.

Anyone looking for copious examples of both need only to search this Web site for the term “WHOIS,” which yields dozens of stories and investigations that simply would not have been possible without the data currently available in the global WHOIS records.

Many privacy activists involved in to the WHOIS debate have argued that other data related to domain and Internet address registrations — such as name servers, Internet (IP) addresses and registration dates — should also be considered private information. My chief concern if this belief becomes more widely held is that security companies might stop sharing such information for fear of violating the GDPR, thus hampering the important work of anti-abuse and security professionals.

This is hardly a theoretical concern. Last month I heard from a security firm based in the European Union regarding a new Internet of Things (IoT) botnet they’d discovered that was unusually complex and advanced. Their outreach piqued my curiosity because I had already been working with a researcher here in the United States who was investigating a similar-sounding IoT botnet, and I wanted to know if my source and the security company were looking at the same thing.

But when I asked the security firm to share a list of Internet addresses related to their discovery, they told me they could not do so because IP addresses could be considered private data — even after I assured them I did not intend to publish the data.

“According to many forums, IPs should be considered personal data as it enters the scope of ‘online identifiers’,” the researcher wrote in an email to KrebsOnSecurity, declining to answer questions about whether their concern was related to provisions in the GDPR specifically.  “Either way, it’s IP addresses belonging to people with vulnerable/infected devices and sharing them may be perceived as bad practice on our end. We consider the list of IPs with infected victims to be private information at this point.”

Certainly as the Internet matures and big companies develop ever more intrusive ways to hoover up data on consumers, we also need to rein in the most egregious practices while giving Internet users more robust tools to protect and preserve their privacy. In the context of Internet security and the privacy principles envisioned in the GDPR, however, I’m worried that cybercriminals may end up being the biggest beneficiaries of this new law.

Feb 13 2018

Krebs on Security 2018-02-13 17:13:27

Microsoft today released a bevy of security updates to tackle more than 50 serious weaknesses in Windows, Internet Explorer/Edge, Microsoft Office and Adobe Flash Player, among other products. A good number of the patches issued today ship with Microsoft’s “critical” rating, meaning the problems they fix could be exploited remotely by miscreants or malware to seize complete control over vulnerable systems — with little or no help from users.

February’s Patch Tuesday batch includes fixes for at least 55 security holes. Some of the scarier bugs include vulnerabilities in Microsoft Outlook, Edge and Office that could let bad guys or bad code into your Windows system just by getting you to click on a booby trapped link, document or visit a compromised/hacked Web page.

As per usual, the SANS Internet Storm Center has a handy rundown on the individual flaws, neatly indexing them by severity rating, exploitability and whether the problems have been publicly disclosed or exploited.

One of the updates addresses a pair of serious vulnerabilities in Adobe Flash Player (which ships with the latest version of Internet Explorer/Edge). As KrebsOnSecurity warned last week, there are active attacks ongoing against these Flash vulnerabilities.

Adobe is phasing out Flash entirely by 2020, but most of the major browsers already take steps to hobble Flash. And with good reason: It’s a major security liability. Chrome also bundles Flash, but blocks it from running on all but a handful of popular sites, and then only after user approval.

For Windows users with Mozilla Firefox installed, the browser prompts users to enable Flash on a per-site basis. Through the end of 2017 and into 2018, Microsoft Edge will continue to ask users for permission to run Flash on most sites the first time the site is visited, and will remember the user’s preference on subsequent visits.

The latest standalone version of Flash that addresses these bugs is 28.0.0.161 for Windows, Mac, Linux and Chrome OS. But most users probably would be better off manually hobbling or removing Flash altogether, since so few sites actually require it still. Disabling Flash in Chrome is simple enough. Paste “chrome://settings/content” into a Chrome browser bar and then select “Flash” from the list of items. By default it should be set to “Ask first” before running Flash, although users also can disable Flash entirely here or whitelist and blacklist specific sites.

People running Adobe Reader or Acrobat also need to update, as Adobe has shipped new versions of these products that fix at least 39 security holes. Adobe Reader users should know there are alternative PDF readers that aren’t so bloated or full of security issues. Sumatra PDF is a good, lightweight alternative.

Experience any issues, glitches or problems installing these updates? Sound off about it in the comments below.