IT News

Yesterday we told you about Apple’s latest patches. Today we turn to Microsoft and its Patch Tuesday.

Microsoft tends to provide a lot of information around its patches and, so, there’s a lot to digest and piece together to give you an overview of the most important ones. In total, Microsoft has fixed 71 Windows vulnerabilities, 81 if you include those for Microsoft Edge.

One of the vulnerabilities immediately jumps out since it was used in the wild as part of the MysterySnail attacks, attributed by the researchers that discovered it to a Chinese speaking APT group called IronHusky.

MysterySnail

Earlier this month, researchers discovered that a zero-day exploit was used in widespread espionage campaigns against IT companies, military contractors, and diplomatic entities. The payload of these MysterySnail attacks is a Remote Access Trojan (RAT). The actively exploited vulnerability allows malware or an attacker to gain elevated privileges on a Windows device. So far, the MysterySnail RAT has only been spotted on Windows Servers, but the vulnerability can also be used against non-server Windows Operating Systems.

Publicly disclosed computer security flaws are listed in the Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) database. Its goal is to make it easier to share data across separate vulnerability capabilities (tools, databases, and services). This one is listed as CVE-2021-40449, a Win32k Elevation of Privilege (EoP) vulnerability, which means the vulnerability allows a user to raise their permissions.

PrintNightmare

I scared you by mentioning PrintNightmare, right? Well, that may not be completely in vain. The same researchers that discovered the PrintNightmare vulnerability have found yet another vulnerability in Microsoft’s Windows Print Spooler. This one is listed as CVE-2021-36970, a Windows Print Spooler spoofing vulnerability. The exploitation is known to be easy, and the attack may be initiated remotely. No form of authentication is needed for a successful exploitation, but it does require some action by the intended target. We may be hearing more about this one.

Exchange again

An Exchange bug that gets a CVSS score of 9.0 out of 10 is enough to make my hair stand on end. Listed as CVE-2021-26427, this one is a Microsoft Exchange Server Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerability. The exploitation appears to be easy and the attack can be initiated remotely. A single authentication is required for exploitation, so the attacker will need to have some kind of access to exploit this one, which may be why Microsoft listed it as “exploitation less likely.” Exchange Servers are an attractive target and so we have seen a lot of attacks. One worrying flaw reveals users’ passwords and might provide attackers with the credentials they need to use this vulnerability.

Critical Microsoft Word vulnerability

One of the three vulnerabilities classified as critical is an RCE vulnerability in Word, listed as CVE-2021-40486. The vulnerability could allow a remote attacker to trick a victim into opening a specially crafted file, executing arbitrary code on their system.

The other two critical vulnerabilities are RCE flaws in Windows Hyper-V, the virtualization component built into Windows. These vulnerabilities are listed as CVE-2021-38672 and CVE-2021-40461.

Windows DNS Server RCE

The last one is only of interest if you are running a server that is configured to act as a DNS server. Listed as CVE-2021-40469, a Windows DNS Server Remote Code Execution vulnerability. The exploitation is known to be easy. The attack may be launched remotely, but the exploitation requires an enhanced level of successful authentication. The vulnerability was disclosed in the form of a Proof-of-Concept (PoC). While it may not be up to you to maintain or patch a DNS server, it’s good to know that this vulnerability exists in case we see weird connection issues as a result of a DNS hijack or denial-of-service.

While many details are still unknown, we have tried to list the ones we can expect to surface as real world problems if they are not patched as soon as possible.

Stay safe, everyone!

The post Patch now! Microsoft fixes 71 Windows vulnerabilities in October Patch Tuesday appeared first on Malwarebytes Labs.

TikTok has long since evolved beyond being thought of as “just” dance clips, also becoming a home for educational and informative content presented in a fun and casual way. There are accounts themed around pretty much any interest you can think of, and one of the biggest is gaming.

It’s not all entirely innocent, however. Sometimes we observe new twists on old scams, or slick videos designed to obscure some sleight of hand. Shall we take a look?

Free Steam game accounts: be careful what you wish for

Games are expensive. Even without the costs of downloadable content (DLC), you also have things like season passes, in-game currency frequently purchased with real money, lootboxes, and more. FOMO (fear of missing out) is a big driver for timed exclusives and must have items, and all of these constant pressures drive gamers to want a bit of a discount. Where it tends to go wrong is with the promise of everything being free. If it’s too good to be true, and so on.

What we sometimes see on TikTok is gaming-themed accounts making many of the same promises you see on other platforms. Free games, free items, free stuff. Everything is definitely free with no strings attached. Would RandomAccountGuy3856 lie to you?

The answer is, of course, “Yes, RandomAccountGuy3856 absolutely would lie to you”.

Taking a walk through free game town

This is a typical free game account which you’ll find on TikTok:

As you can see, it’s pretty minimal and is simply a stack of the same video uploaded repeatedly. The site claims to offer free games and keys.

The site itself appears to have recently been taken offline. Thanks to the magic of cached content, we can still piece things together and figure out the process.

 The front page splash at the start of last month looked as follows:

They’re claiming to offer up free versions of the incredibly popular Among Us game. However, they also claim to have special hacked versions up for grabs. These versions let the player cheat in various ways. There’s also the reassurance you won’t get banned, which is used as further encouragement to download the altered editions.

This process involves selecting which edition you want, and then hitting the download button. They claim to offer Android, PC, and iOS flavours.

No matter what button you hit, you see the below pop-up. You may well be familiar with these from years of surfing:

The text reads as follows:

Before downloading, we need to make sure you are a real user, and not an automated bot. This helps us keep making these kind of hacks and keep them on Google for a long time

Hitting the verify now button opens a new tab, with a new destination. Unfortunately, it’s not a very good one. As our detection page states, we have that particular URL blocked because it is associated with malvertising.

Running down the timer on TikTok fakeouts

These are old tricks, essentially given a fresh lick of paint and an enticing video to go with it. There’s just something a bit more personal about having what looks like real people telling you genuine-sounding things in a short video clip. It all feels very informal and casual, and that’s exactly the kind of ambience a scammer would look to hit you with alongside their dubious websites and offers.

Even when accounts like the above aren’t purged by TikTok, the sites they link to are often here today, gone tomorrow. Everything is purely geared towards driving as much ad/malvertising traffic as possible.

As tempting as the promise of free gaming is, please be on your guard. There are risky games, and then there are risky games.

The post “Free Steam game” scams on TikTok are Among Us appeared first on Malwarebytes Labs.

Many companies set up phishing test programs for their employees, often as part of a compliance requirement involving ongoing employee education on security topics. The aim of these programs is to train employees on how to spot a malicious link, not click it, and forward it on to the appropriate responder, but most of these programs do not meaningfully achieve this. Let’s take a look at some common pitfalls and how to step around them.

You’re annoying your employees

Click-through rates on a real phish average between 10 and 33 percent of untrained users, depending on which security vendor you ask. But test phishes are sent to everyone, indiscriminately, taking time and energy away from those who are more or less doing the right thing already.

And while an organizational baseline is useful, and compliance can mandate a certain degree of repetition, repeatedly testing all employees without any sort of targeting can create a certain degree of security blindness on their part. There’s also often a lack of real-world tactics on the part of the tester due to a need to hit large quantities of people at the same time.

A better solution is to conduct infrequent, all-hands tests as a baseline, then take a look at your failures. Do you have clusters, and where are they? What job function is most common in the failures, and how does that map to overall security risk? A repeated failure in Marketing has a different impact than one in Finance.

With a good grasp of where your risk is, you can start focusing on problem areas of the organization with challenging, more frequent tests that use real-world tactics. While an all hands phish might be an untargeted credential harvester, a high-risk phish test might look more like a malicious invoice sent by a fake vendor to a select group in the Finance department.

You’re not including execs

Executives are frequently not included in enterprise security testing, most likely due to difficulty getting buy-in on a topic that some C-Suites view as esoteric. They also are a population most likely to engage in off-channel communications like SMS or bring your own device (BYOD) mobile mail using unsupported clients. However, executives—if successfully phished—can cause some of the most significant dollar losses to the organization than anyone else. While a single compromised credential pair at the ground level is typically a recoverable incident, business email compromise (BEC) aimed at an executive has caused up to $121 million dollars in single-incident losses.

Successful inclusion of executives in a phishing training program would involve spearphishing, rather than a canned phish. The key indicator of a well-formed phish is mirroring the tactics found in the wild, so your high-value targets require a high effort pitch. Make sure that your phish test vendor includes a markup editor to construct custom phishes from scratch so that you can alternate between a canned mass mailer and a laser-focused spearphish, as needed.

You’re not changing your approach

Just as security staff can get alert fatigue and start missing important alarms from their tooling, non-technical staff can get test fatigue and start associating threats with one particular phish format that you use too much. Best practice should include frequent rotation of pitch type and threat type; malicious link, malicious attachment, and pure scam threats present differently and have their own threat ecosystems that warrant their own test formats.

If you’ve been using your test failures to highlight problem areas, that’s a great place to start varying how you conduct your tests. A failure cluster in a Finance department would respond fairly well to attachment-based phish tests, with pitch text focused around payment themed keywords. Given that impact of a breach to that department would also be high risk, more frequent and more difficult tests give better outcomes over the long term. The key point is that phish tests are sensors for organizational risk and should be tuned for accuracy frequently.

You’re not using the data

Okay, so you’ve checked that compliance tick box, created a test schedule that ratchets in to your problem areas over time, and you’re running custom spearphishes against your execs. You can call it a day, right?

Hitting these marks can get you a large security advantage over other companies, but to really realize the full advantages of a security training program, you need to start sifting through the data that the program generates.

A great place to start is looking at where your failures sit. Are they evenly distributed, or do they cluster in particular departments? Are they individual contributors, or management? More importantly, which types of phishes do they click on most?

All of these questions can drive identification of high risk areas of the company, as well as prioritize which security controls should be implemented first. Rather than a top-down command approach, looking at the impact of a simulated attack can provide a clear view of where to start with a broader security improvement program.

If it’s not fun, you’re doing it wrong

Last and most importantly, this should be fun. The more creativity and variety injected into the process by security staff, the more effective the user awareness will be. And that doesn’t just extend to phish variety—user reports can and should be acknowledged at the organizational level.

Users can submit phish pitches, or preferred organization targets. Some phish test vendors even include stats broken out by department or manager that lend themselves very well towards friendly competition. Engaging employees beyond “Don’t do that” not only creates better security outcomes, but it tends to create better communication outcomes throughout a company.

Most corporate phishing programs do not meet their stated goals. The reasons for this can include overweighting compliance goals to the exclusion of others, complacency in test format, vendor choice making it tough to analyze data from the program, and failure to give dedicated resources to testing. These are largely avoidable if an organization shifts focus on their testing programs from a checkbox to risk analysis.

Overall, folding phish testing into a broader look at cyber risk can provide hard data that can drive security controls and increase organizational buy-in.

The post The joy of phishing your employees appeared first on Malwarebytes Labs.

On September 14, the US Department of Justice announced that it had resolved an earlier investigation into an international cyber hacking campaign coming from the United Arab Emirates that has reportedly impacted hundreds of journalists, activists, and human rights defenders in Yemen, Iran, Turkey, and Qatar. The campaign, called Project Raven, has been in clandestine operation for years, and it has relied increasingly on a computer system called “Karma.”

But in a bizarre twist, this tale of surveillance abroad tapered inwards into a tale of privacy at home, as one of the three men named by the Department of Justice for violating several US laws—and helping build Karma itself—is Daniel Gericke, the chief information officer at ExpressVPN.

Today, on Lock and Code, host David Ruiz explores how these developments impacted his personal decision in a VPN service. For years, Ruiz had been a paying customer of the VPN, but a deep interest in surveillance and a background in anti-surveillance advocacy forced him to reconsider.

Tune in to hear the depth of the unveiled surveillance campaign, who it affected, for how long, and what role, specifically, Gericke had in it, on this week’s Lock and Code podcast, by Malwarebytes Labs.

You can also find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Google Podcasts, plus whatever preferred podcast platform you use.

The post ExpressVPN made a choice, and so did I: Lock and Code S02E19 appeared first on Malwarebytes Labs.

Apple has released a security update for iOS and iPad that addresses a critical vulnerability reportedly being exploited in the wild.

The update has been made available for iPhone 6s and later, iPad Pro (all models), iPad Air 2 and later, iPad 5th generation and later, iPad mini 4 and later, and iPod touch (7th generation).

The vulnerability

Publicly disclosed computer security flaws are listed in the Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) database. Its goal is to make it easier to share data across separate vulnerability capabilities (tools, databases, and services). This one is listed as CVE-2021-30883 and allows an application to execute arbitrary code with kernel privileges. Kernel privileges can be achieved by using a memory corruption issue in the “IOMobileFrameBuffer” component.

Kernel privileges are a serious matter as they offer an attacker more than administrator privileges. In kernel mode, the executing code has complete and unrestricted access to the underlying hardware. It can execute any CPU instruction and reference any memory address. Kernel mode is generally reserved for the lowest-level, most trusted functions of the operating system.

Researchers have already found that this vulnerability is exploitable from the browser, which makes it extra worrying.

Watering holes are used as a highly targeted attack strategy. The attacker infects a website where they knows the intended victim(s) visits regularly. Depending on the nature of the infection, the attacker can single out their intended target(s) or just infect anyone that visits the site unprotected.

IOMobileFrameBuffer

IOMobileFramebuffer is a kernel extension for managing the screen framebuffer. An earlier vulnerability in this extension, listed as CVE-2021-30807 was tied to the Pegasus spyware. This vulnerability also allowed an application to execute arbitrary code with kernel privileges. Coincidence? Or did someone take the entire IOMobileFramebuffer extension apart and save up the vulnerabilities for a rainy day?

Another iPhone exploit called FORCEDENTRY was found to be used against Bahraini activists to launch the Pegasus spyware. Researchers at Citizen Lab disclosed this vulnerability and code to Apple, and it was listed as CVE-2021-30860.

Undisclosed

As is usual for Apple, both the researcher that found the vulnerability and the circumstances under which the vulnerability used in the wild are kept secret. Apple didn’t respond to a query about whether the previously found bug was being exploited by NSO Group’s Pegasus surveillance software.

Zero-days for days

Over the last months Apple has had to close quite a few zero-days in iOS, iPadOS,and macOS. Seventeen if I have counted correctly.

• CVE-2021-1782 – iOS-kernel: A malicious application may be able to elevate privileges. Apple is aware of a report that this issue may have been actively exploited.
• CVE-2021-1870 – WebKit: A remote attacker may be able to cause arbitrary code execution. Apple is aware of a report that this issue may have been actively exploited.
• CVE-2021-1871 – WebKit: A remote attacker may be able to cause arbitrary code execution. Apple is aware of a report that this issue may have been actively exploited.
• CVE-2021-1879 – WebKit: Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to universal cross site scripting. Apple is aware of a report that this issue may have been actively exploited.
• CVE-2021-30657 – Gatekeeper: A malicious application may bypass Gatekeeper checks. Apple is aware of a report that this issue may have been actively exploited.
• CVE-2021-30661 – WebKit: Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to arbitrary code execution. Apple is aware of a report that this issue may have been actively exploited.
• CVE-2021-30663 – WebKit: Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to arbitrary code execution.
• CVE-2021-30665 – WebKit: Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to arbitrary code execution. Apple is aware of a report that this issue may have been actively exploited.
• CVE-2021-30666 – WebKit: Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to arbitrary code execution. Apple is aware of a report that this issue may have been actively exploited.
• CVE-2021-30713 – TCC: A malicious application may be able to bypass Privacy preferences. Apple is aware of a report that this issue may have been actively exploited.
• CVE-2021-30761 – WebKit: Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to arbitrary code execution. Apple is aware of a report that this issue may have been actively exploited.
• CVE-2021-30762 – WebKit: Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to arbitrary code execution. Apple is aware of a report that this issue may have been actively exploited.
• CVE-2021-30807 – IOMobileFrameBuffer: An application may be able to execute arbitrary code with kernel privileges. Apple is aware of a report that this issue may have been actively exploited. Tied to Pegasus (see above).
• CVE-2021-30858 – WebKit: Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to arbitrary code execution. Apple is aware of a report that this issue may have been actively exploited.
• CVE-2021-30860 – CoreGraphics: Processing a maliciously crafted PDF may lead to arbitrary code execution. Apple is aware of a report that this issue may have been actively exploited. This is FORCEDENTRY (see above).
• CVE-2021-30869 – XNU: A malicious application may be able to execute arbitrary code with kernel privileges. Reportedly being actively exploited by attackers in conjunction with a previously known WebKit vulnerability.

And last but not least, the latest addition—CVE-2021-30883—which means that of the 17 zero-days that were fixed over the course of a handful of months, at least 16 were found to be actively exploited.

Update

Apple advises users to update to iOS 15.0.2 and iPadOS 15.0.2 which can be done through the automatic update function or iTunes.

Stay safe, everyone!

The post Update now! Apple patches another privilege escalation bug in iOS and iPadOS appeared first on Malwarebytes Labs.

In an effort to better understand and clamp down on the ransomware economy and its related use of cryptocurrencies, US Senator and past presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren and US House Representative Deborah Ross introduced a new bill last week that would require companies and organizations to report any paid ransomware demands to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

“Ransomware attacks are skyrocketing, yet we lack critical data to go after cybercriminals,” said Senator Warren in a prepared release. “My bill with Congresswoman Ross would set disclosure requirements when ransoms are paid and allow us to learn how much money cybercriminals are siphoning from American entities to finance criminal enterprises—and help us go after them.”

If passed, the “Ransom Disclosure Act” would require a broad set of companies, local governments, and nonprofits that actually pay off ransomware demands to report those payments to the government. Companies would need to report this information within 48 hours of paying a ransom.

Specifically, those affected by the bill would need to tell the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security:

• The date on which such ransom was demanded
• The date on which such ransom was paid
• The amount of such ransom demanded
• The amount of such ransom paid

Companies would also need to disclose what currency they paid the ransom in, including whether the payment was made with any cryptocurrency. Companies would also have to offer “any known information regarding the identity of the actor demanding such ransom.”

The bill’s focus on cryptocurrencies acknowledges the technology’s core role in ransomware today, as likely not a single big ransomware payment has been made for years in anything other than crypto. But this reliance on cryptocurrency seems to finally be catching up to ransomware criminals, as cryptocurrency, while providing somewhat decent pseudonymity, instead provides incredible records. And international police are now excelling at following those records.  

In June, the US Department of Justice announced that, after following a series of cryptocurrency transactions across cyberspace, it eventually retrieved much of the ransomware payment that Colonial Pipeline paid to recover from its own ransomware attack in May. And earlier in October, Europol said it provided “crypto-tracing support” when the FBI, the French National Gendarmerie, and the Ukrainian National Police seized $375,000 in cash and another $1.3 million in cryptocurrencies during related arrests against “two prolific ransomware operators known for their extortionate ransom demands (between €5 to €70 million).”

This work, while encouraging in the fight against ransomware, largely happens in the dark, though, as ransomware payments made by companies are still kept considerably private. The Ransom Disclosure Act, then, seeks to shine a light on that darkness to better aid the fight. Said US House Representative Ross:

“Unfortunately, because victims are not required to report attacks or payments to federal authorities, we lack the critical data necessary to understand these cybercriminal enterprises and counter these intrusions.”

The Ransom Disclosure Act would also require the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop penalties for non-compliance and to, one year after the passage of the bill, publish a database on a public website that includes ransom payments made in the year prior. That database must be accessible to the public, and it must include the “total dollar amount of ransoms paid” by companies, but the companies’ identifying information must be removed. The information gleaned from the incoming reports must also be packaged into a study by the Secretary of Homeland Security that specifically explores “the extent to which cryptocurrency has facilitated the kinds of attacks that resulted in the payment of ransoms by covered entities,” and the Secretary of Homeland Security must also then present the findings of that study to Congress.

Finally, according to the bill, individuals who make ransomware payments after personally being hit with ransomware must also have a way to voluntarily report their information to the government if they so choose.

The post Ransom Disclosure Act would mandate ransomware payment reporting appeared first on Malwarebytes Labs.

The start of fall 2021 saw the fourth Objective by the Sea (OBTS) security conference, which is the only security conference to focus exclusively on Apple’s ecosystem. As such, it draws many of the top minds in the field. This year, those minds, having been starved of a good security conference for so long, were primed and ready to share all kinds of good information.

Conferences like this are important for understanding how attackers and their methods are evolving. Like all operating systems, macOS presents a moving target to attackers as it acquires new features and new forms of protection over time.

OBTS was a great opportunity to see how attacks against macOS are evolving. Here’s what I learned.

Transparency, Consent, and Control bypasses

Transparency, Consent, and Control (TCC) is a system for requiring user consent to access certain data, via prompts confirming that the user is okay with an app accessing that data. For example, if an app wants to access something like your contacts or files in your Documents folder on a modern version of macOS, you will be asked to allow it before the app can see that data.

In recent years, Apple has been ratcheting down the power of the root user. Once upon a time, root was like God—it was the one and only user that could do everything on the system. It could create or destroy, and could see all. This hasn’t been the case for years, with things like System Integrity Protection (SIP) and the read-only signed system volume preventing even the root user from changing files across a wide swath of the hard drive.

TCC has been making inroads in further reducing the power of root over users’ data. If an app has root access, it still cannot even see—much less modify—a lot of the data in your user folder without your explicit consent.

This can cause some problems. For example, antivirus software such as Malwarebytes needs to be able to see everything it can in order to best protect you. But even though some Malwarebytes processes are running with root permissions, they still can’t see some files. Thus, apps like this often have to require the user to give a special permission called Full Disk Access (FDA). Without FDA, Malwarebytes and other security apps can’t fully protect you, but only you can give that access.

This is generally a good thing, as it puts you in control of access to your data. Malware often wants access to your sensitive data, either to steal it or to encrypt it and demand a ransom. TCC means that malware can’t automatically gain access to your data if it gets onto your system, and may be a part of the reason why we just don’t see ransomware on macOS.

TCC is a bit of a pain for us, and a common point of difficulty for users of our software, but it does mean that we can’t get access to some of your most sensitive files without your knowledge. This is assuming, of course, that you understood the FDA prompts and what you were agreeing to, which is debatable. Apple’s current process for assigning FDA doesn’t make that clear, and leaves it up to the app asking for FDA to explain the consequences. This makes tricking a user into giving access to something they shouldn’t pretty easy.

However, social engineering isn’t the only danger. Many researchers presenting at this year’s conference talked about bugs that allowed them to get around the Transparency, Consent, and Control (TCC) system in macOS, without getting user consent.

Andy Grant (@andywgrant) presented a vulnerability in which a remote attacker with root permissions can grant a malicious process whatever TCC permissions is desired. This process involving creating a new user on the system, then using that user to grant the permissions.

Csaba Fitzl (@theevilbit) gave a talk on a “Mount(ain) of Bugs,” in which he discussed another vulnerability involving mount points for disk image files. Normally, when you connect an external drive or double-click a disk image file, the volume is “mounted” (in other words, made available for access) within the /Volumes directory. In other words, if you connect a drive named “backup”, it would become accessible on the system at /Volumes/backup. This is the disk’s “mount point.”

Csaba was able to create a disk image file containing a custom TCC.db file. This file is a database that controls the TCC permissions that the user has granted to apps. Normally, the TCC.db file is readable, but cannot be modified by anything other than the system. However, by mounting this disk image while also setting the mount point to the path of the folder containing the TCC.db file, he was able to trick the system into accepting his arbitrary TCC.db file as if it were the real one, allowing him to change TCC permissions however he desired.

There were other TCC bypasses mentioned as well, but perhaps the most disturbing is the fact that there’s a fairly significant amount of highly sensitive data that is not protected by TCC at all. Any malware can collect that data without difficulty.

What is this data, you ask? One example is the .ssh folder in the user’s home folder. SSH is a program used for securely gaining command line access to a remote Mac, Linux, or other Unix system, and the .ssh folder is the location where certificates used to authenticate the connection are stored. This makes the data in that folder a high-value target for an attacker looking to move laterally within an organization.

There are other similar folders in the same location that can contain credentials for other services, such as AWS or Azure, which are similarly wide open. Also unprotected are the folders where data is stored for any browser other than Safari, which can include credentials if you use a browser’s built-in password manager.

Now, admittedly, there could be some technical challenges to protecting some or all of this data under the umbrella of TCC. However, the average IT admin is probably more concerned about SSH keys or other credentials being harvested than in an attacker being able to peek inside your Downloads folder.

Attackers are doing interesting things with installers

Installers are, of course, important for malware to get installed on a system. Often, users must be tricked into opening something in order to infect their machine. There are a variety of techniques attackers can use that were discussed.

One common method for doing this is to use Apple installer packages (.pkg files), but this is not particularly stealthy. Knowledgeable and cautious folks may choose to examine the installer package, as well as the preinstall and postinstall scripts (designed to run exactly when you’d expect by the names), to make sure nothing untoward is going on.

However, citing an example used in the recent Silver Sparrow malware, Tony Lambert (@ForensicITGuy) discussed a sneaky method for getting malware installed: The oft overlooked Distribution file.

The Distribution file is found inside Apple installer packages, and is meant to convey information and options for the installer. However, JavaScript code can also be inserted in this file, to be run at the beginning of the installation, meant to be used to determine if the system meets the requirements for the software being installed.

In the case of Silver Sparrow, however, the installer used this script to download and install the malware covertly. If you clicked Continue in the dialog shown below, you’d be infected even if you then opted not to continue with the installation.

Another interesting trick Tony discussed was the use of payload-free installers. These are installers that actually don’t contain any files to be installed, and are really just a wrapper for a script that does all the installation (likely via the preinstall script, but also potentially via Distribution).

Normal installer scripts will leave behind a “receipt,” which is a file containing a record of when the installation happened and what was installed where. However, installers that lack an official payload, and that download everything via scripts, do not leave behind such a receipt. This means that an IT admin or security researcher would be missing key information that could reveal when and where malware had been installed.

Chris Ross (@xorrior) discussed some of these same techniques, but also delved into installer plugins. These plugins are used within installer packages to create custom “panes” in the installer. (Most installers go through a specific series of steps prescribed by Apple, but some developers add additional steps via custom code.)

These installer plugins are written in Objective-C, rather than scripting languages, and therefore can be more powerful. Best of all, these plugins are very infrequently used, and thus are likely to be overlooked by many security researchers. Yet Chris was able to demonstrate techniques that could be used by such a plugin to drop a malicious payload on the system.

Yet another issue was presented in Cedric Owens’ (@cedowens) talk. Although not related to an installer package (.pkg file), a vulnerability in macOS (CVE-2021-30657) could allow a Mac app to entirely bypass Gatekeeper, which is the core of many of Apple’s security features.

On macOS, any time you open an app downloaded from the Internet, you should at a minimum see a warning telling you that you’re opening an app (in case it was something masquerading as a Word document, or something similar). If there’s anything wrong with the app, Gatekeeper can go one step further and prevent you from opening it at all.

By constructing an app that was missing some of the specific components usually considered essential, an attacker could create an app that was fully functional, but that would not trigger any warnings when launched. (Some variants of the Shlayer adware have been seen using this technique.)

The post Inside Apple: How macOS attacks are evolving appeared first on Malwarebytes Labs.

Last week on Malwarebytes Labs

• Does Cybersecurity Awareness Month actually improve security?
• Police take a piece out of a ransomware gang, but won’t say which one
• Neiman Marcus data breach affects millions
• Windows 11 is out. Is it any good for security?
• Criminals were inside Syniverse for 5 years before anyone noticed
• Facebook shoots own foot, hits Instagram and WhatsApp too
• Twitch compromised: What we know so far, and what you need to do
• Apache fixes zero-day vulnerability in HTTP Server
• What special needs kids need to stay safe online
• Google to auto-enrol users, YouTubers into 2SV
• Stop. Do you really need another security tool?
• US Navy ship Facebook page hijacked to stream video games
• GnuPG fixes a problem with Let’s Encrypt certificate chain validation
• Discord scammers lure victims with promise of free Nitro subscriptions
• Making better cybersecurity training: Q&A with Malwarebytes expert Kelsey Prichard
• At long last, Microsoft is disabling Excel 4.0 macros by default
• Firefox reveals sponsored ad “suggestions” in search and address bar

Other cybersecurity news

• Android malware pretends to be a security update. (Source: BleepingComputer)
• Watch out for fake streams of the latest James Bond movie. (Source: CNET)
• New cyberattacks will involve the use of 5G technology, according to study (Source: Teiss)
• According to a different study, Millennials and Gen Z are bigger cybercrime victims than other generations (Source: Global News Wire)
• Data of 1.5 billion Facebook users were allegedly being sold on a popular hacking forum, and the seller insists that they’re genuine (Source: Privacy Affairs)
• Confluence servers are being targeted by new ransomware called Atom Silo (Source: SDNet)
• Novel RAT involved in Operation GhostShell homes in on global aerospace and telcos (Source: CyberReason)
• EU Parliament votes “No” to biometric mass surveillance (Source: Computing)
• The TSA to impose mandates to help secure rail and subway systems (Source: The Washington Post)

The post A week in security (Oct 4 – Oct 10) appeared first on Malwarebytes Labs.

APT28, also known as FancyBear, is at the heart of another targeted campaign. This time, it’s sniffing around users of Google services. Some 14,000 people have been notified about a spear phish attempt looking to compromise accounts and access their files.

When did this happen?

Sometime late September, according to the folks at Google. They didn’t go into detail about which industries were key targets, but this campaign “compromised 86% of the batch of warnings we sent for this month”.

Did Google catch all the malicious missives?

Shane Huntley, Director of Google’s Threat Analysis Group, mentioned that they blocked all the emails sent. That seems pretty conclusive. He goes into more details in this thread:

As per his thoughts, these warnings are primarily to tell you to batten down the hatches for the next attack, whenever that might be.

Google has more information on this type of warning over on its security blog. If you ever see the below message, it’s definitely time to take action:

Government backed attackers may be trying to steal your password.

There’s a chance this is a false alarm, but we believe we detected government-backed attackers trying to steal your password., This happens to less than 0.1% of all Gmail users. We can’t reveal what tipped us off because the attackers will take note and change their tactics, but if they are successful at some point they could access your data or take other actions using your account.

Google recommends those affected join its Advanced Protection Program, which is says is its strongest protection for users at risk of targeted attacks.

What is the Advanced Protection Program?

Google’s Advanced Protection Program is another layer of security on top of regular Google protection, for those who need it. Physical security keys are a big feature of this program. The Chrome browser will also scan any and all files which attempt to download on a device. It also refuses files from untrusted/unknown sources on Android, and makes it more difficult for rogue files to gain permissions from the device.

What else is Google doing in this realm?

Well, Google is very much about auto-enrolment for things like 2FA these days. Take-up on 2FA is quite low across many services on the web, and something like this can only help boost everyone’s security a bit more.

There’s also Google’s Security Checkup feature. At a glance, this will tell you about logged in devices, recent security activity, whether or not you have 2FA enabled, and your Gmail settings including which addresses you may have blocked. Many of the tabs reveal more and more information as you go. The 2-step column will tell you about phones using sign-in prompts, which Authenticator app you’re using and when it was added, phone numbers, and backup codes.

Don’t forget, you can also see a list of IP addresses using your Gmail account on the desktop in the bottom right hand corner (“last account activity”). This shows the type of access (web? mobile?), location/IP address, and the date/time of said activity.

These are all useful things to help ward off compromise, and also perhaps figure out where something might have gone wrong.

Should I be worried?

As above, the risk from something like FancyBear is as good as negligible. If you work in a high risk occupation, or deal with sensitive data you feel governments may be interested in then, yes, you could potentially be a target, though this is still very slim pickings in terms of whether you should be worried about it. If you’re a journalist, an activist, work in human rights, are a lawyer, or work in some form of natsec role then you may want to sign up to the Advanced Protection Program.

Everyone else should realistically be more concerned about common or garden malware, scams, phishes, and so on. The good news is a lot of basic security practices to help ward off these attacks will also go some way towards warding off the big stuff. There is no detriment to yourself to start making use of said security practices…it’s win-win.

Do yourself a favour, and start digging through the multitude of security features Google has available. You’ll be surprised how easy it is to set most of it up, and you’ll be strengthening the security of your data at the same time.

The post Google warns some users that FancyBear’s been prowling around appeared first on Malwarebytes Labs.

Despite advance warnings that a root certificate provided by Let’s Encrypt would expire on September 30, users reported issues with a variety of services and websites once that deadline hit. So what happened?

The problem

A number of high profile tech and security companies noticed their products and services were affected by the certificate expiration, such as cloud computing services for Amazon, Google, and Microsoft, IT and cloud security services for Cisco, as well as sellers that were unable to log in on Shopify.

When a user’s browser arrives at your website one of the first things it checks for is the validity of the SSL certificate. An SSL certificate is a digital certificate that authenticates a website’s identity and enables an encrypted connection. SSL certificates are issued by a Certificate Authority (CA). Most browsers will accept certificates issued by hundreds of different CAs. Let’s Encrypt is a CA that provides digital certificates as a free non-profit and millions of websites rely on Let’s Encrypt services.

If the certificate, or the root certificate that signed it, has expired, it issues a warning that the site may not be secure or the connection is not private. At least 2 million people saw an error message on their phones, computers, or smart gadgets due to the certificate issue.

GnuPG

GnuPG free implementation of the OpenPGP standard as defined by RFC4880 (also known as PGP). GnuPG allows you to encrypt and sign your data and communications; it features a versatile key management system, along with access modules for all kinds of public key directories.

GnuPG is a command line tool without any graphical user that is often used as the actual crypto backend of other applications.

Even though many organizations had not forgotten about the certificate expiration, GnuPG did not handle it well. And since many were unaware of the fact they were even using GnuPG, because it functions as the backend of another application, it took some organizations a while to figure out and correct the problem. Without knowing the cause, it’s a difficult problem to identify. For the affected companies, it’s not like everything is down, but they’re certainly having all sorts of service issues.

The update

The new version of GnuPG 2.2.32 (LTS) fixes the problem with Let’s Encrypt certificate chain validation, and this update should restore access to many web resources (e.g. Web Key Directory and key servers). “LTS” is short for long term support, and this series of GnuPG is guaranteed to be maintained at least until the end of 2024.

SSL/TLS certificate management

Digital certificates are the primary vehicle by which people and machines are identified and authenticated. As the number of identities in a company grows, so does the difficulty of managing and protecting certificates at scale. The adoption of BYOD and IoT makes certificate management even more critical than ever.

Like passwords and keys, certificates also go through a cycle. They’re created, provisioned into the infrastructure, and have a finite validity period after which they expire. Certificate Management is usually concerned only with certificates issued by mutually trusted Certificate Authorities. Once the digital certificates have been issued, they must be managed diligently through their entire validity period.

If this incident has shown one thing that is how important it is to keep track of all the digital certificates that your organization relies on.

The post GnuPG fixes a problem with Let’s Encrypt certificate chain validation appeared first on Malwarebytes Labs.