IT News

This blog post was authored by Hasherezade and Jérôme Segura

On November 23, we received an alert from a partner about a resurgence of Gootkit infections in Germany. Gootkit is a very capable banking Trojan that has been around since 2014 and possesses a number of functionalities such as keystroke or video recording designed to steal financially-related information.

In this latest campaign, threat actors are relying on compromised websites to socially engineer users by using a decoy forum template instructing them to download a malicious file.

While analyzing the complex malware loader we made a surprising discovery. Victims receive Gootkit itself or, in some cases, the REvil (Sodinokibi) ransomware. The decision to serve one or the other payload happens after a check with the criminal infrastructure.

Gootkit attacks observed in Germany

Security researcher TheAnalyst was the first to publicly identify an active campaign in November using a sophisticated loader that was eventually attributed to Gootkit, a banking Trojan not observed in the wild for some time. Germany’s Computer Emergency Response Team DFN-CERT later confirmed that German users were being targeted via compromised websites.

Around the same time, we started receiving reports from some of our partners and their ISPs about Gootkit-related traffic. We were able to confirm Gootkit detections within our telemetry that were all located in Germany.

After a couple of days, we remediated over 600 unique machines that had been compromised.

Fake forum template on hacked websites

The initial loader is spread via hacked websites using an interesting search engine optimization (SEO) technique to customize a fake template that tries to trick users to download a file.

The template mimics a forum thread where a user asks in German for help about a specific topic and receives an answer which appears to be exactly what they were looking for. It’s worth noting that the hacked sites hosting this template are not German (only the template is); they simply happen to be vulnerable and are used as part of the threat actor’s infrastructure.

This fake forum posting is conditionally and dynamically created if the correct victim browses the compromised website. A script removes the legitimate webpage content from the DOM and adds its own content (the template showing a link to a file to download).

There is a server-side check prior to each visit to the page to determine if the user has already been served the fake template or not, in which case the webserver will return legitimate content instead.

Fileless execution and module installation

The infection process starts once the victim executes a malicious script inside the zip archive they just downloaded.

This script is the first of several stages that leads to the execution of the final payload. The following diagram shows a high level overview:

Stage 1 – The first JavaScript

The first JavaScript is the module that has to be manually executed by the victim, and it has been obfuscated in order to hide its real intentions. The obfuscation consists of three layers where one decodes content for the next.

The first stage (a version with cleaned formatting available here) decodes the next element:

The decoded output is a comma-separated array of JavaScript blocks:

There are four elements in the array that are referenced by their indexes. For example, the element with the index 0 means “constructor”, 1 is another block of JavaScript code, 2 is empty, 3 is a wrapper that causes a call to a supplied code.

Block 1 is responsible for reading/writing registry keys under “HKEY_CURRENT_USERSOFTWARE<script-specific name>”. It also deobfuscates and runs another block of code:

This fragment of code is responsible for connecting to the C2. It fetches the domains from the list, and tries them one by one. If it gets a response, it runs it further.

The above downloader script is the first stage of the loading process. Functionality-wise it is almost identical in all the dropped files. The differentiation between the variants starts in the next part, which is another JavaScript fetched from the C2 server.

Stage 2 – The second JavaScript (downloaded from the C2)

The expected response from the server is a decimal string, containing a pseudorandom marker used for validation. It needs to be removed before further processing. The marker consists of “@[request argument]@”.

After conversion to ASCII, the next JavaScript is revealed, and the code is executed. This JavaScript comes with an embedded PE payload which may be either a loader for Gootkit, or for the REvil ransomware. There are also some differences in the algorithm used to deobfuscate it.

Example for the Gootkit variant (commented, full)

The downloaded code chunk is responsible for installing the persistent elements. It also runs a Powershell script that reads the storage, decodes it and runs it further.

Stage 3 – The stored payload and the decoding Powershell

The authors diversified the method of encoding and storing the payload. During our tests we observed two ways of encoding. In one of them, the PE is stored as a Base64 encoded string, and in the other as a hexadecimal string, obfuscated by having certain numbers substituted by a pattern.

The payload is usually stored as a list of registry keys, yet we also observed a variant in which similar content was written into a TXT file.

Example of the payload stored in a file:

The content of the file is an obfuscated Powershell script that runs another Base64 obfuscated layer that finally decodes the .NET payload.

Example of the Powershell script that runs to deobfuscate the file:

"C:WindowsSysWOW64WindowsPowerShellv1.0powershell.exe" -ExecutionPolicy Bypass -windowstyle hidden -Command "IEX (([System.IO.File]::ReadAllText('C:Users[username]bkquwxd.txt')).Replace('~',''));"

Below we will study two examples of the loader: One that leads to execution of the REvil ransomware, and another that leads to the execution of Gootkit.

Example 1—Loading REvil ransomware

The example below shows the variant in which a PE file was encoded as an obfuscated hexadecimal string. In the analyzed case, the whole flow led to execution of REvil ransomware. The sandbox analysis presenting this case is available here.

Execution of the second stage JavaScript leads to the payload being written to the registry, as a list of keys. The content is encoded as hexadecimal, and mildly obfuscated.

After writing the keys, the JavaScript deploys a PowerShell command that is responsible for decoding and running the stored content.

Decoded content of the script:

It reads the content from the registry keys and deobfuscates it by substituting patterns. In the given example, the pattern “!@#” in the hexadecimal string was substituted by “1000”, then the PE was decoded and loaded with the help of .NET Reflection.

The next stage PE file (.NET):

• REvil loader: (0e451125eaebac5760c2f3f24cc8112345013597fb6d1b7b1c167001b17d3f9f)

The .NET loader comes with a hardcoded string that is the next stage PE: the final malicious payload. The Setup function called by the PowerShell script is responsible for decoding and running the next PE:

The loader runs to the next stage with the help of Process Hollowing – one of the classic methods of PE injection.

Example 2 – Loading Gootkit

In an other common variant, the payload is saved as Base64. The registry keys compose a PowerShell script in the following format:

$Command =[System.Text.Encoding]::Unicode.GetString([System.Convert]::FromBase64String("[content]")); Invoke-Expression $Command;Start-Sleep -s 22222;

After decoding the base64-encoded content, we get another PowerShell script:

It comes with yet another Base64-encoded piece that is further decompressed and loaded with the help of Reflection Assembly. It is the .NET binary, similar to the previous one.

• Gootkit loader:(973d0318f9d9aec575db054ac9a99d96ff34121473165b10dfba60552a8beed4)

The script calls a function “Install1” from the .NET module. This function loads another PE, that is embedded inside as a base64 encoded buffer:

This time the loader uses another method of PE injection, manual loading into the parent process.

The revealed payload is a Gootkit first stage binary: 60aef1b657e6c701f88fc1af6f56f93727a8f4af2d1001ddfa23e016258e333f. This PE is written in Delphi. In its resources we can find another PE (327916a876fa7541f8a1aad3c2270c2aec913bc8898273d545dc37a85ef7307f ), obfuscated by XOR with a single byte. It is further loaded by the first one.

Loader like matryoshka dolls with a side of REvil

The threat actors behind this campaign are using a very clever loader that performs a number of steps to evade detection. Given that the payload is stored within the registry under a randomly-named key, many security products will not be able to detect and remove it.

However, the biggest surprise here is to see this loader serve REvil ransomware in some instances. We were able to reproduce this flow in our lab once, but most of the time we saw Gootkit.

The REvil group has very strict rules for new members who must pass the test and verify as Russian. One thing we noticed in the REvil sample we collected is that the ransom note still points to decryptor.top instead of decryptor.cc, indicating that this could be an older sample.

Banking Trojans represent a vastly different business model than ransomware. The latter has really flourished during the past few years and has earned criminals millions of dollars in part thanks to large ransom payments from high profile victims. We’ve seen banking malware (i.e. Emotet) turn into loaders for ransomware where different threat actors can specialize in what they do best. Time will tell what this return of Gootkit really means and how it might evolve.

Detection and protection

Malwarebytes prevents, detects and removes Gootkit and REvil via our different protection layers. As we collect indicators of compromise we are able to block the distribution sites so that users do not download the initial loader.

Our behavior-based anti-exploit layer also blocks the malicious loader without any signatures when the JavaScript is opened via an archiving app such as WinRar or 7-Zip.

If a system is already infected with Gootkit, Malwarebytes can remediate the infection by cleaning up the registry entries where Gootkit hides:

Finally, we also detect and stop the REvil (Sodinokibi) ransomware:

Indicators of Compromise

Compromised websites downloading JavaScript loader:

docs.anscommerce[.]com
ellsweb[.]net
entrepasteles[.]supercurro.net
m-uhde[.]de
games.usc[.]edu
doedlinger-erdbau[.]at

3rd stage JavaScript C2s:

badminton-dillenburg[.]de
alona[.]org[.]cy
aperosaintmartin[.]com

Variant 1 (Gootkit):

1. NET loader [973d0318f9d9aec575db054ac9a99d96ff34121473165b10dfba60552a8beed4]
2. Delphi PE [60aef1b657e6c701f88fc1af6f56f93727a8f4af2d1001ddfa23e016258e333f]
3. PE stored in resources [327916a876fa7541f8a1aad3c2270c2aec913bc8898273d545dc37a85ef7307f]

Variant 2 (REvil):

1. NET loader [0e451125eaebac5760c2f3f24cc8112345013597fb6d1b7b1c167001b17d3f9f]
2. Delphi PE [d0e075a9346acbeca7095df2fc5e7c28909961184078e251f737f09b8ef892b6] – the ransomware
3. PE stored in resources [a7e363887e9a7cc7f8de630b12005813cb83d6e3fc3980f735df35dccf5a1341] – a helper component

The post German users targeted with Gootkit banker or REvil ransomware appeared first on Malwarebytes Labs.

All Baltimore County Public Schools closed Wednesday after the school system was hit with a ransomware attack, according to officials.

Baltimore County Public Schools superintended Dr. Darryl Williams stated:

“This morning, we decided to close all BCPS schools and offices in order to access and limit the impact of the attack.”

For those unfamiliar with the Baltimore City Schools organization, the attack affected some 175 schools, programs, and centers, over 115,000 students, and over 18,000 employees.

In May of last year a RobbinHood ransomware attack paralyzed Baltimore’s City government, shutting down online systems for paying water bills and other services.

Measures taken by Baltimore City Schools

Since the attack also took down the official website, management is providing updates over social media channels.

Via their Twitter account, Baltimore County Public Schools announced the schools and offices to be closed on Wednesday, November 25. Later they added Monday, November 30, and Tuesday, December 1, to focus on identifying and addressing student and staff device needs so that instruction can continue.

On their Facebook account they urged people not to log into BCPS devices or systems at this time. They also reassured the public that they are doing their best to address the ransomware attack. Local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies are investigating.

Also via Twitter they asked students learning virtually on Wednesday to only use City Schools-issued laptops or devices. Those without those issued devices were granted an excused absence. BCPS-issued Chromebooks were not impacted by the cyberattack.

The Teachers Association of Baltimore County is telling parents to leave computers off and not turn it on until they hear back from BCPS.

Superintendent Darryl Williams said there is no timeline for when school will resume. According to school officials, the network issue has affected the district’s website, email system and grading system. Until the problem is resolved, students will be unable to attend school.

Investigation

The county police have been in contact with the FBI Baltimore field office. Baltimore County Police Chief Melissa Hyatt declined to provide any specifics of the criminal probe, since they still are in the preliminary steps of that investigation.

Hyatt did not reveal whether the authorities have communicated with the hackers and the school system said it has had no direct or indirect contact with the hackers.

While it is important to investigate ransomware attacks, most of these investigations may not lead to the apprehension of the attackers. They could, however, reveal how the attackers got in and whether they left any backdoors for future use behind.

Ransomware and education

The educational system and many of its elements are targets for cybercriminals on a regular basis. While education is a fundamental human right recognized by the United Nations, the financial means of many schools and other entities in the global educational system are often limited.

You’d think there are more profitable targets for cybercriminals than education. Technology and finance, for example, have exponentially bigger budgets that could be tapped into via large ransom demands. But cybercriminals are opportunistic: If they see an easy target ripe with valuable data, they’re going to take advantage. Why spend the money and time developing custom code for sophisticated attack vectors when they can practically walk through an open door onto school networks?

With some ransomware gangs now creating extra leverage by threatening to publish exfiltrated data, criminals may well see schools as an easy target—expecting them to pay the ransom through fear of finding students’ and teachers’ personally identifiable information (PII) published online.

The timing for an attack to take out the network information systems, could not have been worse while the school system continues to operate online only, with all in-person classes delayed, as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. Possibly these circumstances could have provided the way in for the attackers. Hopefully the investigation will reveal how it happened.

Stay safe, everyone!

The post Baltimore gets hit by ransomware again, the schools this time appeared first on Malwarebytes Labs.

Last week on Malwarebytes Labs, we talked with Chris Boyd about charities that track you online.

We also looked back at Zoom, and wondered whether it’s any safer months after its first vulnerability was reported. We talked about how Apple’s security is hampering the detection of potentially unwanted programs (PUPs). Lastly, we reported on Spotify resetting some user accounts after stolen or leaked credentials from a third-party were used in accessing them, and the US Senate passing the IoT Cybersecurity Bill.

Other cybersecurity news

• GoDaddy employees were reportedly socially engineered to assume control over several cryptocurrency services. (Source: KrebsOnSecurity)
• A report from Check Point Security revealed that vishing, or “voice phishing”, is on the uptick. And usually employees who fall for such tactics are those working from home due to the pandemic. (Source: SecurityBrief)
• Meanwhile, according to a survey by Juniper Networks, remote work has widened organizations’ attack surface, giving cybercriminals more opportunities to launch attacks against them. (Source: Entrepreneur)
• Smart doorbells were found to be an “easy target for hackers”. Why are we not surprised? (Source: The BBC)
• The FBI warned people to be careful after it found newly registered domains pretending to belong to the organization. (Source: Bleeping Computer)
• Several Minecraft mods were found in the Google Play Store that are just adware apps and do nothing for you or for the game. (Source: CyberScoop)
• Mustang Panda, a suspected hacking group from China, continues to gather intelligence about Vatican diplomacy due to the Catholic Church’s operations in China. (Source: CyberScoop)
• According to a report, 38 percent of online video gamers have suffered from account hacking “at least once” in the past. (Source: Atlas VPN)

Stay safe, everyone!

The post A week in security (November 23 – November 29) appeared first on Malwarebytes Labs.

Days before taking a week-long Thanksgiving recess, the US Senate passed an almost mundane cybersecurity bill that, if approved by the President, will improve security guidelines and protocols for Internet of Things (IoT) devices purchased and owned by the Federal government.

The bill, called the Internet of Things Cybersecurity Improvement Act of 2020, was actually introduced into the US House of Representatives last year. The Senate agreed to pass the legislation on November 17 under “unanimous consent,” which means that one Senator—in this case Senator Rob Portman of Ohio—asked that the bill be passed without any single objection from any of his colleagues. It does not mean the bill received unanimous votes in its favor. The procedural move is rare when passing legislation in the Senate.

Upon passage, Harley Geiger, director of public policy at cybersecurity company Rapid7, spoke highly of the bill.

“This is arguably the most significant US IoT-specific cybersecurity law to date, as well as the most significant law promoting private sector adoption of coordinated vulnerability disclosure,” Geiger wrote in a company blog post. “IoT security is widely acknowledged as a global priority, and vulnerability disclosure processes are fundamental security practices, so passage of the bill should be seen as a very positive step forward for cybersecurity and the security community.”

The bill focuses primarily on guidelines and procedures.

First, the IoT Improvement Act of 2020, if signed into law, will require the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to develop and publish “standards and guidelines for the Federal government on the appropriate use and management by agencies of Internet of Things devices.”

Those standards will apply to IoT devices owned and controlled by Federal government agencies, and they must provide guidance on secure development, identity management, patching, and configuration management.

After the NIST director publishes those guidelines, the bill will require that the Director of the Office of Management and Budget review the current information security policies and principles of Federal civilian agencies, and make sure that those policies line up with the NIST’s newer guidelines. That review will also require coordination with the director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, or CISA, which until last week, was a position held by Chris Krebs.

Further, the current Federal acquisition rules for purchasing and owning IoT equipment must be updated in line with the required NIST guidelines to be published after the passage of the bill. As part of these requirements, a government agency will not be allowed to purchase IoT devices if that agency’s Chief Information Officer finds that such a device would fall short of the newly imposed rules.

Finally, the bill will require that NIST also develops guidelines for discovering and disclosing vulnerabilities in IoT devices that it owns or controls.

The IoT Cybersecurity Improvement Act of 2020 marks a significant first step for the Federal government into placing security regulations on IoT devices. As we have repeatedly written about—and spoken about—IoT security is a nascent landscape, and the lack of standardization across devices means that we are somehow both safer and more at risk to cybercriminals.

As Adam Kujawa said on our podcast about IoT cybersecurity this month, the best advantage we have for IoT security are that there are different platforms, different frameworks, and different protocols, which make it harder for any single group of cybercriminals to launch a wide-scale attack.

At the same time, though, Kujawa said that this scenario “works against us in the sense that developing security tools in order to protect these devices is just as difficult because you can’t create one solution that will necessarily work on every single device.”

The IoT Cybersecurity Improvement Act of 2020 could help usher in a future where IoT device-makers can look to a single set of guidelines for their products. While the bill does not require these standards to be applied to devices purchased by general consumers, the guidance itself could still be helpful in creating agreed-upon security goals.

With unanimous consent from the Senate, there should be little reason for the president not to sign the IoT Cybersecurity Improvement Act of 2020 into law.

The post IoT cybersecurity bill passed by Senate appeared first on Malwarebytes Labs.

A team of researchers working for vpnMentor has found a treasure trove in the form of an unsecured Elasticsearch database containing over 380 million records. The trove contained login credentials and other data belonging to Spotify users.

So what’s Spotify doing leaving its user data hanging around on an unsecured database? Answer: It’s not. On investigation, the team found the database didn’t actually belong to Spotify. Instead, the database was in use by a third party to defraud Spotify users.

What happened?

“The vpnMentor research team discovered the database as part of a huge web mapping project.”

After port scanning and examining weaknesses and vulnerabilities, the researchers habitually look for leaked data. This database was unsecured and unencrypted, so it was fully accessible for anyone that found it. After reviewing and confirming what they found, the team informed Spotify. Together they concluded that whoever owned the database had probably obtained the login credentials from an external site and used them on Spotify accounts.

The database builders may have used credential stuffing to verify whether the logins were valid for the Spotify service.  

The origin of the database

How this third party came into possession of, or managed to build, the database is as yet unknown. There is a possibility that it was obtained from vendors on the Dark Web. Either way, it’s clear that it would have taken them a great amount of work and/or money to amass such a huge database with verified accounts. An investment they surely would hope to earn back by defrauding Spotify users.

Trying not to gloat

It is hard not to gloat about someone’s misfortune in a case where the fraudsters’ database gets exposed. It looks as if the threat-actors should have read our blog about backdoors in elastic servers. The problem is that besides the researchers, there may have been others that found this exposed database and their intentions could have been malicious.

The content of the database

Besides the usernames and passwords for Spotify, many of the database records also contained personally identifiable information (PII) like:

• email addresses
• country of residence

Besides taking over a victim’s Spotify account, anyone with access to this database could use the PII to connect the data to other accounts of the victim, such as their social media profiles. The PII could also be used for spear phishing or even identity theft.

What do Spotify users need to do?

Spotify initiated an automated reset of passwords for all users affected. So if your credentials were in that database you should have received a notice about this password reset. If you didn’t receive such a notice but you want to reset your password anyway, you can follow this link and find the instructions there.

Unfortunately, and despite many users asking for MFA, Spotify has not yet enabled any kind of multi-factor authentication that we know of.

Re-used credentials

If you have used the same login credentials on other sites, which we advise against, you should change those passwords as well. Then go read our blog about why you don’t need 27 different passwords for some pointers.

Stay safe, everyone!

The post Spotify resets some user logins after hacker database found floating online appeared first on Malwarebytes Labs.

Anyone who uses Malwarebytes software is probably familiar with the fact that, in addition to things like malware and adware, Malwarebytes detects potentially unwanted programs (PUPs). These are programs that exhibit a variety of unsavory behaviors, but that, for legal reasons, cannot be called malware.

PUP (n): a program that may include advertising, toolbars, and pop-ups that are unrelated to the software you downloaded. PUPs often come bundled with other software that you installed.

https://blog.malwarebytes.com/glossary/pup/

For the entire history of Malwarebytes software on iOS—the system that runs on iPhones, iPads, and iPod Touches—there have been things we would consider to be PUPs on the iOS App Store. However, due to limitations imposed by Apple, we’ve been completely unable to scan or remove PUPs from those devices (iPhones or iPads). This is simply the reality of working within Apple’s ecosystem.

On macOS, however, we’ve always been able to detect and remove PUPs. Unfortunately, we’re seeing the first signs that this is starting to change—not just for Malwarebytes, but for all security companies.

PUPs on the App Store?!

Although PUPs on Mac can be downloaded either from the App Store or the web, the question of why PUPs exist on the App Store at all is a key factor in the problem at hand. The answer is pretty simple: because Apple and Malwarebytes have different tolerance levels.

At Malwarebytes, we have a very low threshold of tolerance for PUP behaviors. We’re very aggressive in our detection of PUPs, and we have an amazing legal team that helps make that possible. It’s not always an easy stance to take, but it’s one we believe strongly in and are willing to spend resources defending.

Apple, on the other hand, is essentially in a monopoly position. It owns the hardware and the systems, and if it decides you shouldn’t run a particular program, you won’t be running that program without some significant efforts. This makes Apple far more vulnerable to lawsuits, and it has to take a more conservative approach towards PUPs.

As much as I’d like Apple to be tougher on PUPs, I understand why it can’t be as aggressive as we are.

This is not to say Apple won’t do anything about PUPs, it just needs more evidence of egregious behavior before it can act. We’ve successfully lobbied Apple in the past to get PUPs removed from the App Store, while other times we’ve been unsuccessful.

A new technology

Starting in macOS 10.15 (Catalina), Apple introduced a couple important new technologies. The first is support for system extensions. These differ from the older kernel extensions in that they are safer and easier for developers to create. Kernel extensions could fairly easily cause catastrophic crashes and other issues if a developer wrote poor kernel code.

The second technology is the EndpointSecurity framework, designed to provide support for all the things that security software used to use kernel extensions for.

These technologies are not open to everyone, however. Developers have to apply for entitlements to be allowed to use them. These entitlements are not easy to get. It took some time for us to get them here at Malwarebytes, and there are people who have a legitimate use case for these entitlements who have been rejected.

Once you have these entitlements, though, there’s a significant advantage to using system extensions in security software: once installed, and approved by the user, they are protected by macOS. This means that they become nearly impossible to remove, except by the software that installed them in the first place.

This is a really great feature for security software that may be targeted for removal by malware in order to not be detected. However, it turns out there’s a problem with this protection.

PUPs protected against removal

One of the common sub-groups of PUPs we detect are antivirus programs that show unwanted behaviors meeting certain criteria. As an example, a program that requires payment, but the antivirus engine it uses is available for free from another company, would be a likely candidate for detection.

Unfortunately, antivirus programs are also candidates for the system extension and EndpointSecurity entitlements. Anyone can apply for these entitlements, but you stand a much better chance of getting them if you are—or appear to be—a security company.

We’ve now seen a case where two different companies with a long history of making PUPs—including junk antivirus programs—have gotten these entitlements. Those programs now have a system extension, which cannot be removed by Malwarebytes or any other software.

In one case, the PUP in question is the most hated PUP by Mac IT admins and Mac tech shops everywhere, and was the subject of two separate class action lawsuits alleging fraudulent behavior.

The fallacy of Apple security

For many years, iOS has existed as a locked-down environment, incapable of being scanned for malware by any app. Antivirus software does not—and cannot—exist on iOS.

Yet iOS is not invulnerable to malware. It is unfortunately possible for an iPhone to get infected. The most famous case involves the Pegasus malware, created by NSO and used to infect journalist Jamal Khashoggi’s iPhone. Khashoggi had no way to determine that his phone was infected, and had to trust that Apple’s system was as secure as claimed. Unfortunately, this may have led to his demise.

This is a dramatic story that by no means embodies the impact of all iOS infections… but it does underscore the fact that they exist, and there’s little that anyone outside Apple can do about it. Since well-written malware shows no symptoms that the average person would be able to identify, an infected iOS device is likely to stay infected.

Apple’s new EndpointSecurity feature was touted as a more stable way for antivirus software to do its job than low-level kernel extensions. However, they are under Apple’s tight control, and this is the first concrete sign that control may push macOS in the direction of iOS.

At this point, it’s hard to say what the future of antivirus on macOS is. It’s obvious that Apple has at least some interest in supporting antivirus software, as evidenced by the creation of the EndpointSecurity framework. This is distinctly different from iOS, where such a framework does not exist.

However, it is starting to look like antivirus developers will have to play by increasingly limiting rules, and that now means not being able to protect users against certain things. Worse, Mac users will be unable to manually remove those things without contortions that the average person will find quite cumbersome.

The post Apple security hampers detection of unwanted programs appeared first on Malwarebytes Labs.

Earlier this month, Zoom’s stock price took a dive on news of two promising COVID vaccines offering over 90 percent effectiveness against the virus (a third vaccine was just announced). That’s nice. Glad to know some people think this nightmare is ending soon and we’ll all go back to the office and the classroom.

But our ability to walk into a clinic and get either of these vaccines is still months away and we’re dealing, right now, with a surge of new coronavirus infections. The reality is we’re going to be stuck with Zoom for a while longer.

Earlier in the pandemic we reported on the security risks associated with Zoom. Much of it was pretty juvenile. Think Zoombombers drawing on screen using the annotate function. On the other hand, there are countless stories online of meetings being interrupted by attendees scrawling racial epithets on screen, posting pornographic images, and threatening presenters with acts of violence. It was also revealed that Zoom’s encryption wasn’t as secure as the company claimed.

As you prepare to log in to your next Zoom meeting or class, let’s take another look at Zoom. Has it gotten any safer?

Zoombombing

Zoom has several existing settings that users can leverage against potential meeting interlopers. That’s all well and good, but when you’re in the middle of defending your doctoral dissertation and you’re suddenly staring at a giant phallus someone drew over your Powerpoint (sadly, this actually happened), there’s just no good option short of shutting down your entire meeting—until now.

This month, Zoom debuted three new features that can prevent or stop disruptions like these from happening.

Suspend Participant Activities

The Suspend Participant Activities option acts like a ban hammer for presenters. Hitting this switch pauses all video, audio, chat, annotation, screen sharing, recording, and Breakout Rooms. From there, the meeting organizer can report a user and they’ll be removed from the meeting immediately.

Report users

Zoom has made it easier to report disruptive users on both the web app and the desktop client. There’s also a new setting that admins can flip that allows participants to take the initiative and report users on their own.

At-Risk Meeting Notifier

Zoom has introduced the At-Risk Meeting Notifier which scans social media posts and “other websites” for publicly shared Zoom links. If the notifier finds a meeting link online, it’ll send an automated email to the account owners and admins alerting them to the potential risk. From there, the meeting organizer can delete and reschedule the meeting with a new link.

As a quick reminder, you should require pre-registration before every meeting. Otherwise, use a random meeting ID for every meeting, instead of your Personal Meeting ID, and require a passcode to enter the meeting. And for goodness sake, disable annotation for participants if you’re delivering a presentation that in no-way requires your attendees have the ability to draw on screen.

Encryption

Zoom got busted back in March for its creative definition of “end to end encryption.” As reported by The Intercept, Zoom conference data was being encrypted between the user and Zoom, meaning data was safe from someone spying on your WiFI connection. However, Zoom still had the ability to access unencrypted conference data on its end, which could be a problem if Zoom was involved in a data breach. Zoom could also be forced to hand over conference data at the request of government agencies. Fortunately, Zoom started encrypting meetings for real for both free and paid users in October.

All that being said, you have every right to remain wary given Zoom’s ambiguous language around encryption. One quick fix is to use a virtual private network (VPN) like Malwarebytes Privacy, for example. With a VPN, you’re effectively creating your own secure tunnel between yourself and Zoom. However, you’re still trusting Zoom with your data once it’s on the company’s servers.

Use something else

If this post sounds like a diss on Zoom—it’s not. This reporter happens to like Zoom. You might feel otherwise. However, switching to something else is easier said than done. Your employer or your school likely has a service agreement with Zoom. Going rogue and using the conferencing software of your choosing may not be allowed or it might not be something you can afford out of pocket. If you’re in a position where you can pick whatever web conferencing software you want, here are some important considerations:

• Does this conferencing software feature true end-to-end encryption?
• What options are built-in for handling meetings crashers (aka Zoombombers)?
• Do attendees need to install the application on their computer before attending a conference?

Those are just a few of the questions you should be asking. Whatever you choose, do your due diligence, pick the right conferencing software for your needs, and keep your meetings secure.

The post Looks like we’re stuck with Zoom: Is it any safer? appeared first on Malwarebytes Labs.

This week on Lock and Code, we discuss the top security headlines generated right here on Labs and around the Internet. In addition, we talk to Chris Boyd, lead malware intelligence analyst for Malwarebytes, about charity organizations and online ad tracking. Though many might assume that these two topics have no overlap, they absolutely do.

Ad tracking itself isn’t anything new—luxury brands used to place their advertisements specifically in newspapers that delivered to high-income zip codes, and medications for age-related illnesses broadcast commercials during daytime television, when retirees are more likely to watch.

But today’s ad tracking supercharges that match-making game with a complex, opaque machinery that can track what you do online, what websites you visit, what browser you use, and even your gender, religion, and political bias.

Tune in to hear about how charity organizations utilize online ad tracking tools—and why that could concern some users—on the latest episode of Lock and Code, with host David Ruiz.

You can also find us on the Apple iTunes store, Google Play Music, and Spotify, plus whatever preferred podcast platform you use.

We cover our own research on:

• Malsmoke operators abandon exploit kits in favor of social engineering scheme
• WebNavigator Chromium browser published by search hijackers
• Chris Krebs, director of Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, fired by President
• IoT forecast: Running antivirus on your smart device?

Other cybersecurity news:

• Microsoft unveiled Pluton, a new security chip for Windows PCs that the tech giant will deliver through partnerships with Intel, AMD and Qualcomm. (Source: SecurityWeek)
• The ransomware gang known as DarkSide has announced plans to offer a distributed storage platform for affiliates. (Source: Hot for Security)
• Facebook fixed a critical flaw in the Facebook Messenger for Android messaging app that allowed callers to listen to other users’ surroundings. (Source: BleepingComputer)
• A Chinese state-sponsored hacking group has infected more than 200 systems across Southeast Asia with FunnyDream. (Source: ZDNet)
• Capcom has confirmed that hackers stole customer data and files from its internal network following a ransomware attack. (Source: TechCrunch)

Stay safe, everyone!

The post Lock and Code S1Ep20: Tracking the charities that track you online with Chris Boyd appeared first on Malwarebytes Labs.

Online shopping has seen a dramatic increase in the months following the Covid-19 outbreak as more and more people opt-out of visiting physical stores. Such a phenomenon does not go unnoticed or without additional consequences. During the same time period, we have seen an increase in the usual scams but also digital skimming, the online equivalent of credit card theft.

As a consumer, you may be hearing different tips on how to shop online safely. A common one is to look for the “https” in the site’s URL, but what exactly does that mean in the case of a compromised site?

As a merchant, processing transactions securely is one of the top requirements in order to achieve SAQ-A level PCI DSS compliance. Many businesses choose to work with a Payment Service Provider (PSP) and use iframe containers. Once again, how do those fare when malicious code is at play?

When it comes to online security there is always a caveat, and the important thing is to understand the sometimes subtle nuances of technology concepts and their limitations.

The padlock

When we visit a website, our browser makes a series of requests to a web server via the HTTP protocol. The server will in turn reply with responses that include the text and images displayed on screen.

There was a time not so long ago when most websites were not using encryption and therefore exposed communications between server and browser. In other words, an attacker could capture sensitive data you might be typing into a website because that data was sent in clear text.

With the adoption of HTTPS, HTTP requests and responses are encrypted via the TLS (Transport Layer Security) protocol, the successor of SSL (Secure Sockets Layers). In addition, HTTPS authenticates web servers such that when you browse to https://www.facebook.com, private and public keys using the site’s SSL certificate are matched to guarantee the legitimacy of the server. (Note: we still commonly use the term “SSL certificate”, but the technology behind it is TLS).

Today, there really is no valid reason for a website not to have an SSL certificate anymore. Not only can they be obtained for free, but browsers will display a warning that could deter people from visiting your website.

One recommendation you might hear about when it comes to shopping online is that if the site is secure, its URL should start with “https://” and include a lock icon on the shopping cart page. While technically this is true, the meaning of ‘secure’ needs to be properly defined.

Indeed, a number of people will wrongly assume that a site using HTTPS is secure, and therefore can be trusted to buy from. The SSL certificate guarantees that the connection to the site is secure (meaning, encrypted) and that the site is who it pretends to be, but that’s it.

To drive the point home, at Malwarebytes we detect thousands of websites that all use HTTPS and are yet dangerous or outright malicious. In fact, when it comes to e-commerce, almost all of the sites that have been injected with a credit card skimmer do use HTTPS.

When a website has been compromised, an SSL certificate does little to guarantee your online safety. This is why it’s important to understand the difference between a secure communication protocol and a secure website.

Websites run on software that can have vulnerabilities and be exploited by threat actors. A hacked site may contain malicious code that controls what you see and do within your browser, whether it uses HTTPS or not.

The irony is that online criminals themselves have adopted SSL certificates too. And there’s not much comfort in knowing that your credit card data has been stolen and exfiltrated ‘safely’.

There is no doubt you should stay away from sites that have not adopted the latest secure communication protocols. However, you should not take for granted that a site is secure (in the sense of safe to shop) simply because you see a padlock.

iframe protection

A number of online shopping sites use a Content Management System (CMS) such as Magento where the checkout page relies on third-party forms to handle sensitive data. The integration is meant to be seamless in order to give shoppers the best experience possible.

One popular option is the iframe container, where a merchant site integrates a third-party script within an iframe on the checkout page. In technical terms, the provider script is inserted within an iframe container where the customer will enter their payment details (i.e. credit card number, month and year expiry and CVV). This means that no cardholder data is stored, processed or transmitted by the merchant.

The same-origin policy (SOP) enforced by modern browsers ensures that code contained in one page can only access data in another page if both web pages have the same origin. In other words, if the merchant site gets hacked, SOP prevents malicious code from stealing data within the protected iframe.

Unfortunately, there are many ways to bypass iframe protection and it usually comes down to having control of what is loaded onto a page. The PCI Security Standards Council states in one of its reports that “If an attacker has compromised the merchant’s website, however, they can create alternative content for the frame, which then allows completion of the payment process as well as creation of a copy of the cardholder data for the attacker.”

In an attack we observed recently, threat actors were targeting Braintree Hosted Fields to inject their very own iframe within the same container after disabling the legitimate one.

As you can see in Figure 2, the legitimate Braintree iframe (braintree-hosted-field_number) has its display property set to none while a malicious iframe (fpmt) takes it place.

This means that the attackers now have direct access to the credit card number field and can steal it once the customer types it in, completely bypassing the iframe container protection.

Containers still have value for merchants as they can help them achieve PCI compliance and also generally augment their overall security posture. However, externalizing the payment process does not mean that your platform is secure from hackers.

Security in layers

There is no absolute in the security field, and if one technology claims to solve all problems it probably is too good to be true.

As the threats targeting online shoppers evolve, so must our response too. Credit card skimmers can target just about any platform and business, but there are some higher risk areas and behaviors. When evaluating a shopping site, you need to look well beyond the HTTPS padlock and even security seals.

• Is the site up to date? While technically this would require scanning the CMS core files to determine their version, some things such as copyright notices showing dates of years past are a giveaway.
• Is this a small ‘mom and pop’ website? Those are generally at greater risk because the owners have fewer resources to invest in security.
• Does the site offer payment options that may be more secure such as a separate payment gateway, or token system?
• Does the checkout page render properly without any odd looking elements? Skimmers often try to inject phishing forms or hijack existing fields, which can sometimes be noticed visually.

After doing due diligence checks on the site, you can still thwart the risk of online skimming by using security software, and in particular browser extensions that can block malicious code from loading. Malwarebytes Browser Guard was designed to filter out ads, scams and malicious content.

As an online merchant, there are a number of security decisions to make when you run a website. It would be difficult to list them all here, but as a general rule it’s good to remember that security is not an end state but a constant process that requires resources. Being proactive to anticipate attacks and have a plan in case of a compromise is also critical.

There are a number of services that provide security hardening and monitoring with varying costs. These can be a good option for a merchant that does not have its own IT team. As a side note, most web developers or web agencies (unless specified otherwise) will only build a website but not provide ongoing security updates and monitoring.

The post Demystifying two common misconceptions with e-commerce security appeared first on Malwarebytes Labs.

Black Friday 2020 promises to be somewhat different from years gone by thanks to COVID-19. The annual surge of in-store chaos and trolley dashes isn’t compatible with social distancing, and so retailers will be looking to drive shoppers online.

Friday 27^th November is when things kick off this year, and yet some aspects will be radically different. If you intend to go to physical stores, then there’s a few things you’ll need to keep in mind.

Black Friday: Not spared from the lockdown

Some retailers are closing physical stores. Others are looking to extend how long their sales last, with the possibility of fewer sales in-store and more offered online to keep visitors to a minimum. One possible knock-on effect of so many online orders could be a delay in deliveries. Online shopping has increased as much as 75% already due to the pandemic, and Black Friday looms ominously in every retailer’s calendar.

Retailers are usually incredibly pleased about upcoming sales bumps. Now? It’s largely just the promise of in-store problems and offline capacity issues. While this may not concern the biggest retailers too much, small and medium businesses could well feel the pinch depending on what their 2020 Black Friday strategy is.

Sadly, this year’s sales bonanza comes with a possible increase in online scammers hunting for targets. Here are some ways you can beat the double threat of COVID-19 and internet scams this coming Black Friday.

Staying safe on Black Friday: Our tips

1. Be suspicious of emails claiming to be from stores, especially if they ask for login details and/or supply you with links which look different to the URL you’re most familiar with. Spelling mistakes aren’t always a sign of a scam, but on the other hand, most businesses use proof-read templates, so errors are unusual. Similarly, HTTPS doesn’t mean the site is legitimate; only that data entered can’t be easily snooped by third parties. Pretty much anyone can get a free HTTPS certificate these days, so it’s not a sure-fire sign of legitimacy either way.
2. Use a credit card if possible, as it’s generally the safer option online. Debit cards tied to your bank account are often more problematic when dealing with a scam situation—the money immediately leaves your account and it can be more difficult to get it back than with a credit card.
3. Scammers may direct you to malware-laden sites or try to compromise legitimate sites in the run-up to Black Friday. Make sure your operating system is up to date, your security software is running the latest version, and you’ve got all the in-browser plugin protection you need before heading off to the virtual shopping races.
4. Watch out for shortened links on social media, as they may be hiding nasty surprises.
5. Don’t fall for “retweet/share to win a prize” tricks. Any giveaway is a tempting prospect but you’ll want to ensure the account running the promotion is legit. Do they have a verified presence on the social media platform? If not, how familiar with the account are you generally? Social etiquette top tip: some of your audience won’t like lots of competitions and raffles dropped into their curated timelines. Do them and yourself a favour, consider running a standalone account just for competitions. They’ll appreciate you not spamming their feed, and if you do end up retweeting something bad, you’ll be massively reducing its reach.

Further resources for keeping yourself secure

Here’s some blogs you may find useful to help with the above tips.

• Avoiding dubious downloads: Nobody needs drive-bys or malicious software on their devices
• When scammers go farming: See how that hot social media offer is propelled into the scam-o-sphere.
• Phishy phones: Staying safe on mobile.
• Wrong number: How to fight back against callers you’d rather not entertain.
• The 2FA rundown: Why you’re better off enabling it.
• If it’s all too much: We get it, you’re pushed for time. That’s not a problem.

Shop safely in 2020

As has been mentioned, this year’s Black Friday is going to be a bit of an odd one. If you’d rather not venture out into possible crowds, or be stuck in very long distanced lines, that’s great. Stay home and reduce the potential COVID-19 risk. However, you’ll need to ensure your online security is similarly precaution filled. If your devices need a general spring cleaning to get things where they need to be security-wise, this could be the perfect moment to make a start.

Our very own Black Friday discount

It would be remiss in an article about safely shopping on Black Friday, not to mention that Malwarebytes is offering a Black Friday discount itself. You can save 50% on Malwarebytes Premium and 40% on Malwarebytes Premium + Privacy.

Whatever you do this Black Friday, we wish you safe and secure shopping for both Black Friday and beyond.

The post Black Friday 2020: How to shop safely online appeared first on Malwarebytes Labs.