main

BotnetsDDoS AttacksSecurity

Cities Paying Ransom: What Does It Mean for Taxpayers?

September 25, 2018 — by David Hobbs0

cities_paying_ransom_higher_taxes_blog-960x641.jpg

On September 1, Ontario’s Municipal Offices experienced a cyberattack that left their computers inoperable when Malware entered its systems and rendered its servers useless. The municipality was faced with paying a ransom to the attackers or face the consequences of being locked out of its systems. Per the advice of a consultant, the city paid an undisclosed amount of ransom to its attackers.

Only a couple months earlier, the Town of Wasaga Beach in Ontario, faced the same issue and paid one bitcoin per server.  It spent 11 Bitcoins, valued at the time at $144,000, to regain control of 11 servers. The town negotiated with the attackers to reduce the price to $35,000.  After paying the ransom, Wasaga Beach assessed the damages to its city at $250,000 for loss of productivity and reputation.

This scenario has become commonplace today.  Cities, municipalities, and government agencies have all experienced ransom attacks. But ultimately taxpayers are the ones that pay the bill for these cyberattacks.  The city of Atlanta projected $2.6M for ransomware recovery in May of 2018.  Atlanta chose not to pay the ransom, and instead allocated the funds to incident response.

Have these cities actually tested backup systems and disaster recovery within the last 2-3 months?  As public entities, we would ideally have full transparency and an understanding of the capabilities in place to protect public infrastructure.

Why have certain cites lacked transparency about the decision to pay attackers? Could the reasons for poor public disclosure be a lack of expertise and IT security spending, fear of public criticism, or actual weaknesses in their IT systems?

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

Should there be disclosure laws for public sectors concerning data breaches and malware events?

If a city is constrained with IT budgets preventing their IT department from making advances in cybersecurity protection, do its citizens get to vote on how IT is handled?  What if outsourcing IT to a managed services expert reduced costs (and headcount/jobs) while providing greater security? Would municipalities be better off if they could focus on delivering services to their citizens without having to worry about IT security?

Considering there aren’t a ton of checks and balances (and possibly budget), is this going to become the norm for hackers to target?

Private sector companies have been forced to take cybersecurity more seriously and according to some projections, will spend over $1 trillion on global digital security through 2021. Bank of America and J.P. Morgan Chase each spend around $500 million a year on cybersecurity.  Meanwhile, federal cybersecurity spending continues to lag, with some estimates suggesting it will reach a meager $22 billion by 2022.

Is the answer to the problem to start looking at better disclosure in IT spending? Should the public sector IT be outsourced to IT experts and moved to the cloud? Will the taxpayers perpetually be on the hook for poor IT security protection in the public sector?

There are hosted solution providers today that provide secure solutions for cities. Some cloud providers already have turnkey government solutions available for sale. Some of these platforms include city management, fare and tolls, police and intelligence, prison management, court management, video management, and safe city management. What if the taxpayers found that it cost less money and did a better job of security?  Would the voters be able to push public transparency and cost reduction through? How many more events like this will it take to move government IT into better hands?

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 SecurityBotnetsSecurity

Don’t Let Your Data Seep Through The Cracks: Cybersecurity For the Smart Home

September 20, 2018 — by Anna Convery-Pelletier0

secure_customer_experience_smart_home_blog-960x610.jpg

Technology and wireless connectivity have forever changed households. While we don’t have the personal hovercrafts or jetpacks that we were promised as children, infinite connectivity has brought a whirlwind of “futuristic” benefits and luxuries few could have imagined even a decade ago. But more importantly, it has re-defined how the modern domicile needs to be managed.

Just as with an enterprise network, cybersecurity concerns also impact the home network. The onus is on us, the consumer, to take responsibility for home network security because device manufacturers have not and the risks associated with any data breach is hugely detrimental in the digital age we live in.

A home network is no longer just laptops, tablets, smartphones and printers. The explosion of the Internet of Things (IoT) has resulted in network connectivity to nearly everything. Everyday household items – appliances, cameras, routers, baby monitors, toys, televisions, thermostats, heating systems, etc. are now connected to each other and the internet. But with all this network connectivity comes risk. Why is that and more importantly, what should you do about it?

While many consumers naively assume that developers behind new network-connected equipment must be thinking long and hard about security, in truth they aren’t. To be first to market, design zero-setup equipment, and to deliver a more fulfilling consumer experience, security on many IoT devices is woefully inadequate and often times an afterthought. In addition, many of these network-connected devices leverage bare bone operating systems that have neither the capacity nor processing power for sophisticated anti-virus/malware tools.

It’s common knowledge that home security such as burglar alarms and even door locks are connected to the internet. What many consumers don’t realize is that this creates a huge exposure because the Wi-Fi serves as a new vulnerability to the house’s physical security system. While useful for providing remote access to your next-door neighbors when the dog needs to be let outside, tech-savvy thieves need only to hack the Wi-Fi to gain access to security controls, monitor resident’s daily habits and gain physical access to the house.

IoT devices connected to e-commerce sites is yet another. For example, a smart fridge integrated into somebody’s Amazon Fresh or FreshDirect account (and access to banking/credit card information) allows someone to purchase groceries or other kitchen necessities right from the refrigerator door. This seamless connectivity can be a dream come true for today’s digital consumer, but can also provide a virtual playground from which hackers can gain access to digital bounties via a single vulnerability.

Smart Homes Require Smart Planning and Smart Security

Smart homes are here and are only going to get smarter. In effect, they are no different from a small corporate network, and as such, they need similar levels of planning and security, especially when considering the growing trend of working from home. However, many consumers simply don’t have the desire to run them securely. Most importantly, consumers are not reviewing and taking the necessary security precautions like they do other aspects of their life.

[You might also like: Cybersecurity & The Customer Experience: The Perfect Combination]

Just like security must become the very fabric of a business, cybersecurity planning – the act of reviewing network-connected devices, where sensitive data is stored and potential security vulnerabilities – must become a critical component of the smart home.

On a yearly basis, my family sits down and does financial planning to review everything from vacations to unexpected expenses. We’ve now included conversations about security planning and ask ourselves some questions such as:

Have I taken an inventory of and actually know all of the various network-connected devices that are in my home? Have security updates been applied to home computers and network-connected devices? Do any outdated devices, such as routers, need to be changed out by the vendor? Are my passwords secure and have I backed up any critical/sensitive information?

These types of questions are what modern-day consumers must be asking, in addition to executing the multitude of security best practices regarding password management, device protection, and backing up sensitive information. Even traditional consumer-focused antivirus software providers now offer multi-layered security devices meant specifically to safeguard home networks, routers and IoT devices.

[You might also like: Personal Security Hygiene]

To truly enjoy the promise of the smart home, it needs to be protected from cyber intruders just as vicariously as it’s protected against physical intruders. Similar to the lessons that leading organizations and name brands have learned in recent years, the best combination is taking proactive measures and leveraging consumer security tools that are easy to implement, easy to operate and does not require a great deal of expertise. It’s time for consumers to become proactive and smarter about home cybersecurity.

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

Download Now

BotnetsSecurity

Defending Against the Mirai Botnet

September 12, 2018 — by Ron Winward1

mirai_handbook_blog_image-960x540.jpg

When attacks from the Mirai botnet hit the network in 2016, we all knew something was different. You could feel it. In a 31-day span, the internet suffered three record-breaking attacks; Brian Krebs’ at 620 Gbps, OVH at 1.2 Tbps, and the widespread outages caused by the attack on Dyn DNS. Also within that window, the source code for Mirai was released to the world.

Mirai no longer holds the record for the largest volumetric attack on the Internet. That honor goes to the Memcached reflection attacks on Github. In fact, once the code was released, the botnets went from a few botnets with several enslaved members, to several botnets with fewer members. More botnets were fighting to enslave a pool of devices.

[You might also like: The Dyn Attack – One Year Later]

Attackers Get Creative

Attackers, as they always do, got creative. By modifying the Mirai code, attackers could discover new devices by leveraging other known exploits. While many attackers were fighting for telnet access to IoT devices with traditional Mirai, new variants were developed to find additional methods of exploitation and infection. Examples include TR-064 exploits that were quickly added to the code (and used to infect the endpoints of service providers), a 0-day exploit on Huawei routers in several botnets, and the Reaper botnet, which includes 10 previously disclosed CVEs.

One thing that has remained the same, however, is the attack vectors that are included in the modern botnets. They’re largely all based on Mirai, and even if their infection methods differ, the attacks don’t change much.

For example, Masuta and DaddysMirai include the original Mirai vectors but removed the HTTP attack. Orion is an exact copy of the original Mirai attack table (and just like Mirai, has abandoned the PROXY attack). Owari added two new vectors, STD and XMAS.

Understanding IoT Attacks

My background in network engineering naturally made me curious about the impact of these attacks on the network. What do they look like in flight? How is each one different? Is one more of a threat than another? I have been studying the attack vectors since they were released in 2016, but with the observation that new variants largely included the same attacks (and some twists), it was clearly worth revisiting.

[You might also like: IoT Threats: Whose problem is it?]

Today we launch a new publication, IoT Attack Handbook – A Field Guide to Understanding IoT Attacks from the Mirai Botnet and its Modern Variants. This is a collection of research on the attack vectors themselves and what they look like on the wire. You will see that they’re not much different from each other, with the only truly interesting change being the introduction of a Christmas Tree attack in Owari. But that too had some interesting challenges. You’ll have to read the guide to find out why.

It’s important to understand the capabilities of Mirai and other IoT botnets so that your organization can truly comprehend the threat. Manually reacting to these attacks is not viable, especially in a prolonged campaign. In many cases, it is possible to block some of these attacks on infrastructure devices such as core routers or upstream transit links, but in many cases, it’s not.

Effectively fighting these attacks requires specialized solutions, including behavioral technologies that can identify the threats posed by Mirai and other IoT botnets. It also requires a true understanding of how to successfully mitigate the largest attacks ever seen. Hopefully, this handbook provides the guidance and insight needed for each vector if your organization ever needs to take emergency measures.

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 & VectorsBotnetsDDoSSecurity

The Evolution of IoT Attacks

August 30, 2018 — by Daniel Smith1

iot_botnet_emerge-960x636.jpg

What is the Internet of Things (IoT)? IoT is the ever-growing network of physical devices with embedded technologies that connect and exchange data over the internet. If the cloud is considered someone else’s computer, IoT devices can be considered the things you connect to the internet beyond a server or a PC/Laptop. These are items such as cameras, doorbells, light bulbs, routers, DVRs, wearables, wireless sensors, automated devices and just about anything else.

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.

[You might also like: The 7 Craziest IoT Device Hacks]

Cloud and Data Processing: Good or Bad?

This evolution in cloud and data processing has led to an expansion of IoT devices, but is this a good or a bad thing? Those that profit from this expansion would agree that this is positive because of the increase in computing devices that can assist, benefit or improve the user’s quality of life. But those in security would be quick to say that this rapid rise in connected devices has also increased the attack landscape as there is a lack of oversight and regulation of these devices. As users become more dependent on these IoT devices for daily actives, the risk also elevates. Not only are they relying more on certain devices, but they are also creating a much larger digital footprint that could expose personal or sensitive data.

In addition to the evolution of IoT devices, there has been an evolution in the way attacker’s think and operate. The evolution of network capabilities and large-scale data tools in the cloud has helped foster the expansion of the IoT revolution. The growth of cloud and always-on availability to process IoT data has been largely adopted among manufacturing facilities, power plants, energy companies, smart buildings and other automated technologies such as those found in the automotive industry. But this has increased the attack surfaces for those that have adopted and implemented an army of possible vulnerable or already exploitable devices. The attackers are beginning to notice the growing field of vulnerabilities that contain valuable data.

In a way, the evolution of IoT attacks continues to catch many off guard, particularly the explosive campaigns of IoT based attacks. For years, experts have warned about the pending problems of a connected future, with IoT botnets as a key indicator, but very little was done to prepare for it.  Now, organizations are rushing to identify good traffic vs malicious traffic and are having trouble blocking these attacks since they are coming from legitimate sources.

As attackers evolve, organizations are still playing catch up. Soon after the world’s largest DDoS attack, and following the publication of the Mirai source code, began a large battle among criminal hackers for devices to infect. The more bots in your botnet, the larger the attack could be.  From the construction of a botnet to the actual launch an attack, there are several warning signs of an attack or pending attack.

As the industry began monitoring and tracking IoT based botnets and threats, several non-DDoS based botnets began appearing. Criminals and operators suddenly shifted focus and began infecting IoT devices to mine for cryptocurrencies or to steal user data. Compared to ransomware and large-scale DoS campaigns that stem from thousands of infected devices, these are silent attacks.

Unchartered Territory

In addition to the evolving problems, modern research lacks standardization that makes analyzing, detecting and reporting complicated. The industry is new, and the landscape keeps evolving at a rapid rate causing fatigue in some situations. For instance, sometimes researchers are siloed, and research is kept for internal use only which can be problematic for the researcher who wants to warn of the vulnerability or advise on how to stop an attack. Reporting is also scattered between tweets, white papers, and conference presentations. To reiterate how young this specialty is, my favorite and one of the most respected conferences dedicated to botnets, BotConf, has only met 6 times.

EOL is also going to become a problem when devices are still functional but not supported or updated. Today there are a large number of connected systems found in homes, cities and medical devices that at some point will no longer be supported by the manufacturers yet will still be functional. As these devices linger unprotected on the internet, they will provide criminal hackers’ a point of entry into unsecured networks. Once these devices pass EOL and are found online by criminals, they could become very dangerous for users depending on their function.

In a more recent case, Radware’s Threat Research Center identified criminals that were targeting DLink DSL routers in Brazil back in June. These criminals were found to be using outdated exploits from 2015. The criminals were able to leverage these exploits against vulnerable and unpatched routers 4 years later. The malicious actors attempted to modify the DNS server settings in the routers of Brazilian residents, redirecting their DNS request through a malicious DNS server operated by the hackers. This effectively allowed the criminals to conduct what’s called a man in the middle attack, allowing the hackers to redirect users to phishing domains for local banks so they could harvest credentials from unsuspecting users.

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

Attackers are not only utilizing old and unpatched vulnerabilities, but they are also exploiting recent disclosures. Back in May, vpnMentor published details about two critical vulnerabilities impacting millions of GPON gateways. The two vulnerabilities allowed the attackers to bypass authentication and execute code remotely on the targeted devices. The more notable event from this campaign was the speed at which malicious actors incorporated these vulnerabilities. Today, actors are actively exploiting vulnerabilities within 48 hours of the disclosure.

What Does the Future Hold?

The attack surface has grown to include systems using multiple technologies and communication protocols in embedded devices. This growth has also led to attackers targeting devices for a number of different reasons as the expansion continues. At first hackers, mainly DDoS’er would target IoT devices such as routers over desktops, laptops, and servers because they are always on, but as devices have become more connected and integrated into everyone’s life, attackers have begun exploring their vulnerabilities for other malicious activity such as click fraud and crypto mining. It’s only going to get worse as authors and operators continue to look towards the evolution of IoT devices and the connected future.

If anything is an indication of things to come I would say it would be found in the shift from Ransomware to crypto mining. IoT devices will be the main target for the foreseeable future and attackers will be looking for quieter ways to profit from your vulnerabilities. We as an industry need to come together and put pressure on manufacturers to produce secure devices and prove how the firmware and timely updates will be maintained. We also need to ensure users are not only aware of the present threat that IoT devices present but also what the future impact of these devices will be as they approach end of life. Acceptance, knowledge, and readiness will help us keep the networks of tomorrow secured today.

Download “When the Bots Come Marching In, a Closer Look at Evolving Threats from Botnets, Web Scraping & IoT Zombies” to learn more.

Download Now

BotnetsMobile DataMobile SecuritySecurityService Provider

IoT, 5G Networks and Cybersecurity: A New Atmosphere for Mobile Network Attacks

August 28, 2018 — by Louis Scialabba2

cyborg_iot_5g-960x432.jpg

The development and onset of 5G networks bring a broad array of not only mobile opportunities but also a litany of cybersecurity challenges for service providers and customers alike. While the employment of Internet of Things (IoT) devices for large scale cyberattacks has become commonplace, little has been accomplished for their network protection. For example, research by Ponemon Institute has found that 97% of companies believe IoT devices could wreak havoc on their organizations.

With hackers constantly developing technologically sophisticated ways to target mobile network services and their customers, the rapidly-approaching deployment of 5G networks, combined with IoT device vulnerability has created a rich environment for mobile network cyberattacks.

[You might also like: The Rise of 5G Networks]

Forecast Calls for More Changes

Even in today’s widespread use of 4G networks, network security managers face daily changes in security threats from hackers. Just as innovations for security protection improve, the sophistication of attacks will parallel. Cybersecurity agency ENISA forebodes an increase in the prevalence of security risks if security standards’ development doesn’t keep pace.

Add in research company Gartner’s estimate that there will be 20.4 billion connected devices by 2020, hackers will have a happy bundle of unprotected, potential bots to work with. In the new world of 5G, mobile network attacks can become much more potent, as a single hacker can easily multiply into an army through the use of botnet deployment.

Separating the Good from the Bad

Although “bot traffic” has an unappealing connotation to it, not all is bad. Research from Radware’s Emergency Response Team shows that 56% of internet traffic is represented by both good and bad bots, and of that percentage, they contribute almost equally to it. The critical part for service providers, however, is to be able to differentiate the two and stop the bad bots on their path to chaos.

New Technology, New Concerns

Although 4G is expected to continue dominating the market until 2025, 5G services will be in demand as soon as its rollout in 2020 driven by features such as:

  • 100x faster transmission speeds resulting in improved network performance
  • Lower latency for improved device connections and application delivery
  • 1,000x greater data capacity which better supports more simultaneous device connections
  • Value-added services enabled by network slicing for better user experience

The key differentiating variable in the composition of 5G networks is its unique architecture of the distributed nature capabilities, where all network elements and operations function via the cloud. Its flexibility allows for more data to pass through, making it optimal for the incoming explosion of IoT devices and attacks, if unsecured. Attacks can range from standard IoT attacks to burst attacks, even potentially escalating to smartphone infections and operating system malware.

[You might also like: Can You Protect Your Customers in a 5G Universe?]

5G networks will require an open, virtual ecosystem, one where service providers have less control over the physical elements of the network and more dependent on the cloud. More cloud applications will be dependent on a variety of APIs. This opens the door to a complex world of interconnected devices that hackers will be able to exploit via a single point of access in a cloud application to quickly expand the attack radius to other connected devices and applications.

Not only are mobile service providers at risk, but as are their customers; if not careful, this can lead to more serious repercussions regarding customer loyalty and trust between the two.

A Slice of the 5G Universe

Now that the new network technology is virtualized, 5G allows for service providers to “slice” portions of a spectrum as a customizable service for specific types of devices. Each device will now have its own respective security, data-flow processes, quality, and reliability. Although more ideal for their customers, it can simultaneously prove to be a challenge in satisfying the security needs of each slice. Consequently, security can no longer be considered as simply an option but as another integral variable that will need to be fused as part of the architecture from the beginning.

2018 Mobile Carrier Ebook

Read “Creating a Secure Climate for your Customers” today.

Download Now

BotnetsMobile DataMobile SecuritySecurityService Provider

IoT, 5G Networks and Cybersecurity: The Rise of 5G Networks

August 16, 2018 — by Louis Scialabba1

rise-5g-networks-iot-cybersecurity-960x640.jpg

Smartphones today have more computing power than the computers that guided the Apollo 11 moon landing. From its original positioning of luxury, mobile devices have become a necessity in numerous societies across the globe.

With recent innovations in mobile payment such as Apple Pay, Android Pay, and investments in cryptocurrency, cyberattacks have become especially more frequent with the intent of financial gain. In the past year alone, hackers have been able to mobilize and weaponize unsuspected devices to launch severe network attacks. Working with a North American service provider, Radware investigations found that about 30% of wireless network traffic originated from mobile devices launching DDoS attacks.

Each generation of network technology comes with its own set of security challenges.

How Did We Get Here?

Starting in the 1990s, the evolution of 2G networks enabled service providers the opportunity to dip their toes in the water that is security issues, where their sole security challenge was the protection of voice calls. This was resolved through call encryption and the development of SIM cards.

Next came the generation of 3G technology where the universal objective (at the time) for a more concrete and secure network was accomplished. 3G networks became renowned for the ability to provide faster speeds and access to the internet. In addition, the new technology provided better security with encryption for voice calls and data traffic, minimizing the impact and damage levels of data payload theft and rogue networks.

Fast forward to today. The era of 4G technology has evolved the mobile ecosystem to what is now a mobile universe that fits into our pockets. Delivering significantly faster speeds, 4G networks also exposed the opportunities for attackers to exploit susceptible devices for similarly quick and massive DDoS attacks. More direct cyberattacks via the access of users’ sensitive data also emerged – and are still being tackled – such as identity theft, ransomware, and cryptocurrency-related criminal activity.

The New Age

2020 is the start of a massive rollout of 5G networks, making security concerns more challenging. The expansion of 5G technology comes with promises of outstanding speeds, paralleling with landline connection speeds. The foundation of the up-and-coming network is traffic distribution via cloud servers. While greatly benefitting 5G users, this will also allow attackers to equally reap the benefits. Without the proper security elements in place, attackers can wreak havoc with their now broadened horizons of potential chaos.

What’s Next?

In the 5G universe, hackers can simply attach themselves to a 5G connection remotely and collaborate with other servers to launch attacks of a whole new level. Service providers will have to be more preemptive with their defenses in this new age of technology. Because of the instantaneous speeds and low lag time, they’re in the optimal position to defend against cyberattacks before attackers can reach the depths of the cloud server.

2018 Mobile Carrier Ebook

Discover more about what the 5G generation will bring, both benefits and challenges, in Radware’s e-book “Creating a Secure Climate for your Customers” today.

Download Now

BotnetsDDoSDDoS AttacksSecurity

New Satori Botnet Variant Enslaves Thousands of Dasan WiFi Routers

February 12, 2018 — by Radware0

blog_image_ert_alert_wordpress_vulnerability-960x720.jpg

Overview

On February 8th, 2018, Radware’s Deception Network detected a significant increase in malicious activity over port 8080. Further investigation uncovered a new variant of the Satori botnet capable of aggressive scanning and exploitation of CVE-2017-18046 – Dasan Unauthenticated Remote Code Execution. Referred to as “Satori.Dasan,” it’s been rapidly expanding with a high success rate. The C2/Exploit server for this botnet is 185.62.188.88 (AS49349 – BlazingFast LLC, Ukraine)

It is not clear what is the purpose of this new botnet, as we were unable to find specific attack vectors in the binary.

Our analysis suggests that Satori is looking to take over 40,000 IoT devices to join its growing family of cryptocurrency miners, as we saw here, and here. This would make the Satori.dasan malware a stage #1 infection, responsible for rapidly scanning the internet looking for vulnerable devices.

Network Coverage

Over the past two days Radware has detected over 2000 malicious Unique IPs daily, almost 10 times higher than the daily average in the weeks prior.

The majority of the traffic came from Vietnam originating almost entirely from an ISP named ‘Viettel.’

A significant percentage of those malicious bots were also listening themselves on port 8080.

By sampling roughly 1000 IPs and querying their server headers, Radware revealed that 95% identified  themselves as running “Dasan Network Solution.”

A quick Shodan search revealed about 40,000 devices listening on port 8080, with over half located in Vietnam, and not surprisingly an ISP named ‘Viettell Corporation.’

Botnet Activity:  Distributed Scanning and Central Exploitation Server

The infected bots will perform aggressive scanning of random IP addresses, exclusively targeting port 8080. Once it finds a suitable target, it notifies a C2 server which immediately attempts to infect it.

See the following sequence captured at one of Radware’s sensors (10.0.0.70):

Step #1

The infected bot sends a half-open stealth-scan SYN request to port 8080. Instead of Ack, a TCP Reset is sent. Typical to Mirai code, the initial TCP SYN packet contains a sequence number identical to the 32bit value of the target victim.

Step #2

After 4 seconds, the bot establishes a 3-way TCP handshake to port 8080

Step #3

The following 113 bytes payload is sent:

Note that this is not the actual exploitation attempt, but rather a screening process to find vulnerable hosts.

Step #4

Radware’s Deception Network sensor is answering the probe with the following response:

The bot closes the connection.

Step #5

Now comes the interesting part.

Notice the timestamp – it is just 106 milliseconds after the last packet and we suddenly get an exploitation attempt from a completely different IP address. This IP belongs to a central exploitation server running on 185.62.188.88

The exploit server sends the following payload over HTTPS port 8080:

Investigating the Malware

The threat actors who operate this C2 Crime Server are responsible for numerous attacks that were recently covered by different security vendors, including Fortinet, 360netlab, SANS.

With some scanning, fuzzing and Open-Source Intelligence (OSINT0) we found some interesting details.

As with previous incidents, the domain rippr.me is used to point to the C2 server.

The following entries have an associated TXT record:

As we saw in the exploit payload, the server is listening on port 7777. Connecting to it brings the following download code:

So let’s get the file and check the contents:

It looks like a downloader that will be running on an infected device. The script downloads several versions of the binary and tries to execute it. If it fails (due to wrong CPU architecture), it will just go over to the next one.

Let’s grab the binaries (and guess some additional ones, like the x86_64). They look quite fresh according to server timestamps:

At the moment, VirusTotal already knows about the C2 address and shows that less than five antivirus products detect the files as malicious. Not very promising right now, but this should improve.

We will use this opportunity to submit some of the binaries that are missing in VT.

Summary

The Satori.Dasan variant is a rapidly growing botnet which utilizes a worm-like scanning mechanism, where every infected host looks for more hosts to infect. In addition, it also has a central C2 server that handles the exploitation itself once the scanners detect a new victim.

Read “2017-2018 Global Application & Network Security Report” to learn more.

Download Now

Attack Types & VectorsBotnetsSecurity

DarkSky Botnet

February 8, 2018 — by Yuval Shapira0

darksky-botnet-960x600.jpg

Radware’s Threat Research has recently discovered a new botnet, dubbed DarkSky. DarkSky features several evasion mechanisms, a malware downloader and a variety of network- and application-layer DDoS attack vectors. This bot is now available for sale for less than $20 over the Darknet.

As published by its authors, this malware is capable of running under Windows XP/7/8/10, both x32 and x64 versions, and has anti-virtual machine capabilities to evade security controls such as a sandbox, thereby allowing it to only infect ‘real’ machines.

BotnetsSecurity

The Rise of Thingbots

November 19, 2014 — by David Monahan6

David Monahan is Research Director for Enterprise Management Associates (EMA) and is a featured guest blogger.

The Internet can be a pretty scary place. Places like the dark web exist in the form of trading houses with stolen personal information from credit cards and social security numbers, to health records and full identities being obtained for a price. Malware development and deployment and other attack services such as DDoS and botnets can be rented by the hour. Recent reports indicate that DDoS attacks are increasing in both frequency and size, and the problem of botnets being used as attack networks or launch points in DDoS and other malicious activities is significant. Indications are that it will only continue to get worse.

Attack MitigationBotnetsSecurity

The Ride from RSA 2014 & Taxi Wars

March 6, 2014 — by David Hobbs0

The RSA Conference was amazing this year — bigger, more robust and crazier than I have ever seen it.  The only void I noticed among the technical vendors was addressing the issue of hacktivism.  In the packed conference and crowed exhibition halls, I never came across a discussion about this phenomenon.  Can we forecast this risk?  Do we know its long term effects?  I think most of us are still befuddled by this concept.