Figures from Trustwave show there has been a steady decline in exploit kit activity over the past year. Exploit kits were once one of the biggest cybersecurity threats. In late 2015 and early 2016 exploit kits were being extensively used to spread ransomware and malware. Now exploit kit activity has virtually dropped to nothing.
Exploit kits are toolkits that are loaded onto malicious or hijacked websites that probe for vulnerabilities in browsers and plugins such as Adobe Flash Player and Java. When a new zero-day vulnerability was discovered, it would rapidly be added to exploit kits and used to silently download ransomware and malware onto web visitors’ computers. Any individuals that had failed to keep their browsers and plugins up to date would be at risk of being infected. All that would be required was make them – or fool them- into visiting a malicious website.
Links were sent via spam email, malvertising was used to redirect web visitors and websites were hacked and hijacked. However, the effort required to develop exploits for vulnerabilities and host exploit kits was considerable. The potential rewards made the effort more than worthwhile.
Exploit kits such as Angler, Magnitude and Neutrino no longer pose such a big threat. The actors behind the Angler exploit kit, which was used to spread Locky ransomware in early 2016, were arrested. Law enforcement agencies across the world have also targeted gangs running these exploit kits. Today, exploit kit activity has not stopped entirely, but it is nowhere near the level seen in the first half of 2016.
While this is certainly good news, it does not mean that the threat level has reduced. Ransomware and malware are still major threats, all that has happened is cybercriminals have changed tactics for distributing the malicious programs. Exploit kits are not dead and buried. There has just been a lull in activity. New exploit kits are undoubtedly being developed. For the time being, exploit kit activity remains at a low level.
Now, the biggest threat comes from malicious spam email messages. Locky and other ransomware variants are now almost exclusively spread via spam email messages. Cybercriminals are also developing more sophisticated methods to bypass security controls, trick end users into opening infected email attachments, and improve infection rates.
Much greater effort is now being put into developing convincing phishing and spear phishing emails, while spam emails are combined with a wide range of social engineering tricks to get end users to open infected email attachments. End users are more knowledgeable and know not to click on suspicious email attachments such as executable files; however, malicious Word documents are another matter. Office documents are now extensively used to fool end users into installing malware.
With cybercriminals now favoring spam and phishing emails to spread malware and ransomware, businesses need to ensure their spam defenses are up to scratch. Employees should continue to be trained on cybersecurity, the latest email threats should be communicated to staff and advanced spam filters should be deployed to prevent messages from being delivered to end users.
Security researchers in Israel have developed a proof-of-concept exploit called DoubleAgent that takes advantage of vulnerabilities in antivirus products to turn them against users. The exploit could potentially be incorporated into DoubleAgent malware, although there have been no known attacks that take advantage of the flaws in AV products to the researchers’ knowledge.
The proof-of-concept was developed by Cybellum researchers, who say that most third-party Windows antivirus products are susceptible and could potentially be hijacked. To date only three AV companies have confirmed that they are developing patches to block potential DoubleAgent malware attacks – AVG, Trend Micro and Malwarebytes.
The attack involves the Microsoft Application Verifier, which is used to check for bugs in programs that run on Windows. The researchers use DLL hijack techniques to fool the verifier using a malicious DLL. They claim the technique could be used to insert a custom verifier into any application.
DoubleAgent malware may not yet have been developed to exploit the zero-day vulnerability, although the researchers say they have used their proof-of-concept to take full control of the Norton Security AV program – many other AV products are also susceptible to this type of attack.
The Cybellum-developed DoubleAgent malware could be used in a number of different attack scenarios, all of which are particularly chilling.
Since the antivirus program can be pwned by an attacker, it could be turned on the user and used as malware. Antivirus software is trusted, so any actions taken by the AV program would be treated as legitimate. The researchers warn that the AV program could be turned into a double agent and do anything the attackers wanted.
The AV solution could be instructed to whitelist certain other programs allowing an attacker to install any malware undetected. Once installed, the malware would run totally undetected and the user would be unaware that their AV software had been rendered virtually useless. The AV software would also be prevented from flagging data exfiltration or communications with the attacker’s C&C.
An attacker could cripple a company’s applications using the DoubleAgent malware. If a legitimate program used by the company is marked as malicious by its antivirus software program, it would be prevented from running. It would therefore be possible to perform Denial of Service attacks. Also, since AV software has the highest level of privileges, it could be used to perform any number of malicious actions, such as deleting data or formatting a hard drive. That means a ransomware-style attack could be performed or the company’s computer systems could be sabotaged.
Fortunately, only Cybellum has the code and AV companies that have been found to be susceptible to such an attack have been notified. Patches are therefore likely to be developed to prevent such an attack.
The SANS Internet Storm Center reports that the Blank Slate spam campaign which was first detected in July last year is now being used to spread Cerber ransomware, rather than previous favorites Locky and Sage 2.0.
In the majority of cases, emails used to spread ransomware and other nasties use a variety of social engineering techniques to trick end users into opening the email attachments and infecting their computers. However, the Blank Slate spam campaign opts for simplicity. The spam email messages contain no text, hence the name ‘blank slate’.
Without any social engineering tactics, infection rates are likely to be much lower. However, researchers suggest that more email messages are likely to get past security defenses using this technique. Since more emails are delivered to end users’ inboxes, this is likely to make up for the fact that fewer attachments will be opened. The blank slate spam campaign is believed to be spread via botnets.
Cerber ransomware has been a major threat over the past 12 months. The ransomware is frequently updated to ensure it avoids detection. The latest blank slate spam campaign is being used to spread the latest form of the ransomware, which hides malicious code inside Nullsoft Scriptable Install System (NSIS) installers.
Security researchers at Palo Alto Network’s Unit 42 team report that Cerber ransomware is being hosted on around 500 separate domains. When domains are detected by hosting companies they are rapidly shut down; however, new domains are then registered by the criminals to take their place.
Since new domains can easily be registered using stolen credentials, the costs to cybercriminals are low. The cost of signing up for a new domain are negligible. Burner phones can be purchased cheaply and the numbers provided when registering domains, email addresses can be registered free of charge, and stolen credit card details can be used to make payment. There is no shortage of stolen credit card numbers to use. However, the rewards from Cerber ransomware infections are high. Now, the keys to decrypt data locked by Cerber ransomware costs victims 1 Bitcoin – around $1,000.
A recent survey conducted by CBT Nuggets has revealed that even tech savvy people are prone to commit cybersecurity howlers and place themselves, and their organization, at risk. In fact, far from intelligence preventing individuals from suffering online identity theft and fraud, it appears to make it far more likely.
The survey, which was conducted on 2,000 respondents, showed that people who believed they were tech savvy were actually 18 times more likely to become victims of online identity theft.
The more educated individuals were, the more likely they were to become victims of cybercrime. The survey revealed that high school graduates were less likely to be victims of cybercrime than individuals who had obtained a Ph.D.
24% of respondents with a Ph. D said they were a victim of identity theft compared to 14% who had a Bachelor’s degree, 13% who were educated to college level and 11% who had been educated only to high school level.
Women were found to be 14% more likely to have their identities stolen than men, and millennials were less likely to suffer identity theft than Baby Boomers and Generation X.
Interestingly, while the vast majority of malware targets Windows users, the survey revealed that users of Apple devices were 22% more likely to be victims of identity theft than Windows users, although Android phone users were 4.3% more likely than iPhone users to suffer identity theft.
There were some interesting results about the level of care used when venturing online. Even though the risk of cyberattacks on law firms has increased in recent years and law firms are a major target for cybercriminals, lawyers were less likely than other professionals to follow online security best practices.
69% of respondents from the legal profession did not follow online security best practices because they were too lazy to do so. Only people in ‘religious industries’ fared worse on the laziness scale (70%).
46% of healthcare industry professionals said they were too lazy when it came to cybersecurity, a particular worry considering the value of healthcare data and the extent to which cybercriminals are conducting attacks on the healthcare industry. The most common reason given for lax security and taking risks online was laziness, being too busy and it being inconvenient to follow security best practices.
65.9% of respondents believed they faced a medium or high risk of being hacked, yet only 3.7% of respondents said they followed all of the basic security recommendations. Perhaps that’s why so many people felt they faced a medium or high risk of being hacked!
One of the biggest risks taken by respondents was avoiding using public Wi-Fi networks. Only 11.8% of respondents said they avoided connecting to the Internet on public Wi-Fi networks. However, when it comes to divulging sensitive information while connected to a public Wi-Fi network, people were more savvy. 83.3% said they avoided transmitting sensitive information when connected to public Wi-Fi networks. Only 40.6% of respondents said they updated their devices every time they were prompted to do so.
The survey also showed which states were the worst for identity theft. While Florida often makes the headlines, the state ranked in the bottom ten for identity theft, with just 11% of respondents from the state saying they had suffered identity theft. The worst states were Maryland with 28% of respondents saying they were victims of identity theft, followed by Alabama with 26% and Kentucky with 22%. The safest states were Alabama (6%) and Louisiana (5%).
An investigation into a November Metropolitan Urology ransomware attack has revealed that the attackers may have gained access to the protected health information (PHI) of almost 18,000 former patients.
The Metropolitan Urology ransomware attack occurred on November 28, 2016 and impacted two servers used by the medical group. While the ransomware successfully encrypted a wide range of files, it was not initially known whether any data covered by Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Rules had been accessed.
An external computer security firm was contracted to conduct an investigation, which revealed on January 10, 2017 that PHI was potentially accessed by the attackers. Names, procedural codes, dates of service, account numbers, control numbers, and other ID numbers were all potentially viewed. In total, 17,364 patients who had visited Metropolitan Urology centers for treatment between 2003 and 2010 were impacted by the Metropolitan Urology ransomware attack.
The Metropolitan Urology ransomware attack is the latest in a long list of ransomware attacks on U.S. healthcare providers in recent months. The healthcare industry is being extensively targeted by cybercriminals who know that healthcare providers are heavily reliant on data and need access in order to continue to provide medical services to patients. If patient data are encrypted and systems taken out of action, there is a high probability that a ransom demand will be paid.
However, in the case of the Metropolitan Urology ransomware attack, computers were recovered by the IT security firm and it would appear that a ransom was not paid. The same cannot be said of Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center. In January, a ransom payment of $17,000 was made to recover files that had been encrypted by ransomware. Many other healthcare providers have similarly paid to have their data decrypted.
HIPAA and Ransomware Attacks
In July last year, following a spate of healthcare ransomware attacks, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights – which enforces HIPAA Rules – confirmed ransomware attacks are reportable security breaches. All HIPAA breaches must be reported to OCR within 60 days of the discovery of the breach and patients must similarly be notified of any incidents in which their PHI has been compromised.
A HIPAA breach is classed as “the acquisition, access, use, or disclosure of PHI in a manner not permitted under the HIPAA Privacy Rule which compromises the security or privacy of the PHI.”
Not all forms of ransomware involve the exfiltration of data, but a ransomware infection still counts as a HIPAA Privacy Rule breach. OCR confirmed that the encryption of PHI does count at a HIPAA breach because the information has been disclosed to a third party.
Ransomware incidents are therefore reportable and warrant notifications to be issued to patients unless the covered entity can demonstrate there is a “low probability that PHI has been compromised.”
OCR suggests that the way to do this is to conduct a risk assessment and investigate the nature and extent of PHI that has been viewed, the individuals that may have accessed the PHI, whether the PHI was stolen or viewed, and the extent to which the risk to PHI has been mitigated.
The covered entity should also determine which malware variant was used and the algorithmic processes used by that malware to encrypt data. Demonstrating a low probability of a PHI compromise may therefore prove problematic for healthcare organizations, especially smaller healthcare organizations with limited resources.
Protecting Healthcare Computers from Ransomware Attacks
Protecting against ransomware attacks requires investment in a wide range of different solutions. Organizations can focus on preventing ransomware from being installed by blocking the main vectors used to spread infections. Spam filtering solutions can be highly effective at blocking email-borne threats. Preventing suspicious emails from being delivered reduces reliance on end users being able to identify emails as malicious and stops them from opening infected attachments and clicking on malicious links.
To block web-borne attacks, healthcare organizations can implement a web filtering solution to control the file types that can be downloaded. The solution can also be used to block websites known to contain malware or exploit kits. A web filter can be configured to prevent end users from accessing certain types of websites that carry a high risk of infection.
Endpoint security solutions can help to detect ransomware infections, allowing rapid action to be taken to reduce the extent of an infection. Computers and/or servers can then be isolated to prevent the spread of the ransomware to other connected devices.
However, since it is not possible to reduce risk of infection with ransomware to zero, organizations must ensure that data is backed up and can be recovered in the event that computers are encrypted. Multiple backups should be performed, and backup files should be stored on air-gapped devices and in the cloud.
For further information on protecting your organization from the threat of ransomware, contact the TitanHQ team today.