More stories

  • in

    Lazarus group strikes cryptocurrency firm through LinkedIn job adverts

    The Lazarus group is on the hunt for cryptocurrency once more and has now launched a targeted attack against a crypto organization by exploiting the human element of the corporate chain.

    On Tuesday, cybersecurity researchers from F-Secure said the cryptocurrency organization is one of the latest victims in a global campaign which has targeted businesses in at least 14 countries including the UK and US. 
    Lazarus is an advanced persistent threat (APT) group thought to be tied to North Korea. Economic sanctions against the country imposed due to nuclear programs, human rights abuses, and more may have something to do with the group, which focuses on financially-motivated attacks that have expanded to include cryptocurrency in the past three years. 
    The US government says Lazarus was formed in 2007 and since then, researchers have attributed the group as responsible for the global WannaCry attack wave, the $80 million Bangladeshi bank heist, and the 2018 HaoBao Bitcoin-stealing campaign. 
    See also: US charges two Chinese nationals for laundering cryptocurrency for North Korean hackers According to F-Secure, the latest Lazarus attack was tracked through a LinkedIn job advert. The human target, a system administrator, received a phishing document in their personal LinkedIn account that related to a blockchain technology company seeking a new sysadmin with the employee’s skill set.   
    The phishing email is similar to Lazarus samples already made available on VirusTotal, including the same names, authors, and word count elements. 
    As is the case with many phishing documents, you need to entice a victim to enable macros that hide malicious code for them to be effective. In this case, the Microsoft Word document claimed to be protected under the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and so, the document’s content could only be shown if macros were enabled. 
    Once permission is granted, the document’s macro created a .LNK file designed to execute a file called mshta.exe and call out a bit.ly link connected to a VBScript. 
    This script conducts system checks and sends operational information to a command-and-control (C2) server. The C2 provides a PowerShell script able to fetch Lazarus malware payloads. 
    CNET: Weather Channel’s location data settlement doesn’t mean much for your privacy
    The infection chain changes depending on system configuration and a range of tools are used by the threat actors. These include two backdoor implants similar to those already documented by Kaspersky (.PDF) and ESET. 
    Lazarus is also using a custom portable executable (PE) loader, loaded into the lsass.exe process as a ‘security’ package that modifies registry keys using the schtasks Windows utility. Other malware variants used by Lazarus are able to execute arbitrary commands, decompress data in memory, as well as download and execute additional files. These samples, including a file called LSSVC.dll, were also used to connect backdoor implants to other target hosts. 
    TechRepublic: CISOs should put ad fraud security on their radars
    A tailored version of Mimikatz is used to harvest credentials from an infected machine, especially those with financial value — such as cryptocurrency wallets or online bank accounts. 
    F-Secure says that Lazarus has attempted to avoid detection by wiping evidence, including deleting security events and logs. However, it was still possible to snag a few samples of the APT’s current toolkit to investigate the group’s current activities. 
    “It is F-Secure’s assessment that the group will continue to target organizations within the cryptocurrency vertical while it remains such a profitable pursuit, but may also expand to target supply chain elements of the vertical to increase returns and longevity of the campaign,” the researchers say.  
    Previous and related coverage
    Have a tip? Get in touch securely via WhatsApp | Signal at +447713 025 499, or over at Keybase: charlie0 More

  • in

    Global pandemic opening up can of security worms

    Caught by the sudden onslaught of COVID-19, most businesses lack or have inadequate security systems in place to support remote work and now have to deal with a new reality that includes a much wider attack surface and less secured user devices. Many also have had to adapt and adopt digital tools quickly, taking on new technology that may not be adequately secured.
    Already, 21% of organisations in Singapore revealed they had seen an increase in attacks on their IT systems due to the pandemic, according to a HackerOne report released this week. Some 58% of these businesses believed they were more likely to encounter a data breach as a result of the global pandemic, found the survey, which polled 200 respondents in the city-state. Conducted by Opinion Matters in July 2020, the HackerOne study polled 1,400 security professionals in Singapore, Australia, France, Germany, Canada, the UK, and the US. 
    Across the board, 64% felt it was likely their organisation would experience a data breach as a result of the pandemic. HackerOne CEO Marten Mickos said: “The COVID-19 crisis has shifted life online. As companies rush to meet remote work requirements and customer demands for digital services, attack surfaces have dramatically expanded, leaving security teams stretched thin and not staffed to cope.”

    With more employees working from home, it has become easier to launch attacks at enterprises, warned Eugene Kaspersky, CEO of Kaspersky, who was speaking at Kaspersky’s Asia-Pacific Online Policy Forum last week. 
    The security vendor saw a 25% increase in the number of new malicious apps to more than 400,000 a day, from 300,000 before the virus outbreak. Kaspersky said this was the reality today and why having the right cybersecurity strategy was even more important now amidst the pandemic. 
    Fellow panelist David Koh, Cyber Security Agency of Singapore’s (CSA) commissioner of cybersecurity and chief executive, concurred, noting that governments, industries, and individuals have had to change the way they live, work, and play, and all in a very short span of time. 
    Companies had to adapt to work from home arrangements and engage partners and customers online, Koh said. “Things that some thought were too difficult to do nine months ago have had to change overnight,” he said. “We had to fundamentally adapt and employ new technology literally overnight [and] a lot of this new technology is much less secured.”
    Databases, for example, had to be extended so employees could access them from their home environment and controls that were in place previously within physical workplaces were no longer relevant. 
    Instead, employees’ home Wi-Fi systems now were the main connectivity hubs and these were not as secured as the office environment, Koh said. An organisation’s risk profile had changed and it had to deal with a larger attack surface, he added.
    Employees had been taken out of offices and into homes, but organisations did not have security systems set up outside their enterprise walls, said Mark Johnston, Google Cloud’s Asia-Pacific head of security for networking and collaboration specialists. 
    Speaking to ZDNet in a video call, he noted that businesses now had to deal with devices outside of their network they never had to to manage before. Traditional virtual private network (VPN) tools might not necessarily work well as these could not scale well, Johnston said, adding that his team saw a sudden influx of customer queries on how to securely handle access from devices outside of their infrastructure.
    Cybercriminals also had adapted, widening their focus to tap public interest in COVID-19 as lures for scams, phishing, and ransomware attacks.
    New vulnerabilities also were exposed because users had moved outside of their enterprise environment and were no longer protected by a firewall, Johnston said, noting that Google’s machine learning platform dynamically adjusted to the spike in COVID-19 themed attacks. 
    He said the system clocked 3 billion COVID-related email communications in a week, of which 240 million were spam and 20 million were malware attacks. Some 99.9% were blocked before they could hit inboxes.
    Rajesh Pant, India’s National Cyber Security Coordinator, also noted a spike in online usage across his country due to the pandemic. The National Informatics Centre, which manages India’s e-government services and supports the public sector’s ICT needs, previously handled 20 million e-mail queries a day. This now has climbed to 70 million a day, according to Pant, who was speaking at the Kaspersky forum. Correspondingly, there has been a 600% increase in cybercrime. 
    To help its population safeguard their cyber space, he said the Indian government issued advisories, for example, to guide employees on working from home and running videoconferences securely, such as creating waiting rooms for Zoom. 
    There also had been increased focus on credentials and identity, since more were accessing the corporate network from different home and online environments, he noted. “The entire system has become distributed,” he said, stressing the need for a new cybersecurity architecture. 
    Noting that the often-cited critical areas of “people”, “process”, and “technology”, still held true in cybersecurity, Pant underscored the importance of educating users on safeguarding their own cyber hygiene. 
    Mihoko Matsubara, NTT’s chief cybersecurity strategist, said: “We’re now more vulnerable because so many companies have shifted abruptly to work-from-home and remote work arrangements.” She noted that 45% of organisations in Asia-Pacific had yet to provide training to guide employees on how to work securely when doing so remotely.
    Budgets also were likely to have been cut due to the uncertain economic climate, which further compounded the problem, Matsubara said. 

    According to a Barracuda Networks study, 40% of companies worldwide had their cybersecurity budget cut as a cost saving measure due to COVID-19. Some 51% said their workforce lacked proper training on the cyber risks associated with remote working and 51% had seen an increase in email phishing attacks since moving to a remote working model. 
    “We’ve had to adapt to the COVID-19 situation abruptly…[and] from a technology perspective, many of us were not ready,” Koh said. He noted that cybersecurity required a balance of the iron triangle comprising usability, security, and cost. 
    HackerOne’s Mickos noted that the outbreak also compelled organisations to realise they were slow with their digital transformation and cloud migration. Some 37% in Singapore said the pandemic pushed them to accelerate their digital transformation efforts, with early 40% admitting they were forced to do so without being fully prepared. 
    “The strain this puts on security teams is immense,” he said. “Cost-cutting measures combined with an increase in attacks means data breaches present a significant threat to brand reputations that may have already taken a hit.”
    Need for common rule of cyber laws
    Koh pointed to “a strong need” to develop rules-based international order for cyberspace, similar to what the world already had for the physical domains of land, sea, air, and global trade. 
    In this aspect, he said Singapore believed the United Nations played an important role in facilitating dialogues and facilitating international cooperation. He noted that there already were ongoing efforts to establish an Asean cybersecurity framework. 
    Kaspersky noted that while he supported the need for a global federation, previous attempts to do so — including at the 2011 London Cyberspace Conference — had not resulted in anything substantial. 
    He expressed hope that the COVID-19 pandemic would encourage more nations to recognise the importance of such efforts and finally establish a working system for a safer cyberspace. This would be critical to help identify and stop cybercriminals across jurisdictions, he said.
    Matsubara welcomed the regulations within each region, but noted that the diversity between countries and even within smaller regions such as Asean, where there were different languages and cultures, would make it difficult to impose regulation across the board. And it would take years to establish such regulations. 
    So while it was important to have regulation to incentivise companies to implement good cybersecurity practices, she stressed the need to also educate governments, businesses, and individuals to ensure robust cybersecurity was embedded in every organisation. 
    “We use IT more during this pandemic, so cybersecurity need to be everywhere and for everybody,” she said, urging the need for a change in mindset.
    Johnston also called for more standardisation on regulations governing the use of data. He noted that there currently were different levels of maturity in regulatory and privacy laws and even between industries with regards to their use of ICT and how security was applied. 

    And while the European Union had a common data security framework in the General Data Privacy Regulation (GDPR), Asia-Pacific still lacked a similar legal directive. This created challenges for multinational corporations looking to expand into this region, compelling them to ensure they complied with different bars of privacy and security of legislations across the different markets, such as Singapore’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) and the Reserve Bank of India’s laws on payment data, he said. 
    Security needs to be ‘by default’, simpler
    Koh also advocated the need to simplify technology, which currently was too complex and difficult to manage. “We’re asking everyone including SMBs to be responsible for their own cybersecurity. This is impossible,” he said. “It needs to be made simple so everyone on the street can take care of their own cyber hygiene. It needs to be security by default, not just security by design.”
    Regulations, for instance, would help ensure telcos were doing the right things upstream, so consumers were delivered “a cleaner internet pipe”, he noted. Pointing to how water systems were commonly operated today, he said: “Now, [in cybersecurity] everyone’s left to purify their own water…isn’t it easier to have a central organisation purify it first [before it’s delivered through water pipes]? It should be the same with cybersecurity.”
    To facilitate such efforts, Koh said Singapore earlier this year introduced a labelling scheme to help increase consumer awareness about security when using Internet of Things (IoT) devices, specifically, home routers and smart home hubs. The initiative also aimed to push manufacturers to deploy enhanced cybersecurity measures and create a mandate for a set of minimum security requirements for home routers. 
    Noting that price, functionality, or colour typically were deciding factors when consumers purchased a tech product, he said few would consider the level of security in the device. The labelling scheme would help address this with its simple three-tick system, he added, where devices with three ticks were assessed to have good security features. 
    Tech vendors such as Google and Kaspersky are hoping to take the complexity out of security by tapping automation and artificial intelligence (AI). 
    Similar to its aim to democratise AI, Google hoped to do the same with security, Johnston said. The goal here was to focus design efforts on ease-of-use like it did with its consumer products to more advanced business security tools, he said. 
    Kaspersky also noted that AI and machine learning were essential in security to help those who were unable to help themselves. 
    Such tools would monitor enterprise environments to ensure users, as well as applications, were doing what they were expected to do and identify any abnormalities within the systems, he said. 
    RELATED COVERAGE More

  • in

    Security researcher discloses Safari bug after Apple's delays patch

    Image: REDTEAM.PL

    A security researcher has published details today about a Safari browser bug that could be abused to leak or steal files from users’ devices.
    The bug was discovered by Pawel Wylecial, co-founder of Polish security firm REDTEAM.PL.
    Wylecial initially reported the bug to Apple earlier this spring, in April, but the researcher decided to go public with his findings today after the OS maker delayed patching the bug for almost a year, to the spring of 2021.
    How does the bug work
    In a blog post today, Wylecial said the bug resides in Safari’s implementation of the Web Share API — a new web standard that introduced a cross-browser API for sharing text, links, files, and other content.
    The security researcher says that Safari (on both iOS and macOS) supports sharing files that are stored on the user’s local hard drive (via the file:// URI scheme).
    This is a big privacy issue as this could lead to situations where malicious web pages might invite users to share an article via email with their friends, but end up secretly siphoning or leaking a file from their device.
    See the video below for a demonstration of the bug, or play with these two demo pages that can exfiltrate a Safari user’s /etc/passwd or browser history database files.
    [embedded content]
    Wylecial described the bug as “not very serious” as user interaction and complex social engineering is needed to trick users into leaking local files; however, he also admitted that it was also quite easy for attackers “to make the shared file invisible to the user.”
    Recent criticism of Apple’s patch handling
    However, the real issue here is not just the bug itself and how easy or complex it is to exploit it, but how Apple handled the bug report.
    Not only did Apple fail to have a patch ready in time after more than four months, but the company also tried to delay the researcher from publishing his findings until next spring, almost a full year since the original bug report, and way past the standard 90-days vulnerability disclosure deadline that’s broadly accepted in the infosec industry.
    Situations like the one Wylecial had to face are becoming increasingly common among iOS and macOS bug hunters these days.
    Apple — despite announcing a dedicated bug bounty program — is increasingly being accused of delaying bugs on purpose and trying to silence security researchers.
    For example, when Wylecial disclosed his bug earlier today, other researchers reported similar situations where Apple delayed patching security bugs they reported for more than a year.

    For two of my bugs they’ve told me same thing that it will be fixed on “Fall of 2020” and yesterday I ask for the update. They replied it’s not a bug 😅
    — Nikhil Mittal (@c0d3G33k) August 24, 2020

    When in July, Apple announced the rules of the Security Research Device program, Google’s vaunted Project Zero security team declined to participate, claiming that the program rules were specifically written to limit public disclosure and muzzle security researchers about their findings.
    Three months before, in April, another security researcher also reported a similar experience with Apple’s bug bounty program, which he described as “a joke,” describing the program’s goal as trying “to keep researchers quiet about bugs for as long as possible.”

    The industry standard for disclosure of security issues is 90 days. We’re well beyond that point now. Why should I not publish?
    — Jeff Johnson (@lapcatsoftware) April 21, 2020

    An Apple spokesperson acknowledged our request for comment earlier today but said the company wouldn’t be able to comment, as it needed to investigate further. More

  • in

    Security researcher discloses Safari bug after Apple delays patch

    Image: REDTEAM.PL

    A security researcher has published details today about a Safari browser bug that could be abused to leak or steal files from users’ devices.
    The bug was discovered by Pawel Wylecial, co-founder of Polish security firm REDTEAM.PL.
    Wylecial initially reported the bug to Apple earlier this spring, in April, but the researcher decided to go public with his findings today after the OS maker delayed patching the bug for almost a year, to the spring of 2021.
    How does the bug work
    In a blog post today, Wylecial said the bug resides in Safari’s implementation of the Web Share API — a new web standard that introduced a cross-browser API for sharing text, links, files, and other content.
    The security researcher says that Safari (on both iOS and macOS) supports sharing files that are stored on the user’s local hard drive (via the file:// URI scheme).
    This is a big privacy issue as this could lead to situations where malicious web pages might invite users to share an article via email with their friends, but end up secretly siphoning or leaking a file from their device.
    See the video below for a demonstration of the bug, or play with these two demo pages that can exfiltrate a Safari user’s /etc/passwd or browser history database files.
    [embedded content]
    Wylecial described the bug as “not very serious” as user interaction and complex social engineering is needed to trick users into leaking local files; however, he also admitted that it was also quite easy for attackers “to make the shared file invisible to the user.”
    Recent criticism of Apple’s patch handling
    However, the real issue here is not just the bug itself and how easy or complex it is to exploit it, but how Apple handled the bug report.
    Not only did Apple fail to have a patch ready in time after more than four months, but the company also tried to delay the researcher from publishing his findings until next spring, almost a full year since the original bug report, and way past the standard 90-days vulnerability disclosure deadline that’s broadly accepted in the infosec industry.
    Situations like the one Wylecial had to face are becoming increasingly common among iOS and macOS bug hunters these days.
    Apple — despite announcing a dedicated bug bounty program — is increasingly being accused of delaying bugs on purpose and trying to silence security researchers.
    For example, when Wylecial disclosed his bug earlier today, other researchers reported similar situations where Apple delayed patching security bugs they reported for more than a year.

    For two of my bugs they’ve told me same thing that it will be fixed on “Fall of 2020” and yesterday I ask for the update. They replied it’s not a bug 😅
    — Nikhil Mittal (@c0d3G33k) August 24, 2020

    When in July, Apple announced the rules of the Security Research Device program, Google’s vaunted Project Zero security team declined to participate, claiming that the program rules were specifically written to limit public disclosure and muzzle security researchers about their findings.
    Three months before, in April, another security researcher also reported a similar experience with Apple’s bug bounty program, which he described as “a joke,” describing the program’s goal as trying “to keep researchers quiet about bugs for as long as possible.”

    The industry standard for disclosure of security issues is 90 days. We’re well beyond that point now. Why should I not publish?
    — Jeff Johnson (@lapcatsoftware) April 21, 2020

    Apple acknowledged a request for comment but did not have a statement on the issue. More

  • in

    Enough with the Linux security FUD

    Like all operating systems, Linux isn’t perfectly secure. Nothing is. As security guru, Bruce Schneider said, “Security is a process, not a product.”  It’s just that, generally speaking, Linux is more secure than its competitors. You couldn’t tell that from recent headlines which harp on how insecure Linux is. But, if you take a closer look, you’ll find most — not all, but most — of these stories are bogus.

    For instance, Boothole sounded downright scary. You could get root access on any system! Oh no! Look again. The group which discovered it comes right out and says an attacker needs admin access in order for their exploit to do its dirty work. 
    Friends, if someone has root access to your system, you already have real trouble. Remember what I said about Linux not being perfect? Here’s an example. The initial problem was real, albeit only really dangerous to an already hacked system. But several Linux distributors botched the initial fix so their systems wouldn’t boot. That’s bad.   
    Sometimes fixing something in a hurry can make matters worse and that’s what happened here.
    In another recent case, the FBI and NSA released a security alert about Russian malware, Drovorub. This program uses unsigned Linux kernel modules to attack systems. True, as McAfee CTO, Steve Grobman said, “The United States is a target-rich environment for potential cyber-attacks,” but is production Linux run by anyone with a clue really in danger from it?
    I don’t think so.
    First, this malware can only work on Linux distributions running the Linux 3.6.x  kernel or earlier. Guess what? The Linux 3.6 kernel was released eight-years ago. 
    I suppose if you’re still running the obsolete Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 6 you might have to worry. Of course, the fix for signing Linux kernel modules has been available for RHEL 6 since 2012.  Besides, most people are using Linux distros that are a wee bit newer than that. 
    In fact, let’s make a little list of the top production Linux distros:
    CentOS/RHEL 7 started with kernel 3.10.
    Debian 8 started with kernel 3.16.
    Ubuntu 13.04 started with kernel 3.8.
    SUSE Linux 12.3 started with kernel 3.7.10.
    All these years-old distros started life immune to this attack. All recent Linux versions are invulnerable to this malware.
    But, wait! There’s more. And this is the really annoying bit. Let’s say you are still running the no longer supported Ubuntu 12.04, which is theoretically vulnerable. So what. As Red Hat’s security team points out, “attackers [must] gain root privileges using another vulnerability before successful installation.”
    Once more for Linux to be compromised — for your system to get a dose of Drovorub — your system already had to be completely compromised. If an attacker already has root access, you are totally hosed. 
    Yes, there’s a security problem here, but it’s not a technical one. In the tech support business we like to call this kind of trouble: Problem Exists Between keyboard And chair (PEBKAC). So yes, if you have a complete idiot as a system administrator, you’ve got real trouble, but you can’t blame Linux for it.  
    Let’s look at another example: Doki, a new backdoor trojan. This time around, although described by many as a Linux problem, it’s not. It can only successfully attack Linux systems when whoever set up the Docker containers exposed the management interface’s application programming interface (API) on the internet. 
    That’s dumb, but dumber still is that for it to get you, your server’s firewall must be set to open up port 2375. Here’s a lesson from networking security 101: Block all ports except the ones you must have open. And, while you’re at it, set your firewall to reject all incoming connections that are not in response to outbound requests. If your administrator hasn’t already done this, they’re incompetent.
    Finally, let’s consider the recent sudo command problem. This sudo security vulnerability was real, it’s since been patched, but it requires, again, a case of PEBKAC to work. In this case, you had to misconfigure sudo’s set up so that any user could theoretically run sudo. Once again, if you already have an insecure system, it can always get worse.
    There’s a common theme here. The problems often aren’t with Linux. The problems are with totally incompetent administrators. And, when I say “totally incompetent,” that’s exactly what I mean. We’re not talking subtle, small mistakes that anyone might make. We’re talking fundamental blunders. 
    Whether you’re running Windows Server, Linux, NetBSD, whatever on your mission-critical systems, if you utterly fail at security, it doesn’t matter how “secure” your operating system is. It’s like leaving your car keys in an unlocked car, your system will be hacked, your car will be stolen. 
    So, enough with blaming Linux. Let’s blame the real problem: Simple system administrator incompetence. 
    Related Stories: More

  • in

    Palo Alto Networks to acquire incident response firm Crypsis Group for $265M

    Palo Alto Networks on Monday announced its plans to acquire The Crypsis Group, an incident response, risk management and digital forensics consulting firm. Palo Alto plans to pay $265 million in cash for the Crypsis Group, which currently operates as part of the ZP Group, an organization with a portfolio of companies. The deal is expected to close during Palo Alto Networks’ fiscal first quarter.
    Once the deal closes, Palo Alto plans to integrate the Crypsis Group’s processes and technology into Cortex XDR, its cybersecurity product that natively integrates network, endpoint and cloud data.

    “The addition of The Crypsis Group’s security consulting and forensics capabilities will strengthen Cortex XDR’s ability to collect rich security telemetry, manage breaches and initiate rapid response actions,” Palo Alto said in its release. “The Crypsis Group’s experts and insights will also fuel the Cortex XDR platform with a continuous feedback loop between incident response engagements and product research teams to prevent future cyberattacks.”
    The Crypsis Group has more than 150 security consultants and responds to more than 1,300 security engagements per year. Its customers span a variety of industries including health care, financial services, retail, e-commerce and energy. The firm’s CEO, Bret Padres, will join Palo Alto Networks. 
    A few days earlier, Palo Alto finalized its $420 million acquisition of CloudGenix, a software-defined wide-area networking (SD-WAN) provider.
    Meanwhile, Palo Alto on Monday also reported better-than-expected fourth quarter financial results, driven in part by work-from-home tailwinds. 
    Non-GAAP net income for the fiscal fourth quarter 2020 was $144.9 million, or $1.48 per diluted share. Revenue grew 18 percent year-over-year to $950.4 million.
    Analysts were expecting earnings of $1.39 on revenue of $923.51 million. 
    For the full fiscal year 2020, Palo Alto’s earnings per share came to $4.88 on revenue of $3.4 billion, an increase of 18 percent year-over-year. 

    In a statement, CEO Nikesh Arora attributed the growth to “strong execution, work-from-home tailwinds, and continued success in next-gen security.”
    ‘Fourth quarter billings grew 32 percent year-over-year to $1.4 billion. Fiscal year 2020 billings grew 23 percent year-over-year to $4.3 billion.
    Deferred revenue grew 32 percent year-over-year to $3.8 billion.
    For the fiscal first quarter 2021, Palo Alto expects revenue in the range of $915 million to $925 million. 
    Analysts are expecting revenue of $901.08 million. 

    Tech Earnings More

  • in

    Report claims a popular iOS SDK is stealing click revenue from other ad networks

    In an explosive report published today, developer security firm Snyk claims it found malicious code inside a popular iOS SDK used by more than 1,200 iOS applications, all collectively downloaded more than 300 million times per month.
    According to Snyk, this malicious code was hidden inside the iOS SDK of Mintegral, a Chinese-based advertising platform.
    Mintegral provides this SDK to Android and iOS app developers for free. Developers use the SDK to embed ads inside their apps with just a few lines of code, in order to cut down development time and costs.
    But Snyk claims the iOS version of this SDK contains malicious features that sit silently in an iOS app’s background and wait for a tap on any ad that’s not its own (mobile apps regularly use multiple advertising SDKs to diversify their ads and monetization strategies).
    When an ad tap takes place, the Mintegratal SDK hijacks the click referral process, making it appear to the underlying iOS operating system that the user clicked on one of its ads, instead of a competitor’s, effectively robbing revenue from other SDKs and advertising networks.
    Image: Snyk
    Logging user information as well
    But while it appears that Mintegral is engaging in ad fraud, Snyk claims the SDK also contains other sneaky functions aimed at logging and collecting user-related information.
    “Snyk further learned that the Mintegral SDK captures details of every URL-based request that is made from within the compromised application,” the company said in a blog post today.
    This information is logged and then sent to a remote server, and includes details such as:
    the URL that was requested, which could potentially include identifiers or other sensitive information
    headers of the request that was made which could include authentication tokens and other sensitive information
    wherein the application’s code the request originated which could help identify user patterns
    the device’s Identifier for Advertisers (IDFA), which is a unique random number used to identify the device and the unique hardware identifier of the device, the IMEI.
    “The attempts by Mintegral to conceal the nature of the data being captured, both through anti-tampering controls and a custom proprietary encoding technique, are reminiscent of similar functionality reported by researchers that analyzed the Tik Tok app,” said Alyssa Miller, Application Security Advocate at Snyk.
    “In the case of SourMint [codename given by Snyk to the Mintegral iOS SDK], the scope of data being collected is greater than would be necessary for legitimate click attribution,” Miller added.
    Snyk did not release a list of iOS apps using the Mintegral SDK; however, the company said that the first version of the SDK where they found the malicious code was v5.5.1, released on July 17, 2019.
    iOS users have no way of telling if they’re using an app that secretly loads the Mintegral SDK, so there’s little they can do to safeguard their private information and browsing habits. Nonetheless, app developers can use the information from the Snyk report to review their app codebases and remove the SDK, or downgrade to a version where the malicious code is not present.
    Mintegral has not returned a request for comment.
    In an email today, Apple said it has spoken with Snyk researchers about their report, and that they have not seen any evidence the Mintegral SDK is harming users, at least for the time being.
    The OS maker said that app developers are responsible for the SDKs they put in their apps, and that many third-party libraries may include code that may be misinterpreted and abused due to its specific functionality, situations that Apple has seen in the past.
    Apple cited these dual-functionality SDKs as the reason why the company chose in recent years to expand the privacy controls it now offers to users through iOS, specifically pointing at a big batch of new privacy-boosting features set to arrive later this year, with the release of iOS 14, which will help unmask privacy-intrusive apps and SDKs easier.
    Article updated shortly after publication with comment from Apple. More

  • in

    Brute-force cyberattacks on the rise in Brazil

    Brazil has seen a spike in brute-force cyberattacks driven by the increase in remote working, according to a new report on security threats in the first six months of 2020.
    More than 2.6 billion attempts at cyber attacks have been recorded by cybersecurity firm Fortinet from January to June, out of a total of 15 billion attempts across Latin America and the Caribbean.
    According to the report, there has been a “considerable increase” of brute-force attacks – the practice of guessing possible combinations of login information multiple times through automated means, until the correct access information is discovered.

    The increase in the uptake of remote working has rekindled the interest of cybercriminals in this type of attack, according to Alexandre Bonatti, Engineering Director at Fortinet Brazil: “[Attackers] are finding a significant number of incorrectly configured Remote Desktop Protocol servers, which facilitates invasions,” he noted.
    An example of such attacks mentioned by the cybersecurity firm in the report is SSH.Connection.Brute.Force, which consists of several secure shell (SSH) requests designed to perform a brute-force SSH login, launched about 200 times in 10 seconds.
    When it comes to other types of cyberattacks, phishing campaigns relating to Covid-19 are still frequent in Brazil but are not occurring with the same intensity of the start of the pandemic – such attacks peaked in April, according to the Fortinet report.
    According to a separate report on phishing, published by Kaspersky in April 2020, there was an increase of 124% in this type of scam in Brazil at the start of the pandemic.
    Phishing growth that month was driven by a surge in malicious messages sent through WhatsApp taking advantage of the Covid-19 situation: cybercriminals would send messages aimed at stealing the user’s personal data to use in other attacks, or made victims download legitimate apps, so that they could get paid by affiliation programs.
    Another report published in March 2020, by Trend Micro, placed Brazil third in a global ranking of cyber threats distributed via email and ransomware, behind the United States and China. The same report listed Brazil as the third country in the world with the highest number of ransomware attacks in 2019 behind the US and India. More