Category Archives: Uncategorized

Mysterious Phony Cell Towers Could Be Intercepting Your Calls

Unencrypted Connection

Unencrypted Connection by Les Goldsmith

Like many of the ultra-secure phones that have come to market in the wake of Edward Snowden’s leaks, the CryptoPhone 500, which is marketed in the U.S. by ESD America and built on top of an unassuming Samsung Galaxy SIII body, features high-powered encryption. Les Goldsmith, the CEO of ESD America, says the phone also runs a customized or “hardened” version of Android that removes 468 vulnerabilities that his engineering team team found in the stock installation of the OS.

His mobile security team also found that the version of the Android OS that comes standard on the Samsung Galaxy SIII leaks data to parts unknown 80-90 times every hour.  That doesn’t necessarily mean that the phone has been hacked, Goldmsith says, but the user can’t know whether the data is beaming out from a particular app, the OS, or an illicit piece of spyware.  His clients want real security and control over their device, and have the money to pay for it.

To show what the CryptoPhone can do that less expensive competitors cannot, he points me to a map that he and his customers have created, indicating 17 different phony cell towers known as “interceptors,” detected by the CryptoPhone 500 around the United States during the month of July alone. (The map below is from August.)  Interceptors look to a typical phone like an ordinary tower.  Once the phone connects with the interceptor, a variety of “over-the-air” attacks become possible, from eavesdropping on calls and texts to pushing spyware to the device.

August GSM Interceptor Map

“Interceptor use in the U.S. is much higher than people had anticipated,” Goldsmith says.  “One of our customers took a road trip from Florida to North Carolina and he found 8 different interceptors on that trip.  We even found one at South Point Casino in Las Vegas.”

Who is running these interceptors and what are they doing with the calls?

Who is running these interceptors and what are they doing with the calls?  Goldsmith says we can’t be sure, but he has his suspicions.

“What we find suspicious is that a lot of these interceptors are right on top of U.S. military bases.  So we begin to wonder – are some of them U.S. government interceptors?  Or are some of them Chinese interceptors?” says Goldsmith.  “Whose interceptor is it?  Who are they, that’s listening to calls around military bases?  Is it just the U.S. military, or are they foreign governments doing it?  The point is: we don’t really know whose they are.”

Ciphering Disabled
Les Goldsmith

Interceptors vary widely in expense and sophistication – but in a nutshell, they are radio-equipped computers with software that can use arcane cellular network protocols and defeat the onboard encryption.  Whether your phone uses Android or iOS, it also has a second operating system that runs on a part of the phone called a baseband processor.  The baseband processor functions as a communications middleman between the phone’s main O.S. and the cell towers.  And because chip manufacturers jealously guard details about the baseband O.S., it has been too challenging a target for garden-variety hackers.

“The baseband processor is one of the more difficult things to get into or even communicate with,” says Mathew Rowley, a senior security consultant at Matasano Security.  “[That’s] because my computer doesn’t speak 4G or GSM, and also all those protocols are encrypted.  You have to buy special hardware to get in the air and pull down the waves and try to figure out what they mean.  It’s just pretty unrealistic for the general community.”

But for governments or other entities able to afford a price tag of “less than $100,000,” says Goldsmith, high-quality interceptors are quite realistic.  Some interceptors are limited, only able to passively listen to either outgoing or incoming calls.  But full-featured devices like the VME Dominator, available only to government agencies, can not only capture calls and texts, but even actively control the phone, sending out spoof texts, for example.  Edward Snowden revealed that the N.S.A. is capable of an over-the-air attack that tells the phone to fake a shut-down while leaving the microphone running, turning the seemingly deactivated phone into a bug.  And various ethical hackers have demonstrated DIY interceptor projects, using a software programmable radio and the open-source base station software package OpenBTS – this creates a basic interceptor for less than $3,000.  On August 11, the F.C.C. announced an investigation into the use of interceptors against Americans by foreign intelligence services and criminal gangs.

An “Over-the-Air” Attack Feels Like Nothing

Whenever he wants to test out his company’s ultra-secure smart phone against an interceptor, Goldsmith drives past a certain government facility in the Nevada desert.  (To avoid the attention of the gun-toting counter-intelligence agents in black SUVs who patrol the surrounding roads, he won’t identify the facility to Popular Science).  He knows that someone at the facility is running an interceptor, which gives him a good way to test out the exotic “baseband firewall” on his phone.  Though the baseband OS is a “black box” on other phones, inaccessible to manufacturers and app developers, patent-pending software allows the GSMK CryptoPhone 500 to monitor the baseband processor for suspicious activity.

So when Goldsmith and his team drove by the government facility in July, he also took a standard Samsung Galaxy S4 and an iPhone to serve as a control group for his own device.

”As we drove by, the iPhone showed no difference whatsoever.  The Samsung Galaxy S4, the call went from 4G to 3G and back to 4G.  The CryptoPhone lit up like a Christmas tree.”

Though the standard Apple and Android phones showed nothing wrong, the baseband firewall on the Cryptophone set off alerts showing that the phone’s encryption had been turned off, and that the cell tower had no name – a telltale sign of a rogue base station.   Standard towers, run by say, Verizon or T-Mobile, will have a name, whereas interceptors often do not.

Some devices can not only capture calls and texts, but even actively control the phone and send spoof texts.

And the interceptor also forced the CryptoPhone from 4G down to 2G, a much older protocol that is easier to de-crypt in real-time.  But the standard smart phones didn’t even show they’d experienced the same attack.

“If you’ve been intercepted, in some cases it might show at the top that you’ve been forced from 4G down to 2G.  But a decent interceptor won’t show that,” says Goldsmith.  “It’ll be set up to show you [falsely] that you’re still on 4G.  You’ll think that you’re on 4G, but you’re actually being forced back to 2G.”

So Do I Need One?

Though Goldsmith won’t disclose sales figures or even a retail price for the GSMK CryptoPhone 500, he doesn’t dispute an MIT Technology Review article from this past spring reporting that he produces about 400 phones per week for $3,500 each.  So should ordinary Americans skip some car payments to be able to afford to follow suit?

It depends on what level of security you expect, and who you might reasonably expect to be trying to listen in, says Oliver Day, who runs Securing Change, an organization that provides security services to non-profits.

“There’s this thing in our industry called “threat modeling,” says Day.  “One of the things you learn is that you have to have a realistic sense of your adversary. Who is my enemy?  What skills does he have?  What are my goals in terms of security?”

If  you’re not realistically of interest to the U.S. government and you never leave the country, then the CryptoPhone is probably more protection than you need. Goldsmith says he sells a lot of phones to executives who do business in Asia.  The aggressive, sophisticated hacking teams working for the People’s Liberation Army have targeted American trade secrets, as well as political dissidents.

Day, who has written a paper about undermining censorship software used by the Chinese government, recommends people in hostile communications environments watch what they say over the phone and buy disposable “burner” phones that can be used briefly and then discarded.

“I’m not bringing anything into China that I’m not willing to throw away on my return trip,” says Day.


Goldsmith warns that a “burner phone” strategy can be dangerous.  If Day were to call another person on the Chinese government’s watch list, his burner phone’s number would be added to the watch list, and then the government would watch to see who else he called.  The CryptoPhone 500, in addition to alerting the user whenever it’s under attack, can “hide in plain sight” when making phone calls.  Though it does not use standard voice-over-IP or virtual private network security tools, the CryptoPhone can make calls using just a WI-FI connection — it does not need an identifiable SIM card.  When calling over the Internet, the phone appears to eavesdroppers as if it is just browsing the Internet.

U.S. firm helped the spyware industry build a potent digital weapon for sale overseas


CloudShield Technologies, a California defense contractor, dispatched a senior engineer to Munich in the early fall of 2009. His instructions were unusually opaque.

As he boarded the flight, the engineer told confidants later, he knew only that he should visit a German national who awaited him with an off-the-books assignment. There would be no written contract, and on no account was the engineer to send reports back to CloudShield headquarters.

His contact, Martin J. Muench, turned out to be a former developer of computer security tools who had long since turned to the darkest side of their profession. Gamma Group, the British conglomerate for which Muench was a managing director, built and sold systems to break into computers, seize control clandestinely, and then copy files, listen to Skype calls, record every keystroke and switch on Web cameras and microphones at will.

[Read: How to implant a Trojan Horse: a user manual]

According to accounts the engineer gave later and contemporary records obtained by The Washington Post, he soon fell into a shadowy world of lucrative spyware tools for sale to foreign security services, some of them with records of human rights abuse.

Over several months, the engineer adapted Gamma’s digital weapons to run on his company’s specialized, high-speed network hardware. Until then CloudShield had sold its CS-2000 device, a multipurpose network and content processing product, primarily to the Air Force and other Pentagon customers, who used it to manage and defend their networks, not to attack others.

CloudShield’s central role in Gamma’s controversial work — fraught with legal risk under U.S. export restrictions — was first uncovered by Morgan Marquis-Boire, author of a new report released Friday by the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs. He shared advance drafts with The Post, which conducted its own month-long investigation.


The prototype that CloudShield built was never brought to market, and the company parted ways with Gamma in 2010. But Marquis-Boire said CloudShield’s work helped pioneer a new generation of “network injection appliances” sold by Gamma and its Italian rival, Hacking Team. Those devices harness malicious software to specialized equipment attached directly to the central switching points of a foreign government’s national Internet grid.

The result: Merely by playing a YouTube video or visiting a Microsoft Live service page, for instance, an unknown number of computers around the world have been implanted with Trojan horses by government security services that siphon their communications and files. Google, which owns YouTube, and Microsoft are racing to close the vulnerability.

Citizen Lab’s report, based on leaked technical documents, is the first to document that commercial spyware companies are making active use of this technology. Network injection allows products built by Gamma and Hacking Team to insert themselves into an Internet data flow and change it undetectably in transit.

The report calls that “hacking on easy mode,” in which “compromising a target becomes as simple as waiting for the user to view unencrypted content on the Internet.”

Attacks of that kind were the stuff of hacker imaginings until this year, when news accounts based on documents provided by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden described a somewhat similar NSA program code-named QUANTUMINSERT.


“It has been generally assumed that the best funded spy agency in the world would possess advanced capability,” the Citizen Lab report says. “What is perhaps more surprising is that this capability is being developed by Western vendors for sale on the commercial market.”

Hacking Team and the company that now owns CloudShield denied any wrongdoing. Messages left with Gamma went unreturned.

The “custom payload” that Hacking Team uses to compromise YouTube injects malicious code into the video stream when a visitor clicks the play button. The user sees the “cute animal videos” he expects, according to Citizen Lab, but the malicious code exploits a flaw in Adobe’s Flash video player to take control of the computer.

Another attack, custom-built for use on Microsoft pages, uses Oracle’s Java technology, another common browser component, to insert a back door into a victim’s computer.

Security and privacy advocates have identified those vulnerabilities before, but the two companies regarded them as hypothetical. In response to a bug report in September 2012, which warned of a potential YouTube attack, Google’s security team responded that the use of unencrypted links to send video “is expected behavior.” Google closed the discussion with the tag “WontFix.”

‘Against our will’

After Marquis-Boire disclosed to them confidentially last month that their services are under active attack, Google and Microsoft began racing to close security holes in networks used by hundreds of millions of users.

“I want to be sure there’s no technical means for people to take a user’s data against our will,” Eric Grosse, Google’s vice president for security engineering, said in an interview. “If they want to do that, they need to use legal means and we pursue that.”

Google and Microsoft executives said they are accelerating previous plans to encrypt their links to users across a wider range of their services. Encryption scrambles e-mail, stored files, video and other content as it travels from their servers to a user’s computer or mobile device. That step, as far as security engineers know, effectively prevents most attacks in current use.

Since learning of Marquis-Boire’s findings in mid-July, Google has encrypted a majority of YouTube video links, and Microsoft has changed default settings to prevent unencrypted log-ins on most services.

“There’s a lot of products to update so we’re not at 100 percent yet but we’re actively engaged with all the teams,” Grosse said, acknowledging that Google Maps, Google Earth and other services still connect to users in ways that can easily be intercepted.

Grosse said comprehensive use of encryption should now be regarded as a basic responsibility of Internet services to their users.

“We’re probably already [encrypted] to a sufficiently high level that I would guess our adversaries are already having to scramble and shift to some other widely-used service that has not gone to SSL,” he said, referring to a form of encryption called the secure socket layer, which is indicated by a padlock icon on some browsers.

Matt Thomlinson, Microsoft’s vice president of security, said in a statement that his company “would have significant concerns if the allegations of an exploit being deployed are true.”

“We have been rolling out advanced security across our web properties to continue to help protect our customers,” he added.

In computer circles, any unencrypted data is known as “cleartext.” Marquis-Boire, expanding on a theme that other security researchers have emphasized since disclosures of National Security Agency programs began 14 months ago, said “the big take-away is that cleartext is just dead.”

“Unencrypted traffic is untrustworthy,” he said. “I would describe this as a sad reality of today’s Internet. The techno-Utopian, libertarian ideology of the ’90s didn’t foresee that the Internet would be as militarized as it is now. People with authority and power have decided to reserve the right to ‘own’ Internet users at the core. So in order to be safe you need to walk around everywhere wrapped in encryption.”

‘Lawful intercept’

The computer exploitation industry markets itself to foreign government customers in muscular terms. One Gamma brochure made public by WikiLeaks described its malware injection system, called FinFly ISP, as a “strategic, countrywide” solution with nearly unlimited “scalability,” or capacity for expansion. Hacking Team, similarly, says it provides “effective, easy-to-use offensive technology to the worldwide law enforcement and intelligence communities.”

In rare comments to the general public, the companies use the term “lawful intercept” to describe their products and say they do not sell to customers on U.S., European or U.N. black lists.

“Our software is designed to be used and is used to target specific subjects of investigation,” said Eric Rabe, a U.S.-based spokesman for Hacking Team, in an extended e-mail interview. “It is not designed or used to collect data from a general population of a city or nation.”

He declined to discuss details of the Citizen Lab report, which is based in part on internal company documents leaked to Marquis-Boire, but he appeared to acknowledge indirectly that the material was authentic.

“We believe the ongoing Citizen Lab efforts to disclose proprietary Hacking Team information is misguided, because, if successful for Citizen Lab, it not only harms our business but also gives the advantage to criminals and terrorists,” he said.

CloudShield’s founder, Peder Jungck, who oversaw the company’s relationship with Gamma before departing for a job with the British defense giant BAE Systems, did not respond to requests for comment.

Confidants of the CloudShield engineer, who has since left the company after becoming disillusioned with its surveillance work, identified him as Eddy Deegan, a British citizen. Deegan’s LinkedIn profile says he worked for the company as a professional services engineer during the period in question. Reached by telephone in France, Deegan declined to confirm or deny the identity of his external customer in late 2009.

“Nothing came of the work I was involved in at the time,” he said. “I asked, and was assured that nothing illegal was undertaken. I have no further comment.”

U.S. export restrictions, enforced by the Commerce Department, require a license for any foreign sale of technology described in the relevant statute as “primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications.”

Jennifer Gephart, the media relations director for Leidos, which now owns CloudShield, declined to say whether the company had applied for an export license for the Gamma project. The transactions in question took place “prior to our company’s acquisition of CloudShield,” she said, but “to our knowledge” they were “handled in accordance with applicable regulations.”

Gephart confined her statement to the sale of CloudShield’s CS-2000 hardware. When asked about the company’s development of custom software to turn the device into a spyware delivery system, she declined to respond.

Robert Clifton Burns, who specializes in export controls at the law firm Bryan Cave, said that “surreptitious listening devices are covered and the software for that is also covered on the Commerce Control List.”

The regulations are complex and inconsistent, he said, and an authoritative legal judgment would require more facts. CloudShield might argue, he said, that malware injection is not “primarily useful” for surreptitious eavesdropping because it can also be used to track a target’s location, take photographs or steal electronic files. Although more intrusive, those attacks were not covered under the rules that applied in 2009.

The Gamma Group lists no e-mail address or telephone number on its Web site. No one responded to a lengthy note left on the company’s “Contact” page.

Muench, who has left his old job for a new position in France, read a LinkedIn message requesting an interview. He did not respond. In the past he has dismissed human rights concerns as unproven and defended Gamma’s products as vital for saving innocent lives. “The most frequent fields of use are against pedophiles, terrorists, organized crime, kidnapping and human trafficking,” he told the New York Times two years ago.

Security researchers have documented clandestine sales of Gamma and Hacking Team products to “some of the world’s most notorious abusers of human rights,” said Ron Deibert, the director of Citizen Lab, a list that includes Turkmenistan, Egypt, Bahrain and Ethiopia.

At CloudShield, executives knew the identity of at least one prospective customer for the system Deegan built. A former manager told The Post, with support from records obtained elsewhere, that CloudShield sent Deegan to Oman to plan a deployment for one of the country’s internal security services. The sale did not go through.

In its annual assessment of human rights that year, the State Department reported that Oman “monitored private communications” without legal process in order to “suppress criticism of government figures and politically objectionable views.”

‘A push market’

CloudShield did not see itself as a cloak-and-dagger company. It made its name for high-end hardware that could peer deeply into Internet traffic and pull out and analyze “packets” of data as they flew by.

The flagship product five years ago, the CS-2000, could not only look inside the data flow, but select parts of it to copy or reroute. That made it a good tool for filtering out unwanted data or blocking certain forms of cyberattack.

But hardware that could block data selectively could also rewrite innocent traffic to include malicious code. That meant the CloudShield product could be used for attack as well as defense, a former executive said.

CloudShield began pitching its product for offensive use, focusing on U.S. customers because of export controls.

“The basic motivations are pretty straightforward,” said one former senior manager there. “It was a push market. We were trying to sell boxes. It was a very conscious effort to target lawful intercept as a space where you could legitimately apply these kinds of technologies.”

Two former employees said that Muench, the Gamma executive, traveled to Sunnyvale, Calif., in 2009 in hopes of striking a business relationship. Jungck, CloudShield’s founder and chief technology officer, said he could not export that kind of technology and sent Muench home.

But the leadership team reconsidered, and hit upon a plan. They believed that Deegan could do the work for Gamma without triggering U.S. export controls as long as CloudShield’s U.S. operations had nothing to do with it.

“I think we all had qualms in the beginning,” said one former executive who took part in the deliberations. “I think we rationalized a way in which we felt comfortable with it. Part of that rationalization was to keep it outside the U.S., limit it to that environment where that project was.”

What first appeared as an absorbing technical challenge for Deegan began to take a darker cast. His prototype system could inject any of “254 trojans,” or all of them, into a targeted computer. If it failed once, it would keep trying, up to 65,000 times.

He was proud of his technical accomplishments, he told confidants, but was no longer sure he had done the right thing. After meeting prospective customers in Oman, his qualms grew worse.

In the end, the Oman deal fell through, and other efforts, with other partners failed, too. CloudShield and Gamma parted ways, and Gamma found another hardware supplier. Deegan’s prototype, according to Marquis-Boire and a CloudShield insider, may have sped development of the flagship surveillance product that Gamma brought to market the following year.

Julie Tate contributed to this report.



Security firm shows Xiaomi smartphones secretly stealing your data


Nampaknya telepon Xiaomi mengirimkan data dari telepon langsung ke pusatnya Xiaomi.

Menurut dokumen ‘Privacy Policy’ Xiaomi di , nampaknya memang ada data-data tertentu yang dikirim dari smartphone tersebut ke Xiaomi.


Security firm shows Xiaomi smartphones secretly stealing your data (Updated)

Update 2: Hugo Barra has now confirmed with us that the OTA update that will make MIUI’s Cloud Messaging service opt-in will be available for all Xiaomi phones.

Update: Hugo Barra has now addressed F-Secure’s findings, stating that the data being uploaded is part of MIUI’s Cloud Messaging service. An update rolling out today will now make MIUI opt-in, and will no longer automatically activate for new users:

These concerns refer to the MIUI Cloud Messaging service described above. As we believe it is our top priority to protect user data and privacy, we have decided to make MIUI Cloud Messaging an opt-in service and no longer automatically activate users. We have scheduled an OTA system update for today (Aug 10th) to implement this change.

After the upgrade, new users or users who factory reset their devices can enable the service by visiting “Settings > Mi Cloud > Cloud Messaging” from their home screen or “Settings > Cloud Messaging” inside the Messaging app — these are also the places where users can turn off Cloud Messaging.

Following allegations that Xiaomi phones may be silently uploading user details to a remote server, Finnish security firm F-Secure set out to investigate.

The firm has now published a blog detailing how a brand new Xiaomi RedMi 1S smartphone silently uploaded a users’ phone number, the network being used, the phone’s IMEI number, as well as the phone’s entire list of contacts to a Xiaomi server.

The security company said that it took a brand new smartphone from the box with no prior set-up or cloud connect allowed. It then followed the following steps:

  1. Inserted SIM card
  2. Connected to WiFi
  3. Allowed the GPS location service
  4. Added a new contact into the phonebook
  5. Send and received an SMS and MMS message
  6. Made and received a phone call

F-Secure said, “We saw that on startup, the phone sent the telco name to the server It also sent IMEI and phone number to the same server.”

Xiaomi data

Xiaomi data

The company then repeated the above steps but this time connecting to the Mi Cloud service. This time around the IMSI details (used to identify the user of a cellular network) were sent to, as well as the IMEI and phone number.

This evidence seems contrary to Xiaomi Vice President Hugo Barra’s claims when he addressed Xiaomi security concerns in a Google+ post last week, stating “Xiaomi is serious about user privacy and takes all possible steps to ensure our Internet services adhere to our privacy policy. We do not upload any personal information and data without the permission of users.”

Source: F-Secure


How to bypass Zeus trojan self protection mechanism

Hacking spammer’s for Dummies


How to bypass Zeus Trojan’s self protection mechanism


Spammers are good when it comes to intimidating users to open the attachment . One of the recent pathetic and cruel one was


A Person from your office was found dead outside . Please open the picture to see if you know him .


Attachment is basically a Zip file consisting of an exe file named “image.scr” with a nice mspaint icon .

Quickly opening up in IDA will give us a hint that it is basically a VBpacker. VBPackers usually create a hallow suspended process , overwrite the memory and resume within .


After successfully unpacking and fixing the dump we get the following output


OEP the unpacked binary is enough to tell us that it is a Zeus Banking Trojan . Well this one is a different version of Zeus with self-protection which means unpacked ones wont run . This is usually done to “force” the bot masters to buy a Cryptor service .

If you double click the binary it will not run , It will simply exit. Now lets see where things are going wrong and how to bypass the protection

For that purpose we will generate an API call Graph made by the unpacked binary to see the exit point of program .



So from this we got an idea that it is reading file buffer and performing some operations on it and now lets see what operation it is performing on it .

Now if we dig deeper we find out the file buffer is read and the some cryptography operations are performed .


And if go inside CheckSelfProtection() function we will observe that this function will RC4 the whole binary buffer with a static encryption key and will search for placeholder “DAVE”

In my case the RC4 Key was


Packer integrity


We can copy that 0x200 byte data from the packer into the overlay of our unpacked file.

And if found it goes further on verifying the integrity of that data structure and decodes another payload using a 4 byte XOR key taken from that structure.

The Total size of the data Structure is 0x200 bytes and on the basis size, Installer and injector are decrypted . Let now understand the structure of that 0x200 Data Structure.

During installation phase iSizeOfPacket bytes are copied from the data chunk into heap . And then later on used to decode installer subroutine using XOR cipher .


    DWORD  SIGNATURE;SetBackColor( cRed );
    DWORD Crc32HASH;SetBackColor( cBlue );
    WORD iSizeOfPacket;unsignedintSizeOfDecodedData;unsignedintUnknown1;SetBackColor( cRed );unsignedintXorKey;}Zeus_Packer_OverLay;

Before decoding the installer routine CRC32 hash is checked and SizeOfDecodedData data is copied to heap location in this function.


The installer and injector is differentiated by iSizeOfPacket field, if the size is 0x0c then it is still in installation phase if it is 0x1e6 then it has been replaced by installation routine with a new packer data structure .

The installation subroutine is then decoded using Xorkey with a data buffer of size SizeOfDecodedData using this simple XOR function.


During the installation phase the Packer data structure is rewritten and encrypted using RC4 resulting in data of length 0x1e6 which mainly consists of installation data like

1 : Registry Keys
2 : Random Numbers Generated for Seeding .
3 : Local Path Name
4 : Computer Name and Version


Replacing this Packer Overlay data with the old one will let you skip the installation phase and binary wont be relaunched again using CreateProcessA in %appdata%. Yet we will have to patch a jump after it Compares its path in the overlay data with the current path.


Owning a Zeus C2C panel / Spammer

There exists a publicly known RCE vulnerability in some versions of Zeus ( as well as Zeus lite, KINS,ICE-IX) As described in detail here ( . Our good friend Xylitol has already provided a ready to use tool to exploit such vulnerability :

All we need for that is C2C we address and RC4 communication key . Both of them you can get from Base Config Decoding Subroutine which is again based on simple XOR cipher


After getting C2C and RC4 key . It can be submitted here to get a shell on that C2C web panel .


Once you get the shell you can then edit the cp.php ( login file for Zeus panel ) and boost up your Metasploit exploit after the bot master has logged in .


And if you know how to proceed further and you can get a meterpreter shell on the spammers machine . webcam_snap is one beautiful Meterpreter script command which I personally like (

It takes a webcam capture from the victims computer and saves it in the target machine.

And if you enter that , you might get back something like this in your computer :) h.jpg


Ada Malware baru: Mayhem,new-mayhem-malware-targets-linux-unix-servers.aspx

New Mayhem malware targets Linux, UNIX servers

Infections found in Australia and New Zealand.

A new malware that runs on UNIX-like servers even with restricted privileges has already infected machines in Australia and is actively hunting for more targets, a new research paper has shown.

Three researchers from Russian web provider Yandex – Andrej Kovalev, Konstantin Ostrashkevich and Evgeny Sidorov – said in the technical analysis of the malware, published on security and anti-virus specialist publication Virus Bulletin, that Mayhem functions like a traditional Windows bot.

Mayhem was discovered in April this year and does not require a privilege escalation vulnerability – it does not have to run as the root super user – to work on Linux-based systems, or on FreeBSD servers.

Servers are infected through the execution of a hypertext preprocessor (PHP) script that establishes Mayhem on the victim computer and sets up a communications channel with a command and control server.

The malware can have different functionality depending on the type of plug-in downloaded to it by the botmaster in control, and stashed away in a hidden file system on the compromised server.

Some of the plug-ins provide brute force cracking of password functionality, while others crawl web pages to scrape information.

According to the researchers, Mayhem appears to be the continuation of the Fort Disco brute-force password cracking attack campaign that began in May 2013.

At the time, Fort Disco had created a botnet with six contral and command sites and over 25,000 infected Windows computers, according to Arbor Networks security analysts.

Mayhem worldwide distribution. Source: Virus Bulletin

A total of 1400 infections have been recorded around the world for Mayhem so far, with most of these in the United States, Russia, Germany and Canada, the researchers said.

Sidorov told iTnews that recently discovered data from the largest Mayhem command and control server showed that there were 14 infected machines in Australia, and two in New Zealand.

Commenting on the research, Virus Bulletin editor Martijn Grooten said the threat Mayhem poses was relatively small compared to existing botnets.

But he warned that Mayhem should be taken seriously nevertheless, as it had the ability to compromise powerful Linux servers and was actively looking for other sites and machines to infect.

“It is another reminder to those running web servers that these have become prime targets for malware authors,” Grooten said.

The researchers warned that despite increasingly being targeted by malware authors, many webmasters who run UNIX-like operating systems don’t have the opportunity to update their infrastructure automatically, and that serious maintenance is expensive and therefore often not undertaken.

This, combined with lack of anti-virus technologies, active defences and process memory checking modules in the UNIX world, meant “it is easy for hackers to find vulnerable web servers and to use such servers in their botnets,” the researchers stated.

Cyber Attacks By Mikko Hypponen


The real world isn’t like the online world.

In the real world, you only have to worry about the criminals who live in your city. But in the online world, you have to worry about criminals who could be on the other side of the planet. Online crime is always international because the Internet has no borders.

Today computer viruses and other malicious software are no longer written by hobbyist hackers seeking fame and glory among their peers. Most of them are written by professional criminals who are making millions with their attacks. These criminals want access to your computer, your PayPal passwords, and your credit card numbers.

I spend a big part of my life on the road, and I’ve visited many of the locations that are considered to be hotspots of online criminal activity. I’ve been to Moscow, São Paulo, Tartu, Vilnius, St. Petersburg, Beijing, and Bucharest.

I’ve met the underground and I’ve met the cops. And I’ve learned that things are never as simple as they seem from the surface. One would think that the epicenter for banking attacks, for example, would prioritize fighting them, right?

Right, but dig deeper and complications emerge. A good example is a discussion I had with a cybercrime investigator in Brazil. We spoke about the problems in Brazil and how São Paulo has become one of the largest sources of banking trojans in the world.

The investigator looked at me and said, “Yes. I understand that. But what you need to understand is that São Paulo is also one of the murder capitals of the world. People are regularly gunned down on the streets. So where exactly should we put our resources? To fight cybercrime? Or to fight crimes where people die?”

It’s all a matter of balancing. When you balance the damage done by cybercrime and compare it to a loss of life, it’s pretty obvious what’s more important.

National police forces and legal systems are finding it extremely difficult to keep up with the rapid growth of online crime. They have limited resources and expertise to investigate online criminal activity. The victims, police, prosecutors, and judges rarely uncover the full scope of the crimes that often take place across international boundaries. Action against the criminals is too slow, the arrests are few and far between, and too often the penalties are very light, especially compared with those attached to
real-world crimes.

Because of the low prioritization for prosecuting cybercriminals and the delays in launching effective cybercrime penalties, we are thereby sending the wrong message to the criminals and that’s why online crime is growing so fast. Right now would-be online criminals can see that the likelihood of their getting caught and punished is vanishingly small, yet the profits are great.

The reality for those in positions like the São Paulo investigator is that they must balance both fiscal constraints and resource limitations. They simply cannot, organizationally, respond to every type of threat. If we are to keep up with the cybercriminals, the key is cooperation. The good news is that the computer security industry is quite unique in the way direct competitors help each other.

The Turning Point

If you were running Windows on your computer 10 years ago, you were running Windows XP. In fact, you were most likely running Windows XP SP1 (Service Pack 1). This is important, as Windows XP SP1 did not have a firewall enabled by default and did not feature automatic updates. So, if you were running Windows, you weren’t running a firewall and you had to patch your system manually—by downloading the patches with Internet Explorer 6, which itself was ridden with security vulnerabilities.

No wonder, then, that worms and viruses were rampant in 2003. In fact, we saw some of the worst outbreaks in history in 2003: Slammer, Sasser, Blaster, Mydoom, Sobig, and so on. They went on to do some spectacular damage. Slammer infected a nuclear power plant in Ohio and shut down Bank of America’s ATM systems. Blaster stopped trains in their tracks outside Washington, D.C., and shut down Air Canada check-in systems at Canadian airports. Sasser thoroughly infected several hospitals in Europe.

The problems with Windows security were so bad that Microsoft had to do something. And they did. In hindsight, they did a spectacular turnaround in their security processes. They started Trustworthy Computing. They stopped all new development for a while to go back and find and fix old vulnerabilities. Today, the difference in the default security level of 64-bit Windows 8 is so much ahead of Windows XP you can’t even compare them.

We’ve seen other companies do similar turnarounds. When the Microsoft ship started to become tighter and harder to attack, the attackers started looking for easier targets. One favorite was Adobe Reader and Adobe Flash. For several years, one vulnerability after another was found in Adobe products, and most users were running badly outdated products as updating wasn’t straightforward. Eventually Adobe got their act together. Today, the security level of, say, Adobe Reader, is so much ahead of older readers you can’t even compare them.

The battle at hand right now is with Java and Oracle. It seems that Oracle hasn’t gotten their act together yet. And maybe don’t even have to: users are voting with their feet and Java is already disappearing from the web.

The overall security level of end-user systems is now better than ever before. The last decade has brought us great improvements. Unfortunately, the last decade has also completely changed who were fighting.

In 2003, all the malware was still being written by hobbyists, for fun. The hobbyists have been replaced by new attackers: not just organized criminals, but also hacktivists and governments. Criminals and especially governments can afford to invest in their attacks. As an end result, we’re still not safe with our computers, even with all the great improvements.

But at least we don’t see flights grounded and trains stopped by malware every other week, like we did in 2003.

Crypto Currencies

In 2008, a mathematician called Satoshi Nakamoto submitted a technical paper for a cryptography conference. The paper described a peer-to-peer network where participating systems would do complicated mathematical calculations on something called a blockchain. This system was designed to create a completely new currency: a crypto currency. In short, a currency that is based on math. The paper was titled “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.”

Since Bitcoin is not linked to any existing currency, its value is purely based on the value people believe it’s worth. And since it can be used to do instant transactions globally, it does have value. Sending Bitcoins around is very much like sending e-mail. If I have your address, I can send you money. I can send it to you instantly, anywhere, bypassing exchanges, banks, and the tax man. In fact, crypto currencies make banks unnecessary for moving money around—which is why banks hate the whole idea.

The beauty of the algorithm behind Bitcoin is solving two main problems of crypto currencies by joining them: how do you confirm transactions and how do you inject new units of currency into the system without causing inflation. Since there is no central bank in the system, the transactions need to be confirmed somehow—otherwise one could fabricate fake money. In Bitcoin, the confirmations are done by other members of the peer-to-peer network. At least six members of the peer-to-peer network have to confirm the transactions before they go through. But why would anybody confirm transactions for others? Because they get rewarded for it: the algorithm issues new Bitcoins as reward to users who have been participating in confirmations. This is called mining.

When Bitcoin was young, mining was easy and you could easily make dozens of Bitcoins on a home computer. However, as Bitcoin value grew, mining became harder since there were more people interested in doing it. Even though the dollar-to-BTC exchange rate has fluctuated, fact remains that in the beginning of 2013, the exchange rate for the U.S. dollar to a Bitcoin was $8 and by the fall it was $130. So Bitcoins now have very real real-world value.

When Bitcoins became valuable, people were more and more interested in Satoshi Nakamoto. He gave a few e-mail interviews, but eventually stopped correspondence altogether. Then he disappeared. When people went looking for him, they realized Satoshi Nakamoto didn’t exist. Even today, nobody knows who invented Bitcoin. Indeed, however, Bitcoin fans have been spotted wearing T-shirts saying “Satoshi Nakamoto Died for Our Sins.”

Today, there are massively large networks of computers mining Bitcoins and other competing crypto currencies (such as Litecoin). The basic idea behind mining is easy enough: if you have powerful computers, you can make money. Unfortunately, those computers don’t have to be your own computers. Some of the largest botnets run by online criminals today are monetized by mining. So, you’d have an infected home computer of a grandmother in, say, Barcelona, running Windows XP at 100 percent utilization around the clock as it is mining coins worth tens of thousands of dollars a day for a Russian cybercrime gang. It’s easy to see that such mining botnets will become very popular for online criminals in the future.

Even more importantly, such an attack does not require a user for the computers in order to make money. Most traditional botnet monetization mechanisms required a user’s presence. For example, credit card keyloggers needed a user at the keyboard to type in his payment details or ransom trojans needed a user to pay a ransom in order to regain access to his computer or his data. Mining botnets just need processing power and a network connection.

Some of the upcoming crypto currencies do not need high-end GPUs to do the mining: a regular CPU will do. When you combine that with the fact that home automation and embedded devices are becoming more and more common, we can make an interesting forecast: there will be botnets that will be making money by mining on botnets created out of embedded devices. Think botnets of infected printers or set-top boxes or microwave ovens. Or toasters.

Whether it makes sense or not, toasters with embedded computers and Internet connectivity will be reality one day. Before crypto currencies existed, it would have been hard to come up with a sensible reason for why anybody would want to write malware to infect toasters. However, mining botnets of thousands of infected toasters could actually make enough money to justify such an operation. Sooner or later, this will happen.


Spying is about collecting information. When information was still written on pieces of paper, a spy had to physically go and steal it. These days information is data on computers and networks, so modern spying is often carried out with the help of malware. The cyber spies use trojans and backdoors to infect their targets’ computers, giving them access to the data even from the other side of the world.

Who spends money on spying? Companies and countries do. When companies do it, it’s called industrial espionage. When countries do it, it’s just espionage.

In the most typical case, the attack is made through e-mail to a few carefully selected people or even a single person in the organization. The target receives what seems like an ordinary e-mail with an attached document, often from a familiar person. In reality, the whole message is a forgery. The e-mail sender’s details are forged and the seemingly harmless attached document contains the attack code. If the recipient does not realize the e-mail is a forgery, the whole case will probably go unnoticed, forever.

Program files like Windows EXE files do not get through firewalls and filters, so the attackers commonly use PDF, DOC, XLS, and PPT document files as the attachment. These are also more likely to be viewed as safe documents by the recipient. In their standard form these file types do not contain executable code, so the attackers use vulnerabilities in applications like Adobe Reader and Microsoft Word to infect the computer when the booby-trapped documents are opened.

The structure of these attack files has been deliberately broken so that it crashes the office application in use when opened, while simultaneously executing the binary code inside the document. This code usually creates two new files on the hard disk and executes them. The first is a clean document that opens up on the user’s monitor and distracts the user from the crash.

The second new file is a backdoor program that starts immediately and hides itself in the system, often using rootkit techniques. It establishes a connection from the infected computer to a specific network address, anywhere in the world. With the help of the backdoor the attacker gains access to all the information on the target computer, as well as the information in the local network that the targeted person has access to.

The attacks often use backdoor programs like Gh0st RAT or Poison Ivy to remotely monitor their targets. With such tools, they can do anything they want on the target machine. This includes logging the keyboard to collect passwords and a remote file manager to search documents with interesting content. Sometimes the attackers can eavesdrop on their target by remotely controlling the microphone of the infected computer.

I’ve been tracking targeted spying attacks since they were first observed in 2005. Targets have included large companies, governments, ministries, embassies, and nonprofit organizations like those who campaign for the freedom of Tibet, support minorities in China, or represent the Falun Gong religion. It would be easy to point the finger at the government of China. But we don’t have the smoking gun. Nobody can conclusively prove the origin of these attacks. In fact, we know with a high degree of certainty that several governments are engaging in similar attacks.

It’s also clear that what we’ve seen so far is just the beginning. Online espionage and spying can only become a more important tool for intelligence purposes in the future. Protecting against such attacks can prove to be very difficult.

The most effective method to protect data against cyber spying is to process confidential information on dedicated computers that are not connected to the Internet. Critical infrastructure should be isolated from public networks.

And isolation does not mean a firewall: it means being disconnected. And being disconnected is painful, complicated, and expensive. But it’s also safer.


A very big part of criminal or governmental cyber attacks use exploits to infect the target computer.

Without a vulnerability, there is no exploit. And ultimately, vulnerabilities are just bugs: programming errors. And we have bugs because programs are written by human beings and human beings make errors. Software bugs have been a problem as long as we’ve had programmable computers, and they aren’t going to disappear.

Before the Internet became widespread, bugs weren’t very critical. You would be working on a word processor and would open a corrupted document file and your word processor would crash. While annoying, such a crash wasn’t too big of a deal. You might lose any unsaved work in open documents, but that’s it. But as soon as the Internet entered the picture, things changed. Suddenly bugs that used to be just a nuisance could suddenly be used to take over your computer.

We have different classes of vulnerabilities and their severity ranges from a nuisance to critical.

First, we have local and remote vulnerabilities. Local vulnerabilities can only be exploited by a local user who already has access to the system. But remote vulnerabilities are much more severe as they can be exploited from anywhere over a network connection.

Vulnerability types can then be divided by their actions on the target system: denial-of-service, privilege escalation, or code execution. Denial-of-service vulnerabilities allow the attacker to slow down or shut down the system. Privilege escalations can be used to gain additional rights on a system, and code execution allows running commands.

The most serious vulnerabilities are remote code execution vulnerabilities. And these are what the attackers need.

But even the most valuable vulnerabilities are worthless if the vulnerability gets patched. So the most valuable exploits are targeting vulnerabilities that are not known to the vendor behind the exploited product. This means that the vendor cannot fix the bug and issue a security patch to close the hole. If a security patch is available and the vulnerability starts to get exploited by the attackers five days after the patch came out, users had five days to react. If there is no patch available, they users had no time at all to secure themselves: literally zero days. This is where the term zero-day vulnerability comes from: users are vulnerable, even if they had applied all possible patches.

The knowledge of the vulnerabilities needed to create these exploits is gathered from several sources. Experienced professionals search for vulnerabilities systematically by using techniques like fuzzing or by reviewing the source code of open-source applications, looking for bugs. Specialist tools have been created to locate vulnerable code from compiled binaries. Less experienced attackers can find known vulnerabilities by reading securitythemed mailing lists or by reverse engineering security patches as they are made available by the affected vendors. Exploits are valuable even if a patch is available, as there are targets that don’t patch as quickly as they should.

Originally, only hobbyist malware writers were using exploits to do offensive attacks. Worms like Code Red, Sasser, and Blaster would spread around the world in minutes as they could remotely infect their target with exploits.

Things changed as organized criminal gangs started making serious money with keyloggers, banking trojans, and ransom trojans. As money entered the picture, the need for fresh exploits created an underground marketplace. Things changed even more as governments entered the picture. As the infamous Stuxnet malware was discovered in July 2010, security companies were amazed to notice this unique piece of malware was using a total of four different zero-day exploits—which remains a record in its own field. Stuxnet was eventually linked to an operation launched by the governments of the United States and Israel to target various objects in the Middle East and to especially slow down the nuclear program of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Other governments learned of Stuxnet and saw the three main takeaways of it: attacks like these are effective, they are cheap, and they are deniable. All of these qualities are highly sought after in espionage and military attacks. In effect, this started a cyber arms race that today is a reality in most of the technically advanced nations. These nations weren’t just interested in running cyber defense programs to protect themselves against cyber attacks. They wanted to gain access to offensive capability and to be capable of launching offensive attacks themselves.

To have a credible offensive cyber program, a country will need a steady supply of new exploits. Exploits don’t last forever. They get found out and patched. New versions of the vulnerable software might require new exploits, and these exploits have to be weaponized and reliable. To have a credible offensive cyber program, a country needs a steady supply of fresh exploits.

As finding the vulnerabilities and creating the weaponized exploits is hard, most governments would need to outsource this job to experts. Where can they find such expertise from? Security companies and antivirus experts are not providing attack code: they specialize in defense, not attacks. Intelligence agencies and militaries have always turned to defense contractors when they need technology they can’t produce by themselves. This applies to exploits as well.

Simply by browsing the websites of the largest defense contractors in the world, you can easily find out that most of them advertise offensive capability to their customers. Northrop Grumman even runs radio ads claiming that they “provide governmental customers with both offensive and defensive solutions.”

However, even the defense contractors might have a hard time building the specialized expertise to locate unknown vulnerabilities and to create attacks against them. Many of them seem to end up buying their exploits from one of the several boutique companies specializing in finding zero-day vulnerabilities. Such companies have popped up in various countries. These companies go out of their way to find bugs that can be exploited and turned into security holes. Once found, the exploits are weaponized. In this way, they can be abused effectively and reliably. These attackers also try to make sure that the company behind the targeted product will never learn about the vulnerability—because if they did, they would fix the bug. Consequently, the customers and the public at large would not be vulnerable any more. This would make the exploit code worthless to the vendor.

Companies specializing in selling exploits operate around the world. Some of the known companies reside in the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, and France. Others operate from Asia. Many of them like to portray themselves as being part of the computer security industry. However, we must not mistake them for security companies, as these companies do not want to improve computer security. Quite the opposite, these companies go to great lengths to make sure the vulnerabilities they find do not get closed, making all of us more vulnerable.

In some cases, exploits can be used for good. For example, sanctioned penetration tests done with tools like Metasploit can improve the security of an organization. But that’s not what we’re discussing here. We’re talking about creating zero-day vulnerabilities just to be used for secret offensive attacks.

The total size of the exploit export industry is hard to estimate. However, looking at public recruitment ads of the known actors as well as various defense contractors, it’s easy to see there is much more recruitment happening right now for offensive positions than for defensive roles. As an example, some U.S.-based defense contractors have more than a hundred open positions for people with Top Secret/SCI clearance to create exploits. Some of these positions specifically mention the need to create offensive exploits targeting iPhones, iPads, and Android devices.

If we look for offensive cyber attacks that have been linked back to a known government, the best known examples link back to the governments The Future of the of the United States and Israel. When the New York Times ran the story linking the U.S. Government and the Obama administration to Stuxnet, the White House started an investigation on who had leaked the information. Note that they never denied the story. They just wanted to know who leaked it.

As the U.S. is engaging in offensive cyber attacks on other countries, certainly other countries feel that they are free to do the same. This cyber arms race has created an increasing demand for exploits.

Government Surveillance

When the Internet became commonplace in the mid-1990s, the decision makers ignored it. They didn’t see it as important or in any way relevant to them. As a direct result, global freedom flourished in the unrestricted online world. Suddenly people all over the world had in their reach something truly and really global. And suddenly, people weren’t just consuming content; they were creating content for others to see.

But eventually politicians and leaders realized just how important the Internet is. And they realized how useful the Internet was for other purposes—especially for the purposes of doing surveillance on citizens.

The two arguably most important inventions of our generation, the Internet and mobile phones, changed the world. However, they both turned out to be perfect tools for the surveillance state. And in a surveillance state, everybody is assumed guilty.

Internet surveillance really become front-page material when Edward Snowden started leaking information on PRISM, XKeyscore, and other NSA programs in the summer of 2013.

But don’t get me wrong. I do understand the need for doing both monitoring and surveillance. If somebody is suspected of running a drug ring, or planning a school shooting, or participating in a terror organization, he should be monitored, with a relevant court order.

However, that’s not what PRISM is about. PRISM is not about monitoring suspicious people. PRISM is about monitoring everyone. It’s about monitoring people that are known to be innocent. And it’s about building dossiers on everyone, eventually going back decades. Such dossiers, based on our Internet activity, will build a thorough picture of us. And if the powers-that-be ever need to find a way to twist your hand, they would certainly find something suspicious or embarrassing on everyone, if they have enough of their Internet history recorded.

United States intelligence agencies have a full legal right to monitor foreigners. Which doesn’t sound too bad—until your realize that most of us are foreigners to the Americans. In fact, 96 percent of the people on the planet turn out to be such foreigners. And when these people use U.S.- based services, they are legally under surveillance.

When the PRISM leaks started, U.S. intelligence tried to calm the rest of the world by explaining how there’s no need to worry, and about how these programs were just about fighting terrorists. But then further leaks proved the U.S. was using their tools to monitor the European Commission and the United Nations as well. It’s difficult for them to argue that they were trying to find terrorists at the European Union headquarters.

Another argument we’ve heard from the U.S. intelligence apparatus is that everyone else is doing Internet surveillance too. And indeed, most countries do have intelligence agencies, and most of them do monitor what other countries are doing. However, the U.S. has an unfair advantage. Almost all of the common Internet services, search engines, webmails, web browsers, and mobile operating systems come from the U.S. To put in another way: How many Spanish politicians and decision makers use American services? Answer: all of them. And how many American politicians and decision makers use Spanish services? Answer: none of them.

All this should make it obvious that we foreigners should not use U.S.-based services. They’ve proven to us that they are not trustworthy. Why would we voluntarily hand our data to a foreign intelligence agency?

But in practice, it’s very hard to avoid using services like Google, Facebook, LinkedIn, Dropbox, Amazon, Skydrive, iCloud, Android, Windows, iOS, and so on. This is a clear example of the failure of Europe, Asia, and Africa to compete with the U.S. on Internet services. And when the rest of the world does produce a global hit—like Skype or Nokia—it typically ends up acquired by an American company, bringing it under U.S. control.

But if you’re not doing anything wrong, why worry about this? Or, if you are worrying about this, what do you have to hide? My answer to this question is that I have nothing to hide… but I have nothing in particular that I’d want to share with an intelligence agency either. In particular, I have nothing to share with a foreign intelligence agency. If we really need a big brother, I’d much rather have a domestic big brother than a foreign big brother.

People have asked me if they really should worry about PRISM. I’ve told them that they should not be worried—they should be outraged instead. We should not just accept such blanket and wholesale surveillance from one country on the rest of the world.

Advancements in computing power and data storage have made wholesale surveillance possible. But they’ve also made leaking possible. That’s how Edward Snowden could steal three laptops which contained so much information that, printed out, it would be a long row of trucks full of paper.

Leaking has become so easy that it will keep organizations worrying about getting caught over any wrongdoing. We might hope that this would force organizations to avoid unethical practices.

While governments are watching over us, they know we are watching over them.


We’ve seen massive shifts in cyber attacks over the last two decades: from simple viruses written by teenagers to multimillion-dollar cyber attacks launched by nation-states.

All this is happening right now, during our generation. We were the first generation that got online. We should do what we can to secure the net and keep it free so that it will be there for future generations to enjoy.

Free eBook: Stopping Zero Day Exploits for Dummies

Stopping Zero Day Exploits

Stopping Zero Day Exploits

Cyber attacks are growing every day and become serious threats to your organization, but how do you know and understand the threats out there? Download a copy of this book to discover the zero-day exploits and threats used to compromise your enterprise. Start reading Stopping Zero-Day Exploits For DummiesTrusteer Special Edition, today!

Download Free eBook: Stopping Zero-Day Exploits For Dummies

Zero-day malware attacks and advanced persistent threats (APTs) are growing, serious threats to organizations. Cybercriminal organizations seem to be more motivated (and more skilled) every day. Malware’s advanced evasion techniques are making detection solutions ineffective for preventing infections. Advanced information-stealing malware utilizes ever-advancing techniques for exploiting application vulnerabilities, infecting targeted endpoints, and stealing information.

Most security experts today agree that threat detection is no longer the answer. Traditional detection systems are declining in effectiveness. Anti-malware programs block only a minority of malware. Despite improvements in endpoint deployment tools and patch management processes, most organizations still take weeks or longer to deploy critical security patches. And cybercriminals continually develop new methods for bypassing detection rules.

This book discusses zero-day exploits and additional threats that are used to compromise enterprise endpoints and enable APTs and targeted attacks. It describes a promising new technology called Stateful Application Control, which provides effective yet transparent protection to enterprise endpoints.



Dragonfly: Western Energy Companies Under Sabotage Threat




An ongoing cyberespionage campaign against a range of targets, mainly in the energy sector, gave attackers the ability to mount sabotage operations against their victims. The attackers, known to Symantec as Dragonfly, managed to compromise a number of strategically important organizations for spying purposes and, if they had used the sabotage capabilities open to them, could have caused damage or disruption to energy supplies in affected countries.

Among the targets of Dragonfly were energy grid operators, major electricity generation firms, petroleum pipeline operators, and energy industry industrial equipment providers. The majority of the victims were located in the United States, Spain, France, Italy, Germany, Turkey, and Poland.

The Dragonfly group is well resourced, with a range of malware tools at its disposal and is capable of launching attacks through a number of different vectors. Its most ambitious attack campaign saw it compromise a number of industrial control system (ICS) equipment providers, infecting their software with a remote access-type Trojan. This caused companies to install the malware when downloading software updates for computers running ICS equipment. These infections not only gave the attackers a beachhead in the targeted organizations’ networks, but also gave them the means to mount sabotage operations against infected ICS computers.

This campaign follows in the footsteps of Stuxnet, which was the first known major malware campaign to target ICS systems. While Stuxnet was narrowly targeted at the Iranian nuclear program and had sabotage as its primary goal, Dragonfly appears to have a much broader focus with espionage and persistent access as its current objective with sabotage as an optional capability if required.

In addition to compromising ICS software, Dragonfly has used spam email campaigns and watering hole attacks to infect targeted organizations. The group has used two main malware tools: Backdoor.Oldrea and Trojan.Karagany. The former appears to be a custom piece of malware, either written by or for the attackers.

Prior to publication, Symantec notified affected victims and relevant national authorities, such as Computer Emergency Response Centers (CERTs) that handle and respond to Internet security incidents.

The Dragonfly group, which is also known by other vendors as Energetic Bear, appears to have been in operation since at least 2011 and may have been active even longer than that. Dragonfly initially targeted defense and aviation companies in the US and Canada before shifting its focus mainly to US and European energy firms in early 2013.

The campaign against the European and American energy sector quickly expanded in scope. The group initially began sending malware in phishing emails to personnel in target firms. Later, the group added watering hole attacks to its offensive, compromising websites likely to be visited by those working in energy in order to redirect them to websites hosting an exploit kit. The exploit kit in turn delivered malware to the victim’s computer. The third phase of the campaign was the Trojanizing of legitimate software bundles belonging to three different ICS equipment manufacturers.

Dragonfly bears the hallmarks of a state-sponsored operation, displaying a high degree of technical capability. The group is able to mount attacks through multiple vectors and compromise numerous third party websites in the process. Dragonfly has targeted multiple organizations in the energy sector over a long period of time. Its current main motive appears to be cyberespionage, with potential for sabotage a definite secondary capability.

Analysis of the compilation timestamps on the malware used by the attackers indicate that the group mostly worked between Monday and Friday, with activity mainly concentrated in a nine-hour period that corresponded to a 9am to 6pm working day in the UTC +4 time zone. Based on this information, it is likely the attackers are based in Eastern Europe.

Figure. Top 10 countries by active infections (where attackers stole information from infected computers)

Tools employed
Dragonfly uses two main pieces of malware in its attacks. Both are remote access tool (RAT) type malware which provide the attackers with access and control of compromised computers. Dragonfly’s favored malware tool is Backdoor.Oldrea, which is also known as Havex or the Energetic Bear RAT. Oldrea acts as a back door for the attackers on to the victim’s computer, allowing them to extract data and install further malware.

Oldrea appears to be custom malware, either written by the group itself or created for it. This provides some indication of the capabilities and resources behind the Dragonfly group.

Once installed on a victim’s computer, Oldrea gathers system information, along with lists of files, programs installed, and root of available drives. It will also extract data from the computer’s Outlook address book and VPN configuration files. This data is then written to a temporary file in an encrypted format before being sent to a remote command-and-control (C&C) server controlled by the attackers.

The majority of C&C servers appear to be hosted on compromised servers running content management systems, indicating that the attackers may have used the same exploit to gain control of each server. Oldrea has a basic control panel which allows an authenticated user to download a compressed version of the stolen data for each particular victim.

The second main tool used by Dragonfly is Trojan.Karagany. Unlike Oldrea, Karagany was available on the underground market. The source code for version 1 of Karagany was leaked in 2010. Symantec believes that Dragonfly may have taken this source code and modified it for its own use. This version is detected by Symantec as Trojan.Karagany!gen1.

Karagany is capable of uploading stolen data, downloading new files, and running executable files on an infected computer. It is also capable of running additional plugins, such as tools for collecting passwords, taking screenshots, and cataloging documents on infected computers.

Symantec found that the majority of computers compromised by the attackers were infected with Oldrea. Karagany was only used in around 5 percent of infections. The two pieces of malware are similar in functionality and what prompts the attackers to choose one tool over another remains unknown.

Multiple attack vectors
The Dragonfly group has used at least three infection tactics against targets in the energy sector. The earliest method was an email campaign, which saw selected executives and senior employees in target companies receive emails containing a malicious PDF attachment. Infected emails had one of two subject lines: “The account” or “Settlement of delivery problem”. All of the emails were from a single Gmail address.

The spam campaign began in February 2013 and continued into June 2013. Symantec identified seven different organizations targeted in this campaign. The number of emails sent to each organization ranged from one to 84.

The attackers then shifted their focus to watering hole attacks, comprising a number of energy-related websites and injecting an iframe into each which redirected visitors to another compromised legitimate website hosting the Lightsout exploit kit. Lightsout exploits either Java or Internet Explorer in order to drop Oldrea or Karagany on the victim’s computer. The fact that the attackers compromised multiple legitimate websites for each stage of the operation is further evidence that the group has strong technical capabilities.

In September 2013, Dragonfly began using a new version of this exploit kit, known as the Hello exploit kit. The landing page for this kit contains JavaScript which fingerprints the system, identifying installed browser plugins. The victim is then redirected to a URL which in turn determines the best exploit to use based on the information collected.

Trojanized software
The most ambitious attack vector used by Dragonfly was the compromise of a number of legitimate software packages. Three different ICS equipment providers were targeted and malware was inserted into the software bundles they had made available for download on their websites. All three companies made equipment that is used in a number of industrial sectors, including energy.

The first identified Trojanized software was a product used to provide VPN access to programmable logic controller (PLC) type devices. The vendor discovered the attack shortly after it was mounted, but there had already been 250 unique downloads of the compromised software.

The second company to be compromised was a European manufacturer of specialist PLC type devices. In this instance, a software package containing a driver for one of its devices was compromised. Symantec estimates that the Trojanized software was available for download for at least six weeks in June and July 2013.

The third firm attacked was a European company which develops systems to manage wind turbines, biogas plants, and other energy infrastructure. Symantec believes that compromised software may have been available for download for approximately ten days in April 2014.

The Dragonfly group is technically adept and able to think strategically. Given the size of some of its targets, the group found a “soft underbelly” by compromising their suppliers, which are invariably smaller, less protected companies.

Symantec has the following detections in place that will protect customers running up to date versions of our products from the malware used in these attacks:

Antivirus detections

Intrusion Prevention Signatures

For further technical details on the Dragonfly attacks, please read our whitepaper.