The Cybersecurity Canon: Countdown to Zero Day: Stuxnet and the Launch of the World’s First Digital Weapon

The Cybersecurity Canon is official, and you can now see our website here. We modeled it after the Baseball or Rock & Roll Hall-of-Fame, except for cybersecurity books. We have 20 books on the initial candidate list but we are soliciting help from the cybersecurity community to increase the number to be much more than that. Please write a review and nominate your favorite. 

The Cybersecurity Canon is a real thing for our community. We have designed it so that you can directly participate in the process. Please do so!

Remember: public Internet voting begins on February 1, and your vote counts!

Book Review: Countdown to Zero Day: Stuxnet and the Launch of the World’s First Digital Weapon by Kim Zetter

Executive Summary

Operation Olympic Games is the US military code name that refers to the first ever act of real cyber warfare. Many journalists have told bits and pieces of the story since the attacks became public back in 2010, but none have come close to telling the complete story. In Countdown to Zero Day: Stuxnet and the Launch of the World’s First Digital Weapon, Kim Zetter changes that situation. She takes an extremely complicated subject in terms of technical detail, political fallout and philosophical conundrums and makes it easy for the security practitioner to   understand. It is a masterful bit of juggling and storytelling. It is Cybersecurity Canon-worthy and you should have read it by now.

Introduction

Kim Zetter has been at Wired Magazine since 2003 and has become one of the cybersecurity community’s go-to journalists to explain what is really happening within the space. When I heard that she was writing a book about the Stuxnet attacks, I was thrilled. I knew if anybody could take on this complicated subject, Zetter could.

One of the annoying truisms of keeping up with cybersecurity events in the news is that journalists rarely go back and attempt to tell a complete story. When cybersecurity events occur – like the Target breach, the Sony breach, and the Home Depot breach to name three — news organization print the big headlines initially and then trickle out new information over the next days and weeks as it becomes available. For cybersecurity professionals trying to remain current, we rarely get the opportunity to see the big picture in one lump sum. We are not going to get that kind of story in a news article. You need a book to cover the detail and there have been some good ones in the past. Mark Bowden’s Worm — about the Conficker Worm and the cabal that tried to stop it —  is one good example. Cuckoo’s Egg – about the first publically documented cyber espionage attack back in the late 1980s – is another one. Zetter’s book,Countdown to Zero Day: Stuxnet and the Launch of the World’s First Digital Weapon, is the latest in this line and it is really good.

The Story

Operation Olympic Games is the US military code name that refers to the first ever act of real cyber warfare. Many journalists have told bits and pieces of the story since the attacks became public back in 2010, but none have come close to telling the complete story.

In June 2012, David Sanger published an article in The New York Times proclaiming for the first time that the United States, in conjunction with Israel, was indeed behind the infamous Stuxnet malware attacks that targeted the Iranian nuclear enrichment plant at Natanz. Sanger followed that article, along with others, with his book, Confront and Conceal: Obama’s Secret Wars and the Surprising Use of American Power.

In both the articles and the book, he gave details about the cyber operation called Operation Olympic Games that I consider to be the first act of cyber warfare in the world. But because the story was so new and so complicated, many of the technical details surrounding the attacks did not fully emerge until well after Sanger published his book. I have tried to keep up with the story myself over the years and even presented versions of it at DEFCON and RSA, based on the information available. But I do not have the journalistic chops to tell the complete story and this is where Zetter’s book shines.

Where Sanger’s book focused on the US foreign policy implications of offensive cyber warfare using government insiders as the main source, Zetter’s book fills in the technical story behind the attacks by interviewing everybody in the public space that was involved in unraveling the Stuxnet mystery. Zetter writes clearly and succinctly about the timing of key researchers discovering new facts, describes how the researchers determined when the attackers first used key pieces of the attack code and then feathered those technical events with what was happening in the political arena at the same time. It is a masterful bit of juggling and storytelling.

The Code

Because of Countdown to Zero, we now have a complete picture of how the attack code worked. Zetter goes into great detail about how the malware proliferated within the Iranian power plant at Natanz and after it escaped into the wild. She puts to bed the question of how may zero day exploits the attackers used in the complete code set, what they were and how effective they all were. She covers all of the versions of the malware from Stuxnet, to DuQu, to Flame and to Wiper. She even covers some of the researcher’s Tools-of-the-Trade that they used to decipher the code base.

SCADA

In Countdown to Zero, Zetter explains the significance of the critical and mostly unsecured SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) environments deployed in the US today. These systems automatically control the flow of all power, water, and gas systems used within the US and throughout most of the world. According to Zetter,

“There are 2,800 power plants in the United States and 300,000 sites producing oil and natural gas. Another 170,000 Bottom of Form facilities form the public water system in the United States, which includes reservoirs, dams, wells, treatment facilities, pumping stations, and pipelines. But 85 percent of these and other critical infrastructure facilities are in the hands of the private sector, which means that aside from a few government-regulated industries—such as the nuclear power industry—the government can do little to force companies to secure their systems.”

In my experience, the SCADA industry has always been at least 10 to 15 years behind the rest of the commercial sector in adopting modern defensive techniques. From Zetter,

“Why spend money on security, they argued, when none of their competitors were doing it and no one was attacking them?”

The significance of that statement becomes obvious when you realize that the same kinds of Programmable Logic Controllers or PLCs that the US exploited to attack Iran are deployed in droves to support the world’s own SCADA environments.  The point is that if the US can leverage the security weaknesses of these systems, then it is only a matter of time before other organizations do the same thing and the rest of the world is no better defended against them than the Iranians were.

(And by the way, Palo Alto Networks expert Del Rodillas has done plenty of strong analysis into securing ICS and SCADA networks and what it’s going to take to protect these specialized networks going forward. Go here to read some of Del’s thoughts.)

The Philosophical Conundrum

In a broader context, Countdown to Zero highlights some philosophical conundrums that our community is just now starting to wrestle with. We have known about these issues for years but Zetter’s telling of the story makes us reconsider them. Operation Olympic Games proved to the world that cyber warfare is no longer just a theoretical construct. It is a living and breathing option in the utility belt for nation states to use to exercise political power. With Operation Olympic Games, the US proved to the world that it is possible to cause physical destruction of another nation state’s critical infrastructure using nothing but a cyber weapon alone. With that comes a lot of baggage.

The first conundrum is the intelligence dilemma. At what point do network defenders stop watching adversaries misbehave within their networks before they act to stop them?  By acting, we tip our hand that we know what they are about. This will most likely cause the adversary team to change their tactics. Intelligence organizations want to watch adversaries as long as possible. Network defenders only want to stop the pain. This is an example of classic Information Theory. I first learned about Information Theory when I read about the code breakers at Bletchley Park during WWII. Because the allies had broken the Enigma cipher, the Bletchley Park code breakers collected German war plans before the German commanders in the field received them. But the Allies couldn’t act on all of the information because the Germans would become suspicious about the broken cipher. The Allies had to pick and choose what to act on. This is similar to what the Stuxnet researchers were wrestling with too. Many of them had discovered this amazing and dangerous new piece of malware. When do they tell the world about it?

The next conundrum involves the national government and vulnerability discovery. Zetter discusses the six zero-day exploits used by Operation Olympic Games in the attacks against Iran. That means that the US government knew about at least six high-impact vulnerabilities within common software that the entire nation depends upon and did nothing to warn the nation about them. If another attacker decided to leverage those vulnerabilities against the US critical infrastructure in the same way that the US leveraged them against Iran, the results could have been devastating. The nation’s ethical position here is murky at best, and added to that is the well-known practice of the private sector selling zero-day exploits to the government. Should the government even be in the business of buying weapons grade software from private parties? Zetter offers no solutions here but she definitely gives us something to think about.

Conclusion

Zetter fills in a lot of holes in the Stuxnet story. In a way, it is a shame that it has taken five years to get to a point where the security community can feel like we understand what actually happened. On the other hand, without Zetter putting the pieces together for us, we might never have gotten there. I have said for years that the Stuxnet story marked the beginning of a new era for the cybersecurity community. In the coming years, when it is common practice for nation-states to lob cyber-attacks across borders with the intent to destroy other nation’s critical infrastructure, we will remember fondly how simple defending the Internet was before Stuxnet. Zetter’s book helps us understand why that is possible. She takes a complicated subject and makes it easy to understand. It is Cybersecurity Canon-worthy and you should have read it by now.

[Palo Alto Networks Blog]

Newest CTB-Locker Campaign Bypasses Legacy Security Products

Introduction

CTB-Locker is a well-known ransomware Trojan used by crimeware groups to encrypt files on the victim’s endpoints and demand ransom payment to decrypt the files back to their original state, but most antiviruses detect it by mistake as CryptoLocker (only one vendor correctly detects it as CTB-Locker). The attack vector is very basic and repeats itself: It begins with a spear phishing email sent with SCR attachments (double zipped). Once executed by the user the first stage malware downloads and executes the ransomware from a fixed hardcoded server list.

The Origins

The first known campaign was launched by Crimeware on November 2014. The first stage downloaded the ransomware from these sites:

  • pubbliemme.com (5.134.122.150)
  • agatecom.fr (213.186.33.19)
  • n23.fr (213.186.33.4)
  • baselineproduction.fr (213.186.33.4)

The Attack: A Legacy Nightmare

A very serious campaign was launched between January 19, 2015 and January 20, 2015, and 
Palo Alto Networks Enterprise Security Platform has discovered more than 1000 unique attacks since. The attacker used a polymorphic malware builder to generate malware with a unique hash for each victim, preventing signature-based solutions from detecting the new attacks before it was too late for the victim. This tactic is a nightmare for legacy security products that are based on legacy techniques such as bytes signatures, since they can only detect attacks after the damage is done instead of preventing it as a true preventive solution should. 
Palo Alto Networks Enterprise Security Platform offers multilayer protection to prevent this attack along with other attacks without the need for prior knowledge of the specific attack.

Some IOCs and statistics

  • breteau-photographe.com (213.186.33.150)
  • voigt-its.de (188.93.8.7)
  • maisondessources.com (213.186.33.19)
  • jbmsystem.fr (213.186.33.3)
  • pleiade.asso.fr (213.186.33.19)
  • scolapedia.org (213.186.33.19)

We can see here that server hostnames were changed but they didn’t change the server IP address – see the attached file with results for files from last week’s campaign fromVirusTotal. Most legacy security programs could not detect this malware at the time it was posted. If you re-test these hashes again from last week you can see an average of 49/57 engines that detect last week’s threat – but that’s too little, too late for anyone who already lost data.

The new (currently ongoing) campaign

This campaign started earlier today, and the malware uses the same techniques and even the same IOCs:

  • same mutex name: wuqntwklyxwhac
  • same job name: cderkbm.job

And only added two new hostnames:

  • joefel.com (64.71.33.177)
  • m-a-metare.fr (213.186.33.4) – same IP as before.

By now you shouldn’t be surprised that one of them is on the same known malicious IP address. We found 147 new unique pieces of malware today alone, two of them fully undetectable by the legacy security solutions in VirusTotal and most of them barely detected by one vendor (few have 4/57 detection rate).

See below:

So basically you have two choices:

  1. Update hashes every week and pray … (see hash list section, we’re happy to help those still trapped using legacy solutions)
  2. Implement next generation security products that can actually prevent this from happening.

IOCs for the latest campaign

The most surprising fact about this campaign is that almost all the IOCs haven’t been changed:

  • Same mutex name: wuqntwklyxwhac
  • Same job name: cderkbm.job .
  • New IOC: additional mutex name – 87281673

For those still using legacy solutions we’ve attached two lists of SHA256 hashes in a text file format for reference. One list shows the new campaign, which continues to progress. The other list is of last week’s campaign by the same attackers (exhaustive or close to it).

Conclusion

Palo Alto Networks Enterprise Security Platform would have stopped this ransomware attack campaign thanks to the platform’s unique integration between the network, endpoint and the cloud to maximize security. Attacks aren’t getting any less sophisticated, so it is time to leave legacy security solutions behind and upgrade to real, prevention-based security.

[Palo Alto Networks Blog]

Standard Web Security Won’t Keep the Internet of Things Safe

The “Internet of Things,” or “IoT” is a fascinating field of technology representing growth of interconnected devices that can be controlled and managed remotely through mobile devices or many other means.

The Internet of Things spans all areas of life and work, especially if we consider:

  • Smart homes with refrigerators ordering groceries, remote controlled HVAC equipment, or smart lighting
  • Connected industries and cities with remote meters, automatic analytics, or robotics.
  • Wearables such as smart watches, fitness bands or smart glasses
  • Connected cars with automatic driving technology, remote diagnostics, or fleet management.

and much more.

From a business perspective, the IoT offers incremental revenue opportunities as well as productivity and cost savings to companies across the globe. According to analyst firm IDC, the number of IoT devices will grow from approximately 6 billion in this decade to 28 billion in 2020 — a staggering number. The market for wearable smart devices alone is expected to increase at an average rate of 60% per year to $20 billion in 2017.

What is the common characteristic of all of these devices? Connectivity to the Internet through applications. And with this connectivity comes increased exposure to cyber threats. Think of it as today’s mobility market on steroids.

While it will become increasingly important (and common) for most companies to enable Internet-connected devices, a key goal for IT and security departments will remain the safe enablement of the applications that power those devices.  Neither Web nor email security will be able to appropriately protect against future attacks from cybercriminals targeting your organization through the IoT. Many of these applications will most likely utilize more than Web channels to access data and can easily circumvent web security solutions by utilizing uncommon ports.

Now is the time for companies to start thinking about security strategies against tomorrow’s cyber attacks through the Internet of Things. No one has all the answers to the security-related questions posed by the IoT in the coming years, but it helps to ask, at the very least, the following 5 questions to prepare for the onslaught of Internet enabled devices facing your company in the near future:

  1. What IoT devices are likely to be used in your organization in the next decade?
  2. What types of data will these devices access?
  3. What types of devices will your employees own or utilize?
  4. How do these devices interact with your corporate network?
  5. How do you currently ensure safe application enablement across all ports?

The answers to these questions will have a significant impact on your organization’s security strategy in the next few years. The best you currently can do to prepare for the fast approaching army of networked devices is to deploy the best possible application control with a solution monitoring all ports in and out of your network. Palo Alto Networks Enterprise Security Platform not only protects companies against applications utilizing a few common ports, but also offers complete visibility into all enterprise network traffic. Learn more about our approach here.

[Palo Alto Networks Blog]

Unpatched Flash Vulnerability CVE-2015-0311 Blocked by Palo Alto Networks Traps

On January 22 Adobe confirmed the existence of a Zero Day affecting Adobe Flash Player 16.0.0.287 and assigned CVE-2015-0311 to it. This is the classic zero day scenario of exploitation in the wild before any vendor patch was available and in this blog post we will explain how the uniqueness of Palo Alto Networks Traps blocks this vulnerability.

Let’s start with a brief background on CVE-2015-0311 security implications.  Successful exploitation could result in an attacker compromising data security, potentially allowing access to confidential data, or could compromise processing resources in a user’s computer. All versions of Internet Explorer or Firefox, with any version of Windows with Flash up to 16.0.0.287 (included) installed and enabled, are exposed.

Following the disclosure, several security companies reported encounters with attacks utilizing this zero day, as well as a considerable surge in Angler EK activity, mainly in the United States.

Zero days such as CVE-2015-0311 illustrate why signature-based solutions are a dead-end when facing the current advanced threat landscape. Prior knowledge is futile when encountering an attack that is, by definition, unknown. Reliance on vendor patching is also insufficient both from security and operational perspectives – we all know large enterprises do not easily pause company-wide IT activity in favor of mass updates.

Traps Advanced Endpoint Protection is designed to proactively block attacks targeting endpoints, including unknown zero-day exploits. Traps automatically detects and blocks the core set of techniques that every attacker must link together in order to accomplish exploitation. Because of the chain-like nature of an exploit, preventing just one technique in that chain is all that is needed in order to block the entire attack even before a payload is dropped.

The exploitation of CVE-2015-0311 is no different than other exploitations in the essential phases it needs do go through. Traps blocks it.

To further illustrate how, let’s reflect on a common exploitation pattern.  First, there are preparation acts intended to expand the victim machine’s memory attack surface. What usually follows next is an attempt to actually seize a memory portion, and circumvent standard protection means. Upon accomplishing these stages, the exploit still needs to access certain OS functions to gain the required resources for malicious activity. Once all these steps are successful the attacker can remotely run its code on the victim’s machine.

There are several techniques attackers deploy to perform each one of these stages. Obstructing any of these stages terminates the exploitation. Posing obstructions to each and every one of the core techniques creates a powerful multilayered defense which proactively prevents any exploitation attempt from maturing into an ongoing attack.

Moreover, such defense will succeed, regardless of the utilized CVE and regardless of specific exploit prior knowledge since it relies on obstructing the core techniques all exploits utilize.

Applying this defense paradigm to CVE-2015-0311 reveals that despite it being a zero day, and supposedly an unknown attack vector, it is blocked by Palo Alto Networks Traps. Traps prevents the exploit from writing to memory and from accessing OS functions. Each of these is sufficient for successful prevention. Even if the attack is a zero day and not a known exploit, it poses no additional challenge to Traps.

Traps users are exempt from emergency patching and from the concern that an unknown attacker is crawling undiscovered in their endpoints. Traps users were actually protected from CVE-2015-0311 way before it has even existed.

Learn more about Advanced Endpoint Protection here.

[Palo Alto Networks Blog]

Malvertising: The Dawn of a New Attack Era

In September 2014, two news sites in Israel fell victim to a malvertising campaign that affected thousands of viewers. One month later, Yahoo! and AOL became victims of a similar campaign. Malvertising concerns me more than the average attack method for a several reasons:

  1. It utilizes ad space on any web page that hosts third party ads… so basically most of the Internet.

Have you counted how many ads are on each web page as you casually browse news articles, or look up that film with what’s-her-name and so-and-so? This article states that the average user saw over 1,000 ads per month in 2012, and one can only assume that this number has increased since then. There’s no easy escape. Malvertising grants attackers access to hundreds of millions of users. Makes you want to install some ad blocking software, doesn’t it?

  1. Malvertisements are indistinguishable from legitimate ads.

You’d be pretty hard-pressed to pick out a malicious ad at first glance even if you have “cyber intuition.”

A strict “no-click” policy for web ads isn’t enough to protect you because some malvertisements, like pop-up ads, don’t even require users to click— malware is installed when the ad loads on the page, and the malware could be anything from bots (think zombie computer) to ransomware.

  1. Repercussions are basically nonexistent because the hosting web site has no control over the ads placed, and the attacker is several times removed from the ad network.

Attackers take advantage of the way an advertising network functions, with its low prices, automatic bidding process, potential for very large audiences via “trusted” sources, and almost nonexistent means for tracking them down.

This is how it works: The attacker, along with legitimate ad buyers, submits advertisement code and the highest price they’re willing to pay to an ad publisher who then uses an ad network to bid on ad space on third-party web sites. The ad network sells each space to the highest bidder on behalf of the web site — this is an automatic selling process that takes milliseconds, and prices are typically less than a dollar. An attacker’s “ad” code is then placed on the web site.

Attackers will typically build a solid reputation for themselves by placing ads with clean code for a few months before injecting them with attack code. Once this happens, the attack has a widespread reach and the potential to inject hundreds of thousands of users and generate hundreds of thousands of dollars for an initial cost was a mere fraction of that. The malvertisement only needs to be posted for a few days or a few hours before the attacker has the victims he needs, so he’ll then remove the ad altogether.

Creating an industry safeguard against malvertising requires the coordinated effort of ad networks and publishers, as well as pressure from ad hosting web sites. Such cooperation between many parties is difficult to orchestrate unless the problem greatly affects profits. But because ad networks are still being paid for ad space sold to attackers, the impact on the bottom line is revealed much more slowly. Attackers use this process because it’s easy and it works.

  1. Malvertising as a consumer-based attack method is a shift from the sketchiness seen in spear phishing and packet sniffing to one that’s almost legitimate because it leverages a real business process to do all the hard work normally involved in delivering malware.

Gone are the days when malware only hung out on the bad side of the internet. Cyber threats are out in the open, hiding on real web pages that we trust and frequently visit, using methods honest people intentionally created to improve business, and we must continue to adapt in order to protect our cyber valuables. Attackers are upping their game and focusing their guile on identifying loopholes in commonplace business processes.

Luckily, there are things we at Palo Alto Networks already do to thwart malvertising threats:

  • Drive-by download protection alerts users that a download is attempting to take place and requires the user to either allow or deny the download. If a malvertisement tries to auto-download malware, this mechanism gives the user an opportunity to nix it before it happens
  • File-blocking profiles restrict the types of files that can be downloaded to only the files that are needed and expected by the user
  • WildFire creates new anti-virus protections for unknown malware immediately after it’s seen. Malvertisements attempting to deliver known or unknown malware are detected and blocked
  • URL Filtering stops traffic to known malicious web sites and uncategorized web sites. If a malvertisment is clicked, resulting web page is blocked
  • Even if malware succeeds in downloading onto your machine, Traps prevents it from installing itself

Security isn’t something that stops with network architecture and coding practices. Business-to-business processes need it, too. Anything that uses the internet, or an intranet, in the slightest way must be included on the list of potential threat vectors, poked at with a cyber-stick by someone wearing their “if-I-were-a-hacker” hat, and secured accordingly.

For more information on what can happen as a result of a successful malvertisement, check out Dan Kaminsky’s interview with USA Today staff writer, Elizabeth Weise.

[Palo Alto Networks Blog]

English
Exit mobile version